This is topic Is there such a thing as a "rape culture" in America? in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/16542.html

Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
The term gets bandied about quite a bit and all of my feminist friends believe it to be a fact, but others insist it is a completely made-up problem.

I personally believe that we do have a society that makes women second-class citizens and that there is a tendency to "blame the victim", however I don't believe having sex with a girl who has had a drink is the same as raping her.

I'm on the fence on this so I thought I'd see what you people think?

[ July 28, 2014, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: RacerX ]
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
I don't believe having sex with a girl who has had a drink is the same as raping her.

"What is that supposed to mean c**k-man-oppressor? Pack up your rape culture and take a hike! We're not interested in your penis!"

[ July 28, 2014, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: Grant ]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I'm not sure what "rape culture" is, but in the US there is often a tendency to blame the victim, a shortage of rape cases going to trial, and a lack of concern by law enforcement about investigating rape cases.

See Steubenville, the backlog of rape kits, or the rumor mill in your community when a rape is reported.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
The term gets bandied about quite a bit and all of my feminist friends believe it to be a fact, but others insist it is a completely made-up problem.

I personally believe that we do have a society that makes women second-class citizens and that there is a tendency to "blame the victim", however I don't believe having sex with a girl who has had a drink is the same as raping her.

I'm on the fence on this so I thought I'd see what you people think?

I think there are a number of rape cultures in America. There's a fundamentalist Muslim rape culture, although this isn't as sunk in as it is in Europe. There's a rape culture in many high US schools, fueled by facebook. There's a rape culture in the prisons that pervades much of American thinking in the justice system, but that involves rape of male victims, which most "rape-culture-bleaters" don't care about. I think that a few years ago, there still were vestiges of a generalized American rape culture. Rape victims blamed for how they were dressed. Shreds of that old previously pervasive rape culture continue among the dregs of white trash.

But discussions I've participated in where pop-feminists bandy around the "rape culture" term involve blatantly dishonest distortions of the modesty culture. It's a big lie to say that all modesty culture is equal to rape culture. Dress modesty codes exist to avoid distracting others or making them uncomfortable with an inappropriately sexualized atmosphere. A woman shouldn't walk into a business or office setting with a low cut shirt any more than a man should. That doesn't mean that someone that dresses immodestly "deserves to be raped" or somehow brings rape upon herself/himself. It's simply bad manners and bad taste to walk into church in a bikini.

It's OK to disagree with the modesty culture, but it's dishonest to pretend that a rule against distraction is part of "the rape culture."
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I think that a few years ago, there still were vestiges of a generalized American rape culture. Rape victims blamed for how they were dressed. Shreds of that old previously pervasive rape culture continue among the dregs of white trash.
And online, among self-righteous nerds. Seriously. There's quite a sizable and loathsome contingent of jerks on the Internet who, while not falling into the category of "white trash," fully believe that women are prizes that they should "deserve" and, when they fail to award themselves to the deserving, are being ungrateful or selfish and should be "taken."
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
It's OK to disagree with the modesty culture, but it's dishonest to pretend that a rule against distraction is part of "the rape culture."
The reason the rule against "distraction" is part of rape culture is that it makes women (usually) responsible for controlling men's sexuality. On the flip side, it promotes a narrative where men are helpless in the face of sexual desire. Which tends to result in the marginalization of male victims of sexual assault, especially when women are the aggresors.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
It's OK to disagree with the modesty culture, but it's dishonest to pretend that a rule against distraction is part of "the rape culture."
The reason the rule against "distraction" is part of rape culture is that it makes women (usually) responsible for controlling men's sexuality.
Yes, that's the party line, but it's a crock. Women don't like it when a man exposes himself to them on the street. We don't pretend that laws against exhibitionism are making men responsible for controlling women's sexuality. The female students that got the naked guy on Berkley kicked off weren't making him responsible for their sexuality.

Men are routinely arrested for streaking, mooning, etc. That doesn't mean that they deserve to be raped.

Most discussions of "rape culture" are cynical attempts to exploit rape victims in order to demand social changes that won't make any difference in rape stats.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I think that a few years ago, there still were vestiges of a generalized American rape culture. Rape victims blamed for how they were dressed. Shreds of that old previously pervasive rape culture continue among the dregs of white trash.
And online, among self-righteous nerds. Seriously. There's quite a sizable and loathsome contingent of jerks on the Internet who, while not falling into the category of "white trash," fully believe that women are prizes that they should "deserve" and, when they fail to award themselves to the deserving, are being ungrateful or selfish and should be "taken."
That's a separate rape culture, like the Muslim one. Not a remnant of the previously dominant culture but the product of dark webspace.

Banning judges from enforcing a dress code in court isn't going to make a dent in the internet geek rape culture, Tom.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
That's a separate rape culture, like the Muslim one.
No, I don't think so. It's not like these people only live on the Internet; they just only express themselves freely on the Internet.

quote:
Banning judges from enforcing a dress code in court isn't going to make a dent in the internet geek rape culture, Tom.
You're the only person talking about dress codes, Pete.

-----------

quote:
Men are routinely arrested for streaking, mooning, etc.
And now I'm going to talk briefly about dress codes. Because it's worth noting that female streakers are also arrested, but men going without a shirt almost never are. I wouldn't've mentioned this if someone hadn't tried to draw an equivalence, but the idea that dress codes are equally "oppressive" is laughable.

[ July 28, 2014, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Are you talking about women showing up naked to work? Because that isn't what is generally meant when people complain about women dressing too provocatively.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Jack,if 'distraction' were cited as the reason for laws against public nudity you'd have a point. But 'distraction' is usually reserved for things like hem-lines and such. I haven't seen anyone say that skirts must go below the knee or men will feel uncomfortable.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The reason the rule against "distraction" is part of rape culture is that it makes women (usually) responsible for controlling men's sexuality.

How do you square that view with the rules on sexual harrassment in the work place? Men are required to moderate behavior to avoid creating a hostile work environment, yet there is nothing about what a woman does that contributes to the environment? I'm not saying that this is an unfair result, but it does seem incredibly inconsistent, particularly as we move to a place where we require that everyone be treated equally - and pretend that there are no fundemental differences between us (or rather assert that any that are apparent are the result of social conditioning and not innate).
quote:
On the flip side, it promotes a narrative where men are helpless in the face of sexual desire.
I don't think men are helpless. But it's foolish not to recognize that some percentage of men are scum, and that they take encouragement from any number of things about a situation to act poorly. If you've ever seen a flashing video, you've seen a large number of men standing around watching, and a couple of men who try to grope. Those guys don't seem to grope when the clothes are on.
quote:
Which tends to result in the marginalization of male victims of sexual assault, especially when women are the aggresors.
I find that depressing. Men are marginalized even in severe cases of assualt. They have no chance in the cases where both people are drunk and take advantage of each other.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The reason the rule against "distraction" is part of rape culture is that it makes women (usually) responsible for controlling men's sexuality.

How do you square that view with the rules on sexual harrassment in the work place? Men are required to moderate behavior to avoid creating a hostile work environment, yet there is nothing about what a woman does that contributes to the environment?

By pointing out the difference between harassment which is something done to an employee (of either sex)- hitting on them, making crude comments about them, attaching job security or promotions to sexual compliance, touching them inappropriately - and wearing attractive clothes.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The sexual harrassment policy at my job is gender neutral. It may be assumed that men are the ones who would engage in inappropriate behavior, but, as written, (if the policy is well-written) any gender can engage in harrassing behavior.

The point I'm trying to make is that some narratives and beliefs promote the idea that men can't choose not to grope. Dress codes which claim preventing 'distractions' is the reason women must wear skirts to below the knee are suggesting that men can't ignore the offered views. That the only agent capable of controlling men's desire is the object of it.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
By pointing out the difference between harassment which is something done to an employee (of either sex)- hitting on them, making crude comments about them, attaching job security or promotions to sexual compliance, touching them inappropriately - and wearing attractive clothes.

So why did you pick the clear examples?

Where are the charges filed over off color jokes between consenting people that are overheard? Or the questions about racy pictures on the desk? Or claims filed in the grey area between an appropriate complimnet and a border line offensive one?

I didn't bring up the point to assert that clear sexual harrasment is okay - it's definitely not. I brought it up because it's an inconsistent philosophy. Is there any dress - no matter how inappropriate - that crosses the line? If not how do you rationalize that complete lack of external focus against sexual harrasment claims that entirely based on an external focus argument? How do you rationalize that a woman is not responsible for the impact of what she wears, but a man is responsible for the impact of the magazine he reads?

EDIT - I am curious on that, I don't mean to imply it can't be done. I distinguish between the two myself, largely on the basis of personal responsibility. The men involved are making a decision regardless of percieved provocation to act illegally. Whereas the harrassment occurs without a decision (other than to be offended).

[ July 28, 2014, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
And online, among self-righteous nerds. Seriously. There's quite a sizable and loathsome contingent of jerks on the Internet who, while not falling into the category of "white trash," fully believe that women are prizes that they should "deserve" and, when they fail to award themselves to the deserving, are being ungrateful or selfish and should be "taken."

That's a separate rape culture, like the Muslim one. Not a remnant of the previously dominant culture but the product of dark webspace.[/QB]
And just about every teen romantic comedy from the 70's and 80's. The web may reflect its worst aspects, but the idea that a guy is entitled to "win" a girl as a prize for doing all the right things, saying the right word- basically for being a predator disguising themselves as a friend, is deeply embedded across our culture.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Are you talking about women showing up naked to work? Because that isn't what is generally meant when people complain about women dressing too provocatively.

It's called "provocative" when a woman does it, but "unprofessional" when a man does it. Have a guy show up dressed like a gigolo, shirt unbuttoned to the navel, showing most of his bare chest, and he'd face sanctions as serious as any woman showing that much cleavage.

As far as Feminism pretends to be about equality, "rape culture" cries are an end-run around equality, making it OK to demand that women be allowed to dress in ways which men wouldn't be allowed to dress.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
And online, among self-righteous nerds. Seriously. There's quite a sizable and loathsome contingent of jerks on the Internet who, while not falling into the category of "white trash," fully believe that women are prizes that they should "deserve" and, when they fail to award themselves to the deserving, are being ungrateful or selfish and should be "taken."

That's a separate rape culture, like the Muslim one. Not a remnant of the previously dominant culture but the product of dark webspace.

And just about every teen romantic comedy from the 70's and 80's. [/QB]
I already said that vestiges of the generalized rape culture endured up to the very early 1990s.

If you want to fight the 1980s rape culture, then exit stage left in your little time machine.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The sexual harrassment policy at my job is gender neutral. It may be assumed that men are the ones who would engage in inappropriate behavior, but, as written, (if the policy is well-written) any gender can engage in harrassing behavior.

The point I'm trying to make is that some narratives and beliefs promote the idea that men can't choose not to grope.

Your argument is apparently less enlightened than your work code, since you're falsely assuming that modesty codes affect only women, and protect only men. In fact, women are at least likely to enforce modesty codes over other women.

quote:
Dress codes which claim preventing 'distractions' is the reason women must wear skirts to below the knee
Why should women get to bare their legs in situations where men aren't allowed to?

quote:
are suggesting that men can't ignore the offered views.
It's still a lie for pseudofeminists to say this has to do with "rape culture" unless you construe being looked at as being raped.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Are you talking about women showing up naked to work? Because that isn't what is generally meant when people complain about women dressing too provocatively.

It's called "provocative" when a woman does it, but "unprofessional" when a man does it.
And right there you hit the nail of the fundamental inequity on its head, even though you don't seem to realize it. The man is criticized because his clothing choice reflects poorly on him and his overall level of professionalism. The woman, instead, is criticized because of the reactions to her choices in regards to the sexual desires of other men.

Both may be unprofessional in a given context, but the version that implies being a sex object is reserved for women.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
I already said that vestiges of the generalized rape culture endured up to the very early 1990s.

If you want to fight the 1980s rape culture, then exit stage left in your little time machine.

You're suggesting that the 80's are so far behind us that there are few, if any adults left today that were inculcated in its tropes and continue to promote them as cultural norms?
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
I already said that vestiges of the generalized rape culture endured up to the very early 1990s.

If you want to fight the 1980s rape culture, then exit stage left in your little time machine.

You're suggesting that the 80's are so far behind us that there are few, if any adults left today that were inculcated in its tropes and continue to promote them as cultural norms?
No. I'm saying that some things have changed since the 1980s.

Are you suggesting that nothing has changed since the 1980s and that there aren't ANY norms, tropes and memes that were significant in the 1980s that are no longer significantly part of the dominant culture?

Feminism has always been a movement to protest the sins of the previous generation. In the 1970s, feminists were screaming about the evils of the 1950s; many feminists are still stuck there, but a few have moved on to address issues of the 1970s and 1980s. Maybe by 2040 some of them will get caught up to addressing how things are in 2014.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Your argument is apparently less enlightened than your work code, since you're falsely assuming that modesty codes affect only women, and protect only men. In fact, women are at least likely to enforce modesty codes over other women.
I'm not making that assumption. And it's not news that women police the behavior of other women. That has nothing to do with how problematic the policing is (or isn't).

quote:
Why should women get to bare their legs in situations where men aren't allowed to?
Why must women wear skirts?

quote:
It's still a lie for pseudofeminists to say this has to do with "rape culture" unless you construe being looked at as being raped.
Rape culture is about beliefs and practices that encourage rape. Since the arguments for modesty oftem make women responsible for regulating male sexuality, those arguments are a manifestation of rape culture. Arguing that men can't refuse to look, given certain provocation, leads quite easily to that men can't refuse to rape, given certain provocation.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
And no doubt whiny jerks will be whining about how feminists of 2040 are still daring to complain about the way things were a few years ago, because things will have changed so much by then that all their complaints will be outdated and invalid.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Your argument is apparently less enlightened than your work code, since you're falsely assuming that modesty codes affect only women, and protect only men. In fact, women are at least likely to enforce modesty codes over other women.
I'm not making that assumption. And it's not news that women police the behavior of other women. That has nothing to do with how problematic the policing is (or isn't).
The point is that in our culture, that immodest dress in formal situations creates a distraction, and that to lump all modesty with "rape culture" is mental fisting.


quote:
Why should women get to bare their legs in situations where men aren't allowed to?---
Why must women wear skirts?

Who said women must wear skirts? I only said that short skirts should be impermissible on men or on women, in the courthouse, or in other situations where we want people to focus.


quote:
It's still a lie for pseudofeminists to say this has to do with "rape culture" unless you construe being looked at as being raped.
------
Rape culture is about beliefs and practices that encourage rape. Since the arguments for modesty oftem make women responsible for regulating male sexuality, those arguments are a manifestation of rape culture.

Hasty generalization fallacy. SOME arguments for modesty encourage rape, and those arguments should be labeled rape culture. OTOH, other arguments for modesty do not foster a rape culture, and to label them as such is cynical exploitation of rape victims for political purposes that don't in any way prevent rape.

quote:
Arguing that men can't refuse to look, given certain provocation, leads quite easily to that men can't refuse to rape, given certain provocation.
Straw man. No one said that "men can't refuse to look." Refusing to look takes concentration and is itself a distraction. If you're taking a test, it's reasonable to request removal of distractions.

In some situations, immodest dress creates a hostile environment.
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
Someone made a comment above how this is a problem among "white trash." I'd submit it's a much bigger problem in black gangster culture, and I say that as a black man.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Someone made a comment above how this is a problem among "white trash." I'd submit it's a much bigger problem in black gangster culture, and I say that as a black man.

I'm not black, but I'd agree that there's another rape culture among the black gangstas... but I don't think it's a continuation of the previous culture as exists among white trash. Black Ganstas don't fixate on a woman's clothing as justification for rape. It's more about the speaker's power. It's an outgrowth of the prison male-male rape culture.
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
Look at rap songs and the vocabulary built in. "Ho," "hoochie-mama," "baby-mama," etc. Even compared to some Islamist dictatorships (though certainly not all or even most) women are treated worse in black America.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
Nothing's misogynistic about "baby-momma". It has a counterpart, "baby-daddy." The term identifies a co-parent, regardless of previous marital status. That's a healthy, pro-family term to have in the lexicon.

If you have a kid or kids with a woman, then she's your baby-momma and you're her baby-daddy, i.e. daddy of her babies.

It's not healthy to have a norm of multiple baby-daddies and baby mommies, but it's very healthy to have a term that identifies the person you made kids with.
 
Posted by Seneca (Member # 6790) on :
 
How is it pro-public to have a term other than wife to refer to your child's mother? Quite the opposite, it's a way of identifying the child's mother when the father is involved in multiple relationships and visa - versa with the father and "baby daddy."
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Jack, you seem to be conflating dress codes based on professionalism and formal wear with modesty culture. For instance, most 'modesty' codes (see mainstream LDS) require women to wear skirts, whereas many professional dress codes are less restrictive.

Your arguments about distraction would have more merit if the rules were actually applied equally to men and women in practice. If a woman wearing trousers is distracting, why isn't a man wearing trousers distracting?

[ July 28, 2014, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
I've heard both terms be used in multi-mommy and multi-daddy situations, and also in situations where the speaker has only one baby daddy or baby mommy.

I agree that marriage is a better way to go, but better to recognize the relationship than to not even acknowledge it.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Are we still pretending that Jack isn't Pete?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Who says that a man in trousers isn't distracting?

http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/

quote:
There has been a lot of talking, debating, and hand-wringing among Christian bloggers lately about modesty; particularly yoga pants, making men uncomfortable by being attractive, and in general, ways in which to combat everyone’s favorite “evil”: lust.

Well, I’d like to hop on the modesty bandwagon and discuss something that I have personally struggled with for many, many years.

[deep breath]

Suits.

Specifically, men in suits.
- See more at: http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/#sthash.mlhhdW0M.dpuf



[ July 28, 2014, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I am. Pete's got a different flavor of anti-feminist than Jack's been showing.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Jack, you seem to be conflating dress codes based on professionalism and formal wear with modesty culture. For instance, most 'modesty' codes (see mainstream LDS) require women to wear skirts, whereas many professional dress codes are less restrictive.

Just to clarify, it's only at worship services where Mormon women are told to wear skirts and dresses. That's a formal situation, just like telling the men to wear collar shirts and ties to church. At LDS ward picnics, school, work, LDS women wear slacks or jeans, so it's not a modesty issue.

I think it's stupid to require women to wear skirts, even at church. Mormons have their own sort of formality. Like some feminist yowling, LDS dress standards react to an obsolete past. For example, men are discouraged from long hair and beards, which is a reaction against the 1960s and 1970s. I don't think the skirt rule promotes rape, but I do think it places an unreasonable burden on women, without promoting the interests of modesty. Seems to me that women's slacks are more modest than skirts. Short skirts should be allowed in the same situation where a man would be allowed to wear shorts the same length.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Hm. I disagree, actually. They're pretty much the exact same sort of anti-feminist. Note that Jack is insisting that "rape culture" is divided up into a whole bunch of separate cultures, but that apparently it's not a problem anymore in mainstream culture -- which apparently he uses to mean white middle-class people -- and is too often used as a weapon by whiny, over-aggressive culture warriors against expectations of modesty.

That's Pete in a nutshell. Coupled with the defense of "baby-daddy" as a term to maintain the relationship of biological fathers to their children, he's either Pete or someone so identical as to be functionally indistinguishable.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Are we still pretending that Jack isn't Pete?

I am Jack's complete lack of denial.

