The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Chestaan]

How is feigning interest in sex not morally wrong? Most people I know would call it leading someone on, especially if they were also feigning interest in a relationship. It's even worse if someone is doing it to receive favours from someone who likes them.

Yes, obviously doing it to elicit favors from someone is morally wrong. But I don't think every single incident where someone acts sensual in some way is an attempt to defraud someone.

I would argue lying about your age is also immoral. Generally I find lying to or otherwise deceiving someone in order to get sex is a pretty dick thing to do.

So how about saying "I am really good in bed" to get laid? Or "I am really well-endowed"?

Saying things like that is also immoral unless the person saying it legitimately believes it to be true. Now the second one isn't so bad because obviously you can determine how well-endowed a person is before actually having sex with them. There's also the problem of being really good in bed is very very subjective, whereas age isn't. I'd give the example of someone lying about their profession, claiming to be a bigshot or a sports star as an example of where deception is clearly a problem.

For the first point, I would say that things like feigning interest in sex to make someone else jealous or just to mess with the other person would also be wrong. Now sure I suppose someone can just feign interest in sex for no particular reason. Also, I am saying feigning interest in sex, and not just being sensual.

[Gravlen]

I'd be a lot more okay with "Yes Means Yes" if it were accepted that it's a way of encouraging people to be more responsible, open and fair about sexual relations and were not so tied in with Rape Culture Theory.

Why? The two ideas aren't inseparably linked.

Personally, if I come across an idea I like which is connected to a concept I don't agree with, I keep the former while rejecting the latter.

Actually, arguing that women (or men) need to act in non-sexual ways to avoid rape is a crystal clear example of rape culture.

One, it implies a definition of rape as something that is different from other sex acts in terms of degree and not of kind (people were very very sexual in their behavior, one thing led to another, and then person A raped person B).
Two, it moves the responsibility for rape to rape victims (and replaces concern for victims with "COVER UP YOU WHORE").

No, I'm not talking about rape. I'm talking about consent itself.

If we were to talk about consent in another context, buying something in a store involves consent. An open sign signifies consent that I should enter the store, and yet just because the products are on the shelves doesn't mean I have the right to take them away. it is understood by people in countries that have such stores that you can pick what you want, place it in an appropriate receptacle, and present the items for purchase. By entering the store and behaving in this way, you have established consent that you intend to buy these things if possible. Then when you bring them to the counter, you get to buy them.

There are things that can make this relationship confused and complicated, simple though it seems. For instance:
- The Open Sign is on, but the store is closed.
- The clerk for cryptic reasons refuses to sell things to you.
- The customer picks up things but then either puts them back in the wrong place or takes them to the counter but doesn't buy them.
- The customer is confused about how the store's practices work
- The customer is confused because the store's practices are not clearly stated
- The customer or the clerk is rude and obnoxious and unfair.

Well talking about consent is the same thing. We're both agreed that just as stealing from the store or vandalizing the store is wrong, that rape is wrong. That's a given. So what I'm talking about is the equivalent of the confusions I mentioned.

So sure, clear communication would help, but why not encourage it at the very outset? If common practices tend to be confusing, why not clear them up? This is what good business practices teach us. The final transaction is not in question at all.

I'm not alone in finding some of women's behaviour very confusing. And I think that it used to be less confusing because gender roles were more clear. Now that they are blurred, these behaviours need to catch up if we are to talk about the context and atmosphere of consent.

I'm sorry, but your whole store-metaphor is muddled and unhelpful. I won't go further into it, except by pointing out that you're saying that by behaving in a certain way you've "established consent that you intend to buy these things if possible". That sentence has no meaning, end even interpreted in the best of ways it doesn't get you anywhere. You cannot build anything upon consent to intend to potentially purchase something (sic), in the same way that you can't build upon consent to intend to potentially have sex with someone.

Except nobody said anything about treating women 'well' or 'not well'.

The only thing that is being asked is, you know, not raping or sexually assaulting the women.

Nobody says it's permissible for women to walk up to men and grab their genitals or try and start performing sex acts on them out of the blue.

