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 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There is a wide difference between a consensual discussion of such in order to explore the issue and perhaps come to a more mutually agreeable solution, and trying to use coercive tactics to "press the issue"

Coercion involves intimidation or threat, there was never any indication in the movie that anyone felt threatened.
Threat and intimidation are kinds of coercion, but they are not the only kinds of pressure that can be applied to force someone to change or act against their will.

quote:
I do agree that coercive tactics are not acceptable. However, that requires that we distinguish between what is coercive and what is not, and you don't seem willing to actually do that.
I'm perfectly willing to do that. What I'm not willing to do is give a note to pressure tactics just because they're ones that people really really want to be justifiable ways of pressuring someone rather than standing clear on the point that applying any form of pressure is not an acceptable form of persuasion in this context.

quote:
Something can be "socially damaging" and not be rape or part of a rape culture.
Sure, but that's neither here nor there, since the socially damaging thing we're talking about is specifically socially damaging methods used to undermine a person's will in regard to sex or relationships that would generally involve it.

quote:
Negative consequence is not enough to tie a lesser term to the most abusive form of violation of control that we've bothered to define.
Indeed, but again that's not relevant here, since the context is limited to activities that are directly lined enough to warrant such inclusion. We're not talking about harassing people into selling property or harassing people into buying something from a store. We're talking about harassing people into consenting to sexual activity.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not talking about what should or shouldn't be punished.

quote:
I have every reason to believe that "No means No" campaigns have caused a far better understanding of this problem than existed in prior generations. I mean honestly, "she deserved it" is nonsensical to anyone below 45, and was "obviously" correct even 30 years ago. That's a direct result of reasoned argument and good campaigns. Promoting bad reasoning will undermine it.
I don't think those messages have been promulgated as well as you think. Though I may be underestimating their effect due to the way the Internet has increased the visibility and frequency of threats of sexual violence.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There is a wide difference between a consensual discussion of such in order to explore the issue and perhaps come to a more mutually agreeable solution, and trying to use coercive tactics to "press the issue"

Yes, there is a wide difference between all of these sorts of actions.

To say that any uninvited attempts to change someone's mind is equivalent to stalking or rape is an oversimplification and bizarre.

These things are gradients and the threshold of "bad" isn't nearly as low as you are putting it.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 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 Pyrtolin:

quote:
I do agree that coercive tactics are not acceptable. However, that requires that we distinguish between what is coercive and what is not, and you don't seem willing to actually do that.
I'm perfectly willing to do that. What I'm not willing to do is give a note to pressure tactics just because they're ones that people really really want to be justifiable ways of pressuring someone rather than standing clear on the point that applying any form of pressure is not an acceptable form of persuasion in this context.

Please, Pyr, demonstrate your so called willingness to discuss the distinction that you spent most of that paragraph evading.
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 JoshuaD:
To say that any uninvited attempts to change someone's mind is equivalent to stalking or rape is an oversimplification and bizarre.

Not equivalent to, where relevant- rather part of a culture that leads to. And it's perfectly possible to try to change someone's mind without pressuring them to change their mind. It's the application of pressure that makes any such effort cross the line into coercion.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:
I do agree that coercive tactics are not acceptable. However, that requires that we distinguish between what is coercive and what is not, and you don't seem willing to actually do that.
I'm perfectly willing to do that. What I'm not willing to do is give a note to pressure tactics just because they're ones that people really really want to be justifiable ways of pressuring someone rather than standing clear on the point that applying any form of pressure is not an acceptable form of persuasion in this context.

Please, Pyr, demonstrate your so called willingness to discuss the distinction that you spent most of that paragraph evading.
I have been. I did so right there, in fact. There's no problem with persuasion, there is a problem with pretending that pressuring someone is the same as generally persuading them.
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 
All touch involves some degree of pressure.

Why don't you try again, with specific illustrations. We've established already that you're not good at articulating a specific rule.

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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:
I do agree that coercive tactics are not acceptable. However, that requires that we distinguish between what is coercive and what is not, and you don't seem willing to actually do that.
I'm perfectly willing to do that. What I'm not willing to do is give a note to pressure tactics just because they're ones that people really really want to be justifiable ways of pressuring someone rather than standing clear on the point that applying any form of pressure is not an acceptable form of persuasion in this context.