I do wish you would stop pretending that you were saying something useful or informative every time you repeat that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I think it's useful to expose a sock puppet, actually. What I don't understand is why you think it's useful to maintain one.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Note that Jack is insisting that "rape culture" is divided up into a whole bunch of separate cultures, but that apparently it's not a problem anymore in mainstream culture -- which apparently he uses to mean white middle-class people -- and is too often used as a weapon by whiny, over-aggressive culture warriors against expectations of modesty.

That sentence needs to be put out of its misery.

I didn't call feminists "whiny." I said that they are liars, when they pretend that all modesty issues relate to "rape culture."

NH on the other hand does recognize that there are professional and formal standards which legitimately militate against scanty dress or nudity in formal and professional situations. So NH is not a liar, but simply being inconsistent, since he doesn't recognize that a religious worship services may have its own dress standards analogous to formal and professional codes.

OTOH NH may simply have been misinformed as to the nature of LDS dress standards, and doesn't realize that LDS women aren't told to wear skirts except when are at worship services.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
While they seem to share some beliefs, Jack's style strikes me as sufficiently different.

In any case, if someone's pretending to be a different person and the mod isn't objecting, I'll treat them as a different person.

Jack, thanks for the clarification.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
I am Jack's yawning revenge.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think it's useful to expose a sock puppet, actually.

If I'm a sock puppet, then you have exposed me. Now do you have anything to say on topic?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I said that they are liars, when they pretend that all modesty issues relate to "rape culture."
Find a feminist who's done so. Note: someone who points out the imbalanced expectations between male and female "modesty" and notes that it creates an undue and imbalanced burden on women to limit their assumed sexual availability is not pretending that "all modesty issues relate to 'rape culture.'" You're arguing against straw women, here.

Allow me to point out that enforcement of things like the BYU modesty code are remarkably biased against women. Women jogging in yoga pants have been "prosecuted" under the "form-fitting" part of that code, while men jogging or biking in spandex have not been. I suspect that you'll find this is true of most "modesty" expectations: that when they're enforced in non-egregious cases, they are enforced primarily against women precisely because women's bodies are more likely to be noticed.

Such codes really are only a matter of degree from codes that mandate a hijab; such rules exist for the exact same reasons.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Who says that a man in trousers isn't distracting?

http://thesaltcollective.org/modesty-whensuitsbecomestumblingblock/

quote:
There has been a lot of talking, debating, and hand-wringing among Christian bloggers lately about modesty; particularly yoga pants, making men uncomfortable by being attractive, and in general, ways in which to combat everyone’s favorite “evil”: lust.

If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man to respond to formal, worship and professional dress codes of this decade by pretending that they affirmed a rape culture.

You can't force a reasonable person to lust, but you can distract them. You can create an uncomfortable environment. And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

If a man can't show his chest or bare legs in a social situation, it isn't rape culture to say that the woman should cover up as much as we expect the man to.

Pop-feminists who use "rape culture" to demand a double-standard against men, are a disgrace to anything that could be called a civil rights movement.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Allow me to point out that enforcement of things like the BYU modesty code are remarkably biased against women.

BYU has standards that unreasonably oppress males (no facial hair and no sandals) as well as standards that unreasonably oppress females. If Jesus was ever to visit BYU, he'd get tossed out for beard, long hair, sandals, and body-piercing.

I agree that women have it even worse than men at BYU. Some jerk at the testing center wouldn't let my friend in because she didn't have a bra on. How did he know? Because he looked down her blouse when she signed in. That's not a typical day at BYU, but it happens.

Fortunately BYU standards don't apply outside of BYU. And the self righteous dweebs that sometimes make BYU hell, either grow out of it or move to Snowflake Arizona or Pleasant Grove Utah.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

Possibly true, but rarely the case in practice. The afore-mentioned LDS Church only allows men in positions of leadership, the source of explicit dress codes. Women are expected to follow these rules (as are men), but will never have any voice in what the rules actually are (whereas men are not similarly disenfranchised). If you don't think there is a connection between patriarchy and rape culture, you need to stop and think about what rape is actually about in the vast majority of cases (hint: it isn't sexual desire).
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I said that they are liars, when they pretend that all modesty issues relate to "rape culture."
Find a feminist who's done so.
Find a feminist who writes an OP on a mormon feminist blog who DOESN'T do so.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

And when the restrictions are equal as to which gender is allowed to do what, it's dishonest to claim that "rape culture" is involved.

Possibly true, but rarely the case in practice. The afore-mentioned LDS Church only allows men in positions of leadership, the source of explicit dress codes. Women are expected to follow these rules (as are men), but will never have any voice in what the rules actually are (whereas men are not similarly disenfranchised). If you don't think there is a connection between patriarchy and rape culture, you need to stop and think about what rape is actually about in the vast majority of cases (hint: it isn't sexual desire).
I already said rape is about power, and I pointed to the prisons as an example. Whether rape is about patriarchy depends on how you defend patriarchy. I imagine you might make up a definition of patriarchy that could be plausibly blamed for male/male prison rape. But you're blowing smoke when you blame LDS boys passing the sacrament for rape.

Show me stats showing that active LDS males are more likely to commit rape than others, and then let's talk. But if you hop on Marni's general big anti-mo feminist lie is to point to rape stats in Utah being higher than Maine (rather than comparing to other western states like California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Arizona) as evidence of LDS male priesthood causing rape, I will be unable to respect you in the morning.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not sure if we are having a conversation. No one so far has responded to my suggestion that dress codes be gender-neutral, i.e. it's OK to ban short skirts in situation where men can't wear short shorts. OK to show cleavage if a man can wear an open shirt that shows his chest.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
In other words, you have your head deep in the sand and are trying to argue from an assertion that doesn't actually align to reality. It's still pervasive, perhaps a little more subtle, but still as powerful as ever. The fact that it's easier for you to ignore doesn't mean that it's gone, and certainly doesn't mean that it's time to pat ourselves on the back and stop working on trying to fix the ongoing problems.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Leaving aside other potential confounds, using rape stats to judge the effect of modesty culture on the men seems prone to inaccuracy. It's not like marital rape is going to be reported, for example. If rape culture can be said to have an intent, gettting women to believe they don't have the right to refuse would be a big part of it.

No one's responded to the gender-neutral comment because it's not controversial.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If the discussions around these dress codes and such referred only to making people uncomfortable or being unprofessional, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not sure if we are having a conversation. No one so far has responded to my suggestion that dress codes be gender-neutral, i.e. it's OK to ban short skirts in situation where men can't wear short shorts. OK to show cleavage if a man can wear an open shirt that shows his chest.
LEaving aside that, as noted, the issue still exists at the enforcement level, that proposal is not even remotely gender neutral, given that you're specifying different clothes based on the sex of the wearer.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
@ Pyr, [DOH]

I'm saying that shorts should be the equivalent of a skirt. Obviously I have no problem with men wearing skirts or women wearing shorts, either. The issue is what body parts can you show in a particular setting.

If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I'm not aware of any dress code telling LDS women to wear skirts or dresses at worship services.

I am aware of a dress code for LDS women missionaries that bans pants, but those aren't guidelines for general membership of the church.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If we were having this conversation back in the 1980s, when there was a generalized sense that women "made men lust", it wouldn't be a blatantly dishonest straw man...
I find it fascinating that you think this attitude has vanished.
Straw man. I did not say it had vanished, I said that it's no longer pervasive, except among fundamentalist Muslims and white trash.
In other words, you have your head deep in the sand and are trying to argue from an assertion that doesn't actually align to reality. It's still pervasive, perhaps a little more subtle, but still as powerful as ever.
Because you said so. [Roll Eyes]

Rape acceptance is growing among social media but left-wing social masturbators are targeting the churches because of views that were pervasive back in the 1970s. Your movement betrays victims of sexual abuse by moving the target.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If rape culture can be said to have an intent, gettting women to believe they don't have the right to refuse would be a big part of it.


True. But that's not something being taught in many Christian churches ... the closest thing to that is the internet/social media fad of "Christian domestic discipline," which is nonconsensual misogynistic BDSM wrapped up in internet bible manglings.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

phil, wearing pants to church is a big deal for mormon feminists. I think it's second only to opening the priesthood to women for hot-button issues.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
Because you said so.

Because I discuss the issue regularly with people bearing the brunt of it, and I actually listen to what they say and their experiences, rather than pooh-poohing them because I'd like to believe otherwise.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
I'm not aware of any dress code telling LDS women to wear skirts or dresses at worship services.

I thought there was a written bulletin for how men and women should dress when attending the temple.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
I don't get the side track into religious rules. They don't have to be rational from a secular point of view.

Isn't the more serious question, the secular one? At lease in this country, no one is forced to follow a specific religion, or its doctrine. There's no reason that a church can't suffer a schism if some people feel a change is warranted. If anything, US churches schism too easily.

So what exactly is the relevance of 80's culture references? Is it like the same idea when you're talking about grandparents and racist attitudes to say that racism was the rule when they grew up? That may be where they come from, but what's relevant is how they interact with the world today, and the overall trend. The geeky 'deserving' guy ending up with the prom queen is stupid trope and it does make for unreasonable expectations (I know several guys who are alone in their forties because they believed they deserved a super model). But does that really contribute to a rape culture? Or just a pathetic one?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The geeky 'deserving' guy ending up with the prom queen is stupid trope and it does make for unreasonable expectations (I know several guys who are alone in their forties because they believed they deserved a super model). But does that really contribute to a rape culture?
I think it does, especially once you grant that things like "date rape" constitute rape. The whole Pick-Up Artist movement, which specializes in helping men identify weak-willed but attractive women and teaches them tricks to leverage their way into their beds, is essentially the promotion of sex through coercion, bullying, and deception. Whether that constitutes rape -- or whether a man willing to dehumanize a woman into a sexual target, plaything, or trophy would further dehumanize her into a target of violent rape -- is arguably a matter for debate, I suppose.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
The relevance of the reference to the 80's is that it's an easy and clear example of an attitude that is still pervasive and that most women have to fight off (or capitulate to) on a routine basis.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
True. But that's not something being taught in many Christian churches ... the closest thing to that is the internet/social media fad of "Christian domestic discipline," which is nonconsensual misogynistic BDSM wrapped up in internet bible manglings
I'm pretty sure christian theology still requires spouses to provide sex, though I imagine the implementation has changed. I suspect the mainstream churches suggest abstinence until counseling can resolve issues rather than lying back and thinking of England.

Sorry, Seriati, I'm a sucker for theology. As to your scenario, do you think that if people feel entitled to something, it will increase the chances of them trying to take it?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/examples-of-rape-culture/

http://www.safercampus.org/blog/2011/03/essential-concepts-how-patriarchy-and-rape-culture-hurt-men/

A couple of good bits of reading to get you on the ground with what's actualy meant by the term "rrape culture" as well as an actual feminist position on the matter rather than the assertions of someone for the sake of supporting the kind of argument they want to make.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
Because you said so.

Because I discuss the issue regularly with people bearing the brunt of it, and I actually listen to what they say and their experiences, rather than pooh-poohing them because I'd like to believe otherwise.
I have yet to pooh pooh anyone about their own experiences.

What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The relevance of the reference to the 80's is that it's an easy and clear example of an attitude that is still pervasive and that most women have to fight off (or capitulate to) on a routine basis.

And when we ask you for contemporary reference to demonstrate contemporary status quo, we're "pooh poohing" rape victims. [Roll Eyes]

Mind rape.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
See, NH? Pyr is still being evasive, refusing to address the issue of equality:
If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.

[ July 28, 2014, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Jack Squat ]
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

That's Pete in a nutshell. Coupled with the defense of "baby-daddy" as a term to maintain the relationship of biological fathers to their children, he's either Pete or someone so identical as to be functionally indistinguishable.

Last I checked, it was Seneca arguing for the rights of biological parents, and Pete arguing that fathers' rights vested through marriage.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.

Not to mention rape prevention campaigns that put the fault for rape entirely on women (Do this things to avoid being raped) as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist). Or from people leaping to the defense of people who have been accused of rape (even though the frequency of false accusations is extremely low) and even going as far as to demonize public figures that call for a fair trial to resolve the matter instead of trusting it to the court of popular opinion.

Just because the victim blaming is more subtle does not mean that it's not still pervasive.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
That's a terrible distortion of what Pyr said.

Since that's how you interpreted it, I removed the statement. I inferred that to be his position since he seemed using the skirt/shorts technicality to evade the issue of equal standards. I phrased shorts for men because men don't generally *want* to wear skirts. Other than Scottsmen.
How is pointing again to the fact that nominally equal standards are, in practice, enforced very unequally amount to evading the issue, rather than pointing out the disingenuity of trying to say that all you have to do is make the rules the same and pretending that the real problems will vanish?
See, NH? Pyr is still being evasive, refusing to address the issue of equality

No, I've presented the issue of equality. You keep trying to make false accusations on what was already clearly pointed out as a non-controversial red herring rather than actually addressing the issue of inequitable enforcement which commonly happens in practice.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
If a woman's allowed to wear shorts or a short skirt to work but men aren't allowed to wear shorts that show the same amount of leg, that's a hostile work environment where it's implied that some people's bodies are more professionally acceptable than others. A feminism that was actually about equality would recognize that.
And it does. But it's far more likely to get a situation where men can are allowed to wear shorts, or aren't punished for violating dress code, but women's clothing is heavily policed. That's also eliding the fact that when men are forbidden to wear shorts it's never because that's 'distracting' but the reverse isn't true for women.

[ July 28, 2014, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
phil, wearing pants to church is a big deal for mormon feminists. I think it's second only to opening the priesthood to women for hot-button issues.

Which is really weird to me, because they can. Why get upset about not being allowed to do something that you are allowed to do?
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
Thanks, a lot of good info and some good debate.

Somebody mentioned the old accepted logic that "rape is about power not sex". How does this square with drunk frat-'boys', and I emphasize "boys" as I loathe them and they are not by any means men, forcing girls to have sex with them?

I openly state it is "rape", but how is it not about sex? Especially in cases in which the girl goes far enough to get the young idiot aroused and then says "No". (Fully agree that she should have the right to say no at anytime and be heard and that he stop. Not my point.) The point is at this point isn't his raping her about the need to finish the sex act."
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
I thought LDS women could only wear pants to church on certain days or en mass as protest? Think that is what a friend and old OA member says.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
What I'm saying is that in my experience, I saw lots of statements in the 1980s that suggested that a scantilly dressed woman deserves to be raped, and that the last time I heard any such statement in the general public square was early 1990s. That when I see such statements now, they tend to come from white trash or from internet geeks or from fundamentalist Muslims.

Not to mention rape prevention campaigns that put the fault for rape entirely on women (Do this things to avoid being raped)
Yes, I remember those, back in the 1980s and early 1990s. Today, someone who says something like that is ridiculed in the public square.

quote:
as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist).
What sort of patronizing ass goes and throws that crap at boys, as if all males needed help not becoming rapists.

quote:
Or from people leaping to the defense of people who have been accused of rape (even though the frequency of false accusations is extremely low) and even going as far as to demonize public figures that call for a fair trial to resolve the matter instead of trusting it to the court of popular opinion.
I can't think of that happening in the last 15 years in any prominent US case, where the public figure was merely "calling for a fair trial." (It's not a fair trial if there's no reasonable suspicion to begin with). So I take it you're still living in the past.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
Thanks, a lot of good info and some good debate.

Somebody mentioned the old accepted logic that "rape is about power not sex". How does this square with drunk frat-'boys', and I emphasize "boys" as I loathe them and they are not by any means men, forcing girls to have sex with them?

I openly state it is "rape", but how is it not about sex? Especially in cases in which the girl goes far enough to get the young idiot aroused and then says "No". (Fully agree that she should have the right to say no at anytime and be heard and that he stop. Not my point.) The point is at this point isn't his raping her about the need to finish the sex act."

It would be more accurate to say that rape is more about power than consensual sex is about power. Some women use clothing and sexuality to assert power and to take attention from other women, which is why women are often the most vigorous enforcers of modesty codes. I dated a woman once until I found out she literally kept serial-killer style trophies of the guys whose hearts she'd broken. And yet she never raped anyone. Frat boys often similarly keep trophies of women whose beds they've used deception to get into. That's loathsome and inhuman but not rape per se.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
I thought LDS women could only wear pants to church on certain days or en mass as protest? Think that is what a friend and old OA member says.

Pyr would tell you that we cannot look to LDS church statements to say what the LDS church forbids and doesn't forbid. If Marni feels like she's forbidden to wear pants to church, then she can "protest" by wearing pants to church, and if conservatives don't get upset at the sight of Marni in pants, they are pooh poohing her experience.
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
Who's Marni? [Wink]
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
quote:
quote:
as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist).
What sort of patronizing ass goes and throws that crap at boys, as if all males needed help not becoming rapists.

If I had sons I definitely teach them how "not to get falsely accused of rape". I'd hope I'd already taught them to be good enough men not to force a woman to do anything against her will. [Frown]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Re: Jack

http://www.businessinsider.com/female-soldier-brilliantly-calls-out-military-for-blaming-victims-of-sexual-assault-2013-8

That's 2013, not the 80s or 90s.

When you have a segment of the population that makes up the vast majority of perpetrators of a crime, then targeting education and prevention materials at them is, in no way patronizing, even if you can say something completely irrelevant to the point like "Not all men"

An accusation, given a 98% accuracy rate is reasonable suspicion in and of itself. It's amusing that you go pretty quickly from saying that you're not dismissive of anyone's experiences to suddenly being so extremely dismissive such as to say that a statement of personal experience can be dismissed out of hand if you don't think it's true.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
And you think that Military leadership reflects the general American culture?

That's an institution covering its own ass. Same as any major powerful organization tries to hide its scandals and blemishes.

Mormon women wearing miniskirts in church isn't going to do squat for reducing military rape, Pyr. Just give up.

" suddenly being so extremely dismissive such as to say that a statement of personal experience can be dismissed out of hand if you don't think it's true."

What statement of personal experience are you pretending that I dismissed? I think that what the woman said in your article is right on. That's a very accurate indictment of how the military handles rape. I simply object to your raping and commandeering her story to make it seem like she was talking about the general American culture. Not so fast, cowboy. Pull your pants back up.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Jack, have you read the comments on any news article about rape?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
Somebody mentioned the old accepted logic that "rape is about power not sex". How does this square with drunk frat-'boys', and I emphasize "boys" as I loathe them and they are not by any means men, forcing girls to have sex with them?

Because they are abusing the power they have in that situation to take what they want without regard to consent. Without that critical factor, nothing would have happened in the first place.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
I don't have a problem with dress codes for professional environments, including courtrooms.

However, I think "professional dress" is much trickier to define for women than for men. Most people would understand that to include skirts and blouses that might be open at the neck. How such things fit and what they reveal varies for reasons including the shape of the person wearing them.

Because of that, I think in a lot of cases women should get a pass if they show some cleavage or their legs but otherwise seem to be trying to maintain a professional appearance (speaking here of situations where there is a conservative dress code for a professional or formal environment).

Women could adopt the nearly universal "professional" attire that men have available, but even that carries the risk of being perceived as cross-dressing - which could provoke speculation and be its own distraction.*

On the other hand, I think finding a bit of cleavage highly distracting often stems from cultural factors that overlap with or sustain rape culture. And even short of "she deserved to be raped", I think more subtle (kind of) victim-blaming is perpetuated through the justifications for modesty requirements for women. I actually think that vigilance for and loud protest against those currents of thought is justified and beneficial.