Then we don't need to talk about Rape Culture. You and others have said that rape culture isn't just about forcing women to have sex. It's about what leads up to it. But what you mentioned above is just rape. So we already know rape is a crime. In Canada it's very clearly defined. I'll mention it again:
- when a person is asleep or unconscious
- when a person is so drugged or drunk they are incapable of intelligibly saying yes or no
- When a person is intimidated into accepting sex (one way or another, threatening loss of job or relationship included)
- and obviously when a physical threat, attack or restraint is used.

I think the above covers it. So if talking about Rape Culture isn't about establishing how we lead up to consent--it's just about whether or not people say yes or no--then why does it need to be discussed?

You know what's ironic? You say rape in Canada is clearly defined, yet you don't seem to know the definition as you're listing up a variety of factors linked to situations where the Canadian penal code says that consent isn't given. Of course, Canada's Criminal Code has no specific "rape" provision or definition. Instead, it defines assault and provides for a specific punishment for "sexual assault".

No, it's not rape when a person is asleep or unconscious, or when a person is too drunk. At that point, the person is simply asleep, unconscious, or too drunk. It's sexual assault when there's (i) touching / physical contact, (ii) the contact is sexual in nature, and (iii) the person being subjected to the contact has not consented to it. consent must be freely given. In some situations there's always an absence of consent, for example when a person is asleep or unconscious, because the person is unable to freely give consent. Some of these situations are laid out in the Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 265 (3).

For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

So to sum up: It's sexual assault in Canada if someone touches another person in a sexual way without their consent, and the person touching knows that the other person is not consenting to the sexual act in question, or the person touching is reckless or wilfully blind to the absence of consent. That's the clearly defined situation of sexual assault.

[Allanea]

People feign interest in sex for a whole broad variety of reasons in a giant variety of contexts.

Also I think people lying about their age are in a bit of a special situation because there are laws which while they're not a restrivtion on them directly, in fact act to prevent them from having sex (out of a desire to protect them from sexual abuse mind you).

[Chestaan]

People feign interest in sex for a whole broad variety of reasons in a giant variety of contexts.

Also I think people lying about their age are in a bit of a special situation because there are laws which while they're not a restrivtion on them directly, in fact act to prevent them from having sex (out of a desire to protect them from sexual abuse mind you).

Can you give me any specific reasons to feign interest in sex that you think are justified? Really for me this isn't an issue of sex in particular, just generally deception is not a good thing.

I can see what you mean with the second part though.

[Allanea]

For example when people flirt with each other they often act in really obviously sexual ways but they don't really plan to transit into a five-way orgy in the nearest washroom.

[Chestaan]

For example when people flirt with each other they often act in really obviously sexual ways but they don't really plan to transit into a five-way orgy in the nearest washroom.

One can flirt without the intention of sex and without the intention of deceiving someone into thinking they want sex. I am just bringing this up Because I think New Edom was referring to cases specifically when someone was pretending to be interested in sex. In the case of flirtation, I would say the problem is squarely with the person misinterpreting the signals.

[Allanea]

But New Edom was specifically talking throughout the entirety of the thread about how women can send out confusing signals and this supposedly contributes to rape somehow.

[Chestaan]

But New Edom was specifically talking throughout the entirety of the thread about how women can send out confusing signals and this supposedly contributes to rape somehow.

Fair enough. I can't speak for him or what he meant by it.

[Philjia]

But New Edom was specifically talking throughout the entirety of the thread about how women can send out confusing signals and this supposedly contributes to rape somehow.

Which is why there is a need to demand emphaticism. Not necessarily verbal, but absolute and obvious statements nonetheless, so there is no excuse for assaying you got mixed signals.

[Val Halla]

Greer says her views on transwomen were wrong, then restates them. So... Why exactly do people support her?

[Philjia]

Greer says her views on transwomen were wrong, then restates them. So... Why exactly do people support her?

Because she's loud, angry, and made some vaguely pertinent points in 1970.

[Hirota]

Anecdotal evidence from NSG suggest otherwise. There's been posters - multiple - in the past who've reacted strongly to discussions of sexual assault on this forum, even if the discussions never went beyond PG-13 descriptions. I agree that the post didn't contain strong language in any form, but... well, why do you feel you have to make a big deal out of it? If it actually could make a difference to a few posters, and anyone who wants to read it still can, what's the problem?

