Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America? (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America?
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/feminist-guide-to-non-creepy-flirting/

A good baseline for where the line between persuasion and harassment is. While it's genes in the context of an initial approach, most elements continue to ally even once you're familiar with someone, and, in fact, become more important one you've built a degree of trust that can be abused.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
And could you blame her? If a woman says “I don’t want to give you my number,” and a guy badgers her into giving it to him, what’s to stop him from calling when she says “I don’t want you to call me anymore”? What’s to stop him from coming to her place when she says, “I don’t want to see you anymore”? If the first, small boundary is ignored, how will he handle the bigger ones?

All clearly true, but in this context, a complete straw man, since no one has said any of those behaviors is OK.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All clearly true, but in this context, a complete straw man, since no one has said any of those behaviors is OK.
Seriati came down very solidly on the side of "No means persist until she says yes" say that persistence was being persuasive, not harassing. And in the movie item that provoked a huge part of the above conversation you were standing up for a behavoir that was in direct violation of that principle. The basic theme of the relationship was "If she says 'no', it's okay to badger her until she says 'yes'" Which is why it was highlighted as problematic.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are twisting it, pyr. In the movie she never said don't ask me, or don't visit me. He violated nothing. Please stop misrepresenting what I said, and distorting the facts to fit a principle that isn't at play.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The movie scene we discussed didn't involve badgering until she said yes. It involved one and only one appeal to change her mind.

If someone breaks up with you, playing her a song and asking her to change her mind just ONCE isn't "badgering". And it's sure as hell nothing like harassing a stranger for personal information.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you asked a woman for her phone number one day, she said no, then another day she talked to you, you got to know her better, it might not be badgering to ask again once.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You are twisting it, pyr. In the movie she never said don't ask me, or don't visit me.

No- she said don't pursue me romantically. If he had just talked to her or just visited her as a friend,, that would likely have been fine in context (though reading things into something that people don't say instead of asking for clarification is a bad habit in and of itself- if they don't make what's okay going forward clear, you should ask and not assume that you can properly guess)

quote:
He violated nothing.

He directly violated her request to break of the romantic relationship by taking actions designed to pressure her to change her mind. HE also violated her personal space in hat particular incident by taking actions that went well above and beyond the normal social limits on asking if it's okay to be there- which would have been an creepy act but for the writers' decision to portray her as enjoying it (something that, even in context, he had no way of actually knowing)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you asked a woman for her phone number one day, she said no, then another day she talked to you, you got to know her better, it might not be badgering to ask again once.

With the itermediate step, and assumably the change in context and intent, sure- if a future conversation evinces a reason that you should have her phone number, then you're effectively asking a separate question. But that goes back to my pointing out that it's perfectly fine to continue on building a platonic relationship with a person if they've declined a romantic one- it's just not fine to keep pressing them to change their mind on that decision or to be deceptive and only build the platonic relationship with the goal of using it as a wedge to try to negotiate a romantic relationship.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you asked a woman for her phone number one day, she said no, then another day she talked to you, you got to know her better, it might not be badgering to ask again once.

With the itermediate step, and assumably the change in context and intent, sure- if a future conversation evinces a reason that you should have her phone number, then you're effectively asking a separate question.
As the kid seemed to be in that movie from the clip I saw. She says she wants to break up. OK, they are broken up. He comes back another day and says, hey, I miss you, want to get back together? Separate question made once, not badgering. If he'd persisted that would be badgering.

Once again, I agree with the principle you're stating here, but I think you're flubbing the application. What the kid did was unhealthy, but it wasn't disregard for his exgirlfriend's manifest will, or badgering her to change her mind. The fact she breaks up with him on one day does not preclude him asking her once on another day if she wants to get back together. That's what being a teenager is all about. [Cool]

quote:
it's just not fine to keep pressing them to change their mind on that decision or to be deceptive and only build the platonic relationship with the goal of using it as a wedge to try to negotiate a romantic relationship.
I absolutely agree.

[ September 10, 2014, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Example of anti-rape culture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNMZo31LziM

Doesn't hit any notes resembling "all men [want to]/[are capable of] rape", IMO.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks! will check it out when am at library. Sounds good.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A rape epidemic -- by women?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Something must be wrong. I've never seen Ornery so dead. No posts for over 19 hours? Bizarre.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of our recent activity has been instigated by Seneca, Pete, and Rafi, so if they are all busy or otherwise unavailable to post then perhaps it makes sense.