There's some gray area between professional/conservative/formal dress codes and modesty policing tied to sexist and harmful messages about sexual responsibility - particularly if you think about why certain things are considered distracting. That makes attempting to enforce the former pretty tricky.

Is there a particular dress code problem we're trying to solve here? Jack are you referring to outrage over a particular case of dress code enforcement? It might be interesting to discuss the specifics of a case and see how they relate to "rape culture".

*For court specifically, it would probably not be a bad idea for there to be a very simple, unisex uniform for all participants - like the robes and wigs of English courts. But I don't see that happening.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Jack, have you read the comments on any news article about rape?

Internet geeks getting reactions from the safety of anonymity.

Back in the 1980s and very early 1990s, people used to actually say that crap out loud in public on college campuses.

If anyone actually gave a **** about fighting rape culture, rather than exploiting it to pursue unrelated antireligious agenda, they'd fight the separate rape cultures, i.e. the military RC, the lower class white RC, the fundamentalist Muslim RC, as well as institutions that promote silence and whitewash (like the military institution, various church and college institutions), rather than bitching about modesty mores that are more about preventing distraction and discomfort.
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
TomDavidson,
quote:
The whole Pick-Up Artist movement,
Those guys are disgusting losers.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
Internet geeks getting reactions from the safety of anonymity.
If only.

Islamic culture aside, do you really think those cultures exist separately? That they don't share common memes and narratives?
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
Some feminist are fighting those cultures. Unfortunately it seems as if some of them see all men as perpetuating the "rape culture" just by existing.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

No, I've presented the issue of equality. You keep trying to make false accusations on what was already clearly pointed out as a non-controversial red herring rather than actually addressing the issue of inequitable enforcement which commonly happens in practice.

I was in court as a defendant when the defendant next to me got kicked out of somewhere for wearing knee length shorts, while an attorney before the court was wearing a miniskirt that didn't even go down to mid-thigh. The male Utah judge yelled at the guy for showing "disrespect" to the court by wearing shorts, but treated the miniskirt woman with deference. The posted rule was "no shorts or short skirts."

If you think that some of my examples are noncontroversial, then please identify them and say they are noncontroversial rather than just using strained pretexts to dodge the question.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
Some feminist are fighting those cultures. Unfortunately it seems as if some of them see all men as perpetuating the "rape culture" just by existing.

Agreed. There are reasonable feminists, and those ones tend to do the most good. But then they don't call themselves activists for blathering on social media.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
they'd fight the separate rape cultures, i.e. the military RC, the lower class white RC, the fundamentalist Muslim RC, as well as institutions that promote silence and whitewash (like the military institution, various church and college institutions), rather than bitching about modesty mores that are more about preventing distraction and discomfort
I submit that most feminists spend more time fighting the above cultures than "bitching" about modesty mores, but that you notice the latter more due to the circles in which you travel.

--------

quote:
The posted rule was "no shorts or short skirts."
In my office, we have a rule: no shorts for either sex and no skirts above the knee. On hot days, several of us men joke that we should wear kilts. But none of us actually feel oppressed.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
Internet geeks getting reactions from the safety of anonymity.
If only.

Islamic culture aside, do you really think those cultures exist separately? That they don't share common memes and narratives?

Even Islamic cultures share common memes and narratives with us. But the connection is historical. Ancestral. Making a change to how Mormons dress isn't going to affect military rape. And I doubt it would decrease rape among the LDS, either.

pop-feminists speak of "patriarchy" or "rape culture" as a single great white conspiracy. It's a grotesque simplification. Yes, certain patriarchal cultures disempower women and vastly increase rape, particularly spousal rape. The military would more accurately be called andrarchal, since it emphasizes virtues which are stereotypically masculine, aggression, etc. Rape is a particular military problem for the same reason that drug abuse is a problem; it's something which aggressive males can do to temporarily suppress the mental damage that they've suffered through combat. Creates an illusion of power. Of course drug using and raping military folks are all the more destroyed mentally when they come back to peacetime.

But patriarchies that don't preclude matriarchy aren't the enemy. Indeed, girls who have a loving dad in the home are less likely to get raped than girls raised by single moms. It's well known that "daddy issues" are a route for females into sexual exploitation.

I don't think that internet comments are unconnected to the general culture, but they aren't an accurate reflection of it, either. In many cases they are a reaction against it. Internet anonymity makes it fun for isolated people to blurt out shocking "politically incorrect" things. It makes them feel powerful, and gives them the illusion of being interesting.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:
The posted rule was "no shorts or short skirts."
In my office, we have a rule: no shorts for either sex and no skirts above the knee. On hot days, several of us men joke that we should wear kilts. But none of us actually feel oppressed.
I felt oppressed when I got yelled at by my bosses' boss for wearing knee length shorts to the office, when my female boss was wearing spandex shorts. The rule was written like yours, but I felt oppressed since it was being enforced differently on men versus on women. I saw women wearing shorts and thought it was OK if I did as well.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
...patriarchies that don't preclude matriarchy...
...are not patriarchies. That's like saying that oligarchies that share power with the little people aren't all that bad.
 
Posted by Jack Squat (Member # 6910) on :
 
Google search and you'll see plenty of people who say that Abraham was a patriarch and that his wife, Sarah, was a Matriarch.

Ditto Issac and Rebecca.

"That's like saying that oligarchies that share power with the little people aren't all that bad. "

No, it's not. The word "patriarch" was in use before the feminists started fisting it.
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 6842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In my office, we have a rule: no shorts for either sex and no skirts above the knee. On hot days, several of us men joke that we should wear kilts. But none of us actually feel oppressed.

I learned many years ago that just because some people in a group don't feel oppressed doesn't mean that other people in that group don't feel oppressed and aren't oppressed. Something that I would have expected you to understand as well. Especially since it is an argument most feminists use when confronted by another woman who doesn't feel oppressed.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
No, it's not. The word "patriarch" was in use before the feminists started fisting it.
Now that sounds like Pete [Razz]

If you're going to talk about feminism, equivocating with the jargon doesn't do wonders for your credibility. Patriarchy in the bible and patriarchy in feminist theory refer to different concepts.

[ July 28, 2014, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
 
Posted by MattP (Member # 2763) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
phil, wearing pants to church is a big deal for mormon feminists. I think it's second only to opening the priesthood to women for hot-button issues.

Which is really weird to me, because they can. Why get upset about not being allowed to do something that you are allowed to do?
Wearing pants to church is about combating cultural expectations that conflict with actual church policy by violating those expectations, sometimes en masse, deliberately.

My wife had a good friend in high school that had few friends and some serious body image and depression issues (she committed suicide a few years ago). She just did not feel comfortable in skirts and dresses so one time when she attended church (which she didn't do often) she wore pants. The bishop asked her to go home and change into a dress. She was mortified and never returned to church.

Even today, in the wake of "wears pants to church day" being pretty well known as a Thing in LDS circles, women are still occasionally being told that their pants are inappropriate for church - sometimes by leaders, sometimes by other members of their congregations.

There's also the dynamic of people being taking umbrage with the whole idea of deliberately following the rules as a means of protest - only in Mormondom, I suppose.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
No, it's not. The word "patriarch" was in use before the feminists started fisting it.

Which is completely irrelevant to it's use in context.

This is a great example of you pooh poohing the people that actually know what they're talking about and not actually listening to the points being made by people with some degree of real experience with the issues at hand.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:
No, it's not. The word "patriarch" was in use before the feminists started fisting it.
Now that sounds like Pete [Razz]

If you're going to talk about feminism, equivocating with the jargon doesn't do wonders for your credibility. Patriarchy in the bible and patriarchy in feminist theory refer to different concepts.

I don't recall Feminists making that distinction when they talked about Patriarchy in the Bible.
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
quote:
Patriarchy in the bible and patriarchy in feminist theory refer to different concepts.
Agreed.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Speak of the devil...

The problem is that the patriarchy in the bible also tends to be patriarchal in the feminist sense. Or at least, it tends to be interpreted in patriarchal ways.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Tell that to feminists who talk about the Bible. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
This is a great example of you pooh poohing the people that actually know what they're talking about and not actually listening to the points being made by people with some degree of real experience with the issues at hand.
That's a great example of you're using equivocation to make it look like you haven't changed the subject. Before you were speaking of pooh poohing people's actual world experiences. Now you've obfuscated the accusation to including questioning someone's authority. Pooh on you, Pyr.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
This is a great example of you pooh poohing the people that actually know what they're talking about and not actually listening to the points being made by people with some degree of real experience with the issues at hand.
That's a great example of you're using equivocation to make it look like you haven't changed the subject. Before you were speaking of pooh poohing people's actual world experiences. Now you've obfuscated the accusation to including questioning someone's authority. Pooh on you, Pyr.
This is a situation where the two are effectively the same. Their understanding of the matter comes directly from being subject to the social forces that are actively hurting them.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

quote:
as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist).
What sort of patronizing ass goes and throws that crap at boys, as if all males needed help not becoming rapists.

Clearly, some of them do. This would be targeted at them. The ones that don't need it shouldn't be any more offended than I am at ads trying to get people to buy cars when I clearly don't need a car.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:

quote:
as opposed to on men (here's what you can do to avoid becoming a rapist).
What sort of patronizing ass goes and throws that crap at boys, as if all males needed help not becoming rapists.

Clearly, some of them do. .
Yes, clearly. But to speak as if ALL boys were potential rapists, helps teach boys what's expected of them. Questions like: "You're a male, Timmy. Tell me why men rape." Welcome to the feminist rape culture.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Where do you see that in the ad referenced above?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The ones that don't need it shouldn't be any more offended than I am at ads trying to get people to buy cars when I clearly don't need a car.

Pyr, THAT is an example of pooh poohing someone's experience. People in college who talked about rape as if all males were rapists hurt me more than the woman that actually molested me when I was 7 and left my crying on the bathroom floor.

If you think that being a victim of sexual abuse treated like I was a rapist just because I'm male is as harmless as trying to sell someone a car, then you're a monster, Kate.

[ July 28, 2014, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
I already said rape is about power, and I pointed to the prisons as an example. Whether rape is about patriarchy depends on how you defend patriarchy. I imagine you might make up a definition of patriarchy that could be plausibly blamed for male/male prison rape. But you're blowing smoke when you blame LDS boys passing the sacrament for rape.

I'm curious to hear your made-up definition of patriarchy that somehow doesn't have anything to do with power. There's certainly no dictionary or common usage that would agree with you, but feel free to try.

quote:

Show me stats showing that active LDS males are more likely to commit rape than others, and then let's talk. But if you hop on Marni's general big anti-mo feminist lie is to point to rape stats in Utah being higher than Maine (rather than comparing to other western states like California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Arizona) as evidence of LDS male priesthood causing rape, I will be unable to respect you in the morning.

The statistics show that Utah has a rape problem. A *gendered* rape problem. Not just the rate, but very low reporting rate, very low rates of victims receiving counseling, and victims most commonly expressing that their largest concern was their friends and family discovering that they had been raped. (source) The latter phenomenon, btw, is an excellent illustration of what is meant by rape culture; no one worries about people discovering that they were mugged or had their house broken into. In any case, similar reporting rates in other states is a rather pathetic defense, unless you think (which is possible, based on earlier arguments in this thread), that Utah doesn't actually have a rape problem. Which, if so, is another very concrete example of how rape culture continues to function.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
I think feminism is slowly coming to realize that the narratives they used regarding sexual assault reflect 'partriarchal' beliefs about the role of gender therein. I.e. the idea that all men are potential rapists reflect patriarchal constructs of masculinity and sexual desire.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack Squat:
I already said rape is about power, and I pointed to the prisons as an example. Whether rape is about patriarchy depends on how you defend patriarchy. I imagine you might make up a definition of patriarchy that could be plausibly blamed for male/male prison rape. But you're blowing smoke when you blame LDS boys passing the sacrament for rape.

I'm curious to hear your made-up definition of patriarchy that somehow doesn't have anything to do with power.
I'm curious what anyone in this discussion said to the effect that any sort of -archy isn't about power.

Patriarchy means that fathers have power. In the Abraham story, we see a Patriarch married to a Matriarch. Abraham rules over his flocks and servants, while Sarah rules over her household and servants. Abraham actually seems to obey her in household matters.

I'm not saying that it's a model for modern marriage, but it isn't what some feminists say it was, either. Note that the rapiest thing in the story of Abraham actually comes from the Matriarchy part, where Sarah decides she wants Hagar to have Sarah's baby, orders Abraham to do her, and later to abandon Hagar. That didn't work out so well.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
In any case, similar reporting rates in other states is a rather pathetic defense, unless you think (which is possible, based on earlier arguments in this thread), that Utah doesn't actually have a rape problem.

Typical lefty weaseling.

Everywhere has a rape problem. Utah's rape problem seems to be less than the overall western regional rape problem, but slightly more than average than the national problem. Part of the problem is Utah police. I worked for the women in crisis center in Utah and advocated (not Marni's facebook bullcrap but actual advocacy with the legislature and public hearings). I was part of massive campus protests on BYU that got more lighting and the founding of a woman's resource center at BYU. I'm more personally involved in the issue in Utah than the braying jackasses that you seem to be taking for canon on this issue.

Yes, Utah has a rape problem, but the jackasses screaming against the LDS church aren't the ones actually working with victims. They are just pimping the issue, grave-dancing for political gain.

[ July 28, 2014, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The ones that don't need it shouldn't be any more offended than I am at ads trying to get people to buy cars when I clearly don't need a car.

Pyr, THAT is an example of pooh poohing someone's experience. People in college who talked about rape as if all males were rapists hurt me more than the woman that actually molested me when I was 7 and left my crying on the bathroom floor.
The fact that you're making up things that aren't being said, then reacting to those suggests that your still aren't actually listening, but asserting your own narrative over what's being said.

The way you were treated was horrible- there's no question of that. But that is not representative of feminism at a whole, and posters that help educate men in general about the way that behaviors they are socially pressured or otherwise taught that it is their privilege to engage in lead to rape is not the same as accusing all men of being rapists by any measure.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:

Show me stats showing that active LDS males are more likely to commit rape than others, and then let's talk. But if you hop on Marni's general big anti-mo feminist lie is to point to rape stats in Utah being higher than Maine (rather than comparing to other western states like California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Arizona) as evidence of LDS male priesthood causing rape, I will be unable to respect you in the morning.

The statistics show that Utah has a rape problem. A *gendered* rape problem. Not just the rate, but very low reporting rate, very low rates of victims receiving counseling, and victims most commonly expressing that their largest concern was their friends and family discovering that they had been raped. (source) The latter phenomenon, btw, is an excellent illustration of what is meant by rape culture; no one worries about people discovering that they were mugged or had their house broken into. In any case, similar reporting rates in other states is a rather pathetic defense, unless you think (which is possible, based on earlier arguments in this thread), that Utah doesn't actually have a rape problem. Which, if so, is another very concrete example of how rape culture continues to function.
That's an excellent source and strongly corroborates my own experience. Where you're wrong -- and there's nothing in the article to justify your assumption -- is in assuming that culture generally or the religious community is somehow at fault. Utah suffers from bad policing. It's an institutional reaction to bad handling on the part of Utah police. It's not a product of mormon boys passing the sacrament.

As for the "gendered anti-woman" part, you are sickeningly wrong. Talk to anyone on a crisis hotline in Utah and ask them what happens to male victims of sexual violence who call in and ask for help. Exie ran those lines for a while in Utah and she told me that she'd been instructed to tell men that there were no resources for them in state. But that was in the mid 1990s
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
posters that help educate men in general about the way that behaviors they are socially pressured or otherwise taught that it is their privilege to engage in lead to rape is not the same as accusing all men of being rapists by any measure.

I agree with that. If the ads describe those social pressures and pro-rape constructs, rather than coming off like Kate said (you're male so you don't even know how not to rape unless we teach you), then it's helpful to an anti-rape culture rather than just constructing another expectation for rape.

One place where the pseudofeminists help create a feminist rape culture is describing rape stats always in terms of the % of victims, and never even addressing perp numbers. How can you begin to address perp behavior, or prevention of perps, when there's no examination of those committing these acts?

Before you even consider making ads, do some research into the target audience. What could be more obvious?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The ones that don't need it shouldn't be any more offended than I am at ads trying to get people to buy cars when I clearly don't need a car.

Pyr, THAT is an example of pooh poohing someone's experience. People in college who talked about rape as if all males were rapists hurt me more than the woman that actually molested me when I was 7 and left my crying on the bathroom floor.

If you think that being a victim of sexual abuse treated like I was a rapist just because I'm male is as harmless as trying to sell someone a car, then you're a monster, Kate.

For heaven's sake, how is an ad that is clearly not targeted for you treating you like a rapist? Any more than a car ad not targeted for me treats me like a driver?

If, with a wave of your hand, you could rid the world of rape or of false accusations of being a potential rapist which would you choose?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
In my view, most men and women in the world feel disempowered, and IMO the biggest factor in why one subculture will have more rape than another is that the rapists/child molesters think they can get away with it. (And rapists in a fundamentalist muslim community, or a poor immigrant Hispanic community, or a ghetto community, and child molesting women in the general American community, are generally right about being able to get away with it.)

Utah btw has a high Hispanic population, which doesn't IMO speak to cultural propensity to rape, but DOES affect a victim's willingness to come forward. Especially when the victim lacks immigration status. Utah's high farmland and low overall population creates a proportionately large unpoliced transient immigrant population. Combine that with an IMO overall incompetent and reactionary police force, and Utah's rape stats are bad. Not compared to neighboring western states, but like Adam's Tribune article said, bad compared to Utah's own other crime figures. Clearly Utah has the potential to do better. Unfortunately the folks on the front lines trying to actually make things better, get less press than the sack of **** anti-Mormons who milk the rape stats to bash the church.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
If, with a wave of your hand, you could rid the world of rape or of false accusations of being a potential rapist which would you choose?

Rape, since there's more rape than false accusation, and few people die of false rape accusations in the US anymore.

If you could send an extra rapist to prison if you also send an innocent man to prison, would you do it? Would it change your decision if you knew that both the rapist and the innocent man would get raped in prison?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you think that being a victim of sexual abuse treated like I was a rapist just because I'm male is as harmless as trying to sell someone a car, then you're a monster, Kate.

For heaven's sake, how is an ad that is clearly not targeted for you
Perhaps I misunderstand what you have in mind.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Here's a decent example of an anti-rape PSA targeted at men:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/23/young-man-makes-anti-rape-psa-how-to-treat-a-drunk-girl/

It's targeted at all men. I don't think it does any harm, but I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.

(I don't think it's ideal. In fact it's a bit creepy - you shouldn't videotape yourself doing things to an unconscious person without their consent, even if they are benign or kind things. I realize it was staged, and the slight creepiness didn't really happen. I just think there's a slightly less creepy way to send the message, probably.

I do think the benefit of the message outweighs the slight creepiness of the delivery.

Also you should roll passed out drunk people on their sides.)

[ July 28, 2014, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
I've seen that before. The only part I find creepy is the "Guess what I'm going to do to her." bit.

I don't know about offended, but I am shocked that anybody would need to be told this!!! Nobody told me not to rape women, nor to not take advantage of them when they are incoherent. Where did the idea that anything but respect is acceptable come from?! And I do mean incoherent not tipsy.

