The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Morr]

They can, but it's much more likely with boys, since men are generally much bigger and stronger than women. It's certainly something to have as a law, but, practically speaking, the chances are slim you know any men who were raped by a woman, whereas chances are you know at least one woman who was raped by a man.

You know a man who was raped by a woman, and your argument about rarity is bullshit anyway - at least as it pertains to the United States.

Well, you've got to account for the fallibility of memory - even in serious things. Just ask Bryan Williams.

Your memories tend to be edited to match your self image over time, and ones that don't match are buried. Your self image - what it means to be you - is molded greatly by society. Men are told they cannot be victims, so many edit memories so they aren't.

In the 2010 study (which you've seen), approximately the same number of men were made to penetrate in the last 12 months as women were raped. Almost 80% of the victims reported ONLY a female perpetrator - that's about 40% of the total (if one is nonsexist and includes made to penetrate as rape). In that study, while 1,267,000 was the estimate for males made to penetrate in the last 12 months, only 5,451,000 reported in their lifetime. Some have disingenuously tried to insist the lifetime numbers are more accurate - despite memory degrading over time.

I'm sure you're familiar with this link.

Now, what's interesting is that there was a study in 2011. The 2011 study used slightly different definitions, which changed the numbers, but what's terribly interesting is what the ratio of comparison was. For the previous 12 months, 1,929,000 women were raped, while 1,921,000 men were made to penetrate. Almost the same numbers in the 12 month section - again. In the lifetime section, 7,610,000 men were made to penetrate (along with 703,000 women), while 23,305,000 women were raped (along with 1,971,000 men).

Again, among men made to penetrate, about 80% (82.6% to be precise) reported only female perpetrators.

We have a pattern now - that male victimization is about the same as female year after year, but the lifetime numbers continue to be wildly disparate. This means one of a few things:

1) Memory is really bad, and men repress memories over time in accordance with societal expectations.
2) A small group of men are being raped by women repeatedly.
3) Suicide is so high among male rape victims, that it depresses the lifetime numbers.
4) The Disparity exists among children (people under 18). The survey doesn't cover them.
5) Some combination.


Number 3 is pretty unlikely. I think we would have noticed these massive numbers of suicides. Number 2 is also fairly unlikely, although it is possible. Repeated victimization of the same people is somehow even worse. That leaves 1, 4, or 5.

Source for your perusal.

Your point is well made. And that illustrates the problem with our culture's sinful attribution of male self-worth through "conquests". Sex for man is seen as inherently a triumph, and the idea of a male being raped seems like an oxymoron as a result, like someone being given money against their will as a form of robbery.

[Chessmistress]

It could be programmed to do nothing except say yes

Until machines get a mind of their own, that's true. Or possibly be programmed to take in the circumstances and give a yes/no answer. If they're only programmed to say just "yes" and "no" then it's not really consent.

Machines = / = consent
A sex robot is just an appliance, it could be even programmed to say "no" and screaming "help!" and still it wouldn't be rape.
But that's the main point: even though raping a sex robot is always impossible, such behavior would reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination and even violence against real women.

[Fartsniffage]

Until machines get a mind of their own, that's true. Or possibly be programmed to take in the circumstances and give a yes/no answer. If they're only programmed to say just "yes" and "no" then it's not really consent.

Machines = / = consent
A sex robot is just an appliance, it could be even programmed to say "no" and screaming "help!" and still it wouldn't be rape.
But that's the main point: even though raping a sex robot is always impossible, such behavior would reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination and even violence against real women.

Stereotypes that women are machines with no willpower or ability to think independently?

[Italios]

Until machines get a mind of their own, that's true. Or possibly be programmed to take in the circumstances and give a yes/no answer. If they're only programmed to say just "yes" and "no" then it's not really consent.

Machines = / = consent
A sex robot is just an appliance, it could be even programmed to say "no" and screaming "help!" and still it wouldn't be rape.
But that's the main point: even though raping a sex robot is always impossible, such behavior would reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination and even violence against real women.