Please, Pyr, demonstrate your so called willingness to discuss the distinction that you spent most of that paragraph evading.
I have been. I did so right there, in fact.
No, you didn't.

quote:
There's no problem with persuasion, there is a problem with pretending that pressuring someone is the same as generally persuading them.
Nice words. Still waiting for you to follow through with illustrations that explain the distinction. Or at least intentional ones. You changed the facts of the serenading hypo to have the serenader actually "cornering" his target "IN her home" rather than playing music through the window. I said I'd agree that cornering an ex in their home past bed-time is coercive, but you dodged that issue, so it's unclear whether you find the home invasion or the simple musical appeal to emotion dispositive.
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 
Haven't seen the movie, but looked up this scene from youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqyJoG9TcUQ

Cusack is standing next to his car in her driveway, and it's after sunrise.

That's a substantial departure from Pyr's fact-mangling when he "corners" her "in her house" in the middle of the night. [Frown]

Compared to the vicious pressure that teenagers put on each other day after day in school, what Cusack does here is pretty benign.

Healthy? No. Coercive? Get off my leg.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have seriously never seen "Say Anything?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 TomDavidson:
You have seriously never seen "Say Anything?"

Seriously never seen it, except for the two clips on youtube that I looked up yesterday, demonstrating that your analysis was surprisingly accurate, and that Pyr's recounting was unsurprisingly distorted beyond recognition.

Lloyd describes his career ambitions [DOH]

Serenade scene

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You have seriously never seen "Say Anything?"

Guilty as well. It's a romantic comedy isn't it? Usually not my genre. Is it that good? Am I missing an important piece of shared cultural experience?

Was "Say Anything" the original appearance of the "serenade with boom box" meme? I've seen the meme before elsewhere.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 
Best John Cusack romcom was his first, Better Off Dead.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6srI0EVwTUE

[ August 10, 2014, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is it that good? Am I missing an important piece of shared cultural experience?
I would say that, no, it's not that good, but it's as important a piece of shared cultural experience as The Breakfast Club, which is also not really a very good movie but is still a mandatory watch.

Also: if you think of Grosse Pointe Blank as the unofficial sequel to Say Anything, with some names and events changed to protect the innocent, both movies are substantially improved.

[ August 10, 2014, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
There is a wide difference between a consensual discussion of such in order to explore the issue and perhaps come to a more mutually agreeable solution, and trying to use coercive tactics to "press the issue"

Coercion involves intimidation or threat, there was never any indication in the movie that anyone felt threatened.
Threat and intimidation are kinds of coercion, but they are not the only kinds of pressure that can be applied to force someone to change or act against their will.
Then you need to articulate what you mean. Coercion involves threat or intimidation to force a change. Persusasion does not force a change. This is why coercion leads to legal sanction and persuasion does not.

You seem to recognise this when you speak of "pressure" rather than coercion in the next sentence, which seems an attempt to blur the line. Not all pressure forces a change, and accordingly not all pressure should be legally actionable.

Is it legally actionable if the high school boy threatens to break up with the high school girl if they don't have sex? No reading more into it for the answer.
quote:
quote:
I do agree that coercive tactics are not acceptable. However, that requires that we distinguish between what is coercive and what is not, and you don't seem willing to actually do that.
I'm perfectly willing to do that. What I'm not willing to do is give a note to pressure tactics just because they're ones that people really really want to be justifiable ways of pressuring someone rather than standing clear on the point that applying any form of pressure is not an acceptable form of persuasion in this context.
Then please tell us what is and is not the distinguishing factor. There are any number of examples in the thread. I think very few non-extremists think the Say Anything situation involves an impermissable amount of "pressure", so if you do, please tell us what characterizes it.

Keep in mind, that the normal test is that it takes away someone's free exercise of their own will. That's a far cry from incentivising or punishing them for the decision.
quote:
quote:
Something can be "socially damaging" and not be rape or part of a rape culture.
Sure, but that's neither here nor there, since the socially damaging thing we're talking about is specifically socially damaging methods used to undermine a person's will in regard to sex or relationships that would generally involve it.
I don't agree. I think we're talking abot social damaging behavior that doesn't undermine people's will. I think you're undervaluing the ability of women to make an independent decision. It's not taking away a woman's will if I bring her a box of chocolates and that turns out to have been instrumental in changing the uncourse of our evening from a planned dumping to a planned (wow I almost went with the rhyme, but you get the idea).
quote:
quote:
Negative consequence is not enough to tie a lesser term to the most abusive form of violation of control that we've bothered to define.
Indeed, but again that's not relevant here, since the context is limited to activities that are directly lined enough to warrant such inclusion. We're not talking about harassing people into selling property or harassing people into buying something from a store. We're talking about harassing people into consenting to sexual activity.
Actually I disagree again. I think you're talking about some activities that are direcly linked, and a whole bunch more that are indirectly linked. We're talking about the difference between persistence and harassment for instence. Something that thinking people can distinguish, hence the need for two separate words, but unthinking zero tolerance concepts attempt to blur. Show us the nuance, unless you're really just trying to argue for some incredibly low standard zero tolerance concept.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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:
Is it legally actionable if the high school boy threatens to break up with the high school girl if they don't have sex?
Hell, by a strict reading of Pyr's "pressure" trope, it's wrong for the high school boy to threaten to stop having sex with the boy if he breaks up with her. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we agree that attempts at coercion are likely to vary in effectiveness between people? That a threat to cut off the index fingers of a pianist is likely to be more "coercive" than a threat to cut off the index fingers of a stockbroker, all else being held equal?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
quote:
Is it legally actionable if the high school boy threatens to break up with the high school girl if they don't have sex?
Hell, by a strict reading of Pyr's "pressure" trope, it's wrong for the high school boy to threaten to stop having sex with the boy if he breaks up with her. [Roll Eyes]
With the key word being "threaten". If the word is somehow meaningful in the context then it exemplifies a broken dynamic.