I grew up in the 80's when our drill teams "mating call" was "I'm so wasted!" (That was 'their' inside joke.)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Nobody told me not to rape women, nor to not take advantage of them when they are incoherent.
Honestly, I don't think people need to be told this. I think most rapists -- and date rapists -- do already know it's wrong. I think ads like this really exist to remind men that if they rape someone, it's their fault and not hers for just being too darn tempting.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
It seems self-evident that not every one gets that message and that some people do need to be told.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
http://www.wecanstopit.co.uk/default.aspx
http://www.savedmonton.com/about-our-campaigns.html

Are examples of the kinds of campaigns that are effective without perpetuating victim blaming- that actually work to push back against rape culture rather than accepting as the norm and teaching people how to integrate themselves into it. The only people targeted by such ads are the people that haven't fully internalized the concepts presented, not people that can reliably control themselves.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
One place where the pseudofeminists help create a feminist rape culture is describing rape stats always in terms of the % of victims, and never even addressing perp numbers. How can you begin to address perp behavior, or prevention of perps, when there's no examination of those committing these acts?

This is one of your assertions that doesn't actually hold water. The breakdown of perpetrators is very regularly cited.
95% are male
73% are a friend of family member of the victim

You don't have to dig very hard at all to find stats on perpetrators because they're very regularly cited.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
http://www.wecanstopit.co.uk/default.aspx
http://www.savedmonton.com/about-our-campaigns.html

Are examples of the kinds of campaigns that are effective without perpetuating victim blaming- that actually work to push back against rape culture rather than accepting as the norm and teaching people how to integrate themselves into it. The only people targeted by such ads are the people that haven't fully internalized the concepts presented, not people that can reliably control themselves.

This might also be useful: http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Apologies if this has been covered (heh, see what I did there), but this struck me:

quote:
It's called "provocative" when a woman does it, but "unprofessional" when a man does it.
Consideration of the (most severe) penalties for the two situations is illuminating in terms of the discussion of whether there is a rape culture and whether or not it affects men and women differently.

What is the worst implied consequence of being 'unprofessional?'

What is the worst implied consequence of being 'provocative?'

Additionally, do we perceive an implicit threat in calling a man 'provocative' (in a sexualized, not pugnacious, context)?
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
Yay Funean!

quote:
Originally posted by Funean:

What is the worst implied consequence of being 'unprofessional?'

Termination

quote:
What is the worst implied consequence of being 'provocative?'

Corrective action or termination


What are the best implied consequences of being "unprofessional" or "provocative"? [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I would disagree, Grant.

An "unprofessional" person might be unprofessional for many reasons; a "provocative" person intends to provoke a response, and to some people might deserve a response.

The idea is that a "provocative" person can be assumed to be deliberately trying to force people to react to him/her, and therefore reactions will be justified.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
Part of what's worth noting here, as the person who made the comment I quoted implied, is that fact that the same scenario (revealing or sexualized attire at work) generates different terminology depending on the gender of the offender.

Grant, Tom got the point I was making (not saying you didn't; perhaps you only disagree). Here's the thing. 'Unprofessional' is a more benign term than 'provocative' to most people, but more importantly it is limited in scope. 'Unprofessional' actions are only a problem in a professional setting, whereas the scope of the problem of 'provocation' is potentially unlimited. And one's supervisor(s) would be the only agent empowered to take corrective or punitive action on a charge of 'unprofessional' behavior, and with a limited menu of allowable responses, whereas almost anyone is empowered to respond negatively to 'provocation,' and without defined conceptual limits.

To put the situation more baldly, if someone told me I was dressed unprofessionally, I might at worst be annoyed or feel unfairly treated, and proceed accordingly. If someone (particularly a male) told me I was dressed provocatively, my 'possible threat' antenna would shoot right up out of the top of my head--right or wrong. And that's as good an example of 'rape culture' as anything else.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Ad campaigns are only going to be effective in limited ways. They can have a direct effect educating otherwise good natured people who may be confused about a topic, or they can indirectly influence good and bad people to make an association with events and implement behavioral changes in response to it. I'm not sure that many of the events depicted are that confusing, what percentage of men thought it was okay to have sex with an unconcsious woman but now that they've seen the ad would change their mind?

The only context this direct educational purpose seems to make sense in, are ones that are disputable. Is it rape to badger or pressure your girlfriend till she gives in? By some accounts, yes, yet that would probably turn most men into rapists at some point in their sexual lives (heck it would turn a big chunk of women into rapists too). Is seduction then also rape, due to its manipulative impact? What behaviors are okay and which are not, it's unclear and subjective.

On the other hand the impact on culture may make a difference. An ad campaign that causes people to intervene when they see a drunk girl being lead off, or to lock the door to a room someone passed out in, makes an incremental difference. Forcing abusers to keep silent rather than openly brag about it helps to suppress the behavior. The fear of course is that it goes too far. Look at the absolute mistrust we have of adult men around children, a lot of that is campaign driven.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
There's a large area where it isn't unclear and subjective. And if you ask people about it in neutral language, they'll admit to rape and/or sexual assault. Frankly, I have to hope that most of them didn't realize the gravity of what they were doing. I would rather them act in ignorance rather than malice.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
There's a large area where it isn't unclear and subjective. And if you ask people about it in neutral language, they'll admit to rape and/or sexual assault. Frankly, I have to hope that most of them didn't realize the gravity of what they were doing. I would rather them act in ignorance rather than malice.

But what you just said isn't logically consistent, it can't be 'clear and nonsubjective,' while people are 'ignorant' of what they're doing, and apparently unknowingly admitting to rape if you phrase it properly.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
There's a set of people who, when asked if they've raped someone, they'll say no. If you ask them if they've ever had sex with someone who is passed out drunk, they'll say yes. Or if they've ever had sex with a date who didn't want to.

What they are doing is rape, but they don't see it that way because of reasons. Maybe they think only violent strangers can rape or that since she'd have said yes if she could have it's okay.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
But NobleHunter, you're stating the clearest version of something that may have been less clear. Follow up questions are needed to be sure.

The easiest one is passed out. No grey area, right? How would someone answer if they and their partner were drunk as skunks, had consenual sex and both passed out during? How would they answer if they had sex with their spouse who wasn't in the mode, after 20 minutes of mutual voluntary snuggling resulted in a changed mood?

What you're assuming, is that the reasons can't change the answer to is this rape, when in fact they may.

What if you fall asleep in a bed, and wake to a drunk women having sex with you who then passes out? She couldn't consent and you didn't, what do we have?

I think you have to ask them about their inconsistent answers. Or maybe accept that what's clear is the "predator taking advantage" situation, and not necessarily everything else.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
This would be a good time to link to the study, wouldn't it? I can presume they considered those issues, but I'm not certain.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
This is probably closer to the time when people start yelling at me. Lol. I think it would be helpful in thinking about this to show the clear rules in the most confusing examples - rather than in the least confusing ones - to see if we do have the same rules.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Leaving aside legal rules, which have markedly different requirements, the key ones are: only have sex with someone who consents; aim for enthusiastic and explicit consent; and be aware of factors affecting the quality of consent.

If one thinks their partner's consent is compromised, don't have sex. If consent becomes compromised, stop having sex. If one stops at the first sign of trouble, the worst that can happen is not having sex.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Funean:

Grant, Tom got the point I was making (not saying you didn't; perhaps you only disagree). Here's the thing. 'Unprofessional' is a more benign term than 'provocative' to most people, but more importantly it is limited in scope. 'Unprofessional' actions are only a problem in a professional setting, whereas the scope of the problem of 'provocation' is potentially unlimited. And one's supervisor(s) would be the only agent empowered to take corrective or punitive action on a charge of 'unprofessional' behavior, and with a limited menu of allowable responses, whereas almost anyone is empowered to respond negatively to 'provocation,' and without defined conceptual limits.

To put the situation more baldly, if someone told me I was dressed unprofessionally, I might at worst be annoyed or feel unfairly treated, and proceed accordingly. If someone (particularly a male) told me I was dressed provocatively, my 'possible threat' antenna would shoot right up out of the top of my head--right or wrong. And that's as good an example of 'rape culture' as anything else.

LOL. No, I definately did not get that point. I was looking at the questions in a different light.

I see your points now. I would love to get involved in the discussion, but I consider this kind of subject to be "unsafe". It's one of those subjects that stir deep passion and can lead to extreme uncivil disagreement, and I would rather not be put on some hitlist. I never really had a dog in this hunt, I was only peeking in and making some driveby remarks. [Smile]

So in closing, all hail.
 
Posted by RacerX (Member # 6928) on :
 
quote:
An ad campaign that causes people to intervene when they see a drunk girl being lead off,
I hope that she was seriously inebriated in the commercial? And not just a normally drunk girl at a bar who has purposely gotten herself drunk to lower her inhibitions and do what she came there to do. Namely; slink off and have sex with a stranger.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would disagree, Grant.

An "unprofessional" person might be unprofessional for many reasons; a "provocative" person intends to provoke a response, and to some people might deserve a response.

The idea is that a "provocative" person can be assumed to be deliberately trying to force people to react to him/her, and therefore reactions will be justified.

Your misuse of the word "force" is literally sophistry. To be more specific, it's the argument of the Sophist Gorgias, to whom any message "forces" the target to respond. Gorgias argues that in seducing Helen, that Paris "forced" her to succumb with praise and flattery.

To incite or invite a response need not rise to the level of force or deception, in order to be an act of solicitation.

In Die Hard III, Bruce Willis wears a provocative shirt that states "I hate [racial epithet]" in Harlem.

I think that one can note the stupid PROVOCATION of walking down Harlem with a shirt that says "I hate n*ggers," without arguing that someone that wears such a shirt "deserves" to beome the victim of aggravated battery, or that aggravated battery is "justified" (tosses perfectly ripe half-tomato at Funean".)

And I'd hope that even Funean would agree with me that it would be "unprofessional" dress for a cop to wear such a shirt in Harlem.

Thus, provocative is a sub-set of unprofessional.

Note that I wasn't the one that brought up the word "provocative" to begin with, though. I've simply argued that showing beaucoup cleavage should be disallowed as unprofessional in situations where it's considered unprofessional for a man to show as much of his chest.

As usual, Pyr can't seem to make up his mind as to whether what I've said is too obvious to deserve comment, or too appalling to address without changing the subject.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Your misuse of the word "force" is literally sophistry.
*sigh*
In that post I am literally engaging in sophistry, Pete. So, um, congratulations?

Note that I am not claiming that provocative people do in fact force responses; rather, I am saying that the use of the word "provocative" in lieu of the word "unprofessional" implies a scenario where a response is more necessary, and might even be believed to be forced. There is a different connotation to the word "provocative" that is not present when the word "unprofessional" is used.

Provocative is indeed a sub-set of unprofessional, in much the same way that murder is a subset of crime.

I'm not sure why you're being defensive about this, though, since as you noted it wasn't your terminology in the first place. And no one was talking to you about it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Your misuse of the word "force" is literally sophistry.
*sigh*
In that post I am literally engaging in sophistry, Pete.

Pete: Augh! The whole point was lost on him, my precious. He didn't grasp the fine point that the common use of the word "sophistry" is figurative, whereas he's buying into the reasoning-as-force theory of Gorgias the Sophist.

rePete: Our words and efforts are wasted on El Tom. Wasted, my precious.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:


I'm not sure why you're being defensive about this, though, since as you noted it wasn't your terminology in the first place. And no one was talking to you about it.

Who were they talking to about it?

I discussed the massive bare chest display as unprofessional, and as distracting in some situations (e.g. in courtroom settings or in the classroom). My argument got the typical left-swipe mangle: lefties responded to what I said by saying that female cleavage displays are typically called "provocative" and that this is discriminatory, therefore women should be able to show off their ta tas in court and in the classroom. As for distraction, the lefty answer on this thread was that jurors and students should just control themselves. My reply is that of course we should all control ourselves, but imposing an additional burden of self-restraint is in itself a distraction, and that since it's OK to seek to eliminate distractions such as ringing cell phones from court and classroom, that fleshy distractions may also reasonably be targeted so long as the restrictions are equitable to both genders.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RacerX:
quote:
An ad campaign that causes people to intervene when they see a drunk girl being lead off,
I hope that she was seriously inebriated in the commercial? And not just a normally drunk girl at a bar who has purposely gotten herself drunk to lower her inhibitions and do what she came there to do. Namely; slink off and have sex with a stranger.
I had a friend in vegas who told me that's what she does (or rather did before she got married). I don't know that's the "normal" reason a woman gets drunk in a bar, though. In Vegas, more often I saw women drunk because someone was plying them with drinks, or because they weren't experienced drinkers and didn't know their limits.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
5 unnamed 13-14 year old boys in the UK charged in child rape

Is there any doubt to the ethnicity of the rapists?

All this blather about a monolithic rape culture evades the point that cultural factors that promote rape are not universal, but tie to specific narrow traditions. Indian/Pakistan misogyny is epic.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
A conclusion that you can only get to by sticking your head in the sand and only focusing on very narrow categories of behavior:

http://mic.com/articles/94844/rape-culture-is-everywhere-our-children-can-see-watch-your-favorite-movies-prove-it
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
A conclusion that you can only get to by sticking your head in the sand and only focusing on very narrow categories of behavior:

http://mic.com/articles/94844/rape-culture-is-everywhere-our-children-can-see-watch-your-favorite-movies-prove-it

Heaven forbid that we should examine the "very narrow category of behavior" of actual rape when we discuss "rape culture." Thank you for making my point about lefty grave dancing, Pyr. You use the spectre and threat of Rape to force social changes that have ****-nothing to do with rape.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Your psychotic link claims that serenading an ex lover (as done in "say anything") borders on rape.

I say crap, Pyr. Go fish. And poo on you for trivializing rape. Serenading may be trespassing, and if done persistently or with threats may amount to stalking, but rape it ain't.

And it has nothing to do with the cause of 13-14 year old indian and pakistani kids raping a neighbor like they do with impunity in the home country.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Do you actually have information on the ethnicity of the accused in your link, Pete?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Examine the way our culture still institutionalizes objectification, ignoring consent. Pointing out that other cultures have institutionalized rape to a greater degree is completely irrelevant to the point- actively derailing the issue being raised and trying to handwave it away. You keep presenting a false either-or choice here, as if trying to address our own shortcomings somehow magically prevents us from also dealing with more egregious situations that fall within our jurisdiction. Those are bad situations. They're also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Start a separate thread about them if you think there's any dissent on the idea that they're bad and we should do what we can to mitigate, if not stop them, instead of trying to pretend that they're at all relevant to discussing the way western culture still promotes ideas and attitudes within itself that directly contribute to the rapes that occur within our own cultural context.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
And your hand waving away of outright stalking and denial of consent are exactly the kind of baseline attitude that is fundamentally at question here. We take a creepy, abusive behavior and forgive it as romantic, despite the fact that it actively involves negating the expressed wishes of another person and overpowering them with your own desires.

That's where the statement that rape is fundamentally about power comes from. IT may involve intercourse, but the reason that it's a violation is because the perpetrator has, at the outset, used some form of power to negate the expressed wishes of another person to gain access to them.

[ August 08, 2014, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Here, Pyr demonstrates the exact sort of vicious personal leftwash that I was complaining about. Next he'll be calling me a rapist for disagreeing with me.


quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
And your hand waving away of outright stalking

Please don't lie about what I said. I'm the one that brought up stalking. I didn't hand-wave it away. I said that even "stalking" someone by singing to them, unwanted, at their window, does not constitute rape.

Arson isn't rape either. Am I hand-waving away arson by saying that arson isn't rape?

No wonder you defend Sharpton and Jackson: you are here using false personal accusations to intimidate someone who disagrees with you into silence. Shame on you, Pyr.
quote:
denial of consent
Where the **** did I deny consent?

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[ August 08, 2014, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Examine the way our culture still institutionalizes objectification, ignoring consent.

That could be a cogent argument if you followed it up with specific examples. I'm open to the argument that our culture institutionalizes objectification and ignores consent. But I think it's remarkably dirty of you to accuse me of "denying consent" just because I don't immediately agree with your nutty link that associates adolescent serenading with "rape."

quote:
We take a creepy, abusive behavior and forgive it as romantic, despite the fact that it actively involves negating the expressed wishes of another person and overpowering them with your own desires.
I don't consent to your sticking me and my desires into your lurid little fantasy, Pyr. I find it rather creepy that you phrased it that way.

If you start up an intense romantic relationship with someone and then dump her cold, and she comes over to try to TALK you out of it, you call that "negating the expressed wishes of another person and overpowering them with your own desires"? I find your position anti-human. Sure, if she comes onto your property, you can call the cops for trespass, and if she follows you down the street despite your express request that she leave you alone, you can charge her with stalking. But someone has the right to attempt to persuade you to change your mind, so long as they don't cross such boundaries or infringe on your rights.

[ August 08, 2014, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

That's where the statement that rape is fundamentally about power comes from. IT may involve intercourse, but the reason that it's a violation is because the perpetrator has, at the outset, used some form of power to negate the expressed wishes of another person to gain access to them.

Do you ever stop to think about this stuff you're spouting? By the standards you just laid out, it's rape to serenade outside an ex-lover's window, but it's not rape for you to drug a stranger with GHB and copulate with her in a closet, because she hasn't "expressed" the wish for you not to do that to her. [Roll Eyes] [DOH]

Is anyone else going to hop on Pyr's ship and say that rape isn't about forced sex?
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The problem is that a lot romcoms and sitcoms don't really define boundaries. They generally go beyond talking to more dramatic/comedic acts in trying to persuade the other party (almost always female?) into changing their mind.

Granted, they (usually?) avoid coercion and intimidation but they still revolve around the idea that people who are sufficiently persistant will get the love that they deserve. Or that if the correct conditions are filled sex will be provided. That reduces the wooed to a maguffin without agency or purpose other than to eventually fulfill the wooer's desires.

There isn't space in these narratives for the pursued individual to say "sorry, you've done everything you can and done it well, but no sex for you." True, there also isn't space for bad guys to win in Generic Action Film XXVI, but I don't think they have the same effect on interpersonal relationships.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Pyrtolin's link definitly reflects an extremist view of the situation. I'm heard pressed, if it's to be considered a legitimate interpretation of male-female interactions, to understand how every married man is not being abused when he's manipulated by his spouse using sex to control his choices? It only seems like you can get to the point where this is going by starting from a default that women are the only people that have rights, and that anything that occurs to change a woman's mind is a violation.

I think more rational people understand that both men and women are entitled to have needs and desires and to communicate about them. There is a big difference between convincing someone to change their mind and actually taking away their choice.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The problem is that a lot romcoms and sitcoms don't really define boundaries.

Agreed. Hitting people is depicted as a valid expression of emotion. Veronica Mars uses her Taser in situations where we'd normally just flip someone off. And it's considered a valid form of seduction to physically force someone into a kiss. This isn't a political agenda, though; the moviemakers are just saving money on screenwriting.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Do you actually have information on the ethnicity of the accused in your link, Pete?

It's all in the link. If they were white 13-14 year olds, the article would have said something about them putting it on facebook. Only Indian and Pakistani tweens know how to commit gang rape without putting it on facebook.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
to understand how every married man is not being abused when he's manipulated by his spouse using sex to control his choices?
If the spouse was doing it deliberately and refused to stop, I'd call it grounds for divorce. Which also assumes she's not doing to establish reasonable pre-conditions for sex, like having the energy, self-respect, and desire to do it. I understand you to mean something like "buy me this dress or no sex for a week" (outside of pre-established and consensual role-play).