I dunno, does anybody want to pretend like the coffee cup salute is a big deal?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I don't quite get the uproar, but I've never been in the military so a salute doesn't mean the same thing to me. Maybe I should try to think of a topic I care about that can get a good conversation going.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lloyd Perna:
A rape epidemic -- by women?

I recommend reading the CDC results directly:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

The Time article cited by that USA Today article draw some misleading conclusions:

"In short, men are raped by women at nearly the same rate women are raped by men."

This conclusion is drawn from this part of the CDC results:

quote:
Male rape victims predominantly had male perpetrators, but other forms of sexual violence experienced by men were either perpetrated predominantly by women (i.e., being made to penetrate and sexual coercion) or split more evenly among male and female perpetrators (i.e., unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences).
The problem is that the first two categories of sexual violence other than rape (as defined by this study, anyway) do not account for the majority of male victims. It's unwarranted to say that women commit sexual assault at nearly the same rate as men by taking a subset of sexual violence against men where women are predominantly the perpetrators and generalizing that to all sexual violence categories against all kinds of victims.

However, this is definitely evidence that female perpetrators are a significant problem and account for a significant chunk of sexual violence.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, I agree somewhat with some of the Time article's criticism of the CDC methods. We should not necessarily* lump in "had sex when you were drunk/high" with "had sex when you were too incapacitated to consent", and it appears the CDC survey might have done so.

This is tricky - I think the rule that people should follow is a very bright line rule: do not assume consent. If the consent is from someone who is high or drunk, it doesn't count.

Because, after all, there is no reliable way to know whether someone is just kinda drunk but still capable of consent, or blacked out and incapable of meaningful consent. So don't assume. Don't try to skirt the line!

The above is good advice for people to follow, IMO.

But that does not make every act that does not follow this advice morally equivalent, or equally harmful.

I would prefer for the CDC to distinguish clearly between "too incapacitated to consent" and "drunk" - from the point of view of someone who is answering a question about whether they have been the victim of sexual violence.

At the same time, I would prefer for people who are trying to have sex with someone else NOT to try to make the same distinction about the other person, because they will be wrong sometimes. (Even in established relationships, I think a "better safe than sorry" rule is the right thing to do - such as establishing ahead of time an expectation on whether sex while incapacitated is acceptable to everyone involved, and if it's not, then avoiding drunken/drugged sex.)

*If we are trying to measure the prevalence of sexual violence, or distinguish among types of sexual violence, these don't belong in the same category, IMO. If we are trying to measure something else about our culture - such as attitudes toward clear and unambiguous consent - it may be reasonable.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2014/09/18/states-improper-photography-law-thrown-out/15824287/

Here's on that plays on some related themes.

Texas Judge rules that your clothes do not effectively convey a reasonable expectation of privacy if someone can get a camera in a position to see under them.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the statute was actually over-broad. Texas needs to try again with a narrower law crafted around expectations of privacy.

My understanding of the law that was struck down is that an identical photo taken by two people (without the consent of the subject(s)) would be illegal if photographer A intended to masturbate while looking at it later, and legal if photographer B intended to critique fashion choices and had no sexual interest in it.

[ September 24, 2014, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bad reporting by idiot bloggers: Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe we could start a new thread? "Obama Starts Another War... thing, I guess. Heard About It?"
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You should start a thread on that, probably. I don't have much to say about it. I think it's true that a lot of what is going on with IS can be reasonably traced to our own past interventions and "not my circus, not my monkeys" is not a moral response. But I also think our chances of getting it right, and not simply perpetuating the same problems indefinitely are very low.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think the statute was actually over-broad. Texas needs to try again with a narrower law crafted around expectations of privacy.

My understanding of the law that was struck down is that an identical photo taken by two people (without the consent of the subject(s)) would be illegal if photographer A intended to masturbate while looking at it later, and legal if photographer B intended to critique fashion choices and had no sexual interest in it.

I disagree. If All Bundy tapes up skirts and masturbates, while gay critic Perez Hilton posts female undercoifs and makes "stylistic and cutting comments about how different vulvas are packaged, I'd argue that Perez is MORE invasive, MORE prurient, and a greater threat to civil society.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um...you disagree with what? My description of the law? I wasn't describing anyone's actual position, just the absurdity of the law.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Bad reporting by idiot bloggers: Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother

The article actually has some thoughtful points. The part about "intent" to create sexual gratification does run against the 1st amendment. If the 2nd element was, instead, "which the pictured person would reasonably find offensive and invasive," that would have probably survived as part of a time/place restriction.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sometimes the rule of law — due process, application of established rules, procedures, and rights — result in nasty people getting away with bad things. That makes us angry. But it's not about how we feel.

