Feminism in decline

[Ostroeuropa]

Hey - I'm all for stopping everything when she says no, but this is just humbug. A verbal response should not be too much to ask.

Body language indicating unwillingness isn't hard to read either.

This assumes neurotypical partners. It isn't safe to assume body language can be understood.
Some people genuinely cannot interperate body language.

[Llamalandia]

A source of them actually fighting for mens rights, not just saying they support them.

The MRM supports womens rights too. They just don't do much about it. Same as feminism.

In fact, the MRM does better than feminism on some issues, it's decided that female on female domestic abuse and rape is an issue it's prepared to champion, since feminism seems to refuse to hold women accountable.

I believe that is just a small, radical part of "feminism" that doesn't actually deserve to be called that way.

Meh, I'm still waiting for sources for my original query, and perhaps you are right, but if so then mainstream feminists really need t oshut down and drown out the radicals.

[Vettrera]

I think you tried to combine two different surveys done by two different organizations, with different sample sizes and margins of error, to come up with a conclusion that isn't necessarily true.

[Llamalandia]

Very nice use of ellipsis to remove relevant context. Well done let provide the rest of it for you.

"...and then told me I had asked for it. And technically, he was right."

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

[Gnork]

Very nice use of ellipsis to remove relevant context. Well done let provide the rest of it for you.

"...and then told me I had asked for it. And technically, he was right."

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

I'm curious: how was that will expressed?

[Ostroeuropa]

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

This is an important thing to note.
It was rape because she didn't want it, but that does not necessarily mean that the other person should be considered a rapist.

The example I use is someone from a theoretical culture where normal cues are backwards, who would be seeming happy and shouting yes during the act.
Clearly, a reasonable person would think consent existed, even if it did not. But the rape still occurred.
It's just a matter of whether you consider the person culpable for the rape or consider it a tragic accident.

The importance of accepting that the rape occured is so as not to gaslight the victim and accept that they have a right to feel traumatized and violated, and should be provided with support and therapy should they require it.
That's a seperate issue from culpability.
Indeed, in such a scenario the perpetrator may also be traumatized if they discover consent was not actually present, and may need support and therapy of their own.

I think you are arguing that in this situation, the man had a reasonable cause to think consent existed, and thus no rape occurred. I disagree with that for the above reasons.
I do think that if reasonable cause is present, that we shouldn't consider the person a rapist though.

(A more realistic example is forgetting the safe word.)

[Prussia-Steinbach]

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

I'm curious: how was that will expressed?

Ask her. She said it was not consensual.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

She literally only told him about her fantasy. He probably didn't understand how rape fantasies work and she didn't properly explain it, but the fact is she didn't want it at that time, so it's flat out rape.

[Llamalandia]

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

This is an important thing to note.
It was rape because she didn't want it, but that does not necessarily mean that the other person should be considered a rapist.

The example I use is someone from a theoretical culture where normal cues are backwards, who would be seeming happy and shouting yes during the act.
Clearly, a reasonable person would think consent existed, even if it did not. But the rape still occurred.
It's just a matter of whether you consider the person culpable for the rape or consider it a tragic accident.

The importance of accepting that the rape occured is so as not to gaslight the victim and accept that they have a right to feel traumatized and violated, and should be provided with support and therapy should they require it.
That's a seperate issue from culpability.
Indeed, in such a scenario the perpetrator may also be traumatized if they discover consent was not actually present, and may need support and therapy of their own.

I think you are arguing that in this situation, the man had a reasonable cause to think consent existed, and thus no rape occurred. I disagree with that for the above reasons.
I do think that if reasonable cause is present, that we shouldn't consider the person a rapist though.

(A more realistic example is forgetting the safe word.)

Ahh, but that is another issue right there isn't it? Remember that Steubenville ohio, things where some girl was passed out drunk and guys decided to "touch her". Now that was clearly an assault and those respnsible were rightfully punished. However, she never even knew anything had happened until pics and video were posted online by these geniuses. So how much of a victim is someone, if they don't even know they were victimized?

[Jute]

I believe that is just a small, radical part of "feminism" that doesn't actually deserve to be called that way.

Meh, I'm still waiting for sources for my original query, and perhaps you are right, but if so then mainstream feminists really need t oshut down and drown out the radicals.