The very notion that it's possible to interpret a statement of not wanting to have sezx as a threat points to culturally embedded coercion that should be opposed.

http://mic.com/articles/94722/when-does-a-woman-owe-you-sex-check-this-chart

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 TomDavidson:
Do we agree that attempts at coercion are likely to vary in effectiveness between people? That a threat to cut off the index fingers of a pianist is likely to be more "coercive" than a threat to cut off the index fingers of a stockbroker, all else being held equal?

That's a very bad example, cause I think it's pretty much maximum coerciveness to anyone to make that threat.

But yes, different people react differently to different events. A masochist may leave you if you promise never to hit them again, whereas most people would have a very different response to that whole situation.

[ August 13, 2014, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[qb]
quote:
Is it legally actionable if the high school boy threatens to break up with the high school girl if they don't have sex?
Hell, by a strict reading of Pyr's "pressure" trope, it's wrong for the high school boy to threaten to stop having sex with the boy if he breaks up with her. [Roll Eyes]

With the key word being "threaten". If the word is somehow meaningful in the context then it exemplifies a broken dynamic.
Not the question about whether there's a broken dynamic. Again a change of topic.
quote:
The very notion that it's possible to interpret a statement of not wanting to have sezx as a threat points to culturally embedded coercion that should be opposed.

http://mic.com/articles/94722/when-does-a-woman-owe-you-sex-check-this-chart

And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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 
OK, since the word "threaten" is being used to obfuscate the issue, let's get rid of it.

Pyr, are you saying that if a high school girl tells her boyfriend that she'll stop having sex with him if he breaks up with her, that's not "pressure" of any sort? Or do you concede the obvious that some forms of pressure are acceptable persuasion rather than coercion?

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 Seriati:
Then you need to articulate what you mean. Coercion involves threat or intimidation to force a change.


Coercion uses pressure of any sore, including threat and intimidation to force a change.
Persusasion does not force a change. This is why coercion leads to legal sanction and persuasion does not. (By what you say elsewhere you seem to be confusing what it takes to legally demonstrate coercion with what is actually fundamentally coercive, which is begging the question, since our legal standards are set by what we culturally want to accept as coercive, not what actually is coercive.)
quote:
You seem to recognise this when you speak of "pressure" rather than coercion in the next sentence, which seems an attempt to blur the line.
It does not blur the line. It defines the line. If you are applying pressure, then you are being coercive, not simply persuasive. If you ask me whether you should paint a wall blue or green, I can present my opinion on my perceived merits of green without in any way implying that you should agree to those opinions or my conclusions. As soon as I shift from simply offering my view to suggesting that you should agree to my view, I've moved from persuasion to coercion. The difference is between giving you information that supports my view while still allowing you to make the choice completely freely (persuasion), or applying pressure to you to conform to my view (coercion).

quote:
Not all pressure forces a change, and accordingly not all pressure should be legally actionable.
Who cares about legally actionable? That's a complete red herring. No all coercion is successful. That doesn't mean that it's not coercive and that it does not do some degree of social damage to the person that it's applied to and the society that blesses it as acceptable.

quote:
Then please tell us what is and is not the distinguishing factor. There are any number of examples in the thread. I think very few non-extremists think the Say Anything situation involves an impermissable amount of "pressure", so if you do, please tell us what characterizes it.
Pressure characterizes it. Any amount is impermissible. The fact that people give a nod to the pressure used in the movie is the fundamental problem; it perpetuates the cultural meme that force is justified, as long as it's not "too much" force. You can ignore someones wishes as long as you only harass them a little just as long as it doesn't exceed the level of harassment that we want to be able to apply in our own affairs by too much.