The Texas court didn't say upskirts are protected by the First Amendment. Texas could probably ban upskirts, if it did a halfway-competent job of drafting a sufficiently narrow statute.

But who's going to get outraged about that?

If you're wondering why I give a ****, consider this: our freedoms are recognized or denied based on court rulings. Our understanding of those court rulings often derives from media coverage of them. When we do a lousy job of covering law, or when we put up with journalists doing so, we're doing a lousy job as citizens.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Um...you disagree with what? My description of the law? I wasn't describing anyone's actual position, just the absurdity of the law.

My pardon; I misunderstood you. Thank you for clarifying. Sounds like we agree here then.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cool [Smile]
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/feminist-guide-to-non-creepy-flirting/

A good baseline for where the line between persuasion and harassment is.

Why? Nothing it gives is actually on the border. I doubt anyone here disagrees with much of anything they said. Nor is there a reasonable argument that they are wrong, why? Because they clearly go over the line in demonstrating bad behaviour.

Interestingly to me, I doubt they would agree with you that if you get a no to a phone number on the train, you shouldn't ask again if you talk to the same girl at your church social.

This isn't at all usefull for distinguishing persuasion, since it has no examples thereof. It's realy just a basic primer on not being a cad.
quote:
Seriati came down very solidly on the side of "No means persist until she says yes"
Really? Who is that Seriati person, can you quote me some of this "clear" examples of where they did this?

Seri, actually came down solidly on the "no" does not mean you have a life long ban on asking again, and people are allowed to express their own feelings that they would be interested in a romantic relationship but not a platonic friendship, just as much as people are free to state the inverse.
quote:
...say that persistence was being persuasive, not harassing.
Because some persistence can be harassing is does not follow that all persistance is harassment. It's simply a logical fail when you equate dissimilar terms as completely overlapping.
quote:
And in the movie item that provoked a huge part of the above conversation you were standing up for a behavoir that was in direct violation of that principle. The basic theme of the relationship was "If she says 'no', it's okay to badger her until she says 'yes'" Which is why it was highlighted as problematic.
The basic "theme" of the movie was about the fantasy of a pathetic male fantasy pursuit ending up in a relationship because he's really a quality guy (which by the way is stated as premise and never really demonstrated - see also Can't Hardly Wait, and really just about every teen romance movie except notably Pretty in Pink). It's a destructive romantic message for everyone involved.

Lloyd is creepy on so many levels, not least of which is fixating on a girl without really knowing her, however, your fixation on a scene where after they have already implausibly ended up together and have broken up is what is ridiculous. Virtually everyone whose ever had a relationship has broken up and gotten back together at some point. The "rule" as you seem to be advocating it would preemptively end so many relationships its not even funny. There was nothing particularly creepy, invasive or inappropriate about that part of the movie or what he did to try and get her back.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "rule" as you seem to be advocating it would preemptively end so many relationships its not even funny.
I think this is true in a way - but not really fair to how Pyrtolin meant it.

If we lived in a society where people were extremely careful not to disregard others' wishes with regard to social interactions (much more careful compared to the society we live in now), it would involve a different set of patterns to those interactions. It wouldn't necessarily prevent people from getting together who would get together in today's set of patterns - it would just involve different details.

I'm not of quite the same view as Pyrtolin, although I do think the "Say Anything" scene reinforces the idea that one should keep trying after getting rejected which, if implemented without caveats, contributes to harassing behavior and can be one factor in rape culture.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get it scifibum, but that's why we distinguish between persistence, persuasion and harrassment. Pyrtolin's world takes all similar words and pretends they have coterminus meaning. All persuasion is impermissable harassment, zero tolerence test.