There's also a difference between portraying a behavior (and acknowledging it as problematic) and endorsing it. George R R Martin portrays a lot of things but doesn't endorse them. Less nuanced creators and consumers often miss the distinction.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
NobleHunter, do you realize how common it is for women to feel entitled to slap their partners? They see it on tv, and think it's okay. In fact I daresay most men have been slapped or seen someone get slapped. I can tell you from personal experience that when they do it they get support from other women who believe innately the man must have deserved it. It's a no questions asked crime if it goes the other way.

There are tons of stuff in personal relationships that we have off views on, that doesn't make seduction into rape.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
NobleHunter, do you realize how common it is for women to feel entitled to slap their partners?

Less common than it was 30 years ago, fortunately. That's an accidental side effect of domestic violence laws.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
This isn't a political agenda, though; the moviemakers are just saving money on screenwriting.
Few people are saying that rape culture is the product of a deliberate agenda. Especially regarding depictions in media, it's the aggregate affect of decisions about how narratives and characters are portrayed and created.

Seriati, yes, it is a problem that men are depicted as acceptable targets of violence. I want to say something about people feeling entitled being problematic, but I might be over-generalizing.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
they still revolve around the idea that people who are sufficiently persistant will get the love that they deserve
Or that being persistent is what makes you deserving of love.

Lloyd Dobler is a nice enough guy, but speaking as a father and with the benefit of nearly three decades of hindsight on that movie, he's a terrible match for Diane. He's been unhealthily fixated on her for years, has no skills or career prospects, etc. He's locally famous for being the wisest and most responsible of his generally unwise and irresponsible friends, which is damning with faint praise -- and while his deep passion for the things that capture his interest is to his credit, the things that capture his interest are often not deserving of the attention he pays to them.

But he loves Diane Court and is unerringly faithful, patient, and forgiving. He knows they belong together on a deep, religious level, and he simply doesn't budge from that belief. For this -- and because he doesn't treat her like crap, and because the movie creates a false choice between him and Diane's father after turning that father into an unlikely villain and thief who becomes verbally abusive when finally cornered -- we in the audience are shown that he deserves her. He wins her, and does so largely by refusing to take no for an answer.

It's a terrible, terrible lesson. I think I actually internalized it a fair bit as a teenager, and spent many of my dating years as an adult learning how to get over that movie's terrible depiction of idealized devotion.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Maybe it would help if instead of criticizing you point to some examples how relationships should look. I never liked Say Anything, but your criticisms of Lloyd as a match for Diane are essentially claiming she's too good for him (which is another bad lesson to believe).
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Seriati, yes, it is a problem that men are depicted as acceptable targets of violence. I want to say something about people feeling entitled being problematic, but I might be over-generalizing.

I brought it up because it parallels the theme of this thread, ie that a sexual interaction imposes a higher duty somehow on the man in the relationship than the female (which is itself a patronizing idea). You can see it easily in the domesitic violence situation, because its not justifiable in the light of day, yet everyone knows that we don't look at a woman slapping a man and innately say - wow she's committing domestic violence, we look at it and think he must have deserved it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
By the standards you just laid out, it's rape to serenade outside an ex-lover's window,


No, it's stalking and evidence of an attitude that it's okay to attempt to ignore someone's expressly stated refusal.

quote:
but it's not rape for you to drug a stranger with GHB and copulate with her in a closet, because she hasn't "expressed" the wish for you not to do that to her.

That's nonsense, because the only thing that matters is that she has not expressed enthusiastic consent to it. Anything but a clear yes is effectively a no. (With consideration given for pedantic dwelling on special cases that have effectively been negotiated in the context of existing relationships or types of play that both parties consent to)

quote:
Is anyone else going to hop on Pyr's ship and say that rape isn't about forced sex?
When did I claim that? In fact my point above that it's the use of power to force someone against their stated will. The problem is thwe as a culture try to pretend that only physical force is real and ignore the use of social or emotional force.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Not sure what movie you're talking about, but your analysis sounds surprisingly cogent. Yes, it does sound like a harmful message, but calling it rape culture is kind of mind-rapey.

NH has just made the first plausible argument for an overarching rape culture, although I'd argue that movies, like facebook, are simply a point of influence rather than part of an overarching culture.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"The problem is thwe as a culture try to pretend that only physical force is real and ignore the use of social or emotional force."

Heaven forbid we should appeal to someone's emotions when discussing a possible relationship.

Lover: "I like you and I think you like me. Let's spend some time together"

Pyr: FOUL! Emotional coercion!
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, you do realize that some of the people you're slandering here actually comprehend the difference between coercion and persusasion, and are objecting to the former. Yes?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
I said that even "stalking" someone by singing to them, unwanted, at their window, does not constitute rape.
No one claimed that it did. The claim was that glorifying it is part of how we perpetuate rape culture. How we pass on the cultural meme that it's okay to ignore someone expressed desires and try to force them to conform to our own. It is not rape in and of itself- it is an attitude that denies consent and helps perpetuate rape, in this case by teaching that it's okay to harass someone until they break down and let you have sex with them.

quote:
But someone has the right to attempt to persuade you to change your mind, so long as they don't cross such boundaries or infringe on your rights.
Sure- and cornering you in your house, in the middle of the night to press their case is way, way over the line, despite how the film in question tries to present it as endearing behavior.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"When did I claim that?"

You just said it again:

"In fact my point above that it's the use of power to force someone against their stated will."

Your failure to grasp that will can be IMPLICIT as well as stated, is what gives birth to the twin idiocies of this thread:

1. The implication that GHB-ing a woman who has never explicitly rejected you is OK.
2. The implication that serenading an ex-lover is rapey, even though she has the full power to call police and report you for trespassing, and that by not asking you to leave, to some extent gives tacit consent to your serenade.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

quote:
But someone has the right to attempt to persuade you to change your mind, so long as they don't cross such boundaries or infringe on your rights.
Sure- and cornering you in your house, in the middle of the night to press their case is way, way over the line, despite how the film in question tries to present it as endearing behavior.
I agree that cornering someone in the house is way over the line. But your link said he was outside the window. Once again, if you have to distort the facts to make a case, that puts in doubt the strength of your case.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" it's okay to ignore someone expressed desires and try to force them to conform to our own."

You ignore the difference between persuasion and coercion, which makes you a much bigger part of a rape culture than the moviemakers we're discussing. Your view is classic sophistry, the Sophist Gorgias at his ugliest (see Plato's dialogues).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Pyrtolin's link definitly reflects an extremist view of the situation. I'm heard pressed, if it's to be considered a legitimate interpretation of male-female interactions, to understand how every married man is not being abused when he's manipulated by his spouse using sex to control his choices? It only seems like you can get to the point where this is going by starting from a default that women are the only people that have rights, and that anything that occurs to change a woman's mind is a violation.

Using sex as a tool of control is absolutely abusive behavoir that comes out of our culture. But you can only get to the idea that women being allowed to decide that they don't want to have sex as being more rights for women than for me men if you assume the men have some kind of right to assert that the should get sex. All genders should be equally f and respected if they choose not to extend consent, there's nothing unequal there, certainly nothing that gives more power in any given situation to women.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" it's okay to ignore someone expressed desires and try to force them to conform to our own."

You ignore the difference between persuasion and coercion, which makes you a much bigger part of a rape culture than the moviemakers we're discussing. Your view is classic sophistry, the Sophist Gorgias at his ugliest (see Plato's dialogues).

No I don't .That strawman is purely in your imagination, though it serves as a convenient way to actually avoid addressing the issue- in this specific context that would be that we bless coercive tactics as legitimate forms of persuasion.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
quote:
NH has just made the first plausible argument for an overarching rape culture, although I'd argue that movies, like facebook, are simply a point of influence rather than part of an overarching culture.
*notices the next logical step towards agreement is to define culture*

*flees*
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Your failure to grasp that will can be IMPLICIT as well as stated, is what gives birth to the twin idiocies of this thread:


Because this is a situation where the only will that is relevant is that which is explicitly stated.

quote:

1. The implication that GHB-ing a woman who has never explicitly rejected you is OK.

[/quote]
Which is nonsense because explicit, unforced consent is the only thing that matters for it to be okay, anything else is a lack of consent.

quote:
[qb]2. The implication that serenading an ex-lover is rapey, even though she has the full power to call police and report you for trespassing, and that by not asking you to leave, to some extent gives tacit consent to your serenade.

In other words, because she caves to abuse, abuse is okay. Without a prior explicit agreement to such effect, assuming tacit consent because of a lack of objection is extremely invasive and a core attitude that perpetuates rape on the basis of "well, they didn't say 'no'".
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" it's okay to ignore someone expressed desires and try to force them to conform to our own."

You ignore the difference between persuasion and coercion, which makes you a much bigger part of a rape culture than the moviemakers we're discussing. Your view is classic sophistry, the Sophist Gorgias at his ugliest (see Plato's dialogues).

No I don't .That strawman is purely in your imagination, though it serves as a convenient way to actually avoid addressing the issue- in this specific context that would be that we bless coercive tactics as legitimate forms of persuasion.
You called appeal to emotion "coercion," Mr. Gorgias.

quote:
In other words, because she caves to abuse, abuse is okay.
If there are facts that show that what he did was abusive, then list them, rather than just making vile insinuations about me for not agreeing with you.

Don't you have any facts to back up your position? Do you have to keep sticking in things that didn't happen, like him cornering her IN her house?

[ August 08, 2014, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You called appeal to emotion "coercion," Mr. Gorgias.

I imagine that you'll find that I called a behavoir that you were trying to present as an appeal to emotion as actually being coercive and not simply persuasive.

It's possible to persuade someone on an emotional level- but it's very easy to cross the line from evoking an unforced, willing emotional response to pressuring an unwilling response.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"Which is nonsense because explicit, unforced consent is the only thing that matters for it to be okay, anything else is a lack of consent."

In Pyr land, do you have to mirandize your wife before having sex with her? Don't you ever just start making out and have a romp together, without verbal paperwork?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Do you have to keep sticking in things that didn't happen, like him cornering her IN her house?
You're suggesting that she was not in her house? That seems to contradict the scene as laid out in the movie.

Did she invite the behavoir? The she explicitly agree to it? No? Then there was no consent and his behavior was invasive and and assertion of his desires that ignored her directly stated desires.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Pyr, serenading outside a window isn't necessarily abuse; context matters. Was the guy dumped for a perceived lack of interest in romance? Or was it because he was unhealthily co-dependant? Is his presence threatening? What's the subtext behind the gesture?

Romanticizing it in all situations is problematic, but sometimes grand gestures are reasonable. Whether it's for drama/comedy or in real life.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Which is nonsense because explicit, unforced consent is the only thing that matters for it to be okay, anything else is a lack of consent."

In Pyr land, do you have to mirandize your wife before having sex with her? Don't you ever just start making out and have a romp together, without verbal paperwork?

Should I repaste the explicit disclaimer I made about places where prior agreement allows for communication of consent?

But in general, I absolutely make sure that there is a clear, mutual invitation and don't simply assume that I'm entitled to sex just because I might be able to get her let me do it.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
Seri: I'm heard pressed, if it's to be considered a legitimate interpretation of male-female interactions, to understand how every married man is not being abused when he's manipulated by his spouse using sex to control his choices?
I think that is abuse. That's now how people should treat one another.

It's illegitimate to make a covenant where a real human need of the husband is bound solely to the wife, and the wife abuses that binding in order to manipulate the husband. (Of course, this is also true if the roles are reversed)

I don't think it's an abuse the law should remedy, and certainly no spouse should ever be forced to have sexual relations with their spouse, but one would be failing in their promises and their duties if they do this to the other.

[ August 08, 2014, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Pete:By the standards you just laid out, it's rape to serenade outside an ex-lover's window
Pyr: No, it's stalking and evidence of an attitude that it's okay to attempt to ignore someone's expressly stated refusal.

That's absurd. It could be stalking and it could be romantic. Both are possible depending on the circumstances. To say that that behavior is always stalking is reductionist and silly.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
Historical aside: I'm pretty sure that back when matrimonial duties were regulated by the ecclesiastical courts, women were ordered to [ugly euphemism]meet the needs[/ugly euphemism] of their husbands. I don't remember if the reverse happened, and if it did, how it changed over time. Though by the time we got the modern gender construction of the aggressively sexual man and the passive woman, ecclessiastical courts were pretty much gone (in London anyways).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
quote:
Pete:By the standards you just laid out, it's rape to serenade outside an ex-lover's window
Pyr: No, it's stalking and evidence of an attitude that it's okay to attempt to ignore someone's expressly stated refusal.

That's absurd. It could be stalking and it could be romantic. Both are possible depending on the circumstances. To say that that behavior is always stalking is reductionist and silly.
It's possible that it could be invited, sure, but that technicality is well outside of the context of the situation as presented which involves an explicitly stated desire to break off the relationship.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
I am accepting the context. To be more clear:

1. Given the girl said she wants to break up
and
2. The guy shows up at her window trying to serenade her back.

The guy's action could be either romantic or stalking, or somewhere in the gradient between the two.

He is acting perfectly fine if he presses her to change her mind a little. Not every "no" drops an iron curtain of "you must not press the issue or you be a stalker or rapist."

To see it the way you do is extreme, unhealthy, and I believe it would really distort, in a bad way, how people relate to one another.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I said that even "stalking" someone by singing to them, unwanted, at their window, does not constitute rape.
No one claimed that it did. The claim was that glorifying it is part of how we perpetuate rape culture. How we pass on the cultural meme that it's okay to ignore someone expressed desires and try to force them to conform to our own.
That was not an example of force. That's an intentional misuse to try and change the default rules of the game.
quote:
It is not rape in and of itself- it is an attitude that denies consent and helps perpetuate rape, in this case by teaching that it's okay to harass someone until they break down and let you have sex with them.
Repeatedly asking for sex is not a denial of consent. It may reflect disrespect for the person, it may not, depending on context, but it's not a denial of consent.

Think about what you're implying about women themselves, by stating that persistent chasing by a man is removing a woman's consent. It may be annoying to be badgered, and we may be conditioned to give in, we certainly learn the behavior as children because its effective, but it's still our own choice to give in or not.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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"
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Think about what you're implying about women themselves, by stating that persistent chasing by a man is removing a woman's consent. It may be annoying to be badgered, and we may be conditioned to give in, we certainly learn the behavior as children because its effective, but it's still our own choice to give in or not.
About women? This is about all people in general, man or woman. Harassment is harassment, regardless of who is doing the harassment and who is being harassed. And harassment is mentally and socially damaging in and of itself, even if the person manages to remain steadfast against it.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.

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.

Something can be "socially damaging" and not be rape or part of a rape culture. 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.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
The problem goes beyond encouraging men to badger women. Narratives that reward such persistance with sex may impart the message that they just have to be persistant *enough*, which can lead to outright coercion. They also devalue the legitimacy of a refusal and can be used to promote the idea that she (or he) was leading the aggressor on and deserved what they got.

They can also encourage women to issue refusals to see if their suitors respond according to the tropes of the narrative. Which further undermines the legitimacy of rejection.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The problem goes beyond encouraging men to badger women. Narratives that reward such persistance with sex may impart the message that they just have to be persistant *enough*, which can lead to outright coercion.

We punish actions not thoughts or opinions. It's not reasonable to punish persuasion because it may lead to coercion. Punish coercion. Feel free to educate people on what it means, most people are smart enough to understand. However, it's not okay to refuse to acknowledge a difference between persuasion and coercion, or to imply that all persusasion is coercion.
quote:
They also devalue the legitimacy of a refusal and can be used to promote the idea that she (or he) was leading the aggressor on and deserved what they got.
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.
quote:
They can also encourage women to issue refusals to see if their suitors respond according to the tropes of the narrative. Which further undermines the legitimacy of rejection.
And there are campaigns to discourage this as well.

But no matter what we say or do, at some level relationships involve tests and proof of commitment, they're not impersonal logical matches.

I think the issue on rejection is the implication that it's a one time event. It's no more a one time decision than acceptence is. It's innately obvious to all that even if we say yes, we can change our minds later, it should be just as obvious that the reverse is true.

[ August 08, 2014, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 2450) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JoshuaD (Member # 1420) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
You have seriously never seen "Say Anything?"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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.
Make up your mind- was he outside her house or not? You seem to jump to saying that the situation did not happen with her in her house and him directly imposing himself on her while she was there to pointing out that that's exactly what did happen.

She was in her house, effectively at the position of maximum retreat, and he put himself in a position that she would have had to find a way to flee what should have been a baseline safe place from intrusion to further avoid contact with him, forcing her to confront him in some way or another rather than allowing her freedom in even that place of last resort.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
How do you know the advance was unwanted?
If it was not explicitly invited, then it's uninvited. Something cannot be invited unless an invitation exists.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
But what I call legal coercion, Pyr seems to call noncoercive and even nonpressure because of some "entitlement."
Because an explicit contract somehow does not, in your eyes, represent an entitlement to what was agreed to in it? Heck, even without the contract, the aim of the threat to sue someone is to take away something from them (money, if nothing else) that they believed they are entitled to have.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
If that's it, Pyr, why are we talking about say anything? Wouldnt Green Eggs and Ham be.the epitome.of "Rape culture"?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
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.

If you want to change your position such that persistence now means "continuing to interact and build a platonic relationship", sure, that's fine. Up till now, persistance has meant "Continue to attempt to convince them to enter a romantic relationship" which crosses the line into coercive behavoir because it attempts to manipulate them toward an end that you desire that they've already expressed a disinterest in.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Once again, Pyr manages to twerk what I said into exactly its opposite:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
But what I call legal coercion, Pyr seems to call noncoercive and even nonpressure because of some "entitlement."
Because an explicit contract somehow does not, in your eyes, represent an entitlement to what was agreed to in it?
You are wrong. Because an explicit and lawful contract DOES, in my eyes, represent entitlement, I believe that legal coercion is acceptable in order to procure something to which one is legally entitled. Prisons, police and courts exist precisely because some times coercion is necessary to secure the rights of the people, and because such coercion can only be rightfully carried out by carefully constrained rules and separation of powers. (And even with those restriction, coercion is often applied unnecessarily and abusively).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If that's it, Pyr, why are we talking about say anything? Wouldnt Green Eggs and Ham be.the epitome.of "Rape culture"?

We're talking about it because it was an example of explicit non-consensual behavoir that the movie demonstrates approval for despite the inherently creepy nature and violations of someone's express will, personal space, and privacy that are involved.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
How do you know the advance was unwanted?
If it was not explicitly invited, then it's uninvited.
Rubbish. If you go to a dance, and someone tries to engage you in a dance (without touching you), that person's advances are neither explicitly invited nor uninvited until you explicitly indicate your disinterest. And if you break up but don't tell someone they aren't invited to come visit again, you've left that open.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Once again, Pyr manages to twerk what I said into exactly its opposite:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
But what I call legal coercion, Pyr seems to call noncoercive and even nonpressure because of some "entitlement."
Because an explicit contract somehow does not, in your eyes, represent an entitlement to what was agreed to in it?
You are wrong. Because an explicit and lawful contract DOES, in my eyes, represent entitlement, I believe that legal coercion is acceptable in order to procure something to which one is legally entitled. Prisons, police and courts exist precisely because some times coercion is necessary to secure the rights of the people, and because such coercion can only be rightfully carried out by carefully constrained rules and separation of powers. (And even with those restriction, coercion is often applied unnecessarily and abusively).
Then your prior assertion about what I was saying is nonsense because it hinges on the contract not representing an entitlement in the same way that no entitlement to sex with any given person exists.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[qb]Rubbish. If you go to a dance, and someone tries to engage you in a dance (without touching you), that person's advances are neither explicitly invited nor uninvited until you explicitly indicate your disinterest.