quote:
I don't agree. I think we're talking abot social damaging behavior that doesn't undermine people's will.
As soon as you stop respecting someone's will and act against it, you are undermining them.

quote:
I think you're undervaluing the ability of women to make an independent decision.
No, that's an unfounded assertion that you're making up that I have already explicitly refuted.

quote:
It's not taking away a woman's will if I bring her a box of chocolates and that turns out to have been instrumental in changing the uncourse of our evening from a planned dumping to a planned (wow I almost went with the rhyme, but you get the idea).
Sure- but right there you also characterize the other side of the line. You brought a gift that ended up influencing her decision. You did not bring the gift intending to buy her decision with it; instead it was simply a statement of who you are that helped her freely reach a decision. HAd you been trying to use it to forcefully change her mind (or promising such to her as a reward from changing her mind, instead of offering it freely as a gift without expectations, then it would become an actively manipulative behavoir; coercion rather than persuasion.


quote:
We're talking about the difference between persistence and harassment for instence. Something that thinking people can distinguish, hence the need for two separate words, but unthinking zero tolerance concepts attempt to blur.
The notion that "persistence" should matter already falsely implies that consent is something that can be earned (effectively, something that can be bought with proper payment over time). The distinction between the two is entirely cultural- again, it serves to let us pretend that there's an acceptable level of coercive behavior that we will allow because it lets us avoid confronting the fact that we still implicitly hold the idea that consent is something that can be bought or sold with the proper investment of effort, and not something that should be the full free choice of the person granting it or not.

quote:
Show us the nuance, unless you're really just trying to argue for some incredibly low standard zero tolerance concept.
Building a relitionship with someone, showing them who you are as a person without regard to whatever sexual desires you might be feeling, and accepting that they may never take or feel comfortable expressing a sexual interest in you. That's a good form of persuasion. It presents your merits and qualities, while leaving the choice fully in their hands. Badgering someone for a romantic relationship, presenting qualities you think they'd like as a tool to manipulate them or buy their affections, disrespecting explicitly stated desires on their part in favor of asserting your own- those are all coercive and reflect directly on the level of interpersonal violence that we try to pretend is healthy in our interactions with each other.
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:
Pyr, are you saying that if a high school girl tells her boyfriend that she'll stop having sex with him if he breaks up with her, that's not "pressure" of any sort? Or do you concede the obvious that some forms of pressure are acceptable persuasion rather than coercion?

That's not pressure. For it to be pressure, there would have to be some expectation that he was entitled to sex in the first place. That he might perceive it as a threat or form of pressure reflects directly on the fault in our culture that is at question here.
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 
I'm reminded of a comedic sketch I saw recently where a person eating at a restaurant complained about the flavor of the soup. The waiter responds "Oh, that must be the cyanide in the soup", and then proceeds to chide the indignant patron over getting upset, because they make sure to only use just a small amount, not enough to warrant getting into such a worked up state about.

The fact that there's a culturally acceptable level of poison to drip into our relationships, does not make that small amount of poison good or healthy to put into them, and perpetuating the meme that its okay to just use a little, as long as its too much, does a significant amount of long term harm to everyone.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or do you concede the obvious that some forms of pressure are acceptable persuasion rather than coercion?
I don't know why we're trying to draw the distinction. It seems to me that the line between "persuasion" and "coercion" is pretty fine, and that we've had this conversation a dozen times since I started posting here.

IIRC, we broadly agreed the last time we had this conversation to this definition of coercion:

Persuasion that proposes as an artificial consequence of his action or inaction a real harm or loss of expected potential to the threatened party.

The threat "I will no longer sleep with you if we break up" is not coercion unless sleeping with someone is not considered a function of your relationship, and thus the cessation of sex would not be the natural consequence of the cessation of the relationship. Similarly, it would not be coercive to say "I will no longer do those little favors for you, like washing your shirts and cleaning up the living room, if we break up." It might be coercive to say "I will no longer provide you with access to the web server you're using for your business if we break up," although in this scenario the promised harm and/or loss of potential is minor enough that it's very weak coercion.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 Seriati:
And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.

When you suggest that someone should be able to earn sex through persistence, you are, in fact making the argument that someone who is sufficiently persistent is owed sex. Otherwise there would be no value in suggesting that persistence is a useful tactic for obtaining it.
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 Seriati:
And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.

When you suggest that someone should be able to earn sex through persistence
I don't think Seriati said that "someone should be able to earn sex through persistence." I think you're distorting what we said, just like you distorted the plot of Say Anything.
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 TomDavidson:
quote:
Or do you concede the obvious that some forms of pressure are acceptable persuasion rather than coercion?
I don't know why we're trying to draw the distinction. It seems to me that the line between "persuasion" and "coercion" is pretty fine, and that we've had this conversation a dozen times since I started posting here.

