As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Whose Definition of Feminism Is It Anyway? (With New Improved and Expanded Conversations!)

1787981838488

Posts

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Avraham wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where i have to prove i'm not a rapist.

    well I don't want to live in a society where women suffer harassment and threats of violence every day so

    it's kind of a raw deal for everyone

    I'm fairly certain we can work on your problem without changing the entire way our justice system works. I'd like to think we can hold onto "innocent until proven guilty" and make things better for women all at the same time.

    I think a good rule is: if your solution involves calling people rapists if they can't prove they're not rapists, you should probably rethink your solution.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    SKFM do you understand what a gender stereotype is?

    Yes. Do you understand that stereotypes can be true about certain members of the group subject to the stereotype?

    And do you understand that the above makes it no less a stereotype and no less sexist?

    So now we're not allowed to make true statements about specific people or groups of people if those statements are true often enough to be recognized as common and become stereotypes?

    I don't think this is sexist, because it is not trading on the idea of women as being bad at games. It is based on the idea that there are many people who have the following characteristics: (1) female, (2) in a relationship, (3) with a gamer and (4) not themselves a gamer. The remark was based on the existence of this group, not any specific characteristics of that group.

    This is where it got sexist, because this characteristic artificially limits the potential audience of the feature to a single sex. What, exactly, about the BFF Tree links it intrinsically to the female sex?

    Nothing. The link is to members of the "girlfriends who don't play games" group. It isn't only for women or for all women, and he never said anything to indicate it as such. He said it was made with this one group in mind though. I don't see the problem here. When you watch a commercial with a black actor do you say "I can't buy that product if I'm white because they showed it is for black people?

    This isn't an appropriate analogy. A more appropriate one would be "Here's a TV commercial with Michael Dorn, and he's saying 'Neutrogena T-Gel: It works for black men.'" Now, obviously the link is to members of the "black men who have dandruff problems" group, but it isn't only for black men. He just said it was made with this one group in mind, though.

    Why DON'T you see the problem here?

    We don't need to make up an example. There are plenty of real things, like the bump fighter razor. It was designed with black men in mind since they are more likely to get ingrown hairs, but white people can and do use it too. I don't see it being marketed at black men as problematic.

    Which actually isn't an example, because it's designed based on an actual physiological issue - namely that individuals with tightly curled facial hair get ingrown hairs more often, and that such facial hair tends to be genetically linked to black males.

    There were people in another thread challenging that claim (I thought they were being ridiculous) but I don't think it really matters. The product is useful for anyone who is prone to ingrown hairs, and white people do use it, despite it being explicitly marketed to black people. I see nothing wrong with this situation.

    Here is another example: http://www.blackbirdhome.com/


    Anyone can use this web browser, but it is marketed to black people. The company that makes it was started by three black men. Problem? How about Ebony magazine?

    Yes, it is terribly surprising that a magazine on black culture would be targeted at black individuals.

    You're not really helping your case here.

    My point is that something can be explicitly targetted towards a group but not be exclusively for that group or appealing to every member of the group. As a white man I do not feel that I can't use the bump fighter, read ebony magazine or use blackbird as a web browser if I wanted to. I also don't feel like I could not play Bordrlands 2 in "girlfriend mode" if I wanted to.

    I consider myself a hardcore rpg player, but the hardcore mode in FO:NV did not appeal to me, so I just played on hardest regular setting instead. I didn't feel like I had to play in hardcore mode because I am a hardcore player, and did not feel excluded as a hardcore gamer when I saw hardcore mode didn't appeal to me.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    If The Sims suddenly came up with a "Boyfriend mode" where your Sim game turned first person and you suddenly could punch/kill people (directly, not by putting them into a room and then removing the door), would that be sexist?

    Not baiting, I'm honestly interested in people's responses.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).

    I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?

    If the way you have sex is by not asking for enthusiastic consent then yes, it is in your partner's best interest that you change the way you have sex. Unless you don't give a shit about your partner here, something you keep going back to by referring to the idea of getting consent as literally retarded. I know you hate the term "privileged" and probably hate the concept of "rape culture" but dude, you're sounding an awful lot like a privileged rape apologist, the sort of person who makes it easy for rapists to get away with their crime because after all she implied consent because she didn't fight back, right?