The problem is similar to other groups dealing with a small, but very vocal, or even violent minority. What are they supposed to do?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

She literally only told him about her fantasy. He probably didn't understand how rape fantasies work and she didn't properly explain it, but the fact is she didn't want it at that time, so it's flat out rape.

I'm actually getting really disturbed by some of the opinions expressed in here.

[Jute]

But it was against her will at the time. Rape. Flat out. Blatant. Rape.

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

Ask?

[Llamalandia]

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

She literally only told him about her fantasy. He probably didn't understand how rape fantasies work and she didn't properly explain it, but the fact is she didn't want it at that time, so it's flat out rape.

And he was supposed to know that how? I mean, remember they had a close loving relationship and had sex before. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable for him to think that he was giving her exactly what she wanted in this situation.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

This is an important thing to note.
It was rape because she didn't want it, but that does not necessarily mean that the other person should be considered a rapist.

The example I use is someone from a theoretical culture where normal cues are backwards, who would be seeming happy and shouting yes during the act.
Clearly, a reasonable person would think consent existed, even if it did not. But the rape still occurred.
It's just a matter of whether you consider the person culpable for the rape or consider it a tragic accident.

The importance of accepting that the rape occured is so as not to gaslight the victim and accept that they have a right to feel traumatized and violated, and should be provided with support and therapy should they require it.
That's a seperate issue from culpability.
Indeed, in such a scenario the perpetrator may also be traumatized if they discover consent was not actually present, and may need support and therapy of their own.

I think you are arguing that in this situation, the man had a reasonable cause to think consent existed, and thus no rape occurred. I disagree with that for the above reasons.
I do think that if reasonable cause is present, that we shouldn't consider the person a rapist though.

Ignorance is no excuse.

(A more realistic example is forgetting the safe word.)

Which defeats the purpose of the safeword, which is that it's easy to remember and not a word normally used during BDSM sessions.

[Llamalandia]

Oh, ok, and how was he supposed to know that? She did basically nothing to indicate that this was not what she wanted.

Ask?

When? Plus does that make sense in the context of acting out a rape fantasy? (Seems unlikely).

[Of Monkeydonia]

The power of patriarchy compels you.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

She literally only told him about her fantasy. He probably didn't understand how rape fantasies work and she didn't properly explain it, but the fact is she didn't want it at that time, so it's flat out rape.

And he was supposed to know that how? I mean, remember they had a close loving relationship and had sex before. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable for him to think that he was giving her exactly what she wanted in this situation.

Ignorance is no excuse.

She literally only told him about her fantasy. He probably didn't understand how rape fantasies work and she didn't properly explain it, but the fact is she didn't want it at that time, so it's flat out rape.

I'm actually getting really disturbed by some of the opinions expressed in here.

First important thing in things like this: clarity.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Ask?

When? Plus does that make sense in the context of acting out a rape fantasy? (Seems unlikely).

He doesn't automatically have the right to fuck her whenever he wants because they're together.

Role playing is agreed upon. You don't just hear a girl say she fantasized about being raped once (a fucking fantasy, she thought about it on time, good god) and then fucking rape her.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I don't think the guy knew shit about roleplaying.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is an important thing to note.
It was rape because she didn't want it, but that does not necessarily mean that the other person should be considered a rapist.

The example I use is someone from a theoretical culture where normal cues are backwards, who would be seeming happy and shouting yes during the act.
Clearly, a reasonable person would think consent existed, even if it did not. But the rape still occurred.
It's just a matter of whether you consider the person culpable for the rape or consider it a tragic accident.

The importance of accepting that the rape occured is so as not to gaslight the victim and accept that they have a right to feel traumatized and violated, and should be provided with support and therapy should they require it.
That's a seperate issue from culpability.
Indeed, in such a scenario the perpetrator may also be traumatized if they discover consent was not actually present, and may need support and therapy of their own.

I think you are arguing that in this situation, the man had a reasonable cause to think consent existed, and thus no rape occurred. I disagree with that for the above reasons.
I do think that if reasonable cause is present, that we shouldn't consider the person a rapist though.

Ignorance is no excuse.

(A more realistic example is forgetting the safe word.)