IIRC, we broadly agreed the last time we had this conversation to this definition of coercion:

Persuasion that proposes as an artificial consequence of his action or inaction a real harm or loss of expected potential to the threatened party.

The threat "I will no longer sleep with you if we break up" is not coercion unless sleeping with someone is not considered a function of your relationship, and thus the cessation of sex would not be the natural consequence of the cessation of the relationship. Similarly, it would not be coercive to say "I will no longer do those little favors for you, like washing your shirts and cleaning up the living room, if we break up." It might be coercive to say "I will no longer provide you with access to the web server you're using for your business if we break up," although in this scenario the promised harm and/or loss of potential is minor enough that it's very weak coercion.

I agree with you that it's not coercion, and think you've articulated the reasons quite well. You have not, however, answered my question of whether it's pressure. All human contact involves some degree of pressure.
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 
km posted this on the overall topic, but it seemed to slide under the radar, so I'll repeat it:
http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/

This is relevant on the particular thread we seem to be out on now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

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:
Pyr, are you saying that if a high school girl tells her boyfriend that she'll stop having sex with him if he breaks up with her, that's not "pressure" of any sort? Or do you concede the obvious that some forms of pressure are acceptable persuasion rather than coercion?

That's not pressure. For it to be pressure, there would have to be some expectation that he was entitled to sex in the first place.
So in Pyr's world, pressure only involves threatening something that you're entitled to? If someone threatens something you love and desire but aren't entitled to, that's not pressure?

Loopy, Pyr.

Anyway, Cusack in Say Anything is entitled to play music on her property unless she asks him to leave and desist. So please explain how that's coercive, and try to avoid the word "pressure" since you've clearly buggered that word out of utility.

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:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.

When you suggest that someone should be able to earn sex through persistence
I don't think Seriati said that "someone should be able to earn sex through persistence." I think you're distorting what we said, just like you distorted the plot of Say Anything.
Then the idea that persistence is an acceptable means of earning consent is off the table? The concept that consent is something earnable in the first place?
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:
So in Pyr's world, pressure only involves threatening something that you're entitled to? If someone threatens something you love and desire but aren't entitled to, that's not pressure?

How can one threaten your entitlement to access something if you are not entitled to access it in the first place?

quote:
Anyway, Cusack in Say Anything is entitled to play music on her property unless she asks him to leave and desist.
You're seriously suggesting that property rights imply consent to any third party activity on them without explicit denial of that activity? She should not have to deny him- that violation of her space should be outright unacceptable without explicit consent. How is sending the message that she cannot be secure from unwanted advances in her own home not actively coercive?
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 
Pete, it might help to realize that Pyrtolin is talking about elements of culture that are problematic and may contribute to a rape culture, not equating those elements to rape.

In other words, showing up with a boombox isn't itself a crime or all that bad by itself, but might reflect a lack of respect for the other person's preferences that could potentially contribute to a tendency to ignore a lack of consent to sexual activity.

I do think it's coercive to convey the idea that "it's going to be easier for you to agree to be involved with me than to make me go away". It could be very mildly coercive, or worse than that. "I'm going to be on your property playing music unless you do something about it - either agree with what I want or *make* me leave" is that sort of artificial consequence that Tom was talking about. I think the Say Anything example is a very mild sort, but it can be useful to look at the attitudes it reflects and the messages it sends. But don't make the mistake that anyone is arguing it is the *same* as raping someone.

I wouldn't go as far as I think Pyrtolin seems to be going. It's probably unrealistic to live by the ideal that relationships and agreements always form and continue through mutual, diffident invitations. When my ex-wife decided to divorce me, I went through a period of pressuring her to change her mind, and I'm not sure it would be right to expect someone in my position not to. I don't think I did anything coercive - I didn't threaten to take the children away from her, or to stiff her on alimony. I did apply pressure in pointing out that we'd both be a lot poorer and there would likely be some negative effects on the children. I told her that I thought she was being short sighted and selfish. I think that counts as pressure, and I *didn't* want to respect her agency and power to make the decision. But in the end I didn't try to coerce the result I wanted, and she retained that power. (And for the record I came around - she was right, divorce was the right move.)

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:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Then you need to articulate what you mean. Coercion involves threat or intimidation to force a change.

