What is "Rape Culture"?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 8, 2015.

  1. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Being a male in American culture, I don't quite understand the term "Rape Culture." Never in any of my experiences with other males did we discuss the virtues of rape. Sure, we talked about beautiful girls and their sexual appeal, but never did we discuss raping any of them.

    So, is this just a general term used to define male attitudes towards woman? I understand that some woman feel intimidated by men, and maybe this is simply their view of male stature in general. If it is, I find it derogatory. But I really don't know its intent when used.

    Anybody care to explain this term?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Okay, this is what I found with a search...

    Never have I seen rape glorified in media or elsewhere in our culture.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member


  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Rape culture is a term to describe collectively beliefs and behaviors within a societal culture contributing to rape.

    Remember the godawful case out of Sandusky when the high school kids raped the girl and put the video online? And the one went to trial and was convicted, and afterward all the press could talk about was the tragedy of the whole case? That poor young man. His whole future is ruined. Hey, how about this: That poor rape survivor. At the very least, her rapist isn't getting away with it. Seriously, our sympathies are supposed to be with the rapist? What a wonderful cultural quirk, eh?

    To the other, there is an aspect to, That poor, unfortunate rapist whose future is ruined, worth considering. Was this young man inherently evil? Probably not. How the hell did he end up doing this, then? And while it's true that I can't speak for any young person today specifically, I can, in fact, recall my own youth and wonder if we've ever escaped a few bad ideas. For instance, in September it happened that I took a moment to consider the notion of the pick-up artist, an idea that keeps finding new ways to penetrate the public discourse.

    And, you know, in this case, hell, really? She can't get a cup of coffee without some dude somewhere thinking she owes something? Pickup artistry, being so straightforward, is a pretty easy example; women are for fucking. Such attitudes are functionally problematic, helping construct and reinforce habits in which violative behaviors are defended, advocated, and even cultivated. Framing that story for blogging was easy enough:

    One note about the passing of time is that the ravages of age compel me to recall that not so long ago the idea of a pickup artist was regarded somewhere between being hapless, charming, and forgivable to the one, and admirable to the other ....

    .... The idea of the pickup artist is particularly reviled right now, and for reasons we might consider exceptionally obvious. But it seems strange, in the age of #NotAllMen and #JustNotMe, how many of my peers seem a bit cloudy on the issue of how important it was for guys to get laid―by a girl!―when we were younger. And it’s one thing to invoke ego defense, but, really, what drives such suppression? Can self-indictment really be so powerful? Because, I swear, they’re not all running from memories of evils committed. And just how many self-inflicted wounds, such as it is, could they possibly visit upon themselves? Or is it possible that we really have been wandering so catastrophically astray for so long without even knowing it? The proposition seems unrealistic for both magnitude and necessary complexity. Yet one point at least remains occulted: How can we possibly forget?

    And it's true; on some level my peers know. Even the ones who might say, #NotAllMen, or #JustNotMe.


    Even and especially the ones who think #NotAllMen and #JustNotMe are bullshit.

    We all play our part.

    The PUA is an example cast in sharp relief; what, really, is a woman to think when this is the common bond between the guy she gets her morning coffee from and Elliot Rodger? No, really, she can't even get a goddamn cup of coffee without this shit?

    Still, though, the myth of the PUA is not some odd deviation from our societal principles; rather, it is an exceptionally acute reflection of them. Because woman defined as mate is a pervasive notion.

    Consider Christian-derived ownership culture, such as we see in the Duggars and Quiverfull, in which families groom their daughters to endure sexual abuse as a duty of womanhood. Or our recent visitation to the IT guy's version of what women owe men↗.

    Pickup artistry is a distillation of the functional principles underpinning larger cultural misogyny; in the U.S., for instance, it is a high-proof cocktail of traditional masculine supremacy, duty, and expectation. Consider that it took until 1993 for the last American state to accept that it really should be illegal to rape your wife. And then consider that more than thirty states consider raping a woman you're married to, even if you're estranged and amid a bitter divorce, a lesser crime than raping anyone else.

