This woman thinks all men support rape

[Ifreann]

'No' does make for a kinda shitty safeword when you're into roleplaying rape.

Which would be why nobody would use 'No' as a safeword.....

[Crabulonia]

'No' does make for a kinda shitty safeword when you're into roleplaying rape.

Which would be why nobody would use 'No' as a safeword.....

Yes would be a better safeword for that sort of situation because you'd know it wasn't really panning out how either party wanted it.

[The Congregationists]

Romance isn't dying. It's being redefined. There's a huge difference.

Of course, I suppose it all goes to what you consider "romance". If you think of it as "courtly love", then you're right; if you think of it as deep and abiding mutual love and respect for each other as unique individuals, I don't think we've even begun to see its glorious heyday yet.

I don't share your optimism, though perhaps I should.

You're missing the greater point: We men are masters of our own bodies. We can choose to do what we want with them, whatever our urges. That is not a call for celibacy; that is a call for self-control.

Gotcha.

And no, it's not our sex drive that leads us to objectify women. We objectify women with our thinking, not our genitals. We treat them as members of an archetypical set rather than as people. This is not something our sex organs need for us to do; we can use them to engage in intercourse with people quite well, as anyone who has managed to actually fall in love with a woman as an individual can tell you.

No, it's something our brains and our social programming make us do, because we want to treat people as tools and then manipulate them towards an end. It's not a sexual failing; it's a failure of fundamental decency.

Again, I hope the well meaning people out there of both sexes see this. Many do not, as the blog in the OP illustrates. Again I agree with you here, but think that this concept is in need of clarification so that it cannot become another way of saying "sex is dirty", even if that would be a misaplication of the concept.

The script you speak of is obsolete.

Indeed it is, but in the absense of a better one will be around for quite a while yet. The script also offers a kind of faustian bargain to both sexes - it offers women moral superiority and the power to rebuff male sexual advances and judge women who don't live by the script. To men it offers its own means of being superior, and again license to persecute non-conformists, but in the male case it often comes out in the form of outright violence instead of moral derision. I heard a survey recently that found that over 90% of women would rather that men pursue and initiate in romantic and sexual matters, and I suspect a good number of men would agree with them. We have quite a ways to go yet.

In the past, when women could not take care of themselves economically, one might be able to argue that male commitment had to be demonstrably proven. Today, there is far less need for such a thing; indeed, if there is a need for commitment, it is a need for mutual commitment.

Understatement of the year. But I'll let it go.

In light of this, it is fair to ask: Does the standard script serve to demonstrate the proper degree of mutual commitment in any useful way? After all, for a man, the script involves that man essentially demonstrating to his prospective mate that he refuses to take her seriously when she tells him something important. How does that demonstrate genuine commitment? "Yeah, baby, I want you - so long as you keep you mouth shut, because I really don't have any interest whatsoever in what you say, unless it's what I want to hear?!?"

Not that the standard script is better when it comes to a woman's role: How does she show commitment to a relationship by basically pretending to be aloof and less than interested in her partner's desires? From her, the message is, "Whatever. As long as you keep the money coming, I might not cheat on you... and then again, I might."

And you wonder why divorce is endemic?

Well said. Like I said, I sure the hell don't like the script.

No, viewed from that angle, it sounds like the better approach is for us to come up with better scripts. It's not impossible to do; each generation makes its own rules at the end of the day, anyway. If we don't want to continue to experience relationship failure at an epic rate, then we'd better get our asses in gear and do something different.

Couldn't agree more.

[Andaluciae]

It's a proven fact that these people are out there. I remember how, a couple of years ago, there was an Aussie chick who wrote the "Joss Whedon is a rapist" article that got the internet all hot and bothered. Her blog Gorgon Poisons includes a cornucopia of that sort of nuttiness--including a song she wrote and performed about the tragedy of all of the women who have sex with men.

Some people are just insane.

[Chevrolet Corvette]

DUDE STRIPPERS ARE NOT ATTRACTIVE they are skanks who don't eat at all to lose weight which is not flipping healthy

But the guy ain't a rapist but he is a Porn Freak lulz

[Azarea]

How can you all disagree with her? She is totally right.