You see no communication involved in the intentional act of going to a dance in the first place?

quote:
And if you break up but don't tell someone they aren't invited to come visit again, you've left that open.
Sure, but we're not talking about an instance of stopping by for a friendly visit for its own sake here. We're talking about an instance of uninvited manipulation to change that decision.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If that's it, Pyr, why are we talking about say anything? Wouldnt Green Eggs and Ham be.the epitome.of "Rape culture"?

We're talking about it because it was an example of explicit non-consensual behavoir that the movie demonstrates approval for despite the inherently creepy nature and violations of someone's express will, personal space, and privacy that are involved.
I've posted two links to clips from that movie, and so far no one here contests that your analysis is insane.

In contrast:
THIS is an example of a clear manifestation of will to not eat green eggs and ham
Thisand THIS are clear invasion of personal space.

THIS is invasive persistence
THIS is knuckling under to persistence.

I don't understand why you make such big flap about Say Anything but have no problem with children being inculcated with "rape culture" from the cradle. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[qb]Rubbish. If you go to a dance, and someone tries to engage you in a dance (without touching you), that person's advances are neither explicitly invited nor uninvited until you explicitly indicate your disinterest.


You see no communication involved in the intentional act of going to a dance in the first place?

No EXPLICIT communication. You're the one that keeps using that word. Do you know what it means?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Can we all agree that The Giving Tree is a profoundly sick book?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
She's engaged in a romantic relationship with the guy, and he's been invited to her house previously.
Except she is, very explicitly, no longer engaged in a romantic relationship with the guy. The scenario would have been different if he had just stopped by to hang out and play video games with her without applying any pressure to revisit her decision about continuing the relationship.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If that's it, Pyr, why are we talking about say anything? Wouldnt Green Eggs and Ham be.the epitome.of "Rape culture"?

We're talking about it because it was an example of explicit non-consensual behavoir that the movie demonstrates approval for despite the inherently creepy nature and violations of someone's express will, personal space, and privacy that are involved.
I've posted two links to clips from that movie, and so far no one here contests that your analysis is insane.

In contrast:
THIS is an example of a clear manifestation of will to not eat green eggs and ham
Thisand THIS are clear invasion of personal space.

THIS is invasive persistence
THIS is knuckling under to persistence.

I don't understand why you make such big flap about Say Anything but have no problem with children being inculcated with "rape culture" from the cradle. [Big Grin]

Heh. I've actually told my children that Sam's behavior is inappropriate, and it's not okay to hassle people once they turn down your invitation.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Oh, I agree, SciFi. Although I did have to force-feed fluids to Thing One, at Doctor's orders, when he had RSV at 11 months. [Frown]
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
[qb]Rubbish. If you go to a dance, and someone tries to engage you in a dance (without touching you), that person's advances are neither explicitly invited nor uninvited until you explicitly indicate your disinterest.


You see no communication involved in the intentional act of going to a dance in the first place?

No EXPLICIT communication. You're the one that keeps using that word. Do you know what it means?
Indeed, but you seem to be limiting it to verbal communication here. There are many explicit non-verbal signals that apply in such situations that allow for directly communicating openness to and interest in being asked to participate in activities specific to that context.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't understand why you make such big flap about Say Anything but have no problem with children being inculcated with "rape culture" from the cradle.

Where did I express, in any way, that Green Eggs in Ham was not problematic in that regard?

You asked why we were discussing one and not the other. I responded to that question, not the tangent that was invited but not necessary to pursue.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
She's engaged in a romantic relationship with the guy, and he's been invited to her house previously.
Except she is, very explicitly, no longer engaged in a romantic relationship with the guy. The scenario would have been different if he had just stopped by to hang out and play video games with her without applying any pressure to revisit her decision about continuing the relationship.
I agree that would have been better, and healthier for him. But your use of the term "coercive" is over the top. He isn't saying that it's going to be easier to just give in than to get rid of him. He's reminding her of aspects of him that she (inexplicably) finds attractive.

I unambiguously and legally terminated Sallie Mae's servicing of my student loans due to gouging, incompetence and basic rudeness, and I received a polite phone call asking if there was anything they could do to retain me. I didn't feel I was being invaded or harassed. And from the bit of the movie I've seen, she didn't seem to feel harassed either. If I'm wrong, have someone who knows how to describe stuff accurately describe it to me, since we've established that he didn't actually corner her in her house.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
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.
No one has a legitimate "need" to have sex with any particular person. That false construction is part of the heart of the issue at hand. It is good to be open about the kind of sexual things you're interested,. It's even fine to express to someone that you have a sexual interest in them. But falsely casting that as a need to have sex with them or otherwise implying any obligation on their part to meet that need because you have it part and parcel of the problems we're discussing. One can communicate ones own interest without making it an imposition on the one that they're communicating to that forces them to choose whether or not they're interested in acting on that desire.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I unambiguously and legally terminated Sallie Mae's servicing of my student loans due to gouging, incompetence and basic rudeness, and I received a polite phone call asking if there was anything they could do to retain me. I didn't feel I was being invaded or harassed. And from the bit of the movie I've seen, she didn't seem to feel harassed either. If I'm wrong, have someone who knows how to describe stuff accurately describe it to me, since we've established that he didn't actually corner her in her house.

Where are you suggesting she was then? The descriptions all seem to pretty clearly say she was in her house when he confronted her, not anywhere in public where should could have at least safely retreated to her house.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
He isn't saying that it's going to be easier to just give in than to get rid of him.
In what way is he communicating that if she asks him to leave this time he'll actually respect her decision, where he is actively evidencing by his behavoir that he did not respect it previously? At what point should she expect that he'll take "no" to mean "no" and not "try again"?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr, you said HE "cornered" her in her house. He was in the driveway. She could.tell him to.leave, call the cops, draw on family to respond ... i cant think of a More.secure position she could.be, to rebut his advances. And that's not even counting stand your ground laws. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr, is.need another word you have twerked? Can you conceive that one.might need something they arent entitled.to?

If you think need constitutes entitlement, that's as rapey a concept.as.anything in green eggs ans ham.

A woman needs a man's sperm in order to.make a baby with him. That doesnt mean she's entitled to it.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Rubbish. If you go to a dance, and someone tries to engage you in a dance (without touching you), that person's advances are neither explicitly invited nor uninvited until you explicitly indicate your disinterest.

You see no communication involved in the intentional act of going to a dance in the first place?
Isn't this the defintion of painting yourself into a corner? Please refer back to the chart you linked about whether men are entitled to have sex, and rethink this argument that going to the dance communicates something.
quote:
Indeed, but you seem to be limiting it to verbal communication here. There are many explicit non-verbal signals that apply in such situations that allow for directly communicating openness to and interest in being asked to participate in activities specific to that context.
Ahh... non-verbal signals, the hallmark of informed femnistic sexual communication theory... oh no wait that's backwards again isn't it. The theories you are running with would expressly limit taking any cues from non-verbal signals.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Isn't this the defintion of painting yourself into a corner? Please refer back to the chart you linked about whether men are entitled to have sex, and rethink this argument that going to the dance communicates something.
IF the example was "Going to an orgy", then I'd say that the act of doing so explicitly communicates an interest in being asked if you'd like to have sex, so long as you are ernest and willing to take no for an answer in the same way that going to a dance explicitly communicates the same baseline for dancing, but nothing more.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
[qb]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.

If you want to change your position such that persistence now means "continuing to interact and build a platonic relationship", sure, that's fine. Up till now, persistance has meant "Continue to attempt to convince them to enter a romantic relationship" which crosses the line into coercive behavoir because it attempts to manipulate them toward an end that you desire that they've already expressed a disinterest in.
Lol, now you're arguing with yourself about your strawman? I never added platonic.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
[qb]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.

If you want to change your position such that persistence now means "continuing to interact and build a platonic relationship", sure, that's fine. Up till now, persistance has meant "Continue to attempt to convince them to enter a romantic relationship" which crosses the line into coercive behavoir because it attempts to manipulate them toward an end that you desire that they've already expressed a disinterest in.
Lol, now you're arguing with yourself about your strawman? I never added platonic.
In which case you're talking nonsense. Continually badgering someone that has declined you for a romantic relationships is harassment. No means no until that person freely decides to change it without you disrespecting the current state of their answer by trying to push the issue.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, you said HE "cornered" her in her house. He was in the driveway.


And she was in her house. Thus cornered and forced to interact and deal with him in some way rather than being freely able to opt to disregard him.


quote:
She could.tell him to.leave, call the cops, draw on family to respond ... i cant think of a More.secure position she could.be, to rebut his advances. And that's not even counting stand your ground laws.
Indeed- but all of those force her to take action in regards to him. None allow her to freely go about her business without being required to deal with his insistence that she must respond to him in some way.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
A woman needs a man's sperm in order to.make a baby with him. That doesnt mean she's entitled to it.

You're playing games with different meanings of the same word. That example has no bearing on the context in question.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Can you conceive that one.might need something they arent entitled.to?
Sure I can. The problem is that you're standing on a position that interprets a mistaken perception of need to entitle the person that believes they have that need to harass another person to fulfill it.

My position is, very explicitly, that no valid need to have sex with a specific individual exists, and that even the perception of such a need does not entitle a person to pressure the object of their desire take action to fulfill it in any way.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The problem is that you're standing on a position that interprets a mistaken perception of need to entitle the person that believes they have that need to harass another person to fulfill it.

No, I'm not. I don't think the Cusack story has anything to do with needs or entitlements. BTW, that sentence I quoted needs to be taken out and shot ... I recommend a book called "Revising Prose."
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
A woman needs a man's sperm in order to.make a baby with him. That doesnt mean she's entitled to it.

You're playing games with different meanings of the same word.
I don't think so. I think you're just using the word wrong, and that you're probably just used to people using it wrong and imprecisely.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
Seriati raise the issue of ernest expression sexual desires and needs. Subjective things that are important for an individual to have a healthy and fulfilling sex life. He was not talking about functional process requirements such as in your example of sperm and egg fusion being needed to have a child. "Thing that is essential for an individual to have" is very different from "Thing required for a physical process to complete" even though the same term happens to be used to express both.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The problem is that you're standing on a position that interprets a mistaken perception of need to entitle the person that believes they have that need to harass another person to fulfill it.

No, I'm not. I don't think the Cusack story has anything to do with needs or entitlements. BTW, that sentence I quoted needs to be taken out and shot ... I recommend a book called "Revising Prose."
The boy in the story appears to believe he needs to continue the relationship. And because of tha, (or even if he doesn't) he certainly acts as if he is entitled to ignore her expressed wish to end the relationship and invade her personal space in an attempt to manipulate her into continuing it.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The boy in the story appears to believe he needs to continue the relationship. And because of tha, (or even if he doesn't) he certainly acts as if he is entitled to ignore her expressed wish to end the relationship and invade her personal space in an attempt to manipulate her into continuing it.

Some women would call that "romance", Pyr. [Smile]

It seems there is not a clear consensus on what constitutes "romance" and what constitutes "harassment". The definition of harassment is that it is unwanted, which is a subjective reaction.

I'm not a father of a girl. But if a were, I would hope I could differentiate between a kid playing a boom box outside my daughter's window, and making "untoward", threatening, unwanted physical advances.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Some women would call that "romance", Pyr.
Indeed- romanticization is one of the way our culture gives a nod to such behaviors. People learn what should consider to be romantic from their culture, and in that way their culture can teach them to expect, enjoy, and perpetuate damaging behaviors. That's the fundamental nature of any systemic problem- the system reinforces itself by teaching people that the damage it perpetuates is normal and how things should be.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
But if a were, I would hope I could differentiate between a kid playing a boom box outside my daughter's window, and making "untoward", threatening, unwanted physical advances.
I imagine asking her if this was something she wanted or not would probably be the best way to make that call.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The problem is that you're standing on a position that interprets a mistaken perception of need to entitle the person that believes they have that need to harass another person to fulfill it.

No, I'm not. I don't think the Cusack story has anything to do with needs or entitlements. BTW, that sentence I quoted needs to be taken out and shot ... I recommend a book called "Revising Prose."
The boy in the story appears to believe he needs to continue the relationship.
That may or may not be so, but please don't project your interpretation of his view onto me.

I don't think it's "harassment" for a dumped teenager to make one awkward but non-boundary-violating attempt to reconcile with his loved one. If there's any truth to the whole rape culture argument, you discredit it with such extreme postures.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't think it's "harassment" for a dumped teenager to make one awkward but non-boundary-violating attempt to reconcile with his loved one. If there's any truth to the whole rape culture argument, you discredit it with such extreme postures.

The key being "non-boundary violating". What he did was extremely boundary violating, and the movie presents such boundary violation as a good and noble thing, not a very creepy and bad thing to do.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I imagine asking her if this was something she wanted or not would probably be the best way to make that call.

LOL. That's not the way it works. That would make it decidedly "unromantic".

quote:
Indeed- romanticization is one of the way our culture gives a nod to such behaviors. People learn what should consider to be romantic from their culture, and in that way their culture can teach them to expect, enjoy, and perpetuate damaging behaviors. That's the fundamental nature of any systemic problem- the system reinforces itself by teaching people that the damage it perpetuates is normal and how things should be.
Oh I agree! I think bringing her a six pack of beer and a copy of Mass Effect 2 is romantic, but she doesn't agree! The system has hypnotized her into this silly ideal of roses and candlelit dinners and little surprise notes and cards. Dang the system!

To me, nothing is more romantic then when she grabs my crotch. Without permission!
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That's a special.feeling, Lloyd.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
To be fair to Pyr, i think behind his distorted vocabulary, his actual position is less extreme that his.misused word lead us to believe. He seems to classify implicit as a.subcategory of "explicit;" thus his strange assertion that someone who goes to a dance "explicitly" consents to be asked to dance. Correct me.if.I'm wrong, Pyr but you seem to acknowledge.that consent.can reasonably be inferred from the facts. If you post your phone number and a picture of yourself on Craigslist Men seeking Women, a woman might reasonably infer.that you have invited.her to.text.or.call you. You.might tell her.not.to.call again, but.if you accuse.her.of.violating your space when she first contacts you, you're being unreasonable.

[ August 13, 2014, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
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.

If you want to change your position such that persistence now means "continuing to interact and build a platonic relationship", sure, that's fine. Up till now, persistance has meant "Continue to attempt to convince them to enter a romantic relationship" which crosses the line into coercive behavoir because it attempts to manipulate them toward an end that you desire that they've already expressed a disinterest in.
Lol, now you're arguing with yourself about your strawman? I never added platonic.
In which case you're talking nonsense. Continually badgering someone that has declined you for a romantic relationships is harassment. No means no until that person freely decides to change it without you disrespecting the current state of their answer by trying to push the issue.
Again, no, I didn't say what you made up for me to say. One doesn't have to be "badgering" or engaging in harassment (which again is generally illegal). You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.
quote:
The boy in the story appears to believe he needs to continue the relationship. And because of tha, (or even if he doesn't) he certainly acts as if he is entitled to ignore her expressed wish to end the relationship and invade her personal space in an attempt to manipulate her into continuing it.
There's no "attempt to manipulate" inherent or implied in his action. To the extent he's expressing "need" its clear he's expressing want or desire.

And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space. There are movies where people do act as if entitled, there was an awful Ashton Kucher movie where he rammed his car into the locked gate of his separated wife's house, that would be a far better example of entitled behavior.

Like it or not, you're not providing evidence of a culture that is approving inappropriate behaviour, you're attempting to move the bar to force others to view acceptable behavior as inappropriate.

And Pete, I don't think your charitable interpretation of what he's saying is correct. I think he's advocating some kind of relationship standard that would most closely approximate Vulcan (without Pon Farr that is). That completely ignores what most people of both genders actually enjoy about their own interpersonal relationships. And declaring anything that doesn't meet the standard as inherently abusive - and if you can't see it its because of indoctrination, not that you may be right that it's not abusive.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Trying to sort out Pyr's rape culture argument is like trying to reconstruct a crime scene in a blender. It's difficult to extricate manufactured facts, from distorted analysis, from Pyr's entirely reinvented vocabulary.

[ August 16, 2014, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.
 
Posted by Grant (Member # 1925) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.

I think you're approaching it from the other side of the river, Tom. My guess is you already understood the gist of the argument before Pyr made it, or understood the underlying assumptions/claims before Pyr attempted to communicate them. Maybe I'm wrong.

I think the problem is Pyr trying to take people on the other bank across the river in his boat. Maybe there is a problem with his boat. Maybe you can try to bring them across the river since you understand the argument.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm actually curious what difficulty you're having with it. I don't wholly agree with Pyr's position, but I think it's easy enough to understand.

Tom, if you want me to believe that you understand what Pyr is trying.to say, then by all means articulate.it in good.English, assuming that the the idea is coherent enough to articulate.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Again, no, I didn't say what you made up for me to say. One doesn't have to be "badgering" or engaging in harassment (which again is generally illegal). You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.

Which is a totally made up suggestion. If you've inquired about a romantic relationship and been rejected, that doesn't mean that you should vanish and not be able to continue on on a platonic level afterwards, and a possibility exists that the person you're interested may eventually change their mind. But your suggestion that you should keep leaning on them in a way that they've told you they are currently uninterested in is, in fact, harassment. By all means, work on being a good friend, but you don't do any favors by making yourself into a false friend because you're just putting on a pretense to get into their pants. That whole "nice guy" behavoir is exceptionally invasive and emotionally damaging to everyone involved.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Nice_guy_syndrome

quote:
And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space.
You're suggesting that somewhere, off camera, he asked if it was okay to confronter on her own property and present himself to her in a way such that she was forced to interact with him instead of freely choosing to do so on her own terms? HE didn't seek permission for his behavior. He acted as if he was entitled to behave that way- as if it were permissible for him do do that unless stopped, rather than being something that he should seek permission for and not do unless clearly allowed to.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Pyr but you seem to acknowledge.that consent.can reasonably be inferred from the facts. If you post your phone number and a picture of yourself on Craigslist Men seeking Women, a woman might reasonably infer.that you have invited.her to.text.or.call you
Not that it can be inferred, but rather that it is explicitly communicated by certain conventions. POsting a personal ad is an explicit invitation to reply. Presenting yourself as an available partner at a dance is explicit consent to be asked to dance. Inference only enters when you try to assume non-contextual consent above and beyond the immediate, narrow invitation to contextual social interaction. In each case the action is an invitation to be honestly asked for consent to move one step further and no more (and does not, in any way communicate an assurance of a positive response to that question)

What's more important, though, is that such consent to be approached is not read into public areas that people don't actively come to for socialization by choice. Public transit, grocery stores, etc... Where a person must use them to get about their life. Forcing social interaction in those cases, without some form of explicit context or prior relationship that invites it can actively serve to make those places be regarded as unsafe, if not outright dangerous. which translates in turn to significant social and emotional damage.

[ August 17, 2014, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr, why are YOU entitled to.say what HE can do on HER property? Who died and made you the consent fairy?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I dont accept your world where trying to communicate with someone is a violation of that person's unstated "right" to ignore you.

Standing in someone's driveway to get their attention is acceptable unless they specifically forbid it.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Standing in someone's driveway to get their attention is acceptable unless they specifically forbid it.