    I don't think you understand the concept very well either, since plenty of people seem to get by on legitimate enthusiastic consent (she pulled your pants off, so it's probably likely she wanted sex) and the only people whose behavior would need changing would be the sort of people who either cornered some chick in a hallway at a party and she didn't really explicitly fight back so there's consent or people who get stuck in abusive relationships and keep sexually pleasing them because at least they don't hurt them then.

    Also this ties back to the "You can't read minds" thing where the assumption here is that you can in fact read minds. You can tell if your partner wants sex because you simply read their mind, right? Similarly you can tell that the "girlfriend mode" comment wasn't sexist because you can read the guy who said it's mind, right?

    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction. You're calling someone who does not agree with your idea a rape apologist.

    Fuck that.


    EDIT: You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    The "consent family" does not apply to rape. There is no implied consent for sex. There is barely regular consent for sex in situations where coercion is likely. Only enthusiastic consent demonstrates with complete accuracy that you're not in any way coercing or inferring consent from someone. This is not a hard concept.

    I'm sorry you're so mad about people telling you what to do. Do you get mad when they tell you not to murder or step on people's feet too? I mean, the nerve of those people, telling me what to do with your gun/foot!

    Yes, you are being a rape apologist because you're saying "hey, rape is just another form of sexual activity! Leave off, willya?" And you're mad because I'm calling you out on your gooseshit.

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Woah double post woooah.

    Thejakeman on
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

    When the hell did Enthusiastic Consent go from "here's an idea about sex" to "get the hell out of my country if you don't agree"?

    Mate, this is crazy talk.

    Frankiedarling on
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

    Innocent until proven guilty...


    ....unless you're a man, then you are a rapist until you prove otherwise.

    It is not YOUR society, goosehat.

    BSoB on
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    That doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement anywhere.

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).

    I think if we were to have this discussion, a different thread might be the better place for it. It seems like it would be a whole topic unto itself, no?

    If the way you have sex is by not asking for enthusiastic consent then yes, it is in your partner's best interest that you change the way you have sex. Unless you don't give a shit about your partner here, something you keep going back to by referring to the idea of getting consent as literally retarded. I know you hate the term "privileged" and probably hate the concept of "rape culture" but dude, you're sounding an awful lot like a privileged rape apologist, the sort of person who makes it easy for rapists to get away with their crime because after all she implied consent because she didn't fight back, right?

    I don't think you understand the concept very well either, since plenty of people seem to get by on legitimate enthusiastic consent (she pulled your pants off, so it's probably likely she wanted sex) and the only people whose behavior would need changing would be the sort of people who either cornered some chick in a hallway at a party and she didn't really explicitly fight back so there's consent or people who get stuck in abusive relationships and keep sexually pleasing them because at least they don't hurt them then.

    Also this ties back to the "You can't read minds" thing where the assumption here is that you can in fact read minds. You can tell if your partner wants sex because you simply read their mind, right? Similarly you can tell that the "girlfriend mode" comment wasn't sexist because you can read the guy who said it's mind, right?

    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction. You're calling someone who does not agree with your idea a rape apologist.

    Fuck that.


    EDIT: You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    The "consent family" does not apply to rape. There is no implied consent for sex. There is barely regular consent for sex in situations where coercion is likely. Only enthusiastic consent demonstrates with complete accuracy that you're not in any way coercing or inferring consent from someone. This is not a hard concept.

    I'm sorry you're so mad about people telling you what to do. Do you get mad when they tell you not to murder or step on people's feet too? I mean, the nerve of those people, telling me what to do with your gun/foot!

    Yes, you are being a rape apologist because you're saying "hey, rape is just another form of sexual activity! Leave off, willya?" And you're mad because I'm calling you out on your gooseshit.

    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

    Holy shit. Do you really want to have said this?