    What about the monogamous commitment―I won't fuck anybody else―means specific obligation, that, She owes me this? Talk about prostitution? Here's one for you: Sure, you married him, but you don't get your rights of marriage under law until you fuck him. Consummation is still a vital difference between divorce and annulment. Then again, for the most part we only need annulment in order to satisfy specific religious assertions about sex and sexuality; we still need annulment for open fraud, but otherwise divorce should suffice.

    Over and over again, our society reiterates that a woman's place is under a man.

    We've had discussions about street harassment here, before, and often we might hear a weird line about how is he supposed to meet women.

    Well, why does he want to meet women? If it's simply a matter of one feeling enriched, enlightened, and, yes, entertained by the contributions these human beings make to one's living experience, there are all sorts of ways to meet women.

    But neither do those start with, say, (ahem!) "complimenting" a woman by telling her to smile because she's more attractive that way. To the one, functionally, if that is his opener, what does he expect her to expect of the subsequent conversation? To the other, such ideas of whether or not a random stranger is more attractive when smiling really isn't any of his business↱.

    I live in a country where a Florida judge would put a minor female in the custody of her father, a convicted murderer and accused child molester, because His Honor is afraid that the girl's mother, a lesbian, might someday decide to abuse her daughter.

    I live in a country where a jury will acquit a rapist because the woman he raped was wearing a bikini. In public. In Florida. During the summer.

    Or the charges can be reduced because the rapist wore a condom.

    Where a guy deciding to chat up some girl in a parking lot is such his right that he can smash her teeth in with a metal pipe when she doesn't want to talk to him. No, really, how is he supposed to meet women?

    Hell, I live in a country where we frequently advise women that the best way to prevent their sexual assault is to plan on being sexually assaulted↗.

    And I live in a country where a professional woman can't work with grieving families in public without some dude―how is he supposed to meet women?―telling her to smile because she just doesn't look very nice when she's not smiling.

    And I live in a country where her disdain for being treated as such apparently warrants rape threats.

    Whence comes this behavior? How in the world can anybody possibly think it appropriate or even defensible?

    At such intersections, you find the elements of rape culture.

    Now here's the tricky part: I just handed you a clod of dirt.

    And in this metaphor, I am hoping it is rich, sticky dirt, not the sandy sort that slips through your fingers from the moment you pick it up. And, yeah, when you're done considering it, you'll probably want to wash your hands.

    But here's the thing. It's a clod of dirt. We live on planet Earth. This clod of dirt is hardly unique. In its context, it is exactly what it is, one fistful of dirt out of how many on Earth?

    And the sad thing is that society keeps trying to find more dirt to pile up on women.

    I can't give you an authoritative, encyclopedic overview of the whole of rape culture in America. But a tremendous amount orbits a basic presupposition that fucking is what women are for.

    Consider our political spectrum on "women's issues". Any time "women's rights" are reserved as being in any way functionally separate from human rights, you are looking at a powerful current within and describing rape culture in our society.

    You know, there's an old joke, and the thing is that I know it even though I thought it was Robert De Niro, not Alec Baldwin, and I never did see Outside Providence, but what do I know. The line: "It's not over until you both get your cookies".

    Actually, it's over when one of the partners decides it's over. But that's the thing; in 1999, among my peer cohort, we all knew what it meant, and it was generally considered a funny manner of wisdom. It is, in fact, a pretty straightforward component of rape culture.

    Still, I would have thought I knew that line from before I was twenty-six. I remember it from my teenage years.

    And the bit about fucking her 'til she walks funny.

    And the myth about how what she really wants is for you to surprise her and rape her ass, and how she'll thank you if you do it right.

    Husband's prerogative, wife's duty.

    Consider, please, the idea that there are Republican legislators in Texas trying to push a bill through that would extend right of conscience to allow state agents to force sexually abused minor females in their charge to carry a rapist's baby to term.

    I cannot possibly circumscribe the whole of rape culture, but, yes, this is what the tip of the iceberg, or the visible foliage, or a few grains of sand, or a clod of dirt, or whatever figurative glimpse we might describe, looks like.
  8. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Pretty good reply, and I appreciate your effort. It's a lengthy post, so forgive me if I don't respond to every iota.