The biggest problem though is it disparages the free will and agency of both people to not acknowledge that there are two complete personalities involved in the situation, both with independent obligations to make clear expressions to the other and both with obligations to deal fairly and be mindfull of feelings. Everything about his arguments discounts the adulthood of the female in the relationship through parternalistic protection mechanisms. Flip the genders in that scence and no one would be talking about Diane manipulating Lloyd (of course the scene would be shot totally different with creepy stalker overtones, because Hollywood does have a problem).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin's world takes all similar words and pretends they have coterminus meaning. All persuasion is impermissable harassment, zero tolerence test.
I may be a bit bust at the moment, but that doesn't give you license to make up utter nonsense and pretend that it's my position. Represent your position as much as you like but don't invent words to shove in my mouth. It's exceptionally disingenuous.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
nterestingly to me, I doubt they would agree with you that if you get a no to a phone number on the train, you shouldn't ask again if you talk to the same girl at your church social.
A complete invention on your part without regard for what my actual position is.

quote:
Seri, actually came down solidly on the "no" does not mean you have a life long ban on asking again,
Which is a backpedal into a strawman position, since on scu "lifelong ban" was mentioned. You were previously defending persistence as a form of "persuasion", when anything that meaningfully could be described as persistence in without an clear invitation to keep trying amounts to harassment. Now you shift to trying to use examples of connecting as a friend or by way of other form of association once purely romantic overtones have been turned down and pretend that those are somehow equivalent. (Of course if they are actually dishonest overtures of such that just serve to mask harassment, then sure- they're the exact kind of perception of entitlement to harass and objectify that are at issue.)

quote:
and people are allowed to express their own feelings that they would be interested in a romantic relationship but not a platonic friendship,
Since the later is an essential foundation to any healthy form of the former, your point here is pretty vacuous. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a regular friendship with someone that is willing to do so after having been rejected on romantic advances. What's wrong is harassing them by continuing to actively press for elevation to romantic status or otherwise effectively falsely affect friendship with the primary intent to be getting into the other person's pants. Once you've made your interest known it is up to them to make the next move or not as they see fit, not for you to undermine their statement by constantly second guessing it or otherwise manipulating them.

There's a huge difference between becoming someone's friend and building a relationship with them where you would be pleased if it eventually became more romantic, and affecting such with the active goal of trying to "earn" a romantic relationship because you did everything right that should obligate them to give you on.

quote:
Because some persistence can be harassing is does not follow that all persistance is harassment.
That's true only in as much as persistence can be invited. The invitation to persist is what actively draws the line between harassment and romance in such situations.

quote:
your fixation on a scene where after they have already implausibly ended up together and have broken up is what is ridiculous.
What fixation? I am responding to objections to criticisms of that scene being used as an example of unhealthy behavoir. Unless you mean to say that "staying on topic" amounts to a "fixation"?

quote:
Virtually everyone whose ever had a relationship has broken up and gotten back together at some point.
Many have. That's not even remotely relevant, unless you're asserting that "virtually everyone" has resorted to some form manipulation and mind games to achieve that result, instead of personal reflection, discussion, or other forms of conflict resolution.

quote:
There was nothing particularly creepy, invasive or inappropriate about that part of the movie or what he did to try and get her back.
Only when viewed through a lens that suggests that harassment is okay as long as it's really, really earnest. Did he sit down with her and have an honest and consensual discussion of their respective feelings and motives to achieve that end? No. Instead of talking it out, and showing respect for her feelings and opinions, he resorted to a string of manipulative stunts designed to undermine her will and invalidate her expressed wishes, as if her affection was a prize he was entitled to win if he tried hard enough, rather than something that she was free to extend or not according to her own will and comfort (problematic enough on its own, without the script confirming that he was rewarded for being manipulative instead of engaging in an earnest discussion and showing respect for her feelings, even it the result was that he didn't quite get what he wanted when he started.)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Pyrtolin's world takes all similar words and pretends they have coterminus meaning. All persuasion is impermissable harassment, zero tolerence test.
I may be a bit bust at the moment, but that doesn't give you license to make up utter nonsense and pretend that it's my position. Represent your position as much as you like but don't invent words to shove in my mouth. It's exceptionally disingenuous.
Did I miss where you retracted this?
quote:
Seriati came down very solidly on the side of "No means persist until she says yes" say that persistence was being persuasive, not harassing
You have quite a bit of nerve in making a complaint.
quote:
quote:
nterestingly to me, I doubt they would agree with you that if you get a no to a phone number on the train, you shouldn't ask again if you talk to the same girl at your church social.
A complete invention on your part without regard for what my actual position is.
Not really, just a slight exaggeration of your well establish and repeatedly over-the-top argument on "persistence".
quote:
quote:
Seri, actually came down solidly on the "no" does not mean you have a life long ban on asking again,
Which is a backpedal into a strawman position, since on scu "lifelong ban" was mentioned.
Which is a great example how you enjoy fixating on hyperbolic phrases rather than the meaning behind them. Nothing about your position indicates it's okay to ask again, or rather you will say it is, but not choose to articulate how anyone could get to the point where it was okay to ask other than to wait for an invitation to ask again.
quote:
You were previously defending persistence as a form of "persuasion", when anything that meaningfully could be described as persistence in without an clear invitation to keep trying amounts to harassment.
Interesting. You believe that persistence is harassment, yet accuse me of believing persistence is persuasion. I've never argued for a coterminous meaning. Go back and look. Harassment is the world for persistence taken too far, it is not the world for persistence itself.
quote:
Now you shift to trying to use examples of connecting as a friend or by way of other form of association once purely romantic overtones have been turned down and pretend that those are somehow equivalent. (Of course if they are actually dishonest overtures of such that just serve to mask harassment, then sure- they're the exact kind of perception of entitlement to harass and objectify that are at issue.)
And you follow the poor arguments and illogic to reach a conclusion that doesn't follow. The examples given in the reference you cited are not as you refer to them situations with "purely romantic overtones." They were clear examples of times and places and ways that only a cad would try to operate, which is exactly why I referred to them as not useful.