[Crabulonia]

How can you all disagree with her? She is totally right.

Far as I read, people disagree with some and approve of others. Some people have outright said she's wrong, but few have used such a formidable phrase as "totally right". What justifies this?

[Arkinesia]

Same there. That sucks, being a rapist without at least raping anybody...

Don't worry. I hear it's not as cool as they say it is... From the women. And some of the men.

And from the men who are raped themselves. And the women who raped them.

There's no such thing as men getting raped, what what!

[Keronians]

There's no such thing as men getting raped, what what!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/47150-russian-woman-rapes-burgular.html Do I need to bring this up again?

I believe he was being sarcastic.

[Arkinesia]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/47150-russian-woman-rapes-burgular.html Do I need to bring this up again?

I believe he was being sarcastic.

What this guy said. Your sarcasm detector's rating here.

[Keronians]

What this guy said. Your sarcasm detector's rating here.

Bullshit, he file charges for the genital she did to him. The idea that women can't rape men is just as much bullshit as women asking for it by wearing slutty clothing.

No. Listen.

When he said:

"men can't get raped"

He was being sarcastic, as in they can and they do get raped.

[Samuraikoku]

Bullshit, he file charges for the genital she did to him. The idea that women can't rape men is just as much bullshit as women asking for it by wearing slutty clothing.

Bullshit indeed. Unfortunately there's legislations which assume women can't rape. Such as my own (Argentina). (I think it's wrong, it's clearly been demonstrated that women CAN and DO rape men. But the people in Congress are idiots.)

[Arkinesia]

What this guy said. Your sarcasm detector's rating here.

Bullshit, he file charges for the genital she did to him. The idea that women can't rape men is just as much bullshit as women asking for it by wearing slutty clothing.

Good fucking god you're terrible at this sarcasm thing.

[The Atlantean Menace]

It's a proven fact that these people are out there. I remember how, a couple of years ago, there was an Aussie chick who wrote the "Joss Whedon is a rapist"

That's...odd. Given that the guy has made at least one anvilicious "misogyny is bad" episode in everything he's ever worked on.

Dear god...I just read it. What the fuck? This woman redefines "insane."

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

Basically she ignores all the underlying characterization and background to arrive at her conclusions. For example, she neglects to mention that Zoe is calling Mal "sir" and taking orders from him because he is/was her commanding officer and she trusts him. She also mentions Mal violating the terms of his agreement with Inara, and how Inara tolerates it, ignoring all the romantic subtexts that might explain why she ignores it.

Not to mention she just ignores the fact that Mal is supposed to be kind of a dick, it's not like Joss Whedon is holding him up as being a perfect man in every way. And ignores reality, for that matter, citing Zoe's lack of female friends (Because, you know, it's not like there are really girls who do not enjoy the company of other girls.)

[Vetalia]

That and the fact that she wrote a 2,700 word manifesto on why Joss Whedon is a rapist. That pretty much flags it as "crazy/888 didn't read". That being said, I do love the mind-numbing circlejerk in the comments section.

[The Atlantean Menace]

Bullshit, he file charges for the genital she did to him. The idea that women can't rape men is just as much bullshit as women asking for it by wearing slutty clothing.

Bullshit indeed. Unfortunately there's legislations which assume women can't rape. Such as my own (Argentina). (I think it's wrong, it's clearly been demonstrated that women CAN and DO rape men. But the people in Congress are idiots.)

Yeah. They seem to assume that women can't rape men (Excluding penetration with a foreign object) is because men won't get erect if they're being raped.

...Which is kind of bothersome, given that a similar thing is sometimes given as evidence that a rape victim "totally wanted it." Seriously, if lubrication isn't evidence of consent, how the fuck is an erection?

[Liriena]

You know, I support feminism, but this woman is a downright SEXIST BITCH!!

F*CK YOU, LADY!!

NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, YOU F*CKING LAME EXCUSE FOR A FEMINIST BIGGOT!!

[The Atlantean Menace]

You know, I support feminism, but this woman is a downright SEXIST BITCH!!

F*CK YOU, LADY!!

NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, YOU F*CKING LAME EXCUSE FOR A FEMINIST BIGGOT!!

Not to mention that people like her actually worsen the problems they're trying to solve - I mean, it's people like her who get held up as examples of feminism by the media, which ruins a lot of perfectly valid complaints and issues.

For example, people would probably take things like Take Back The Night rallies a lot more seriously were there less people there who appear to think the best way to end rape is to castrate all men with rusty nail clippers.

[The Norwegian Blue]

The items on her list that aren't at all dumb - like "He has blamed a woman for 'putting herself in a situation' where she 'could be' attacked" and "He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually 'hoodwinked,' or sexually harassed," both of which are exceedingly common behaviors, are a good place to start.

In my experience, the former isn't terribly common, though that is just my experience, and the latter isn't necessarily indicative of condoning rape. People joke about worse things, after all.

I wish very much that the former wasn't common, but I've participated in a lot of discussions about rape, and I can tell you that in my own experience, it is incredibly, incredibly rare to have such a discussion without one or more people weighing in about how this rape was somehow mitigated because the victim was in the wrong place/wearing the wrong thing/being the wrong sort of person/et cetera. Any rape that is not "sweet, virginal angel-being being pulled into an alleyway by a big violent stranger with a gun" will inevitably be seen by many as being less than "real rape" and frequently the fault of the victim, and the farther we get from that extreme and rare scenario, the more people will squirm to find some way in which the rape wasn't solely the rapist's fault, whether it's "but she consented to go back to his bedroom" or "but she shouldn't have been drinking alone" or "but she's his wife" or "but she wrote a stupid blog post on the internet and therefore has it coming."

As for the latter, I absolutely agree that it's not indicative of condoning rape - that's her argument, not mine. Mine is that it is indicative of, in some cases, contributing to a culture in which rape is condoned. Think of it this way: imagine that the person telling you the rape joke is, unbeknownst to you, a rapist. When you laugh at his joke about the thing he has actually done to a woman, what message will he take from that? Is it the message you want to be sending?

Most men (and most women) have probably laughed at a rape joke at some point in their life. The point is not that this makes us all horrible human beings, but simply, "You know, we should actually THINK about what message we send when we do these things, and make sure it's not one we really don't want to be sending."

You're right, of course. I've just never found that such a thing indicated condoning rape. If it did, I think most of humanity would be a bigot in four different ways.

Or, for another example - most men (and many if not most women) watch porn. Most people do not go to much, if any, effort to make certain that none of the performers in each and every bit of porn they watch were coerced or abused. Again, that doesn't mean we're all bad people, but it does raise an issue to think about, and the fact that most people DON'T think about it does fairly unquestionably contribute to a culture in which abuse and coercion are things one can get away with.

That one seems just a bit flimsy to me, but only a bit, and I definitely understand what you're getting at here. Food for thought. Thanks for answering my question.

No problem. I think "food for thought" is really the best thing to take away from the whole issue - this silly blogger turned a good, solid point to think about into "RAR MEN ALL SUPPORT RAPE," which was dumb, but it's even dumber to ignore the good, solid point that people very frequently support things not through a conscious choice to support them but through thoughtlessness or inaction or unexamined behavior, in favor of doing as many people here are doing and retreating into defensiveness and "bitch needs a good fucking" idiocy.

[The Norwegian Blue]

The saddest part is that, fundamentally, her essential point is entirely true: the vast majority of menpeople engage in some behavior that contributes, directly or indirectly, to a culture in which rape is routinely condoned.

Fixed to the degree that the statement can be fixed.

Seriously, dude? You're whining that I used the word "men" in a sentence talking about THE BLOGGER'S POINT - which was, quite specifically, about men and not women - while snipping out this sentence that occurs in the exact same post criticizing that very thing:

More importantly, I think it is both stupid and counterproductive to put the blame on men-as-a-whole for problems that afflict society as a whole, and frankly find the idea that women should be absolved of all responsibility for supporting rape culture both unhelpful and rather demeaning.

Does it hurt to be that intellectually dishonest?

But I disagree further with it. Rape is not routinely condoned in our culture, however much it might be in certain subcultures.