    Regardless of the injustice given out in certain circumstances, we are not a culture of rape. I believe that most men in my culture would prefer a willing partner over forced sex. The idea of rape being justified has never been acceptable in my life experience, nor should it ever be acceptable. No man I have ever known was an advocate of sexual violence.

    The pick up artist...? I've never know one, or at least one that came across as being an "artist." I've never been one for the one-night-fling, but I have no issue with a man and a woman making contact. Yeah, men will try, but that's a male prerogative to try.

    How the courts define marital obligation may vary over jurisdictions and time. I think the idea of women being held as sexual property is long gone, in my honest opinion. Nonetheless, I think sex in a marriage is important, which is why some decisions were given in the past.

    Abortion and rape are a tough issue, which was discussed in an other thread. I won't bother with it here.

    I believe we are entering a radical element with the "Rape Culture" rally call. It truly makes men, all men, look like savages by nature. It's an insult to our gender and to our culture. I don't buy into it. Nonetheless, thank you for citing your examples in contrast.

    I offer another video by one of my favorite YouTube personalities. Don't bother watching it if you don't have the time.

  9. Bells Staff Member

    So your response to Tiassa's post is to post a video, with a guy whining about "fucking feminists" and whining about oppressing men who are accused of rape... Yes, how sad for accused rapists to have to prove they have consent... #whatabouttherapist

    What your dumbass video did not explain:

    Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.

    The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.

    Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker.

    Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.


    “Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area - in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.

    “It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink.

    “These tools take us well beyond the old saying 'no means no' - it is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism.

    “We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”

    Mrs Saunders, who was speaking at the first National Crown Prosecution Service/Police Conference on Rape Investigations and Prosecutions in London, said the guidance should not only cover situations where someone is incapacitated through drink or drugs, but also where “a suspect held a position of power over the potential victim - as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member”.

    The ability to consent to sex should also be questioned where the complainant has mental health problems, learning difficulties or was asleep or unconscious at the time of the alleged attack, she said.

    The new guidance also covers domestic violence situations and those where “the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist”.

    It's not the idea of women being held as property. It was the idea that access to her vagina is to be determined by the husband and not her.

    And really, it's a male prerogative to try? The issue here is that when some men try, they don't stop at "trying" and women who dare say no are abused, insulted, threatened with rape, some are raped. Is that his prerogative as well?

    Your very post is an embodiment of "rape culture". It reeks of privilege, entitlement and the belief that it is the male "prerogative" to try. And really, discussing and defining rape culture is an insult to your culture? What culture? The culture that deems that it is a man's "prerogative" to try? That sex is important in marriage, so decisions of marital rape where the woman ends up being put on trial for being raped is somehow explained by "sex is important in marriage"? Is that video a part of your "culture"?
  10. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Not disagreeing, but..

    Should every sexual encounter be filmed by one or both (or however many) 'consensual' partners?

    Proof is a tough thing to produce, as you know.
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Should every sexual encounter be filmed to prove consent? Of course not.

    But in a case of domestic abuse or where she is incapacitated, unconscious, mentally ill, or too terrified to speak (such as with an abused partner or being raped that leave some victims too scared to speak or act for example) he will need to be able to prove that she was able to freely give consent, whereby he would have to explain how and why she was able to give consent where she otherwise would not be in a position to give consent. For example, a woman is passed out. She is raped. Her accused rapist would have to be able to prove that she gave consent in the state that she was in.

    It is a way to stop rapists getting off because she was unconscious, incapacitated, too terrified to say the words "no", or mentally ill or disabled and unable to understand "no" in that context, for example. In that sense, if she or he is unconscious, incapacitated, too afraid to speak or act, mentally ill or disabled to the point where he or she does not understand, or too young to provide consent, how can an accused rapist say that the alleged victim consented?
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Oh, yeah. That's right.

    I live in a country where a prosecutor will refuse to prosecute a confessed rape because it's her fault she got raped.