There is no entitlement involved in asking for a date, not even if you ask more than once. There's an offer there that the askee is free to take or not.
quote:
quote:
and people are allowed to express their own feelings that they would be interested in a romantic relationship but not a platonic friendship,
Since the later is an essential foundation to any healthy form of the former, your point here is pretty vacuous.
Lol, by definition platonic friendship can not be the basis for a romantic relationship. I think you mean, that being friends is the basis of a good relationship, but that is not a point of contention. There are plenty of people, however, who can be friends with sex involved but not without, just like there are plenty of people who can be friends so long as sex is never involved.

Just because its your opinion doesn't make it a fact.
quote:
There is nothing wrong with pursuing a regular friendship with someone that is willing to do so after having been rejected on romantic advances.
And there's nothing wrong with being unwilling to do so.
quote:
What's wrong is harassing them by continuing to actively press for elevation to romantic status or otherwise effectively falsely affect friendship with the primary intent to be getting into the other person's pants. Once you've made your interest known it is up to them to make the next move or not as they see fit, not for you to undermine their statement by constantly second guessing it or otherwise manipulating them.
As repeatedly noted, harassment is by definition inappropriate which makes the "profoundness" of your point about zero. Offering a romantic relationship to someone is not undermining them, it's empowering them.
quote:
There's a huge difference between becoming someone's friend and building a relationship with them where you would be pleased if it eventually became more romantic, and affecting such with the active goal of trying to "earn" a romantic relationship because you did everything right that should obligate them to give you on.
Back to "earning" again? Can someone explain where someone has set out the standards or arguments for "earning" a romantic relationship? It must have occurred for Pyr to draw every argument he makes back to the concept (or is it just a strawman?).