    You know whose sexual politics this view aligns with? Those of almost the entire Western world. I don't care how popular this whole enthusiastic consent thing is with sexual subgroups. In mainstream society, lots of people are much more comfortable having sex than talking about it (especially if they aren't in a relationship). Based on my own anecdotal experiences and those of friends, it seems to me that asking for consent every step of the way or requiring women to take the iniative more (I don't understand why switching to having girls as the more aggressive party fixes the situation anyway, unless you subscribe to the notion that men will never turn down sex) will just mean you will strike out a lot more. I have never been with a girl who didn't want me to be "in charge" as the man, and when I was younger and was too scared of going too far, I basically got no where. It might not be PC or what we want reality to be, but there are still many women out there looking for a man to be confident and take charge in the bedroom.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    Would "consent begrudgingly" include "I'm really tired, but my partner wants to have sex... i'll do it cuz I love them, even though I really don't want to"?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I tend to say that wealthy white men who happen to be in the legal profession tend towards being privileged, unempathetic, conservative gooses. It might not be true of all of them, but it's certainly true of at least one of them I know, so it's probably fair to say it's true of all of them. If it's not true of them, then the onus is on them to choose not to be offended by it, cause after all I didn't mean them.

    In fact in my new indie game there's a (for lack of a better term) "conservative internet poster" mode where it makes every other character inexplicably shrill about mundane things but the game is pretty easy otherwise. I'm hoping it might help conservative internet posters handle the level of diversity in my game. It has men wearing dresses! Scandalous, I know.

    While this is amusing, unfortunately you can't really make a comparison for rich white males that works in the same way it works for an oppressed group. There's not really any way to hearken back to a systematic oppression that SKFM has dealt with all his life. So for him it's just a garden variety insult instead of yet another bullet of psychological conditioning.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    saint2e wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    Would "consent begrudgingly" include "I'm really tired, but my partner wants to have sex... i'll do it cuz I love them, even though I really don't want to"?

    Perhaps.

    Would you want to have sex with your partner, knowing that your partner really doesn't want to, and really won't enjoy it?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    Would "consent begrudgingly" include "I'm really tired, but my partner wants to have sex... i'll do it cuz I love them, even though I really don't want to"?

    Perhaps.

    Would you want to have sex with your partner, knowing that your partner really doesn't want to, and really won't enjoy it?

    You are going to have to define "want" here. I don't "want" to do the dishes, but I do "want" clean dishes to eat on. I don't "want" to do [blank] but i "want" [result of blank]. Doing things you don't "want" to do because you "want" to make your SO happy is the hallmark of being in a healthy relationship.

    If an SO wants to make their partner happy, and is willing to have sex to do so, then that is fine.

    BSoB on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    The disconnect here is that you seem to be conflating affirmative consent with enthusiastic consent. They're related concepts, but not the same concept.

    The former (AC) is legally applicable and there are active efforts to get sexual assault laws changed to incorporate it. The latter (EC) is a extension of the AC concept into personal relationships.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

    Innocent until proven guilty...


    ....unless you're a man, then you are a rapist until you prove otherwise.

    It is not YOUR society, goosehat.

    It's not your society either. What's your point?

    Nice straw man, though. Isn't that what all us crazy feminazi bitches believe deep down inside?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I tend to say that wealthy white men who happen to be in the legal profession tend towards being privileged, unempathetic, conservative gooses. It might not be true of all of them, but it's certainly true of at least one of them I know, so it's probably fair to say it's true of all of them. If it's not true of them, then the onus is on them to choose not to be offended by it, cause after all I didn't mean them.

    In fact in my new indie game there's a (for lack of a better term) "conservative internet poster" mode where it makes every other character inexplicably shrill about mundane things but the game is pretty easy otherwise. I'm hoping it might help conservative internet posters handle the level of diversity in my game. It has men wearing dresses! Scandalous, I know.

    While this is amusing, unfortunately you can't really make a comparison for rich white males that works in the same way it works for an oppressed group. There's not really any way to hearken back to a systematic oppression that SKFM has dealt with all his life. So for him it's just a garden variety insult instead of yet another bullet of psychological conditioning.