Credible research on the matter shows that "trigger warnings" do more harm than good. I'll trust them more than this supposed "anecdotal evidence" , and instead of assuming they are emotional toddlers, will assume posters are capable of having a conversation without having their poor ickle feewings suffer a boo boo. Offended posters can look at a picture of a puppy in my signature, or shut themselves in an isolation tank so the big scary monster under their bed doesn't find them and eat them whilst they sleep.

[Allanea]

And yet you - who seem to be mature - seem to be:

1. Very offended that I used a trigger warning.
2. Resorting to childish insults of those who need them.

[Hirota]

And yet you - who seem to be mature - seem to be:

1. Very offended that I used a trigger warning.

I reject the belief you need to patronise anyone. Very offended? No. Exasperated by the bullshit? Absolutely.

2. Resorting to childish insults of those who need them.

I reject the belief they actually need them. There is no evidence trigger warnings have any benefit for anyone. I'm not the one portraying them as children - you are by adding childish warnings.

[Hladgos]

And yet you - who seem to be mature - seem to be:

1. Very offended that I used a trigger warning.

I reject the belief you need to patronise anyone. Very offended? No. Exasperated by the bullshit? Absolutely.

2. Resorting to childish insults of those who need them.

I reject the belief they actually need them. There is no evidence trigger warnings have any benefit for anyone. I'm not the one portraying them as children - you are by adding childish warnings.

To be fair, soldiers with PTSD could probably avoid flashbacks with the help of trigger warnings. Who knows how you'd impliment them though.

[Gravlen]

Anecdotal evidence from NSG suggest otherwise. There's been posters - multiple - in the past who've reacted strongly to discussions of sexual assault on this forum, even if the discussions never went beyond PG-13 descriptions. I agree that the post didn't contain strong language in any form, but... well, why do you feel you have to make a big deal out of it? If it actually could make a difference to a few posters, and anyone who wants to read it still can, what's the problem?

Credible research on the matter shows that "trigger warnings" do more harm than good. I'll trust them more than this supposed "anecdotal evidence" , and instead of assuming they are emotional toddlers, will assume posters are capable of having a conversation without having their poor ickle feewings suffer a boo boo. Offended posters can look at a picture of a puppy in my signature, or shut themselves in an isolation tank so the big scary monster under their bed doesn't find them and eat them whilst they sleep.

Do you feel it is your responsibility to expose victims of trauma to reminders of that trauma in order to help them regain control of their lives (long term), even if it means they'll have to be uncomfortable or suffering in the short term?

If not, I still don't understand why you are so outraged by the fact that someone would dare to include a content warning such as the one above. In fact, if anyone seems offended here (on the behalf of other people, I might add) it is you.

[Alvecia]

I reject the belief they actually need them. There is no evidence trigger warnings have any benefit for anyone. I'm not the one portraying them as children - you are by adding childish warnings.

I'm curious as to how you would you measure that.
By which I mean, if trigger warning work as they should, then the result would, I assume, be indistinguishable from giving a trigger warning to those who may not need it.

[Hirota]

I feel we've gone way off topic here - I know the feminism thread has gone to some pretty odd places from time to time, but it probably is a good idea to have trigger warnings and their supposed benefits discussed in a different thread? The original post where I was supposedly "offended" was part of a much greater post that was far more relevant than this sidebar. Therefore on that basis, spoilered out:

Do you feel it is your responsibility to expose victims of trauma to reminders of that trauma in order to help them regain control of their lives (long term), even if it means they'll have to be uncomfortable or suffering in the short term?

Yes, quite obviously I see it as my civic duty to shout "BANG BANG!" around groups of veterans, and I love nothing more than spending my weekends making rape jokes around womens shelters. You're welcome, collected victims of the world evils.



No, I don't feel that at all, and thats a really, really dumb strawman you've concocted there. There is simply no demonstrable benefit in tiptoeing your way round people and not talking about x or y because it might hurt fweelings. I don't go out of my way to remind them, but if it comes up in sensible conversation, I'm not going to skirt around a subject and act like a patronising, virtue-signalling dick about it.

seems offended here (on the behalf of other people, I might add) it is you.