Which defeats the purpose of the safeword, which is that it's easy to remember and not a word normally used during BDSM sessions.

I would argue ignorance can be an excuse under reasonable circumstances.
Yes, it does defeat the purpose of the safeword, but it can happen.

What you are essentially arguing is that someone who has committed no negligence and no malice should nonetheless be punished for behavior that anyone would engage in (The key being that a reasonable person would assume consent is present) because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Such scenarios may be extremely rare, but they might happen.

Another example would be if I held a gun to a womans head and told her to fuck you or i'd kill her. You do not see this occur.
She then actively participates in sex with you, and gives no indication that she is under duress.
Are you culpable for rape?

I would say no. Because from your perspective at the time, you have every reason to think consent is present, and a reasonable person would likewise.

So yes, ignorance can be an excuse under limited circumstances. There is no point or constructive purpose in punishing the perpetrator in such cases. That doesn't mean we don't help the victim or delegitimize their experience and right to feel traumatized.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Ask?

When? Plus does that make sense in the context of acting out a rape fantasy? (Seems unlikely).

In the realm of something like a rape fantasy, ignorance is not an excuse. He should have asked her about it, clarified some things, and then done it at a later date once he was more informed as to her desires.

[Llamalandia]

Ignorance is no excuse.

Which defeats the purpose of the safeword, which is that it's easy to remember and not a word normally used during BDSM sessions.

I would argue ignorance can be an excuse under reasonable circumstances.
Yes, it does defeat the purpose of the safeword, but it can happen.

What you are essentially arguing is that someone who has committed no negligence and no malice should nonetheless be punished for behavior that anyone would engage in (The key being that a reasonable person would assume consent is present) because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Such scenarios may be extremely rare, but they might happen.

Another example would be if I held a gun to a womans head and told her to fuck you or i'd kill her. You do not see this occur.
She then actively participates in sex with you, and gives no indication that she is under duress.
Are you culpable for rape?

I would say no. Because from your perspective at the time, you have every reason to think consent is present, and a reasonable person would likewise.

So yes, ignorance can be an excuse under limited circumstances.

Exactly after all sex work is legal in Reno. How do you know for certain, though that someone wasn't forced into that line of work? ie. Work in my brothel or I kill your family. Anyone paying and having sex with such a person would be ignorant of the fact that the sex was being sold aginst the will of woman.

[Ostroeuropa]

When? Plus does that make sense in the context of acting out a rape fantasy? (Seems unlikely).

In the realm of something like a rape fantasy, ignorance is not an excuse. He should have asked her about it, clarified some things, and then done it at a later date once he was more informed as to her desires.

In this specific scenario, I agree that he doesn't have an excuse though.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

In the realm of something like a rape fantasy, ignorance is not an excuse. He should have asked her about it, clarified some things, and then done it at a later date once he was more informed as to her desires.

Honestly, that's why it's so important to popularize Safe Sane and Consensual standards.

There was a reason why the BDSM community threw a shitfit when FSOG became the public face of BDSM with it's complete lack of safewords and sane practices, and its bending the concept of consent until it breaks. As more people in the vanilla world are starting to explore this stuff, we need to work harder to make it clear how it needs to be done to avoid people getting violated and/or hurt.

[Ostroeuropa]

In the realm of something like a rape fantasy, ignorance is not an excuse. He should have asked her about it, clarified some things, and then done it at a later date once he was more informed as to her desires.

Honestly, that's why it's so important to popularize Safe Sane and Consensual standards.

There was a reason why the BDSM community threw a shitfit when FSOG became the public face of BDSM with it's complete lack of safewords and sane practices, and its bending the concept of consent until it breaks. As more people in the vanilla world are starting to explore this stuff, we need to work harder to make it clear how it needs to be done to avoid people getting violated and/or hurt.

I think consensual standards have hit a rut because of the yes means yes campaigning, which revolves around the chase dynamic and placing the burden on men.
We would do better to encourage communication during sex, and to encourage women to take a more active role.
That way, a woman or man not actively participating would send up red flags quicker, and we limit the pitfall of people forgoing verbal consent for whatever reason and a rape happening as a result.

The yes means yes campaign should have encouraged dual participation and during-sex communication in addition to these standards.

That it would lead to better sex lives is a side benefit.