    And then the People send him to Congress.
  13. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Bells, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty, in most legal systems. I posted the video to add contrast to the topic. Also, I thought Tiassa might enjoy the guys perspective, if for nothing more than a strong opposing view about the whole Rape Culture issue. I think that people are seeing the more radical side of feminism, and objections are surfacing online regarding its role in our culture.

    I haven't completely developed an opinion on the ism, but my view at present would be that there are two types of feminist: the woman who is truly independent and works hard for her success, and the woman who is the perpetual victim and demands special concessions. Most the women in my life are the former, the later I have seen only online.
  14. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Bored,eh? Well, I think you just activated a long and tedious debate.

    I'm not as radical. I don't think that all men are complicit. You're a Christian, though, aren't you, Bowser?

    Other feminists and anti-rape advocates take a different approach to what constitutes “rape culture,” focusing less on ideas like French’s “concerted campaign” in which all males are complicit and more on what they see as institutional problems in American society. These problems include the theological and social beliefs of Christians and other religious groups.

  15. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Does the USA have a 'rape culture'. I think it does.

    From one point of view, the USA appears to be one of the safest places to live as a woman (aside from the single-mother Welfare farms). No, I think the problem is child abuse, particularly incest. It's just that no one discusses it.

    So.... let's look up the numbers:
    The Atlantic: One in three-to-four girls, and one in five-to-seven boys are sexually abused before they turn 18, an overwhelming incidence of which happens within the family.

    Is that enough rape to count as a 'culture'?
    Seems so.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Of course it is rape culture. Just as male prison is rape culture and society often celebrates it when comments are made about prisoners being raped in prison as a justified punishment.

    The video you posted was a whine that alleged rapists could not simply say that she did not say "no" as being consent. Laws regarding rape need to change. And frankly, this is a step in the right direction. It is not an assumption of guilt. But if someone who is accused of rape is unable to prove that the unconscious, drunk, disabled (mentally or physically), traumatised, terrified victim was in a position to consent, then it is rape. We have seen a plethora of cases of rapists getting off because the victim was unconscious, drunk, drugged, disabled, terrified into silence. This is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

    I'll put it this way. Just because the victim is incapable of saying "no", does not mean it is yes. If the victim is unable to consent, then there is no consent. The accused has to be able to prove that there was consent. Complaining and whining about this is obscene.

    Your video did not provide a contrast of any kind. What it did was provide further evidence of the notion of privilege that rapists often feel they are owed.

    What special concessions? To not be raped? To not be harassed because the guy has a "prerogative to try"?
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Talking Points

    I admit, Bowser, this reads a little bit like a lineup of talking points:

    you are assumed innocent until proven guilty, in most legal systems ― Yeah, and the question of affirmative consent is whether "yes" can be established by a "lack of 'no'". Or whether her mouth says no or her eyes say yes. Or what about wearing a bikini in public during summer means she's looking for someone to hold her down and fuck her.

    I posted the video to add contrast to the topic. ― Well, sure, but the equivocation doesn't really work.

    Also, I thought Tiassa might enjoy the guys perspective, if for nothing more than a strong opposing view about the whole Rape Culture issue ― There's not much enjoyment about it. But, you know, as with the point about contrast, the question of legitimacy seems a bit neglected. I might suggest that I might well be familiar with the perpetual refrain, but that's my own issue to deal with. In the end, ought to thank you for reminding the paucity of the opposing view.

    I think that people are seeing the more radical side of feminism, and objections are surfacing online regarding its role in our culture. ― This is a "Rush Limbaugh" style talking point that doesn't have much definition. Generally speaking, when I dive into this aspect it turns out the "radical side" of feminism isn't so radical. Access to birth control? Not very radical. Rejection of vaginal penetration under force of law as a moral lesson from the state? Tell me, please, anyone, just how that counts as radical. Disdaining the presumption of a right to harass? Again, I don't see the radicalism. Finding it inappropriate to threaten to rape someone because one doesn't like her opinion? Okay, I really need someone to explain what is so radical about that. Advocating a discussion of cultural elements cultivating and reinforcing misogyny and sexual violence? Okay, am I looking at feminist radicalism or masculine insecurity? So, you know, help me out, please: What radical side?