I'm sure that might seem to be the case to you. Alas, as already said, your perception is wrong.

To be fair, soldiers with PTSD could probably avoid flashbacks with the help of trigger warnings. Who knows how you'd impliment them though.

Probably not, in fact there is probably as much, if not more evidence that they'd recover far better by laughing at their trauma.

https://www.facebook.com/drinkinbros/vi ... 1/?fref=nf

Gallows humour is a thing, and a lot of people tend to get over traumatic events by laughing at those traumatic events.

[Gravlen]

I feel we've gone way off topic here - I know the feminism thread has gone to some pretty odd places from time to time, but it probably is a good idea to have trigger warnings and their supposed benefits discussed in a different thread? The original post where I was supposedly "offended" was part of a much greater post that was far more relevant than this sidebar. Therefore on that basis, spoilered out:

Do you feel it is your responsibility to expose victims of trauma to reminders of that trauma in order to help them regain control of their lives (long term), even if it means they'll have to be uncomfortable or suffering in the short term?

Yes, quite obviously I see it as my civic duty to shout "BANG BANG!" around groups of veterans, and I love nothing more than spending my weekends making rape jokes around womens shelters. You're welcome, collected victims of the world evils.



No, I don't feel that at all, and thats a really, really dumb strawman you've concocted there.

It's not a straw man, it's a question. Hopefully you'll know the difference.

There is simply no demonstrable benefit in tiptoeing your way round people and not talking about x or y because it might hurt fweelings.

There is, at least short term. Sure, giving a content warning may not lead anyone to get better from trauma - which is what the research you referred to is about, by the way: treatment - but it might lead them to not have a bad day. That's all fine by me, especially since I still have full and free access to the content in question. The discussion isn't hurt by the warning (until someone makes a big deal out of its existence) and any potential suffering might be avoided for the few that need it. In fact, by having such a warning, some people might participate in debates who'd otherwise choose to leave a particular thread because they got upset by a detailed description of sexual assault. That has actually happened before on NSG at least once, and the upside of using spoilers or content warning was that the voices of sexual assault survivors were heard in that thread (which wasn't about sexual assault to begin with, but made a turn).

By the way, what's with the dismissiveness towards emotions? Do you find it difficult to talk about feelings, or is it just the word that's a challenge to you?

I don't go out of my way to remind them, but if it comes up in sensible conversation, I'm not going to skirt around a subject and act like a patronising, virtue-signalling dick about it.

Maybe it's not about you then? Like this time, when it was about Allanea and what they wrote which led you to be offended?

seems offended here (on the behalf of other people, I might add) it is you.

I'm sure that might seem to be the case to you. Alas, as already said, your perception is wrong.

I don't think so. I think your strong reaction and your choice of words tell the truth of it.

[USS Monitor]

But New Edom was specifically talking throughout the entirety of the thread about how women can send out confusing signals and this supposedly contributes to rape somehow.

Which is why there is a need to demand emphaticism. Not necessarily verbal, but absolute and obvious statements nonetheless, so there is no excuse for assaying you got mixed signals.

^This.

I'm OK with taking non-verbal cues into consideration, but it needs to be something clear, like pulling you in or helping you get your pants off, not "her eyes said yes."

[New Edom]

I think that Rape Culture Theory clearly makes emotional sense to people who agree it exists. I don't agree with the idea and do not have to in order to think that rape is a terrible crime. I think enough said on the subject. I noticed that Allanea had not read the paper he quoted the abstract from or anything challenging it. Unless someone wants to have an actual scholarly debate on it I am not interested. As for the Canadian law issue, I was speaking broadly. I will not do so here again. I may post less here as I must clearly I will have to write in an academic matter constantly and cite sources. I will do so in future.

[Sanctissima]

I think that Rape Culture Theory clearly makes emotional sense to people who agree it exists. I don't agree with the idea and do not have to in order to think that rape is a terrible crime. I think enough said on the subject. I noticed that Allanea had not read the paper he quoted the abstract from or anything challenging it. Unless someone wants to have an actual scholarly debate on it I am not interested. As for the Canadian law issue, I was speaking broadly. I will not do so here again. I may post less here as I must clearly I will have to write in an academic matter constantly and cite sources. I will do so in future.