No, it's not. Not even remotely. It's their driveway, it's your obligation to get permission, not theirs to chase you away because you want to harass them.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
How the hell.do you get their permission to step in the driveway before you get their attention? That's like.saying you need someone's permission before you call them.or.ring their.door.bell.

That's really backwards. How does.anyone even.initiate.contact on Planet Pyr?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Pyr, why are YOU entitled to.say what HE can do on HER property? Who died and made you the consent fairy?

Because that's the nature of property. Without authorization from the owner, the very nature of property demands that the default be no permission for anyone not the owner. Otherwise the intruder effectively has greater rights to the property in that regard than the nominal owner.

You are, to be sure homing in on exactly why this plays into rape culture- a base line attitude that certain people are allowed to do whatever they want, unless very explicitly told to stop. And Then maybe not, as long as they only don't stop at a rate that other people like them want to be able to cross that boundary as well and invalidate the request of the person they're intruding upon.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" You are, to be sure homing in on exactly why this plays into rape culture- a base line attitude that certain people are allowed to do whatever they want, unless very explicitly told to stop"

"Whatever they want" is not a reasonable.extrapolation of.what i.said.

Please.stop.making crap up.and.putting.it.in my mouth.

I said you can do.SOME things without explicit permission unless.denied. step in a driveway. Ring a doorbell. Call someone.

It's complete.crap for you to claim i am saying you can do.ANYTHING under those.circumstances.

You cant touch aomeone intimately or.unnecessarily without some sort of what you call."explicit" permission. (Which in real english includes.permission reasonably inferred.under.the circumstances. (E.g. a woman goes.to.see a.gynocologist and gets in position).

On Halloween kids will walk up your driveway ans say trick.or.treat.

And if you gently dump.a romantic nerd you can probably expect.a gentle.serenade from the driveway.

You might as.well accuse trick.or treaters of.rape, sam i am.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
"Whatever they want" is not a reasonable.extrapolation of.what i.said.
Except for the fact that that's exactly what the attitude becomes in the culture at large. You may not like that consequence of the attitude, but that doesn't help the people that have to deal with those consequences on a day to day basis as others invade their space and privacy because the don't respect the boundaries of the object of their interest and seek positive permission instead of assuming consent and ignoring attempts to decline.

quote:
I said you can do.SOME things without explicit permission unless.denied. step in a driveway. Ring a doorbell. Call someone.
But not actually try to force an interaction. Last I checked, "playing a boom box" was not considered a form of knocking on the door. And his intent in the action wasn't to request permission to be there, it was specifically to undermine her stated wish to end the relationship.

quote:
On Halloween kids will walk up your driveway ans say trick.or.treat.
If you turn the lights on (and generally put up at least some inviting decoration) to invite them. You don't go up to every house on Halloween, just the ones that clearly communicate their participation.

quote:
And if you gently dump.a romantic nerd you can probably expect.a gentle.serenade from the driveway.
Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" Except for the fact that that's exactly what the attitude becomes in the culture at large."

"Except for"? Delusional. Even if that was the attitude of the culture at large (even if there was.a.single monolithic culture at large) it still.would.be boorish of.you to.have inserted.that claim into what *I* said.


Boorish the first time, and.outright thuggish when you did it.the second.time against my explicit objections.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries."

Absolutely. And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries. You dont have.the right to just suck your thumb and require.the world to.read your mind.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" But not actually try to force an interaction. Last I checked, "playing a boom box" was not considered a form of knocking on the door"

Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention. Playing a boom box as softly as he did, is well.within those parameters. You would say that the fact that he didnt pull on with a deadly weapon (a car) and used *fewer* decibels than a doorbell or horn makes him *more* intrusive? Beh. Sure you're not just pissy about him being imaginative? (The same.quality which seems.to cauee his ex to be amused and delighted by the incident?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention
Which is a horrible practice, lazy, rude, and disruptive of people outside of the one that you're communicating with.

quote:
(The same.quality which seems.to cauee his ex to be amused and delighted by the incident?
Since a script writer told her she should be such, not because it's a natural reaction to be amused by someone that you're trying to push out of your life actively forcing themselves back into it. That's part of what makes that scene problematic. Instead of highlighting the fact that he was using bad and outright creepy tactics, it instead blesse them and tells people that they should be happy to let others violate their boundaries, that there's something wrong with them if they feel creeped out or intruded upon instead of enjoying being harassed.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries.

No. It's not. It's your active responsibility to verify that you're not violating any boundaries by getting explicit permission to cross them.

That's the core point here, because the vase majority of rapes occur specifically because our culture teaches us that it's the victim's responsibility to actively stop encroachment, not the responsibility of a potential aggressor to obtain clear, enthusiastic consent.

It is good to be able to clarify your boundaries, but the duty for identifying them and getting permission to cross them _always_ lies with the person doing the crossing, never with the person being intruded upon.
 
Posted by yossarian22c (Member # 1779) on :
 
npr

quote:
A number of studies, on college campuses and elsewhere, have shown that having friends who support violence against women is a big risk factor for committing sexual assault. Now prevention efforts are exploring the idea that having male friends who object to violence against women can be a powerful antidote to rape on college campuses.

...

He surveyed about 1,800 men, asking them a wide range of questions about their sexual experiences. To learn about sexual assault he asked things like, "have you ever had sex with an adult when they didn't want to because you used physical force?" When the results came back he was stunned.

All told, 120 men in the sample, or about 6 percent of the total, had raped women they knew. Two-thirds of those men were serial rapists, who had done this, on average, six times. Many of the serial rapists began offending before college, back in high school.

Here is an interesting study to look at involving the rape culture and amazingly it has very little to do with playing a boom box in a driveway and much more to do with peers being passive about abuse of people passed out drunk.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
A number of studies, on college campuses and elsewhere, have shown that having friends who support violence against women is a big risk factor for committing sexual assault.
EXACTLY, Yossarian!

Hence the problem with Indian and Pakistani immigrants in England. There's a culture where rape is considered not only an acceptable but a publicly approved tool against enemy tribes. They actually hold court, sentence a woman of another caste or tribe to be raped, and then conduct the rapes in public in front of their children. (both the case in India and the one in pakistan had those trappings). Again, in the Guyarat rapes, indians were raping Muslim women in front of not only the victim's children but in front of the perp's children.

I remember a time in which many americans talked about how a victim dressed as "deserving to be raped" and I don't hear normal Americans talking like that anymore. Today, those that find circles of friends that approve such atrocities, either come from a narrow ethnic subculture (e.g. white trash, off-the-boat central african, etc.) or employ SOCIAL MEDIA to find like minded losers. That's why the middle class gang rapes you hear of are all tied to social media such as facebook.

Pyr's out there crying "rape culture" because our society doesn't set the boundaries he thinks should be set with driveways and property lines. He's diddling while Rome burns.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Many folks honk from the driveway to.get attention
Which is a horrible practice, lazy, rude, and disruptive of people outside of the one that you're communicating with.

Agreed. And yet even your response suggests that it's marginally OK for the "one you're communicating with." Which begs the question of why you're so uptight about a low volume music on a boom box from the driveway.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Trying to sort out Pyr's rape culture argument is like trying to reconstruct a crime scene in a blender. It's difficult to extricate manufactured facts, from distorted analysis, from Pyr's entirely reinvented vocabulary.

Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.

In other words, sites that you choose to slander If you can't honestly represent a position, you should stick to advancing your own, rather misrepresenting others.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Agreed. And yet even your response suggests that it's marginally OK for the "one you're communicating with."


Assuming you have a prior agreement with them that it's okay and are not intruding upon others, sure.

quote:
Which begs the question

Raises the question.

quote:
of why you're so uptight about a low volume music on a boom box from the driveway.
Because it's a clear violation of boundaries that the movie blesses as an okay thing to do, rather than making clear is a fundamentally creepy violation.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Really, Hollywood has always been horrible about respecting personal boundaries. How many movies see a character "transformed" by a makeover into someone more conventionally attractive and conformist? How many more see a reclusive, introverted loner learn that the true path to happiness lies in expressing himself/herself more often, cutting loose now and then, and finding a core group of wacky, noisy friends to pull him/her out of his/her shell?

Hollywood has always taught that quiet, reclusive people need to be saved from themselves, and no one should ever take "no" for an answer. This is problematic in a lot of ways, but nowhere more so than when applied to romance.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Really, Hollywood has always been horrible about respecting personal boundaries. How many movies see a character "transformed" by a makeover into someone more conventionally attractive and conformist? How many more see a reclusive, introverted loner learn that the true path to happiness lies in expressing himself/herself more often, cutting loose now and then, and finding a core group of wacky, noisy friends to pull him/her out of his/her shell?

Hollywood has always taught that quiet, reclusive people need to be saved from themselves, and no one should ever take "no" for an answer. This is problematic in a lot of ways, but nowhere more so than when applied to romance.

Agreed and I've already addressed this with far better examples, such as the forced kiss that initiates a love scene.

Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

Seriati, au contraire, I was part of the movement in the 1990s when presentations like "Still killing us softly" were showing how the commercial media objectified women's bodies and created a culture in which rape could be viewed as acceptable. Fast forward to today, and "rape culture" is being hurled around not so much by extremist feminist groups so much as by shallow and controlling feminist individuals, in order to enforce, well, anything they want. Disagree with them about anything, and egads, you're enabling rape. Boom boxes in driveways. what will it be next. It's the story of the runaway fatwa.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

It seems to me that if you two are quibbling over whether or not forcing your ex-girlfriend to listen to Phil Collins represents an oppressive crossing of borders, it's really only relevant insofar as one of you has actually stood on someone's driveway and played Phil Collins at them.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir and mounted ever escalating attacks against it as if it were supposed to be a huge issue rather than a small and subtle thing as it was originally presented. I've done my best to try to defend the reasoning why the scene is problematic, but you're not crossing the line into repetitive personal attacks on me enough that I'm not comfortable trying to let them pass anymore. I do my best to keep you separated from your arguments, and I ask the same of you. If you're finding the need to drop my name multiple times in a single post then you've gone well past the line of failing to maintain a separation into outright attacks.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Pyr, I said your argument is retentive, not that you are personally anal retentive.

I've agreed with Tom that the behavior is unhealthy. I disagree with you that it crosses personal boundaries in any violative way. I think that using it as an example of "rape culture" is not merely wrong but trivializes rape and mangles the credibility of any kinds of attempts to foster an anti-rape culture.

If you want to simply agree to disagree there, I'm happy to do so.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.

It seems to me that if you two are quibbling over whether or not forcing your ex-girlfriend to listen to Phil Collins represents an oppressive crossing of borders, it's really only relevant insofar as one of you has actually stood on someone's driveway and played Phil Collins at them.
I did worse, once; I called an ex-fiancee back in 1989 and sang her one of her favorite songs, "I'll be true to you" by the beatles. I was being a manipulative git, but she'd strung me along for a week before letting me know she'd been seeing someone else, and she deserved the guilt trip. She could have hung up on me. She could have asked me not to call her back. In absence of such requests, I don't believe that I violated her boundaries with the call; I just soiled my own dignity and increased my long distance bill. I was an immature 21 year old who had no business getting engaged in the first place.

[ August 18, 2014, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir and mounted ever escalating attacks against it as if it were supposed to be a huge issue rather than a small and subtle thing as it was originally presented. I've done my best to try to defend the reasoning why the scene is problematic, but you're not crossing the line into repetitive personal attacks on me enough that I'm not comfortable trying to let them pass anymore. I do my best to keep you separated from your arguments, and I ask the same of you. If you're finding the need to drop my name multiple times in a single post then you've gone well past the line of failing to maintain a separation into outright attacks.
Pyr, I admit to having been rough as to your view of the facts. But the reason that I do repeatedly use your name repeatedly in a post is to clarify when what I'm critiquing has to do with something that you have said, as opposed to other memes which I attack far more vigorously, which don't have to do with you at all, such as:

quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
(responding to Seriati's suggestion that Pyr was my first introduction to the term "rape culture"
Seriati, au contraire, I was part of the movement in the 1990s when presentations like "Still killing us softly" were showing how the commercial media objectified women's bodies and created a culture in which rape could be viewed as acceptable. Fast forward to today, and "rape culture" is being hurled around not so much by extremist feminist groups so much as by shallow and controlling feminist individuals, in order to enforce, well, anything they want. Disagree with them about anything, and egads, you're enabling rape. Boom boxes in driveways. what will it be next. It's the story of the runaway fatwa.

With that second to last phrase, i guess I did tie you into it all, Pyr. Apologies for that. I don't regard you as one of the "shallow and controlling feminist individuals" that I was talking about. There I'm talking about Marni on facebook and a few other nonOrnerians on FeministMormonHousewives.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Doesn't change the fact that Pyr's argument is as anally retentive about boundaries as Hollywood is anally expulsive, and that failure to adhere to Pyr's little fastidious lines does not a rape culture make.
Pete- you're the one who has taken a small example of inappropriate behavoir
Well no. Remember, you're the one who keeps using words like "fundamental" and "violation" to refer to the boombox incident. I think that kind of language, applied to something so small, trivializes rape. If you called it a marginal infringement on her consent rather than a fundamental violation of her consent, I'd have let it go. I don't think it infringes on her *consent*, unless she tells him to go away and he refuses. But I'd not have continued the argument if you hadn't declared driveway PhilCollinsing the fundamental cornerstone of the rape issue. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
You can be rejected, and still welcome to be around, and still make it clear that you are interested in more than a platonic relationship.

No means no. It doesn't mean you are banished from my sight if you even begin to imply that you are still sexually interested in me.

Which is a totally made up suggestion. If you've inquired about a romantic relationship and been rejected, that doesn't mean that you should vanish and not be able to continue on on a platonic level afterwards, and a possibility exists that the person you're interested may eventually change their mind. But your suggestion that you should keep leaning on them in a way that they've told you they are currently uninterested in is, in fact, harassment.
See, this is where you refuse to actually make distinctions - notwithstanding your claim that you would in fact be willing to do so. There is an entire range of behavior between platonic friends and engaging in harassment, they are not directly next to each on the line as you are implying. Harrasment is a legal measure, yet you keep pretending that legality is a red herring. Why is that? It's because you are trying to change the definition of harrassment to include legal behaviors, yet retain the negative connataions so you can demonize someone as engaging in harrasment.

No one is required to hide their interest in someone else. To even suggest that is a repression of that person. The object of their desire is free to reject continuing to associate with such person on those terms, but such person is entitled to express their feelings.

If the conduct is unwanted and the object feels it is harrassment they are themselves free to take addtional actions.
quote:
By all means, work on being a good friend, but you don't do any favors by making yourself into a false friend because you're just putting on a pretense to get into their pants. That whole "nice guy" behavoir is exceptionally invasive and emotionally damaging to everyone involved.
Now you've moved into "advice". I never said it was a good plan, I said you have no right to call such a person an abuser, or a harrasser, or part of rape culture. Heck, I knew plenty of women who deliberately invoked such behaviour in young men to manipulate them into providing favors and for attention. And I don't blame them either, it's up to the men to learn self respect and to reject that abusive situation, not up to the law to intervene.
quote:
quote:
And there's no truth that he acts as if he's "entitled" to ignore her wishes or invade her space.
You're suggesting that somewhere, off camera, he asked if it was okay to confronter on her own property and present himself to her in a way such that she was forced to interact with him instead of freely choosing to do so on her own terms? HE didn't seek permission for his behavior.
No, not suggesting that. I'm flat out saying that your standard is false, that it's not required, and that she was perfectly free to reject him. But that a one time event of this nature from essentially the public right of way is not evidence of entitlement or of inappropriate harrassment. It's literally him asking permission to reenter her life, the fact that he didn't send a notorized form ahead of time to enquire if he had permission to suprise her with a romantic gesture intended to regain her favor is overkill on your part.

He was asking permission by conducting the act.
quote:
He acted as if he was entitled to behave that way- as if it were permissible for him do do that unless stopped, rather than being something that he should seek permission for and not do unless clearly allowed to.
No, it's your unreasonable reading of the act in its context that makes this an event that required permission, rather than the act seeking permission.
quote:
What's more important, though, is that such consent to be approached is not read into public areas that people don't actively come to for socialization by choice. Public transit, grocery stores, etc... Where a person must use them to get about their life. Forcing social interaction in those cases, without some form of explicit context or prior relationship that invites it can actively serve to make those places be regarded as unsafe, if not outright dangerous. which translates in turn to significant social and emotional damage.
Again, nonsensical standards. It's acceptable to interact with people in all public places. It's the conduct itself that determines if its inappropriate not the locale.

If force is involved it's always wrong, but that means actual force, not your misdefined version where talking to someone is force (notwithstanding that one would have to communicate in order to even get permission, creating a feedback loop).
quote:
quote:
Maybe if it's the first time you're exposed to it, but he's largely rehashing some of the postitions from extreme feminist sites. The one's where all sex is a form of abuse.
In other words, sites that you choose to slander If you can't honestly represent a position, you should stick to advancing your own, rather misrepresenting others.
Who do you think I'm slandering? Is it your assertion that such cites do not exist? Or that they are mainstream and not extreme? Or is it your assertion that this represented an original thought on your part uninfluenced by other philosophical work on the point?

In my view, you have not represented your position clearly enough to set actual standards of conduct, and that in fact when you move from generalities (where you can imply that there is a wide range of acceptable to conduct), to specifics you demonstrate that the philosophy you're espousing has absolutely no middle ground and that it attempts to demonize the majority of actual human conduct as a violation. Feel free to show me wrong, give us some bright line tough case examples where the conduct is okay. Or articulate the actual standards that cover them.

[ August 19, 2014, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Pete, would you please stop slagging Marni? She's hardly shallow; she just thinks Mormon doctrine is misinterpreted by Mormon culture, and you disagree. Don't harp on someone who's not been even here, just 'cause her own views are diametrically opposed to yours in a way that challenges your own perception of yourself as female-friendly.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
See, this is where you refuse to actually make distinctions - notwithstanding your claim that you would in fact be willing to do so. There is an entire range of behavior between platonic friends and engaging in harassment, they are not directly next to each on the line as you are implying. Harrasment is a legal measure, yet you keep pretending that legality is a red herring. Why is that? It's because you are trying to change the definition of harrassment to include legal behaviors, yet retain the negative connataions so you can demonize someone as engaging in harrasment.
This suggests that harassment wouldn't exist if we didn't legally define it, which is nonsense. Harassment isa kind of behavior. We make it illegal after a certain degree based on the balance between what the largest majority wants to keep legal vs what they want to be protected from other being able to do to them.

By trying to assert current law as a gold standard for how to define any given behavoir, you actively beg the question-law arises from culture; to try to use it as evidence that a given cultural institution is acceptable is circular reasoning.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries."

Absolutely. And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries. You dont have.the right to just suck your thumb and require.the world to.read your mind.

Didn't she clarify her boundaries when she dumped him?
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Well no. Remember, you're the one who keeps using words like "fundamental" and "violation" to refer to the boombox incident.

Works that don't convey enormity, only essence.corssed a boundary without obtaining any direct form of consent to do so. That is a fundamental violation, regardless of how small an example of such a violation it is.
quote:
I think that kind of language, applied to something so small, trivializes rape.
Which would be true if this was being equated to rape. But that is a misinterpretation that has already been pointed out to you. This is an example of the kind of attitude that leads to many, if not most rapes in our culture at large, specifically this attitude:

quote:
I don't think it infringes on her *consent*, unless she tells him to go away and he refuses.
That is precisely the horrible attitude that is at teh core of the issue. "Well, they didn't say 'no'" is _never_ acceptable. Only a clear and willing "yes" is acceptable. It is not the duty of the person being encroached upon to say no. It is the duty of the person doing the encroaching to ensure that they have a clear and explicit yes before continuing. That's the fundamental principle that's being violated.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
Pyrtolin, you literally told Pete that you were not equating it with rape, and in the very next example directly equated it to rape.