Coercion uses pressure of any sore, including threat and intimidation to force a change.
The key point is to "force a change." Most examples that you've criticised don't force a change (unless you posit the helpless female mentality - which you seem to believe you've "refuted" though I don't think you ever use that word correctly).
quote:
Persusasion does not force a change. This is why coercion leads to legal sanction and persuasion does not. (By what you say elsewhere you seem to be confusing what it takes to legally demonstrate coercion with what is actually fundamentally coercive, which is begging the question, since our legal standards are set by what we culturally want to accept as coercive, not what actually is coercive.)
Our legal standards are set at a line where we are comfortable punishing the conduct. They give us a clear guide on the minimum. Social convention exists in part to give us clear guides on the optimal. Though both often fail in their mission.

Best I can figure, your version of this exists to discourage behavior that you disapprove of, in an attempt to change societies perceptions. It's only fair to ask if you've got the right end goal in mind, which I clearly think you do not.

Coercion we all agree is unacceptable as its routinely defined. Since you want to go beyond that to pseduo-coercion (which is really just persistent persuasion) we can try to address that.
quote:
quote:
You seem to recognise this when you speak of "pressure" rather than coercion in the next sentence, which seems an attempt to blur the line.
It does not blur the line. It defines the line.
It blurs the line. Pressure is amphorus and subjectively defined, its the essense of not having a line as you've used it. I know enough women, who feel pressure just by being asked on a date even if they like the guy, that makes it useless as a good test of coercion.

Coercion requires something inappropriate about the pressure, not an assumption that it's innately inappropriate.
quote:
If you are applying pressure, then you are being coercive, not simply persuasive.
False, you are only being coercive if the pressure amounts to taking away a free choice (this is why we have the friggin word coercion).
quote:
If you ask me whether you should paint a wall blue or green, I can present my opinion on my perceived merits of green without in any way implying that you should agree to those opinions or my conclusions. As soon as I shift from simply offering my view to suggesting that you should agree to my view, I've moved from persuasion to coercion. The difference is between giving you information that supports my view while still allowing you to make the choice completely freely (persuasion), or applying pressure to you to conform to my view (coercion).
No. You could offer me $50 bucks to do it your way, pressure but not coercion. You could threaten to tell everyone that I wet the bed at your house during a sleep over when I was 8, pressure but not coercion. You could threaten not to spend any time in the room any more, pressure but not coercion. Or you could credibly threaten to reveal my sexuality when I'm not out of the closet knowing it would cause me severe angst, and then you'd be coercive.

Persuasion includes not only logical arguments but also conditional ones and even promises of benefits or penalties. Coercion represents a marked shift in the intensity.

This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument that causes a kid to be expelled for bringing a lego figure's plastic gun to school.
quote:
Who cares about legally actionable? That's a complete red herring. No all coercion is successful. That doesn't mean that it's not coercive and that it does not do some degree of social damage to the person that it's applied to and the society that blesses it as acceptable.
Society doesn't bless coercion as acceptable. Again that's why we have the real word. It's pretty much the specific word for what is NOT acceptable, and as such it hits the legal standards, which again are intended to set the minimum standard. So yes it is relevant.

I agree though not all coercion is sucessfull. But for it to amount to coercion there has to be a potential substantive consequence attached to resisting it.
quote:
Pressure characterizes it. Any amount is impermissible.
And as a statement of philosophy I reject that. I reject all zero tolerance policies irrationally applied without regard to circumstance.
quote:
The fact that people give a nod to the pressure used in the movie is the fundamental problem; it perpetuates the cultural meme that force is justified, as long as it's not "too much" force. You can ignore someones wishes as long as you only harass them a little just as long as it doesn't exceed the level of harassment that we want to be able to apply in our own affairs by too much.
No. They aren't 'giving a nod to the pressure', they are in fact rejecting your conclusion that this amounts to a pressure that we should protect people from. She absolutely free to tell him to leave, to call the cops, to choose to continue to NOT DATE him. But he too is absolutely free to continue to offer the possibility to her, that isn't a use of force (again absent a treatment of women as fragile beings incapable of using their will).
quote:
quote:
I don't agree. I think we're talking abot social damaging behavior that doesn't undermine people's will.
As soon as you stop respecting someone's will and act against it, you are undermining them.
Actually no, that's a gross oversimplification that comes from your habit of talking in generalities rather than specifics. Whether you respect someone may or may not be implicated. You can certainly disagree and act against them. And trying to get them to change their mind is not inherently disrespectful, that's where the concept of forcing them to change their mind comes in.
quote:
quote:
I think you're undervaluing the ability of women to make an independent decision.
No, that's an unfounded assertion that you're making up that I have already explicitly refuted.
I think it's inherent in your believe that mild forms of persuasion amount to "forcing someone to change their mind". That necessitates a belief that some thinking persons are lesser thinking persons than others.