Frankly, unless we're talking about Saudi Arabia or some other third-world backwater of a country, the concepts of rape culture and patriarchy are complete nonsense. Or at least, a definition for these terms would need to be extremely stretched and watered down just to make them even remotely applicable. There are still some vestiges of sexism in modern Western countries, but not to the point that many Feminists, and Radical Feminists in particular, claim.

[New Edom]

I think that Rape Culture Theory clearly makes emotional sense to people who agree it exists. I don't agree with the idea and do not have to in order to think that rape is a terrible crime. I think enough said on the subject. I noticed that Allanea had not read the paper he quoted the abstract from or anything challenging it. Unless someone wants to have an actual scholarly debate on it I am not interested. As for the Canadian law issue, I was speaking broadly. I will not do so here again. I may post less here as I must clearly I will have to write in an academic matter constantly and cite sources. I will do so in future.

Frankly, unless we're talking about Saudi Arabia or some other third-world backwater of a country, the concepts of rape culture and patriarchy are complete nonsense. Or at least, a definition for these terms would need to be extremely stretched and watered down just to make them even remotely applicable. There are still some vestiges of sexism in modern Western countries, but not to the point that many Feminists, and Radical Feminists in particular, claim.

I agree with you. However what I'm saying is that in future I won't have discussions with feminists on this subject without them being scholarly in nature. If one does not agree that rape culture exists, feminists insinuate that people believe that it should be okay to abuse or take sexual advantage of women.

[Chessmistress]

Some thoughts about some weird things I have read here.
Things proving I was right, I think.

Pretending to be interested in sex is not unethical in any way, because pretending to be interested doesn't constitute a contract between you and the other person. (Unless you actually take favors from the other person explicitly in return for sex).

I disagree, strongly: it's not just only unethical but it can also led to misunderstandings in some edgy situations.
It's exactly due bullshit like "pretending to be interested in sex is good" that I always said that consent must be VERBALLY expressed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357514&p=27595941&hilit=jerks#p27595941

Then we have this gem:

That would be great if as well as this women generally did not insist that men display perfect confidence and surety in relationships. Because they tend to men tend to try to live up to that, but flirtation does not always mean expeced result. So what I'm sayin gis--miscommunication is almost inevitable.

No, it's not inevitable. Actually asking people if they want to have sex with you avoids 'miscommunication'.

It's really a shame for me seeing a self-proclaimed "feminist" pretending to be interested about avoiding miscommunications between sexes while at the very same time saying "pretending to be interested in sex is not unethical"...

So this must be fixed so:

It's very simple:

Since "pretending to be interested in sex is not unethical"
If you don't CANNOT, NEVER, actually know - through the other person explicitly telling you that they want to have sex with you - then don't have sex with them.

It's really not super-hard.

Initiating sex acts without people's consent can be a form of sexual assault.

Nope
Initiating sex acts without people's consent is ALWAYS sexual assault.

Lying about sexual relationships to get men jealous is not any more wrong than a guy saying 'I get laid a lot' to sound cool. [but why does it have to do with rape?]

I would say that a guy asking me about my sexual relationships is an unworthy jerk and will be immediatly dumped without the need to pander to him by lying, but it's not the case since I have a separatist lifestyle.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Lying about sexual relationships to get men jealous is not any more wrong than a guy saying 'I get laid a lot' to sound cool. [but why does it have to do with rape?]

I would say that a guy asking me about my sexual relationships is an unworthy jerk and will be immediatly dumped without the need to pander to him by lying, but it's not the case since I have a separatist lifestyle.

I never understood this attitude from certain men.

Why the fuck would a guy be interested AT ALL in a woman's sexual relationships?! In all my years of dating women I have never asked a woman about her sexual relationships. I guess it just seems alien to me the concept of actually asking a woman "how many people have you fucked?".

I also don't understand why a woman would lie about sexual relationships just to get men jealous...