Which is why the majority of rapists totally don't get away with rape, and the majority of victims totally report their crimes without negative consequences to themselves, and without feeling guilty or ashamed of having been victimized.

Oh, wait. That's...that's actually not what happens in the real world at all, is it? Pity. The imaginary universe you live in sounds much nicer than this one.

Except that's not the "basic message" I perceive. The basic message I perceive in the listing is that men are sexual actors and women are sexual objects. I see someone complaining in a way that serves to reinforce said "rape-friendly culture."

Which would all be a great reply to me if I'd supported what she said, rather than saying that she has a good point buried under all the stupid, unlike the "bitch needs a good fucking" crowd.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Most men (and most women) have probably laughed at a rape joke at some point in their life. The point is not that this makes us all horrible human beings, but simply, "You know, we should actually THINK about what message we send when we do these things, and make sure it's not one we really don't want to be sending."

Probably the worst fucking logic I have ever heard. People joke about all sorts of things, almost 24/7, and you certainly don't make an argument talking about the message dead baby jokes send out.

I don't?

I think it is ENTIRELY possible for someone laughing at a dead baby joke to send a message not intended by the person in question. I can't imagine why that would be impossible. For an easy example, laughing at a dead baby joke in front of someone who has recently miscarried may very well send the message "I am insensitive to your pain." Are you seriously going to allege that no one who has recently miscarried could POSSIBLY find dead baby jokes hurtful, or that no one laughing at a dead baby joke could POSSIBLY not be thinking of the hurt they might be causing someone who has recently miscarried? Me, I live in reality, where people convey messages they didn't particularly intend on a regular basis, and where jokes are not somehow magically immune from provoking any sort of response.

What about Chuck Norris jokes? Because we laugh and make Chuck Norris jokes, it is suddenly sending a message that we think Chuck Norris is something more than a washed up actor who tries to sell the Total Gym at 1AM? Fuck no.

Why on earth COULDN'T it send such a message, depending on the joke and the context in which it is told? For an obvious example, I certainly got the impression that Huckabee intended to convey both "Chuck Norris is someone who thinks I would be a good president, and you should care what Chuck Norris thinks" and "I am in touch with young people and their wacky internet memes" when he told Chuck Norris jokes. Why on earth would you think such messages could NOT be conveyed by a joke?

Jokes are, by definition, not an indicator of support. No one jokes about something that they hold in esteem.

....um...what? I have quite definitely told jokes about a great many things I hold in esteem, and I seriously doubt you haven't. Right off the top of my head, you'd be arguing that one cannot BOTH love their family members and make fun of their family members. How many families do you know in which no one ever jokes about any member of the family they hold in esteem? Seriously...what are you smoking?

Making jokes, about rape, is in no way, shape or form condoning rape. There's simply no way anyone can support that position ever, to any degree, at any point without embracing assumptions that are mentally addled. I've joked about rape before, and I know that virtually all my friends have joked about it to some degree; both sexes. Do any of us condone rape? No, of course not. Not the day we made the joke, not the next day, not ever.

*sigh*

It would really be nice if people on NSG would learn how to respond to what people actually say instead of what they make up in their heads. Go reread my post, please. See if you can find the bit where I said "laughing at rape jokes means you condone rape." (Hint: it isn't there.)

[The Norwegian Blue]

The items on her list that aren't at all dumb - like "He has blamed a woman for 'putting herself in a situation' where she 'could be' attacked" and "He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually 'hoodwinked,' or sexually harassed," both of which are exceedingly common behaviors, are a good place to start. Most men (and most women) have probably laughed at a rape joke at some point in their life. The point is not that this makes us all horrible human beings, but simply, "You know, we should actually THINK about what message we send when we do these things, and make sure it's not one we really don't want to be sending."

Or, for another example - most men (and many if not most women) watch porn. Most people do not go to much, if any, effort to make certain that none of the performers in each and every bit of porn they watch were coerced or abused. Again, that doesn't mean we're all bad people, but it does raise an issue to think about, and the fact that most people DON'T think about it does fairly unquestionably contribute to a culture in which abuse and coercion are things one can get away with.