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

[Chessmistress]

Machines = / = consent
A sex robot is just an appliance, it could be even programmed to say "no" and screaming "help!" and still it wouldn't be rape.
But that's the main point: even though raping a sex robot is always impossible, such behavior would reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes, discrimination and even violence against real women.

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

[Italios]

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

You think my idea is ludicrous? Where have you been for your last +2000 posts?

It has nothing to do with being self-aware. Maybe they just can't find a partner and want to do that. That's what porn is for, basically.

[Garrafas]

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

You think my idea is ludicrous? Where have you been for your last +2000 posts?

It has nothing to do with being self-aware. Maybe they just can't find a partner and want to do that. That's what porn is for, basically.

If someone efficiently creates an AI, robots rights will come. Probably not before animal's rights that better take new studies about their awareness into account.

---

---

Anyways, the root of the reflection here, about solution to women's violence issues through technology and the way that it has been conducted shows nothing less than an androcentric way of viewing the reallity, it places men's pleasure over women's dignity.

[United Marxist Nations]

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

I think it would be more likely that those customers are simply unable to get real women, for various reasons (e.g. disabilities, social phobia, etc.)

[The Alexanderians]

I'd question the legitimacy of the yes given in that case as well.

But would you question the legitimacy of all human consent simply because such a thing is possible?

No of course not. I mean with the particular situation I outlined. I'm not fueling paranoia here...I only fuel ships

[Jochistan]

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

Oh come now, they would need AI to respond to touch and act realistically.

[Jochistan]

Unless machines could get a mind of their own.

Would that be considered rape?

Or if they were programmed to be able to take in the circumstances and give their answer. Would that be rape, if they could think like a human?

And there's a possibility people would take out their anger on machines so as not to do it on real people.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

And are you saying that all males want women to be lobotomized robots?

You're like the State of Islam of the feminist thread.

[New Larthinia]

Wow, Chess. Just....stop. my brain cells are dying.

[Ashkera]

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

Funnily enough, the reason a number of women fake orgasms is because their men don't want to give up on ensuring they get pleasure until they reach orgasm.

Anyways, the root of the reflection here, about solution to women's violence issues through technology and the way that it has been conducted shows nothing less than an androcentric way of viewing the reallity, it places men's pleasure over women's dignity.

If we're saying men building sex robots and using those is "androcentric", then is demanding to control what men are allowed to do sexually, even when it has no impact on women, for "women's dignity", "gynocentric"? It certainly fits into the traditional role of woman as pure moral guardian, as well as the desire to monopolize and control male sexuality to obtain resources, which is also traditional.

Do women actually have a right to male sexuality that way, that they can control it even when no real woman is involved, like it's their property? Are women prohibited from building manbots in turn?

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of ideas like "you can't build sex robots because it violates our dignity."

[Valystria]

I wasn't throwing it around lightly (although I appreciate it's provocative). As Valystria points out, radical feminists continue to move the goalposts, continue to demand more concessions. That is ideological lebensraum, and the longer people use appeasement in the face of it, the worse things will get.

The feminist establishment has been doing that with the equality narrative for a while.

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

Funnily enough, the reason a number of women fake orgasms is because their men don't want to give up on ensuring they get pleasure until they reach orgasm.

Anyways, the root of the reflection here, about solution to women's violence issues through technology and the way that it has been conducted shows nothing less than an androcentric way of viewing the reallity, it places men's pleasure over women's dignity.

If we're saying men building sex robots and using those is "androcentric", then is demanding to control what men are allowed to do sexually, even when it has no impact on women, for "women's dignity", "gynocentric"? It certainly fits into the traditional role of woman as pure moral guardian, as well as the desire to monopolize and control male sexuality to obtain resources, which is also traditional.

Do women actually have a right to male sexuality that way, that they can control it even when no real woman is involved, like it's their property? Are women prohibited from building manbots in turn?

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of ideas like "you can't build sex robots because it violates our dignity."