    Insult? I awesomed that post. :)

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    Would "consent begrudgingly" include "I'm really tired, but my partner wants to have sex... i'll do it cuz I love them, even though I really don't want to"?

    Perhaps.

    Would you want to have sex with your partner, knowing that your partner really doesn't want to, and really won't enjoy it?

    Yes and No, and I'll explain why:

    Knowing my partner, if she voiced that to me, and I said "okay, nevermind", she'd most likely... talk me back into it? Or at the very least offer to help me out in another way. I say this confidently because this has come up for both of us before. Because we're committed to each other, we're both, ideally, putting each other's needs above our own.

    I dunno. I'm being very specific to my situation. I guess I feel that with my partner, at the end of the exchange, my needs would be met one way or another.

    Clear as mud?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Re: Rape and how a more equal society could greatly curtail the amount of rapes and assaults, it's helpful to read the research of David Lisaks (and I want to thank the person who pointed him out in this thread 20 pages ago)

    http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/PredatoryNature.pdf
    This picture conflicts sharply with the widely-held view that rapes
    committed on university campuses are typically the result of a basically “decent”
    young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication,
    would never do such a thing. While some campus rapes do fit this more benign
    view, the evidence points to a far less benign reality, in which the vast majority of
    rapes are committed by serial, violent predators.
    This less benign reality has potentially significant implications for how
    universities deal with sexual violence within their community. Prevention efforts
    geared toward persuading men not to rape are very unlikely to be effective.
    Lessons can be drawn from many decades of experience in sex offender
    treatment, which have demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to change the
    behavior of a serial predator even when you incarcerate him and subject him to
    an intensive, multi-year program. Rather than focusing prevention efforts on the
    rapists, it would seem far more effective to focus those efforts on the far more
    numerous bystanders – men and women who are part of the social and cultural
    milieu in which rapes are spawned and who can be mobilized to identify
    perpetrators and intervene in high-risk situations.

    Also: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/23/david-lisak-on-acquaintance-rapists-were-giving-a-free-pass-to-sexual-predators/#more-9917
    Somehow all we can do is take the statement from the victim, take the statement from the alleged perpetrator, and then throw up our hands because they’re saying conflicting things and we don’t know how to resolve this. That’s not how we investigate other crimes. You know, in almost any other circumstance, if we have an alleged perpetrator, we begin an investigation. And it doesn’t end with asking the alleged perpetrator whether or not they did the crime.


    Could education about sexist norms help this shit? Of course it could.

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Yeah, rape prosecution problems mostly stem from how problematic a crime it is to... well... prosecute. I'm not sure how a less sexist society is going to magically make the crime less complex.

    It is a complex crime, but it is also a crime where a lot of pre-existing notions of sex and gender come into play, and consequently the entire process from investigation to conviction is at high risk of being warped by sexism.


    Even if you removed every instance of gender from the issue (which I do not think is a good idea) you would still be left with a extremely difficult-to-prosecute crime, just by the nature of what the crime is and how our justice system is set up.

    And amazingly, this is something that enthusiastic consent can actually help with!

    Now I really want to nail down exactly what this model is. My research on it (both here and elsewhere) ranges from "If you aren't having sex this way now you are a rapist" to "a running dialogue of what you're going to do during sex is a good thing".

    I'm hoping the truth is somewhere down the middle, but currently there doesn't seem to be a definitive definition. At least, not that I've found.

    It might help to change the first one to "If you're not having sex this way, you can't prove you're not a rapist" if it makes you feel better.

    I don't want to live in a society where I have to prove I'm not a rapist.

    I don't want you in my society then. Go on and move to the middle east where your sexual politics more accurately align.

    Innocent until proven guilty...


    ....unless you're a man, then you are a rapist until you prove otherwise.

    It is not YOUR society, goosehat.

    It's not your society either. What's your point?

    Nice straw man, though. Isn't that what all us crazy feminazi bitches believe deep down inside?