What about the ones about sexual "needs" and discussing what type someone finds appealing?

I get what she was going for in both cases, but she does a piss-poor job of explaining it in both cases. A guy who says, "I have sexual needs, and it's my girlfriend's obligation to fulfill them even if she's not in the mood" is a douchebag who is supporting the idea that women's bodies are commodities for men to use. A guy who says, "I have needs, including some sexual needs, that are important in order for me to be happy in a relationship. It's totally cool if you don't want to fulfill them, but if so, we probably shouldn't date, because we both deserve to be with people who will make us happy," is, at worst, using a slightly inaccurate turn of phrase. She is somehow conflating all uses of the phrase "sexual needs" with that first sort of usage and ignoring the fact that it's a pretty common shorthand for "I'm into thusandsuch thing and it's important to me that my partner also be into thusandsuch thing."

[Tahar Joblis]

Fixed to the degree that the statement can be fixed.

Seriously, dude? You're whining that I used the word "men" in a sentence talking about THE BLOGGER'S POINT - which was, quite specifically, about men and not women - while snipping out this sentence that occurs in the exact same post criticizing that very thing:

More importantly, I think it is both stupid and counterproductive to put the blame on men-as-a-whole for problems that afflict society as a whole, and frankly find the idea that women should be absolved of all responsibility for supporting rape culture both unhelpful and rather demeaning.

Does it hurt to be that intellectually dishonest?

Since I'm not intellectually dishonest, it doesn't hurt to be "that" intellectually dishonest.

After having said "essential point" and "entirely true" within the same sentence referring to the OP topic, your waffle back to "well, OK, maybe women have to do something do" is wholly insufficient. It's like saying "Well, I guess Jack the Ripper there has a point that humans are tasty." and then continuing later on with a vaguely apologetic "But I find the idea of killing prostitutes for dinner somewhat problematic."

It's nice that you actually seem to agree with me during some of your post, but I am well within my rights to highlight and complain about the parts which I take exception to. If you don't like it, say concisely and precisely what you mean the first time and you'll be fine. Except I think you actually mean to say something that I do take exception to. Which brings us back to the fact that I had real reason to object to what you were actually saying.

Which is why the majority of rapists totally don't get away with rape, and the majority of victims totally report their crimes without negative consequences to themselves, and without feeling guilty or ashamed of having been victimized.

Oh, wait. That's...that's actually not what happens in the real world at all, is it? Pity. The imaginary universe you live in sounds much nicer than this one.

This word "condone," I do not believe it means what you seem to think it does.

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.
1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

The majority of us do not disregard rape. We are well aware that it exists, and will rarely overlook a rape charge on someone's rap sheet (no overlooking; no disregarding; eliminate #1). We do not give tacit approval to it (#2 - which of course is stronger than #1 anyway). We do not pardon or forgive it - not the majority of society does, anyway (#3), which is why we get internet tough guys talking about killing and castrating and vigilante justice all the damn time.

The simple accusation of rape can ruin a man's life; this would not be the case if rape was condoned by the majority of our society. This is not "condoning," and, in fact, the gravity with which we regard rape is one of the reasons why it is underreported.

Which would all be a great reply to me if I'd supported what she said, rather than saying that she has a good point buried under all the stupid, unlike the "bitch needs a good fucking" crowd.

She doesn't have a good point buried underneath all the stupid, some fundamentally correct assumption on which she has constructed a pile of overreaction. She has several accidentally accurate statements that happen to be floating around on the periphery of her complaints.

Saying her "essential point" is correct, as you are currently re-emphasizing was your intention in posting and which I object to very strongly, is seriously misreading her. Her essential point is that all men are rapists underneath an at-best thin veneer of civilized behavior, as the OP correctly interprets. Or, alternatively, that all men are bad. That seems like it might be her actual "essential point." To describe it as otherwise - as you are yet again doing and as I was objecting to in the first place (to which, somehow, you took offended objection, as if I am not allowed to be offended by a blatantly misandrist statement) is to be entirely too charitable to someone who is acting like a sexist pig.