And I clearly said that the law defines the minimums not the "gold" standard. Between the two is a range of behavior that is of differing levels of social desirability, not a great mass of parts of the rape culture and the vulcan ideal.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
It's literally him asking permission to reenter her life, the fact that he didn't send a notorized form ahead of time to enquire if he had permission to suprise her with a romantic gesture intended to regain her favor is overkill on your part.

He was asking permission by conducting the act.

Not even remotely. Asking her permission would be asking her permission. This was asserting that he had permission and exercising it. Nothing about what he did asks her if he can be there doing that, rather it asserts his presence there whether she likes it or not.

quote:
Who do you think I'm slandering? Is it your assertion that such cites do not exist? Or that they are mainstream and not extreme? Or is it your assertion that this represented an original thought on your part uninfluenced by other philosophical work on the point?
You are slandering the vast majority of mainstream feminist sources that advance the basic notion of positive consent by casting them as extreme, fringe sites with minority opinions. Nice try at throwing out an array of false choices, though.

[quote[In my view, you have not represented your position clearly enough to set actual standards of conduct, [/quote]
It is the responsibility of the person who might be crossing another person's boundaries to learn what boundaries that person has and obtain clear, enthusiastic consent to cross them. It is _never_ the duty of the person being encroached up on to have to assert a no in response to an unwelcome advance- any response but a clear and willing "yes" should be treated as a "no".

That that restatement of what I've said over and over already good enough for you, or will you continue to try to suggest that I have not said that.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Pyrtolin, you literally told Pete that you were not equating it with rape, and in the very next example directly equated it to rape.

Not in the slightest.I equated it to an attitude that leads to rapes. Not to rape. There is a vast difference between the two things.

quote:
And I clearly said that the law defines the minimums not the "gold" standard. Between the two is a range of behavior that is of differing levels of social desirability, not a great mass of parts of the rape culture and the vulcan ideal.
The law sets the _maximum_ legally allowable bound on a given behavior, not the minimum. And it does not in any way provide an unbiased standard for what is actually acceptable or innocuous. Only what we have the cultural will to assign legal consequences to.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
quote:
not a great mass of parts of the rape culture and the vulcan ideal.
And you continue with misrepresenting someone else's argument instead of sticking to presenting your own.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It's literally him asking permission to reenter her life, the fact that he didn't send a notorized form ahead of time to enquire if he had permission to suprise her with a romantic gesture intended to regain her favor is overkill on your part.

He was asking permission by conducting the act.

Not even remotely. Asking her permission would be asking her permission. This was asserting that he had permission and exercising it. Nothing about what he did asks her if he can be there doing that, rather it asserts his presence there whether she likes it or not.
He was asking her permission to continue their relationship, with an unspoken plea.

Your claim by the is gross mission creep, and a far cry from your original assertion that this was some form of coercive behavior. You seem to have down graded that to a bizarre property claim.
quote:
quote:
Who do you think I'm slandering? Is it your assertion that such cites do not exist? Or that they are mainstream and not extreme? Or is it your assertion that this represented an original thought on your part uninfluenced by other philosophical work on the point?
You are slandering the vast majority of mainstream feminist sources that advance the basic notion of positive consent by casting them as extreme, fringe sites with minority opinions. Nice try at throwing out an array of false choices, though.
What part of asserting that the claim appears on extremist sites is slandering mainstream sites? Most people, including average feminists do not equate romantic gestures with impermissable parts of the rape culture. Human intelligence is what allows us to distinguish between events that are quirky and charming, and those that are creepy and over the top.
quote:
quote:
In my view, you have not represented your position clearly enough to set actual standards of conduct,
It is the responsibility of the person who might be crossing another person's boundaries to learn what boundaries that person has and obtain clear, enthusiastic consent to cross them. It is _never_ the duty of the person being encroached up on to have to assert a no in response to an unwelcome advance- any response but a clear and willing "yes" should be treated as a "no".
Actually, no. You're only partially correct. There are many contexts where even a first advance is not acceptable, physical contact for instance is not an area where ambiguity is acceptable.

However, there are many contexts where you're just wrong. No one needs to ask permission to ask for a date. The request for the date is itself the permission. Your right to not have your boundaries crossed is not absolute, it ends where the other persons right to free expression is being reasonably exercised. By your model, we should be able to repress most art, as it deliberately sets out to cross our boundaries - often without consent.
quote:
That that restatement of what I've said over and over already good enough for you, or will you continue to try to suggest that I have not said that.
It's no where near good enough. It's not specific at all. Again you fudge on distinguishing between behaviours that society accepts in favor of an absolute prohibition on the rights of one part to express themselves that isn't consistent with our expectations in any other context.

You have not reasonable articulated any grounds to except your zero tolerence rule over the existing ability of people to use rationale judgement in grey areas.

Presumably, for instance you believe that surprise parties should be criminalized.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It's literally him asking permission to reenter her life, the fact that he didn't send a notorized form ahead of time to enquire if he had permission to suprise her with a romantic gesture intended to regain her favor is overkill on your part.

He was asking permission by conducting the act.

Not even remotely. Asking her permission would be asking her permission. This was asserting that he had permission and exercising it. Nothing about what he did asks her if he can be there doing that, rather it asserts his presence there whether she likes it or not.
He was asking her permission to continue their relationship, with an unspoken plea.
Didn't she already deny that permission when she dumped him?

If she says "no" again and he shows up the next night, would that still be a romantic gesture of asking permission? How about the night after that? How many times does she have to say no before you stop thinking his behavior is sweet? Is their a number of refusals that will convince you that she knows her own mind?
 
Posted by vegimo (Member # 6023) on :
 
I wonder if it changes anything that the reason she dumped him was that she was pressured to do so by her father...that there was seemingly very little reason for her dumping him...that she seemed upset to be dumping him in the first place.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate: when she asks.him to stop coming back. That's when it's violation.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" How many times does she have to say no before you stop thinking his behavior is sweet?"
Get off my leg, Kate. I never said that the behavior was sweet. I said that the behavior was unhealthy.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
" That is precisely the horrible attitude that is at teh core of the issue. "Well, they didn't say 'no'" is _never_ acceptable. Only a clear and willing "yes" is acceptable. It is not the duty of the person being encroached upon to say no."

You have already admitted that's crap, Pyr. If you're at a dance, and someone tries to dance with you, it's your obligation to say no. If it's Halloween, then it's your duty to turn the porch light off so kids know you are saying no to.trick.or treaters. Your wors "never" turns your argument to.crap. there are clearly incidents where it's necessary to.say no

Furthermore, by taking rules which make.sense with consent to.actual.sexual intimacies, and applying them to boom boxes and verbal communications, you trivialize rape. Different rules apply to.sex, than, say, tapping someone's shoulder.to.get their attention in a noisy room.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Pete, don't assume I am only talking to you.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Didn't she already deny that permission when she dumped him?

No, she didn't deny permission to ask to get back together by dumping him. It's kind of impossible that such would be the case, or else noone could get back together. You're always free to ask.
quote:
If she says "no" again and he shows up the next night, would that still be a romantic gesture of asking permission? How about the night after that? How many times does she have to say no before you stop thinking his behavior is sweet? Is their a number of refusals that will convince you that she knows her own mind?
And see, now you're talking about when he's crossing the line. For instance if he asked every five minutes, I'd think most of us would recognise that as harassment pretty swiftly. But what if he asked every year on his birthday, most of us would not.

I never thought his behaviour was sweet. The character of Diane (right?) was written to think it was so, and there are plenty of romantics out there that cite to that specific moment, so they must have thought so too.

I also always thought she knows her own mind. Of course, movies are often written so that characters are ignoring what their own mind is telling them. It doesn't take a certain amount of refusals to convince me.

I honestly don't think you can have a "bright line" test, because what Lloyd and Diane believe is okay between themselves is clearly different than what Pyrtolin would accept or do, but my point is that doesn't make them wrong, or Lloyd and abuser, or Diane a helpless female who's coerced into ending up with Lloyd because of some form of coercive manipulation.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Can you see how such movies might incline men to think that women who dump them or say "no" to them are "ignoring what their own mind is telling them"? This is what is problematic here. Both men and women are being trained not to believe women when we say what we don't want.

[ August 19, 2014, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
No kmbboots, I don't believe that. Everyone I know has had a relationship end, most many, many of those went poorly, some got back together. But I don't know anyone that thought they had a right to get back with their ex, or thought their ex wasn't the one that decided if they wanted them back. They might have hoped it, they might have promised they'd changed, they might even have tried grand gestures, but they didn't think they had a right to change their mind against their will. Equating persuasion in interpersonal relationships, with rape and sexual assualts - which are physical acts - leads to these kind of strange attempts at equivalence. It's okay to continue to talk to someone in circumstances where it would not be okay to continue to physically touch them.

I think it's interesting that we all have views associated with information that conflict on this point. Do you believe media coverage causes school shootings? If not, you're being inconsistent here. Do you believe that Grand Theft Auto inclines people to beat up hookers, commit crimes and shoot people? If not you're being inconsistent here. Yet most of us accept that body image issues are compounded by potrayals of models, do we not? Which is consistent with this philosophy.

When you're talking about conditioning men (and women) to me, kmbboots, what actually trains men about women is what actually works or doesn't work on the real live women in their lives, not the fake ones in the movies. Every guy I know who believes in the movie message - ie that no matter how little they do to make themselves desirable they deserve the perfect model - is still alone in his forties.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Seriati, do you understand the difference between "cause" and "incline"? Just because you don't personally know men who behave that way, do you think that they don't exist? Do you think that real women aren't being disregarded when they say "no" - because I can tell you that I know several.

There is a difference between causing something and contributing to it.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
kmbboots can you clarify what you mean on that? Disregarded in what way?

See it's already loaded in the context of this converstation. When you say it that way, it sounds like they were raped or assualted, and if that's what you meant you're not getting disagreement that it was wrong. But if what you mean is they turned a guy down for a date on Saturday night, and he called them the next week about the following Friday, it's something else.

There are differences in causation and contribution, but there's also a difference between those and coertion or force and responsibility. We have a lot of words to distinguish between moral conditions, and we have a lot of reasons to use them. If you have clear cases of examples, I'm happy to see if we agree on them.
 
Posted by KidTokyo (Member # 6601) on :
 
My own belief is that rape has less to do with how men view women and more to do with how men view themselves. In particular, I view it as a consequence of male tribalism with its complete surrender to the logic of the brotherhood, which shuts down empathy for anyone outside of its circle. In this way, it is closely connected to other forms of violence and coercion used to maintain a particular power niche. I don't think it is in anyway caused by titillation or portrayals in the media.

I do not claim to have factual support for this.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Everyone, do we agree that calling a woman a "bitch" for firmly declining your invitation to a date can be called part of "rape culture?"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Yes. Same.applies if you call a.man a.bitch for.the same.reason, neh?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
" Which would be a good signal that you had just cause for dumping that person in the first place, if that have that poor a sense of boundaries."

Absolutely. And if that's what happened, your duty is to clarify your boundaries. You dont have.the right to just suck your thumb and require.the world to.read your mind.

Didn't she clarify her boundaries when she dumped him?
She clearly reset SOME boundaries. If he'd just walked up.to jer and kissed her, or.continued to tell others she was his girlfriend, THAT would be a violation of her explicit.will and all that stuff Pyr said.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I think that what kids said is total rape-affirming bull****. In cultures and subcultures where rape is most rampant, Women as well as men uphold the rape culture. In the judge ordered rapes in India and Pakistan, and in the Western gang rapes fostered by facebook, we see women as well as men saying that the victim "deserved to be raped." And that is still the attitude that prevails in the United States towards Prison male rape, ie that male convicts deserve to be raped.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
1986, I'm.wiping blood off the knees of the victim of an attempted.rape.while.my roommate chases her assailant.down the street. I remember her repeating over.ansd over: "my mother is kill me." for.walking at.night alone. As if that made it her fault.

1983, high school. I'm watching Clockwork Orange.with friends i walk out at the rape.scene. aCathy Ryan, a senior, calls.me a.pussy. i say, i dont get how.anyone could.do that to another person. She says i'm too judgmental ... that some.guys just need.to.get it out of.their system, no big deal.

I remember living in a "rape culture." From my perspective, we've.come a long way, and babbling about phil.collins in the driveway fails.to.adress the truly poisonous things remaining in the culture.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Of course, but we still have a ways to go. Obviously.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Of course, but we still have a ways to go. Obviously.

Yes, obviously. But carping about driveways property rights as "fundamental" to the issue of rape, hardly tales us in the right direction.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Why do you think this is about the driveway? It is about the persistent notion that when a woman says no, she doesn't know her own mind and can be disregarded.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
You're the one who.is seco.d guessi.g her. She never.said no.about the driveway
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Right. Because all he wanted was to stand in her driveway. That was his goal. Not a means to an end at all.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
So in Kate's world, a man needs a woman's approval over what he wants?

She never said he couldnt stand in her driveway and.serenade her. It seems to.be well received. It's Pyr who talks of her like aome weak.minded female who could.be compelled with a boom box tune.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
I think you are still missing the point which isn't about the characters in the film but about the myth that the film perpetuates. That the woman in the film liked it is the problem.

[ August 19, 2014, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I've broken up with a woman and then been talked into giving.things.another shot. It happens with many men and women. Not a.violation until you say no, dont ask again and.then they keep pushing. Seems.to.me.that some.people.are.using.the spectre.of.rape to bully others into changing the cultural boundaries rather than respecting reasonable.and.explicit boundaries.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
What seem like reasonable boundaries to you might seem different on the other side of those boundaries. The problem is not specific situations but that people generalize those situations. Scarlett may have been giddy in love the morning after Rhett forced her to have sex but that doesn't mean that Joe Shmoe's wife is going to be. Before someone launches into "well everyone I know can tell fiction from reality" clearly everyone can't with those ideas that are so pervasive. If they could, we wouldn't have ex-boyfriends harrassing women thinking they are being romantic or men raping women thinking that she just doesn't know that she wants it. Of course, fiction isn't the whole of the problem, but those types of stories contribute to the idea that men can disregard women's stated wishes. And it works on women, too, leading us to further confuse the issue by following the same stupid, dangerous script.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What seem like reasonable boundaries to you might seem different on the other side of those boundaries.

I'm annoyed by your pretentious disregard for what you were purporting to reply to. Please reread the post immediately preceding yours. What you fail to acknowledge that not everyone on one side of a boundary draws that boundary in precisely the same place. It's pretentious for you to assume that everyone that's ever been the object of unwanted advances shares your views about boom boxes and driveways. Boundaries and morees differ as much as standards about what is appropriate or modest.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 6161) on :
 
Okay. What do you think those reasonable and explicit boundaries are that we should respect? And what do you think we lose by changing them?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
You (generic you) are the only one on your side of any boundary of the sort being discussed, I think.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kate, i have no problem.with your trying to change social boundaries in order to suit your tastes, so long as you are honest and dont violate.certain boundaries.of decency (e.g. trivializing rape) in order to do so.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What seem like reasonable boundaries to you might seem different on the other side of those boundaries. The problem is not specific situations but that people generalize those situations. Scarlett may have been giddy in love the morning after Rhett forced her to have sex but that doesn't mean that Joe Shmoe's wife is going to be.

I absolutely agree that telling stories about joyous forced sex create an environment that encourages rape. Particularly as with Gone with the Wind, the story's written by a woman, about a woman, and marketed specifically towards women. "Giddy in love" smells to me of Stockholm syndrome.

But Rhett actually violated an explicit boundary, whereas Say Anything girl never told Cusack he couldn't play his stereo in her driveway.

quote:
Before someone launches into "well everyone I know can tell fiction from reality" clearly everyone can't with those ideas that are so pervasive.
I absolutely agree. But the fact that principle is true, doesn't mean that your application to Say anything isn't a grotesque misapplication.

quote:
If they could, we wouldn't have ex-boyfriends harrassing women thinking they are being romantic or men raping women thinking that she just doesn't know that she wants it.
I absolutely agree. But the fact that principle is true, doesn't mean that your application to Say anything isn't a grotesque misapplication.

quote:
Of course, fiction isn't the whole of the problem, but those types of stories contribute to the idea that men can disregard women's stated wishes.
I absolutely agree. But the fact that principle is true, doesn't mean that your application to Say anything isn't a grotesque misapplication.

quote:
And it works on women, too, leading us to further confuse the issue by following the same stupid, dangerous script.
Agreed etc.

My point is that we should set and respect clear boundaries, rather than expecting others to read our minds.

There's the story of a woman who had her mom over, and put her up in her own bed. Her husband comes home, late night, unknowingly crawls into bed with his mother in law. The next morning, husband sees his mother in law, freaks out, and the wife asks her mom why she didn't say anything. Reply: "I haven't said a word to that man in 10 years and I'm not about to start now!"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What seem like reasonable boundaries to you might seem different on the other side of those boundaries. The problem is not specific situations but that people generalize those situations. Scarlett may have been giddy in love the morning after Rhett forced her to have sex but that doesn't mean that Joe Shmoe's wife is going to be. Before someone launches into "well everyone I know can tell fiction from reality" clearly everyone can't with those ideas that are so pervasive. If they could, we wouldn't have ex-boyfriends harrassing women thinking they are being romantic or men raping women thinking that she just doesn't know that she wants it. Of course, fiction isn't the whole of the problem, but those types of stories contribute to the idea that men can disregard women's stated wishes. And it works on women, too, leading us to further confuse the issue by following the same stupid, dangerous script.

Well-said and agreed as to Gone With The Wind, which was published in 1936.

"Before someone launches into "well everyone I know can tell fiction from reality" clearly everyone can't with those ideas that are so pervasive."

You underestimate your fellow Ornerians. I absolutely agree with you that fiction creates a sense of OK-ness.

If you could show me any popular 21st century fiction in the USA where a woman gets raped and then falls in love, where this is portrayed as in Gone with the Wind, I'd strongly agree with you that there's a serious problem with a generalized rape culture in the USA.

While "scarlett doesn't really know what she wants" was a dominant and dangerous meme in the US in the 20th century, the more dangerous meme at this point is that "x deserves to be raped" which is the theme of ethnic rapes by Indians and Pakistanis, and also of white middle class facebook rapes, and of male prison rapes.

If you want to improve the culture, it behooves you to actually pay attention to the time and trends of your generations. Let's not focus on fighting memes that largely died with the cold war.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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?

 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Thanks! will check it out when am at library. Sounds good.
 
Posted by Lloyd Perna (Member # 1315) on :
 
A rape epidemic -- by women?
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 6842) on :
 
Something must be wrong. I've never seen Ornery so dead. No posts for over 19 hours? Bizarre.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 6842) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Bad reporting by idiot bloggers: Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother
 
Posted by TommySama (Member # 2780) on :
 
Maybe we could start a new thread? "Obama Starts Another War... thing, I guess. Heard About It?"
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Um...you disagree with what? My description of the law? I wasn't describing anyone's actual position, just the absurdity of the law.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Cool [Smile]
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Seriati (Member # 2266) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pyrtolin (Member # 2638) on :
 
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.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1