    ...it is what you just argued, or are you having trouble following yourself? I don't have to strawman, there is you saying it, right in the quote tunnel. You think a man should have to prove he's not a rapist. that's what you said. Right there, go look.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.

    I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    The disconnect here is that you seem to be conflating affirmative consent with enthusiastic consent. They're related concepts, but not the same concept.

    The former (AC) is legally applicable and there are active efforts to get sexual assault laws changed to incorporate it. The latter (EC) is a extension of the AC concept into personal relationships.

    I'm not seeing how those are different. Isn't enthusiastic consent just the practice of getting affirmative consent? And if you aren't getting affirmative consent via enthusiastic consent aren't you not getting affirmative consent but some other, nebulous, legally shaky consent?

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Re: Rape and how a more equal society could greatly curtail the amount of rapes and assaults, it's helpful to read the research of David Lisaks (and I want to thank the person who pointed him out in this thread 20 pages ago)

    http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/PredatoryNature.pdf
    This picture conflicts sharply with the widely-held view that rapes
    committed on university campuses are typically the result of a basically “decent”
    young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication,
    would never do such a thing. While some campus rapes do fit this more benign
    view, the evidence points to a far less benign reality, in which the vast majority of
    rapes are committed by serial, violent predators.
    This less benign reality has potentially significant implications for how
    universities deal with sexual violence within their community. Prevention efforts
    geared toward persuading men not to rape are very unlikely to be effective.
    Lessons can be drawn from many decades of experience in sex offender
    treatment, which have demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to change the
    behavior of a serial predator even when you incarcerate him and subject him to
    an intensive, multi-year program. Rather than focusing prevention efforts on the
    rapists, it would seem far more effective to focus those efforts on the far more
    numerous bystanders – men and women who are part of the social and cultural
    milieu in which rapes are spawned and who can be mobilized to identify
    perpetrators and intervene in high-risk situations.

    Also: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/23/david-lisak-on-acquaintance-rapists-were-giving-a-free-pass-to-sexual-predators/#more-9917
    Somehow all we can do is take the statement from the victim, take the statement from the alleged perpetrator, and then throw up our hands because they’re saying conflicting things and we don’t know how to resolve this. That’s not how we investigate other crimes. You know, in almost any other circumstance, if we have an alleged perpetrator, we begin an investigation. And it doesn’t end with asking the alleged perpetrator whether or not they did the crime.


    Could education about sexist norms help this shit? Of course it could.

    I love Lisak so much.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    I'm not even sure what begrudged consent is in this case. Are we talking blackmail or something? Prostitution? Porn? Any set of circumstances where there are more factors involved then sexual arousal?

    Personally, there's certain things I do for my girlfriend that I'm not exactly thrilled to do. The enjoyment comes from making her happy, and I think that goes both ways. It's our understanding that a healthy sex life involves give and take, to a certain extent.



  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.

    I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    I tend to say that wealthy white men who happen to be in the legal profession tend towards being privileged, unempathetic, conservative gooses. It might not be true of all of them, but it's certainly true of at least one of them I know, so it's probably fair to say it's true of all of them. If it's not true of them, then the onus is on them to choose not to be offended by it, cause after all I didn't mean them.

    In fact in my new indie game there's a (for lack of a better term) "conservative internet poster" mode where it makes every other character inexplicably shrill about mundane things but the game is pretty easy otherwise. I'm hoping it might help conservative internet posters handle the level of diversity in my game. It has men wearing dresses! Scandalous, I know.

    While this is amusing, unfortunately you can't really make a comparison for rich white males that works in the same way it works for an oppressed group. There's not really any way to hearken back to a systematic oppression that SKFM has dealt with all his life. So for him it's just a garden variety insult instead of yet another bullet of psychological conditioning.

    Insult? I awesomed that post. :)

    Well yeah. Basically this all day long.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

    "If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

    You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.

    @Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

    You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.

    @Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.

    Unbelievable. You didn't have anything better to respond with (and you still don't seem to understand what consent is), so you just lifted something someone else entirely different said and made it your argument.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited August 2012

    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

    You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.