    I haven't completely developed an opinion on the ism, but my view at present would be that there are two types of feminist ― Well, there's a mistake.

    the woman who is truly independent and works hard for her success, and the woman who is the perpetual victim and demands special concessions ― A definition without meaning.

    Most the women in my life are the former, the later I have seen only online. ― You do realize that means exactly nothing, since the observation is defined by meaningless rhetoric.​

    This is an easy set of statements, as the validity depends entirely on variable definitions of willing compared to forced, variable boundaries for identifying both rape and what is acceptable, and I would bet you that the men's range of what counts as sexual violence is different, more constricted, and more severe, generally speaking, than women's.

    Another way of saying it: I can echo most of those statements, but am aware that if I base that on my definitions of those terms, the statement would seem considerably less reliable than you intend it.

    Most husbands sexually harass and molest their wives on a regular basis. To revisit a point↗:

    I need you to stop and think of what our sisters are putting up with. Every day in this country alone there are millions of sexual offenses that go unreported because wives and girlfriends have chosen, either consciously or as a result of acculturation, to let it pass. And we are all, on some level, just fine with this. The women don't like to talk about it because it causes way too much grief; after all, the men will pitch a fit, and, you know, #WhatAboutTheMen? And that's the thing; for most of us, a little bit of pawing and persisting after she says she has a headache is effectively a traditional right. It is also, under law, sexual harassment, molestation, and assault.

    And every day, women let this pass. Millions of times. Each for their own reasons. Some of them might make sense to you or me; some of them won't. But what weight should our judgment carry? I would suggest the answer is little to none. And here is why.

    Nobody wants to account for this. It's way too complicated. And in the abstract, yes, of course there are people in factions I'm more familiar with and sympathetic toward who would call this situation a disaster; I do not specifically disagree, but at some point this issue treads into the realm of indicting the entirety of one's own life.

    To strip out gender and genotype for a moment: Partners often decide to grant their own partners extraordinary access to their bodies.

    And if the public discourse demands, that very idea will be among the stakes.​

    Coercion? Harassment? If we stick to "sexual violence", it's easy enough for most men to say that sexual molestation isn't violence as long as it isn't violent.

    I would also note the point about how "we are not a culture of rape". I disdain this formulation because it straddles the McElroy Lie; to the other, part of its danger is the ease by which it can work its way into the discussion. The McElroy Lie is named for Wendy McElroy, who finds some profit in telling masculinists what they want to hear; her argument against rape culture is that the U.S. is not a rape culture―she escalates the assertion of rape culture within a society to the status of monolithic identity.

    Look, man, you know those dumbfucks we hear from, the idea that they didn't know they were raping her? It comes up from time to time, and that's part of the thing about affirmative consent.

    Okay, look, dude, let's put it bluntly. Tell me what you want about how you'd never drink to passing out, or whatever, but if I find you unconscious, well, you didn't say no, so why wouldn't I ... oh, please, can we skip that detail?

    I mean, you know, if you don't say no?

    If you are impaired or inhibited, that you cannot say no?

    Oh, and hey, here's a question for that circumstance, beceause it turns out the detail does have utility. What if there was no penetration? What if it was, you know, just rubbing one out and leaving the produce on your face or ass or in your hair? You know, wake up a li'l bit damp, and a li'l bit crusty? Fun question: Would that count as sexual violence? I mean, you know, in the context of, "No man I have ever known was an advocate of sexual violence"?

    Sure, I'll say yes, but something goes here about definitions. How 'bout yours?

    Ever see that one Family Guy, when Stewie wants to be a cheerleader? And he attacks the cheerleader and steals her uniform? And at the end of the episode, Quagmire walks into the school bathroom, and there in the stall is an underage girl in her underwear, bound and gagged and looking scared as hell?

    Hey, she didn't say no; she was inhibited so that she couldn't say no.

    That Quagmire did not personally inhibit her does not mean he did not rape her.

    So let's try this: Is affirmative consent "radical"?

    Ever use a cheap line?

    Honestly, man, I think you're doing a bit of #JustNotMe, here.

    One-nighters aren't the issue.