Everything I said leaves the power in the hands of the askee, not clear how anything could be turned to entitlement or earning.
quote:
quote:
Because some persistence can be harassing is does not follow that all persistance is harassment.
That's true only in as much as persistence can be invited. The invitation to persist is what actively draws the line between harassment and romance in such situations.
Nonsense. It's true where persistence fits within socially accepted bounds and/or is not rejected. You're not arguing from what is, but rather from what you wish was.
quote:
quote:
your fixation on a scene where after they have already implausibly ended up together and have broken up is what is ridiculous.
What fixation? I am responding to objections to criticisms of that scene being used as an example of unhealthy behavoir. Unless you mean to say that "staying on topic" amounts to a "fixation"?
Fine not a fixation an erroneous interpretation.
quote:
quote:
Virtually everyone whose ever had a relationship has broken up and gotten back together at some point.
Many have. That's not even remotely relevant, unless you're asserting that "virtually everyone" has resorted to some form manipulation and mind games to achieve that result, instead of personal reflection, discussion, or other forms of conflict resolution.
Lol. Why would I need to make such a nonsensical assertion, there were no manipulation or mind games involved in the example. And honestly, both Lloyd and Diane went through great personal reflection, other forms of conflict resolution and even discussion. You keep positing black and white solutions and asserting but not showing any room for actual human behavior.
quote:
quote:
There was nothing particularly creepy, invasive or inappropriate about that part of the movie or what he did to try and get her back.
Only when viewed through a lens that suggests that harassment is okay as long as it's really, really earnest.
No, just when viewed through a lens that says people are allowed to try an interact with each other.
quote:
Did he sit down with her and have an honest and consensual discussion of their respective feelings and motives to achieve that end? No.
Been a while, but didn't they do some of that later in the movie? Seem to remember some of that.
quote:
Instead of talking it out, and showing respect for her feelings and opinions, he resorted to a string of manipulative stunts designed to undermine her will and invalidate her expressed wishes, as if her affection was a prize he was entitled to win if he tried hard enough, rather than something that she was free to extend or not according to her own will and comfort (problematic enough on its own, without the script confirming that he was rewarded for being manipulative instead of engaging in an earnest discussion and showing respect for her feelings, even it the result was that he didn't quite get what he wanted when he started.)
I don't know why I even try. The fact that you could even write that with a straight face is appalling. They ended up together because it was a romance, there are a thousand other stories that could be told where they don't end up together, everyone knows that. He didn't engage is a series of manipulative behaviors disrespecting her opinion, he engaged in a series of behaviors to show her the depth of his own feelings so she could make an informed choice about whether she wanted to move on or not. She was still free to choose a different path, but she would be doing so with the knowledge that she's entitled to have about what the costs of that other path would be.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did I miss where you retracted this?
I can't retract something that I never said, no matter how much you want to create the false impression that I did by misrepresenting me. I said that uninvited persistence is harassment, not persuasion, not that there was no difference between persuasion and harassment.

quote:
Nothing about your position indicates it's okay to ask again, or rather you will say it is, but not choose to articulate how anyone could get to the point where it was okay to ask other than to wait for an invitation to ask again.
So nothing. Except- a clear invitation (or a contextual change that provides a non-romantic justification for the information)? Looks like it's not noting at all, but rather very specifically markers that you've built up your relationship with that person in a non-romantic context.

quote:
Harassment is the world for persistence taken too far, it is not the world for persistence itself.
So long as, by "too far" you mean "beyond what has been invited by the other person, particularly anything after they have said 'no'"


quote:
There is no entitlement involved in asking for a date, not even if you ask more than once. There's an offer there that the askee is free to take or not.
quote:
Offering a romantic relationship to someone is not undermining them, it's empowering them.
You may as well be saying "let them eat cake" here, you're so lost in your own privilege.

There is absolutely something wrong with communicating to someone, though repetition of unwanted advances, especially without any other foundation of a relationship to demonstrate otherwise, that they're only of interest to you as a sex object, and that it's your right and privilege to ignore their stated preference and keep pressuring them to put it aside.

quote:
Nonsense. It's true where persistence fits within socially accepted bounds and/or is not rejected.
Hence describing such legitimized harassment as an aspect of rape culture and advocating for people to stop perpetuating it. The fact that our society says a harmful behavior is okay does not make that behavior less harmful and also does not mean that people who see and understand the harm should be quiet and let it continue simply because other people would rather continue in bad habits than admit that their have been unintentionally harming others.

quote:
You're not arguing from what is, but rather from what you wish was.
Not from, towards. That is sort of the point of making an argument for change from a dysfunctional status quo, isn't it?

quote:
No, just when viewed through a lens that says people are allowed to try an interact with each other.
You say that as if harassment were the only possible form of interaction.

quote:
He didn't engage is a series of manipulative behaviors disrespecting her opinion, he engaged in a series of behaviors to show her the depth of his own feelings so she could make an informed choice about whether she wanted to move on or not.
Your statement is self-contradictory and makes the scenario much, much worse. He didn't manipulate her, he just chose to act in a way that forced her to put aside her own preferences and treat his as more important? That is manipulative. The depth of his feelings are completely irrelevant to her preferences- they're for him to deal with, not her- trying to make her accountable for and reactive to his desires is outright abusive.

Had he acted in no transgressive ways that helped highlight to her the depths of her feelings about him, the situation would have been different. The point being highlighted in the original article was that the movie blesses he decision to act in transgressive and objectifying ways, then rewards him with success, while glossing over the damage that such behavoir causes. At least the move put some amount of sense that he was trying to appeal to her feelings, rather than your suggestion that he was ignoring her feelings in favor of feeling he was entitled to force her to accept his.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1