    @Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.

    Unbelievable. You didn't have anything better to respond with (and you still don't seem to understand what consent is), so you just lifted something someone else entirely different said and made it your argument.

    No, my whole point was that you're mistaking enthusiastic consent with consent as a whole. If you're not willing to differentiate the two, there's no way the discussion can go forward: because anyone who disagrees with you would, by your standards, be a rapist.

    This is a significant error on your part, and it speaks to your mindset. You're not willing to discuss the relative benefits and downfalls of our respective models, so you're framing it as a right or wrong question where "right" is agreeing with you and "wrong" means I'm a rapist.

    And really, what's with that?

    Frankiedarling on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

    You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.

    @Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.

    Unbelievable. You didn't have anything better to respond with (and you still don't seem to understand what consent is), so you just lifted something someone else entirely different said and made it your argument.

    You're reaching here. Frankie just isn't having the argument with you that you seem to want.

    If you want to be mad at someone and the arguments aren't adding up in a way that lets you, just be mad at me for still hating Skyler in breaking bad ;)

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »

    It's certainly a good discussion to have. I just think that trying to get people to change how they have sex is not the correct way to do it (though that's aimed more at Angel than you).
    Normally I have to read more then a sentence to find something utterly ridiculous. You're framing your idea as something everyone must do or they're doing it wrong, which is patently stupid in regards to sexual interaction.
    Wow.

    Just wow.

    Somehow disagreeing with you about enthusiastic consent means I think rape is just another form of sexual activity. What is wrong with you?

    So again, the definition of rape is
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    This is really very simple, and your argument here is bare apologism.

    You're making the error of equating your theory of Enthusiastic Consent with Consent. Again, this is an error. You have made a mistake. Feral articulated some good thoughts on that. One I particularly liked:

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex. I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    This is where you should be differentiating with me. That should be your splitting point, where we argue the respective benefits and downsides of our respective models: not where we frame our model as the one that must be obeyed, and all those who disagree are rapists and rape apologists.

    @Feral, I know the quote I used was not towards me and Jakeman, but I felt it was applicable, as it shows the divide I'm attempting to highlight. If you don't want it used that way, I'll retract it.

    Unbelievable. You didn't have anything better to respond with (and you still don't seem to understand what consent is), so you just lifted something someone else entirely different said and made it your argument.

    You're reaching here. Frankie just isn't having the argument with you that you seem to want.

    If you want to be mad at someone and the arguments aren't adding up in a way that lets you, just be mad at me for still hating Skyler in breaking bad ;)

    Are we not supposed to hate Skyler anymore? I thought that was still a thing.

    Frankiedarling on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2012
    saint2e wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    You also seem to be missing the fact that there is a difference between Consent and Enthusiastic Consent. While enthusiastic consent could be seen to be a part of the consent family, not all consent is enthusiastic consent.

    I can't even believe it's necessary to point that out.

    If somebody is only willing to consent begrudgingly, do you think it is (morally, personally) okay to have sex with them?

    I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about personal morals.

    Would "consent begrudgingly" include "I'm really tired, but my partner wants to have sex... i'll do it cuz I love them, even though I really don't want to"?

    Perhaps.

    Would you want to have sex with your partner, knowing that your partner really doesn't want to, and really won't enjoy it?

    Yes and No, and I'll explain why:

    Knowing my partner, if she voiced that to me, and I said "okay, nevermind", she'd most likely... talk me back into it? Or at the very least offer to help me out in another way. I say this confidently because this has come up for both of us before. Because we're committed to each other, we're both, ideally, putting each other's needs above our own.

    I dunno. I'm being very specific to my situation. I guess I feel that with my partner, at the end of the exchange, my needs would be met one way or another.

    Clear as mud?

    What you're saying makes sense.

    I don't think that what you describe is necessarily morally wrong, but I do think that it can be a cover for attitudes of entitlement ("I'm entitled to my partner's body because we're married") or severe power disparities ("I don't want to have sex so much but I'm worried that if I don't, my partner will get mad at me") or simply a sexual rut where the unenthusiastic partner would be more enthusiastic if the other partner initiated differently or performed different activities more often in the sack.