I would be interesting in seeing this "refutation" you made.
quote:
quote:
It's not taking away a woman's will if I bring her a box of chocolates and that turns out to have been instrumental in changing the uncourse of our evening from a planned dumping to a planned (wow I almost went with the rhyme, but you get the idea).
Sure- but right there you also characterize the other side of the line. You brought a gift that ended up influencing her decision. You did not bring the gift intending to buy her decision with it instead it was simply a statement of who you are that helped her freely reach a decision. HAd you been trying to use it to forcefully change her mind (or promising such to her as a reward from changing her mind, instead of offering it freely as a gift without expectations, then it would become an actively manipulative behavoir; coercion rather than persuasion.
So her friend told me ahead of time that she was going to dump me because I never bring her spontaneous gifts, and that's why I bought them then what. To release the moral ambiguity of the potnetial deception, after we're at her place but before the act I tell her what her friend said but it no longer matters to her.

By the way, even in proferring the above example, I still absolutely disagree with you that buying a box of chocolates even if my intent is manipulative could constitute coercion.
quote:
The notion that "persistence" should matter already falsely implies that consent is something that can be earned (effectively, something that can be bought with proper payment over time).
You've gone off the rails. Not everything reduces to mercantilism. Nothing about what I said is asserting that like in a video game that if you persist in talking to a specific "character" you will eventually get a reward.

Instead, I'm acknowledging that we're compatible with a lot of people, though not necessarily at the exact moment we're available, and they don't always see it right at first. Persistence is the act of continuing to give them the opportunity to see how wonderfull you are. Everyone I know has someone they dated who they didn't at first think they would date, and someone else they never dated notwithstanding that such person tried to make themselves repeatedly. Nothing about that involves coercion or behavior that should be prohibitted.
quote:
The distinction between the two is entirely cultural- again, it serves to let us pretend that there's an acceptable level of coercive behavior that we will allow because it lets us avoid confronting the fact that we still implicitly hold the idea that consent is something that can be bought or sold with the proper investment of effort, and not something that should be the full free choice of the person granting it or not.
No you've jumped back to coercion again. We don't accept a level of coercive behavior. Coercion is specifically standard for what is not acceptable.

We accept that people are entitled to keep trying, to promise benefits (unless it should be illegal for hot women to marry older stockbrokers, or starving musisians to marry female lawyers), or punishments (if we can't date, I'm afraid I can't be your friend, it's just too painfull). We draw a line on the otherside of these for a good reason, not for something that represents a pathological acceptence of some form of abuse that presumes enfantilism of our wills.
quote:
Building a relitionship with someone, showing them who you are as a person without regard to whatever sexual desires you might be feeling, and accepting that they may never take or feel comfortable expressing a sexual interest in you.
Last I checked the best advice from pyschologists is that we should be able to be open about our sexual needs and desires. I don't see advocating deliberate sexual repression in the name of a "false" friendship - since you're really interested in a sexual relationship but apparently too noble to ask for it - is a step forward for anyone.
quote:
That's a good form of persuasion. It presents your merits and qualities, while leaving the choice fully in their hands.
Every sexual act involves the choices of at least too people, what you are suggested is devoid of at least half the equation.
quote:
Badgering someone for a romantic relationship, presenting qualities you think they'd like as a tool to manipulate them or buy their affections, disrespecting explicitly stated desires on their part in favor of asserting your own- those are all coercive and reflect directly on the level of interpersonal violence that we try to pretend is healthy in our interactions with each other.
Well you sort of bring up a fair point. There are lines that are often crossed on this. Moving persistence to harassment for instance. Moving normal attempts at persuasive to coercion. But those are lines that are in fact best handled by the legal requirements, the minimum accepted standards. That leaves some room for error. This not appropriately solved by an effort to deliberately manipulate social policy to make people feel guilty about normal and appropriate behaviors.

[ August 13, 2014, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 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:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.

When you suggest that someone should be able to earn sex through persistence, you are, in fact making the argument that someone who is sufficiently persistent is owed sex. Otherwise there would be no value in suggesting that persistence is a useful tactic for obtaining it.
Lol. That's the worst strawman ever. I have never said that someone earns sex. The idea doesn't even make sense in my world view where I think women are capable of making autonomous decisions even when they are subject to manipulation. It's symptomatic of the mercantile view that your are expressing.

The value in persistence isn't "earning" sex, the value in persistence is getting mroe opportunity to make a connection. It's the connection that sometimes leads to the sex, not a gameboy version of continuing to talk to a woman.