This makes me want to get a sex robot to stomp all over that perceived right to not have that abstract sense of dignity violated.

[Jochistan]

Are you really suggesting that male customers would ask for self-aware AI within sex robots, while it's very likely these customers are having sex with sex robots instead of real women just because they don't like that women are self-aware?

Funnily enough, the reason a number of women fake orgasms is because their men don't want to give up on ensuring they get pleasure until they reach orgasm.

Anyways, the root of the reflection here, about solution to women's violence issues through technology and the way that it has been conducted shows nothing less than an androcentric way of viewing the reallity, it places men's pleasure over women's dignity.

If we're saying men building sex robots and using those is "androcentric", then is demanding to control what men are allowed to do sexually, even when it has no impact on women, for "women's dignity", "gynocentric"? It certainly fits into the traditional role of woman as pure moral guardian, as well as the desire to monopolize and control male sexuality to obtain resources, which is also traditional.

Do women actually have a right to male sexuality that way, that they can control it even when no real woman is involved, like it's their property? Are women prohibited from building manbots in turn?

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of ideas like "you can't build sex robots because it violates our dignity."

Yes.
If a sexual preference hurts someone, then that sexual practice should be prohibited for men and women alike.

I fail to see who sexbots will hurt.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

[Jochistan]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

Interesting to view them as conservative.

I guess the farther left you go you the more right you end up in.

But it never comes full circle like that for National Socialists or Abrahamic Fanatics. Huh.

[Val Halla]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

I would be more worried about the materials

[Gauthier]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

When men can literally buy fuck toys, can't use sex as a trade commodity to achieve and maintain Amazonian Masterhood.

[Jochistan]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

When men can literally buy fuck toys, can't use sex as a trade commodity to achieve and maintain Amazonian Masterhood.

We could buy fuck toys before robots. Its just they weren't this technologically advanced and you couldn't get rid of the smell.

Are the sexbots self cleaning?

[Valystria]

Sex-negative conservative feminist horrified by impact of advances in technology upon sexual practices.

News at eleven.

Return of the Victorian era moral paternalists.

Or perhaps it's the Religious Right II: Feminist Boogaloo.


Really though, I thought these prudish obsessions with stomping out "deviant" sexual practices were on the way out. It's unfortunate to see it's still alive and well.

[New Benian Republic]

Islam, for example has a lot of Jesus's teachings, and some of it is just good common sense.

Islam has some good teachings in it, but its scripture cannot be held as representative of Christ's word in anyway, since in the Koran it says Christ didn't die for anyone's sins because he was too scared, yet still calls him the Jewish Messiah even though the Messiah has to die for our sins as stated in the Old Testament. So Islam is preferably studied for its other values.

Islam established the first set of rules of war.

[Jochistan]

Islam has some good teachings in it, but its scripture cannot be held as representative of Christ's word in anyway, since in the Koran it says Christ didn't die for anyone's sins because he was too scared, yet still calls him the Jewish Messiah even though the Messiah has to die for our sins as stated in the Old Testament. So Islam is preferably studied for its other values.

Islam established the first set of rules of war.

I don't know about that. Art of War was long before Islam. Many Greco-Romans set down laws like that. As did Judaism.

And Actually, Jesus's "Just War" is almost Identical to the concept of Jihad.

[New Benian Republic]

Islam established the first set of rules of war.

I don't know about that. Art of War was long before Islam. Many Greco-Romans set down laws like that. As did Judaism.

And Actually, Jesus's "Just War" is almost Identical to the concept of Jihad.

They followed their rules and I'm pretty sure art of war was mostly just strategy.
And there are two different types of jihad, Greater juhad and lesser Jihad. Lesser jihad is militant and greater jihad is internal struggle.

[Aelex]

I don't know about that. Art of War was long before Islam. Many Greco-Romans set down laws like that. As did Judaism.

And Actually, Jesus's "Just War" is almost Identical to the concept of Jihad.

Damn, even the Gaulois had rules which were set for the wars, thought they were quite "hardcore" to not say less.