    Is it possible that there is a time and a place for everything, and anytime and everywhere is not on the list? Comedian Mark Steel once did a bit about trying to chat up a widow at her late husband's funeral, and perhaps it would be an absurdist bit except for the fact that we all know it's happened. His audience was English; most of the guys had either seen it happen or tried it themselves.

    We're not freaking cyborgs: "Pussy confirmed; target viable."

    Let's try a macho term: Selective enforcement? Just maybe?

    True as that may be, it only begs the question.

    Have you heard of Dick Black?

    How aobut Quiverfull?

    Okay, you got me on that one: Huh?

    We'll see what the overlap demands.

    Thing is there's nothing new about it. I can tell you that much. And, really, one of your favorites?
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Let's not forget Larry!

    In the Bible a man’s wife and children were considered his property

    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” – Exodus 20:17 (NASB)

    This is idea of a man’s wife and child being considered his “human property” is confirmed by these other teachings of the Bible:

    A man paid a bride price to a woman’s father for her hand in marriage – the father did not have to consider his daughter’s wishes in the man he chose for her.

    A man paid the bride price to a woman’s father if he had pre-marital sex with her, and the father still had the choice of whether he would give his daughter to this man in marriage. Pre-marital sex was considered a property crime against the father of virgin that had been defiled.

    When a man committed adultery with another man’s wife he and she could be executed. This was considered a property crime against the woman’s husband. If a married man had sex with a prostitute this was not considered adultery, but rather the sin of Whore mongering as no property crime was committed.

    The fact that a man was allowed under Biblical law to sell his son or daughter as a slave confirms that children were considered the property of their father (assuming he was a free man, and not a slave who had been given a wife by his master).

    The only exception to this idea of a man’s wife and children being his property was if the man was a slave and his master gave him another slave as a wife. If the male slave were to freed, the master did not have to release his wife and children with him.


    Wife – this truth that God has given your husband owner over you might at first be scary. It’s scary because we all know that human authority can be abused. But God calls you to have faith in him, and faith in his design. This does not mean your husband will never mistreat you, or sin against you because he is a sinner just like you. Also know that just because God has made you the property of your husband this does not mean as “human property” that you have no rights. You have certain human rights and additional rights as a wife that your husband must respect – otherwise God will hold him accountable.

    God did not give your husband ownership over you to crush or dehumanize you, but to provide for you what he knows you need. Once you understand how God view’s a husband’s ownership over his wife – it should give you comfort that if he owns you the way that God owns us all, you have nothing to fear.

    This will then free you to embrace your husband’s ownership over you. It will humble you and help you put aside that sinful pride that can often rise up in your heart. You will be able realize you are not your own – you were bought with a price, and God gave you to your husband.

    “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” – 1 Corinthians 6:20 (NASB)

    “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” – I Corinthians 11:7(NASB)

    If anyone is doubtful about rape culture, just venture to Larry's website.

    From advising men to not look into their wife's face when raping her, to blaming a rape victim for not putting out enough and denying her husband the pleasure of her body and forcing him to endure her crying during sex, to encouraging men how to "coerce" their wives to saying yes, so that he doesn't have to physically force her because that might put him off..
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Problem with the Problem

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is an especially strange paragraph.

    Let us start with the obvious: Infinite Prevention Advocacy

    Because this is the only identifiable boundary to what would otherwise be infinite prevention advocacy; the IPAs want women to suspect every man, but #NotAllMen, and definitely not me, or my husband, or my son, or my brother, or my freakin’ anyone!

    I've done a version of that post here↗ before, too. And even the bit about IPA↗.

    And you're familiar with IPA. What would be infinite prevention advice except that we've finally discovered a boundary: Suspect everyone, but #NotAllMen, and especially not me. It turns out that when we take the IPA aimed at a statistical slender minority of rapes and turn it back toward the statistical majority of rapes, advocates freak out. Don't let other people pour your drink? Okay, now what if that other person is your husband? Nice fuckin' marriage they've got, isn't it?

    And that's the boundary.

    Actually, you know, it's a fairly easy point↗ to make compared to the opportunities to make it.