    If it becomes a pattern where one partner's sexual fulfillment is more of a priority than the other partner's, then that can be a problem. And if the horny partner is male and the unenthusiastic partner is female, then the whole scenario can be an extension of (and a reinforcement of) old ingrained sexist schema where a woman's sexuality exists primarily for the fulfillment of men.

    I think that even very well-meaning, respectful, enlightened couples can get stuck in these scripts, to the detriment of one partner's sex life (or both). This doesn't make either one a rapist or a bad person or a terrible husband or anything. I just think that is partners are willing to talk about it and work towards intrinsic enjoyment for each other, it works out better for both of them.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    I would love an example of a situation/action that is legal now, but would be rape if an "enthusiastic consent" law was passed. Because I read the blog, and the posts, and I am lost as to what it is, exactly.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.

    I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.

    You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited August 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.

    I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.

    You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.

    Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.

    If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.

    BSoB on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    The "modest girl that protests" is still a thing though. After we'd been dating for a little while, my wife admitted to me that she had an idea of how far she would go each of the first few times we went out, but she wasn't going to initiate anything because she expected me to take the lead, and she would have told me if she was uncomfortable. Is this a consent model you see as not viable?

    I think that people who hold on to that model would be better off if they were more communicative about sex.

    I'm not going to say that this makes them rapists or rape apologists or anything like that.

    I actually think its very judgemental and condescending to say that. I feel like people who are more sexually "liberated" often look down on people who prefer what they see as a more repressed sex life. If you like whips and feet or whatever that's fine, but being open to or into more things is neccesarily better. Sex is really really personal, imo, and I see nothing wrong with the continued existence of people with a preference to be more modest about sex, and no reason to think they would be better off if they changed, as long as what they are doing works for them.

    You've confused communicativeness with interest in nonvanilla activities.

    Not exactly, what he meant was, to some people, talking about sex in a frank manner IS a nonvanilla activity.

    If people wanna have sex through a hole in the sheet, that's up to them, imo.

    Except that it's not a healthy way to view sex.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    If you do not have consent, then it is a rape. The enthusiastic consent model means you get enthusiastic consent. That is consent without riders. not "implied consent" since she went on a date with you or didn't really struggle much, not consent in a situation where it would be to her disadvantage to say no, but actual, legitimate consent. Otherwise it's a rape. There's not an alternative. There's no grey area where maybe you have consent or maybe you don't. You get consent. Or else you've committed a rape. Saying that it's changing sexual behavior and what a terrible thing that is to do is implying that there is non-consensual sexual activity that is not rape. This is wrong. All non-consensual sexual activity is rape.

    The disconnect here is that you seem to be conflating affirmative consent with enthusiastic consent. They're related concepts, but not the same concept.

    The former (AC) is legally applicable and there are active efforts to get sexual assault laws changed to incorporate it. The latter (EC) is a extension of the AC concept into personal relationships.

    I'm not seeing how those are different. Isn't enthusiastic consent just the practice of getting affirmative consent? And if you aren't getting affirmative consent via enthusiastic consent aren't you not getting affirmative consent but some other, nebulous, legally shaky consent?

    Somebody can give affirmative consent for reasons other than enthusiasm about sex.

    Some of them are broadly morally and socially acceptable: you want to have a baby.

    Others are less acceptable: you are completely dependent upon your partner for financial support and you're afraid that if you don't cater to your partner, they will kick you out and you'll be homeless.

    The former example is clearly not rape.

    The latter isn't strictly legally rape, despite being a shitty situation. It wouldn't even be rape under an AC framework. Depending on the circumstances of the situation, we may agree that it is exploitative, perhaps even abusive. Or maybe the exploitation isn't the result of one partner's malevolent character, but simply the result of a culture where women have diminished social status. Calling people in these relationships 'rapists' without examining the circumstances is problematic.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This discussion has been closed.