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:
The key point is to "force a change." Most examples that you've criticised don't force a change (unless you posit the helpless female mentality - which you seem to believe you've "refuted" though I don't think you ever use that word correctly).
You keep pretending that I'm only talking about women here. I have already pointed out that that's a false assertion. This kind of behavoir is unacceptable and damaging whether it's applied to men or women. Our society just happens to bless greater amounts of of when applied to women in the specific context we're discussing.
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And now you're arguing a point that no one has made, since to my knowledge no one here has ever argued that a man is owed sex.

When you suggest that someone should be able to earn sex through persistence
I don't think Seriati said that "someone should be able to earn sex through persistence." I think you're distorting what we said, just like you distorted the plot of Say Anything.
Then the idea that persistence is an acceptable means of earning consent is off the table? The concept that consent is something earnable in the first place?
Of course. Consent isn't "earned;" it's bestowed.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
So in Pyr's world, pressure only involves threatening something that you're entitled to? If someone threatens something you love and desire but aren't entitled to, that's not pressure?

How can one threaten your entitlement
to access something if you are not entitled to access it in the first place?

quote:
Anyway, Cusack in Say Anything is entitled to play music on her property unless she asks him to leave and desist.
You're seriously suggesting that property rights imply consent to any third party activity on them without explicit denial of that activity?[/QUOTE]

No, not to ANY third party activity. She's engaged in a romantic relationship with the guy, and he's been invited to her house previously. Under those circumstances, she'd need to explicitly tell him to not come back in order to be a trespasser.

quote:
She should not have to deny him- that violation of her space should be outright unacceptable without explicit consent.
Depends on which space we're talking about, Pyr. And at some level you must understand that, otherwise you'd not have twerked the facts to have him "cornering her in her house" rather than standing in the driveway playing a boom box on low volume.

quote:
How is sending the message that she cannot be secure from unwanted advances in her own home not actively coercive?
How do you know the advance was unwanted? How would he know? I've broken up with a woman and welcomed her attempt to reconcile. Persistence is appropriate if someone you care about has indicated that she is dumping you because she doesn't feel she matters enough to you.

quote:
I do think it's coercive to convey the idea that "it's going to be easier for you to agree to be involved with me than to make me go away".
I agree. That exact coercive message might be appropriate in a litigation setting, where one side is suing to enforce a contract. ("it's going to be easier for you to agree to fulfill your contract to me than to make me go away".) Inasmuch as a marriage is a contract, I think that under some circumstances it might be reasonable to say, "I will fight this divorce out in court unless you agree to attempt counseling with me first." (I considered doing that, but didn't ultimately). But what I call legal coercion, Pyr seems to call noncoercive and even nonpressure because of some "entitlement."
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:
It blurs the line. Pressure is amphorus and subjectively defined, its the essense of not having a line as you've used it. I know enough women, who feel pressure just by being asked on a date even if they like the guy, that makes it useless as a good test of coercion.
No, it highlights the problem. It is only because of the coercive context that we exist in, that agreeing to such or disagreeing to such would result in consequences beyond the direct natural one of going on a date or not, that the question creates pressure. Especially in context of the cultural assertion that the answer to such a question will reflect directly on the asker's worth and status as a person. Even more there's a cultural meme of "persistence" that suggests that the asker isn't honestly asking and will resist taking a clear no for an answer.
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 scifibum:
I wouldn't go as far as I think Pyrtolin seems to be going. It's probably unrealistic to live by the ideal that relationships and agreements always form and continue through mutual, diffident invitations. When my ex-wife decided to divorce me, I went through a period of pressuring her to change her mind, and I'm not sure it would be right to expect someone in my position not to. I don't think I did anything coercive - I didn't threaten to take the children away from her, or to stiff her on alimony. I did apply pressure in pointing out that we'd both be a lot poorer and there would likely be some negative effects on the children. I told her that I thought she was being short sighted and selfish. I think that counts as pressure, and I *didn't* want to respect her agency and power to make the decision. But in the end I didn't try to coerce the result I wanted, and she retained that power.

Well-said and agreed.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would say that, no, it's not that good, but it's as important a piece of shared cultural experience as The Breakfast Club, which is also not really a very good movie but is still a mandatory watch.

See, I didn't watch The Breakfast Club either, dispite the fact that everybody in high school was talking about it. It obviously was an important part of shared cultural experience, which I chose to skip. I havn't seen any of those Molly Ringwald movies, though I met my wife at a concert performed by the 80's cover band, The Molly Ringwalds.

I'm still not sure if I've been sold on the idea of seeing Say Anything. It seems possible that I have been saved from some poisonous rape culture influence that would have turned me into a lecherous predator, in much the same way that the Three Stooges and Tom & Jerry turned me into a violent functional sociopath with obvious anti-liberal views and values.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  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