[Meryuma]

It's a proven fact that these people are out there. I remember how, a couple of years ago, there was an Aussie chick who wrote the "Joss Whedon is a rapist"

That's...odd. Given that the guy has made at least one anvilicious "misogyny is bad" episode in everything he's ever worked on.

Dear god...I just read it. What the fuck? This woman redefines "insane."

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

Basically she ignores all the underlying characterization and background to arrive at her conclusions. For example, she neglects to mention that Zoe is calling Mal "sir" and taking orders from him because he is/was her commanding officer and she trusts him. She also mentions Mal violating the terms of his agreement with Inara, and how Inara tolerates it, ignoring all the romantic subtexts that might explain why she ignores it.

Not to mention she just ignores the fact that Mal is supposed to be kind of a dick, it's not like Joss Whedon is holding him up as being a perfect man in every way. And ignores reality, for that matter, citing Zoe's lack of female friends (Because, you know, it's not like there are really girls who do not enjoy the company of other girls.)

That's not even everything wrong with that essay, either.

What about the ones about sexual "needs" and discussing what type someone finds appealing?

I get what she was going for in both cases, but she does a piss-poor job of explaining it in both cases. A guy who says, "I have sexual needs, and it's my girlfriend's obligation to fulfill them even if she's not in the mood" is a douchebag who is supporting the idea that women's bodies are commodities for men to use. A guy who says, "I have needs, including some sexual needs, that are important in order for me to be happy in a relationship. It's totally cool if you don't want to fulfill them, but if so, we probably shouldn't date, because we both deserve to be with people who will make us happy," is, at worst, using a slightly inaccurate turn of phrase. She is somehow conflating all uses of the phrase "sexual needs" with that first sort of usage and ignoring the fact that it's a pretty common shorthand for "I'm into thusandsuch thing and it's important to me that my partner also be into thusandsuch thing."

That actually is a rape-facilitating attitude.

Similarly, with the second I think she was trying to say it's misogynistic to judge women as people based on whether you find them sexually appealing, or something of a sort, but she ended up phrasing it as "if you talk about what 'type' of women you like, you support rape".

[The Norwegian Blue]

That's...odd. Given that the guy has made at least one anvilicious "misogyny is bad" episode in everything he's ever worked on.

Dear god...I just read it. What the fuck? This woman redefines "insane."

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

Basically she ignores all the underlying characterization and background to arrive at her conclusions. For example, she neglects to mention that Zoe is calling Mal "sir" and taking orders from him because he is/was her commanding officer and she trusts him. She also mentions Mal violating the terms of his agreement with Inara, and how Inara tolerates it, ignoring all the romantic subtexts that might explain why she ignores it.

Not to mention she just ignores the fact that Mal is supposed to be kind of a dick, it's not like Joss Whedon is holding him up as being a perfect man in every way. And ignores reality, for that matter, citing Zoe's lack of female friends (Because, you know, it's not like there are really girls who do not enjoy the company of other girls.)

That's not even everything wrong with that essay, either.

I get what she was going for in both cases, but she does a piss-poor job of explaining it in both cases. A guy who says, "I have sexual needs, and it's my girlfriend's obligation to fulfill them even if she's not in the mood" is a douchebag who is supporting the idea that women's bodies are commodities for men to use. A guy who says, "I have needs, including some sexual needs, that are important in order for me to be happy in a relationship. It's totally cool if you don't want to fulfill them, but if so, we probably shouldn't date, because we both deserve to be with people who will make us happy," is, at worst, using a slightly inaccurate turn of phrase. She is somehow conflating all uses of the phrase "sexual needs" with that first sort of usage and ignoring the fact that it's a pretty common shorthand for "I'm into thusandsuch thing and it's important to me that my partner also be into thusandsuch thing."

That actually is a rape-facilitating attitude.

Similarly, with the second I think she was trying to say it's misogynistic to judge women as people based on whether you find them sexually appealing, or something of a sort, but she ended up phrasing it as "if you talk about what 'type' of women you like, you support rape".

Indeed. She seems, in nearly all of her points, to start with a kernel of truth and then bury it in imprecision, hyperbole, and rather weird sexism.