    In truth, IPA isn't infinite .... It would seem the one finite boundary is anything that might make the self-respecting men who dispense prevention advice suspect.

    So let us think about this for a moment, please, because this is one of those contradictory things.

    To the one, we have this weird habit in our society, when faced with an immediately apparent rape crisis, such as a string of highly visible incidents, by which our response is to tell women what they need to do in order to not be raped. It's a crazy list when we start adding it up, and the underlying point is that the way to prevent her rape is to plan her day around the prospect of being sexually assaulted. Not only does this beg a human rights issue, but a lot of this advice somehow expects women to either have mystical rape radar that allows them to know in advance who is going to rape them, or generally prescribes caution. One of the problems is that this vigilance requires women to suspect all men.

    And this is what we ask of women.

    To the other, #WhatAboutTheMen? That is to say, it seems problematic to complain that the idea of rape culture makes men look bad.

    I've tried addressing the issue of rape culture↗ at Sciforums before. And, yes, we've even explored the broad brush of prejudice and necessity↗ before.

    I'm sorry, I guess I find that particular argument of yours ... honestly? It falls somewhere in the realm of, "Oh, come on, dude! Really?"

    "As a woman, I'm told not to go out alone at night, to watch my drink, to do all of these things. That way, rape isn't just controlling me while I'm actually being assaulted — it controls me 24/7 because it limits my behavior. Solutions like these actually just recreate that. I don't want to fucking test my drink when I'm at the bar. That's not the world I want to live in."

  20. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Why not, it gives added meaning to the term safe sex.

  21. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    The first video was funny. The other one, not so much.

    I liked this guy’s Drivers Ed analogy based on the principle of the right away. It's short and sweet.

    "The right away is not something you have. It’s something that the other driver gives you, and if the other driver doesn’t give it to you, you don’t have it, no matter what you think the rules of the road are supposed to be, or what you think you’re entitled to. And if people really understood that, there would be a lot fewer tragic collisions on the roads. Consent is like that.

    If we don’t have the affirmative consent standard, you are endorsing a world, in which other people have right of access to your body without expressly asking you permission to have that access."

    There is a new hashtag out. It’s #Primeiroassedio, which translates as “first harassment.”

    This, I think is something that every woman has experienced. I was 12, and at the county fair when a grown man slapped me on the ass. I was wearing shorts. He slapped me so hard that it welted part of my leg.

    How old are young girls when they are "first harassed" by men?
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  22. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    That was interesting.

    Is John Stossel right about the stats?

    “Using a definition of rape that includes forced vaginal, oral, and anal sex, the survey found that 1 of 6 U.S. women experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life (see exhibit 1). These findings are similar to findings from the National Health and Social Life Survey, which found that other forms of sexual assault, such as grabbing, fondling, and verbal threats of a sexual nature.”


    Are verbal threats of a sexual nature an attempted rape?

    Wait a minute. Here's something.

    "To be counted as a victim of sexual assault or rape and included in the 1-in-5 statistic (19.8%), a woman would have to be a senior and answer “Yes” to one or both of those questions.

    In our reports, sexual-assault victims who selected only “Forced touching of a sexual nature” in a follow-up question asking about the type of contact that happened were classified as victims of sexual battery only, whereas victims who selected any of the other response options (oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal sex, or sexual penetration with a finger or object) were classified as victims of rape."

    Setting the Record Straight on '1 in 5'

    Oh, yeah, I almost forgot.

    What are you talking about? It's glorified in films, music, you name it. Did you see "Gone with the Wind"? Eminem said in one of his songs "I even make the bitches I rape cum" .
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  23. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I just don't see it. Yes, rape has been depicted in film, but I've yet to see it presented as a good thing. As for music, nothing I listen to ever espoused sexual assault, but I'm certain there are artists who do so to be provocative. Much of the music industry as a whole thrives on sexual provocation (not just male entertainers do it).

    Again, I don't believe that most men are sexual predators, and there is no Rape Culture. I suppose I should have include a pole with this thread so that we could gauge how many men on SciForums have actually committed rape, just as a sampling.

Share This Page