|
On November 08 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:36 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:32 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
co·er·cion
kōˈərZHən,-SHən/
noun
noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions
1.
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position? The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem. That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape. No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal.
I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
|
@Thieving Magpie
@NovaTheFeared
"Initial reluctance" implies that the person subsequently wants to. In the situation we're describing, the woman in question does not want to engage in sex, but agrees to even though she does not at any point want to. That's not the same as her partner winning her over to the idea, so that she wants to do it before they start.
Of course, it's not unusual for people to choose of their own free will to do things that they do not want to do, often at others' behest. ("Honey, would you load the dishwasher?") Jobs routinely make demands that the worker does not want to fulfill. This is usually not considered criminal in any way, shape, or form.
On November 08 2013 04:33 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:28 DonKey_ wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:32 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood
etc... How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck? Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition. Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured. But coercing her into having sex with you is rape. You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance. Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. This feels like a lot of word play. 90%(BS made up number)of men or women are not going to consider "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood etc..." as rape. That kind of interpretation of rape is dangerous and is part of what creates the victim blaming, when individuals view a victim as claiming something along the lines of what you said, rather than the commonly accepted version of rape. OH BOY I CAN POST AGAIN the commonly accepted version of rape is highly problematic. People complain that its unnecessary to focus on "rape culture", but most guys don't realize that if you were to say, get a girl fall down drunk and have sex with her, that's rape. Not only are these practices relatively accepted, they are actively promoted on college campuses by various groups. Using the "commonly accepted version of rape" is a terrible standard.
The issue of intoxication is a separate one with its own complexities.
|
A no means back off, go away, imo. Honestly, unless you can be 100% sure that it's some kind of weird inviting no, which are fairly rare, you should stay far away.
I'd err on the side of caution.
|
On November 08 2013 04:43 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:36 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:32 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying words can't be threatening?
Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position? The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem. That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape. No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal. I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row.
Which part of it is infantilized?
The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
|
On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:32 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
How is that an act of rape? Is your girlfriend some kind of pathetic subhuman pet incapable of deciding for herself whether she wants to fuck? Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition. Sure, you didn't have to hit her. Sure, she's not violently injured. But coercing her into having sex with you is rape. You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance. Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions 1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her.
You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you.
Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend."
You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
|
|
|
how is that not rape?
you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
|
Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
|
On November 08 2013 04:50 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +
how is that not rape?
you'd be surprised how many people think they're entitled to sex because they're in a relationship with someone
Emm... pardon me but isn't that the definition of a relationship? If you hang out but don't have sex, that's called friendship (or friendzone in the vast majority of cases).
NO
|
On November 08 2013 04:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Does she want to have sex? No. Did you have sex with her anyway? Yes. That's rape, by definition.
Sure, you didn't have to hit her.
Sure, she's not violently injured.
But coercing her into having sex with you is rape.
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it, Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance. Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions 1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you. Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend." You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude.
How is this confusing?
Is she in the mood--no.
Did you make her have sex with you--yes.
Rape.
That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance.
|
On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations.
Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
|
"In the mood" is a very wishy washy formulation; if I were a lawyer on behalf of a rape victim, I'd strongly advise her to use different language in describing her aversion to having sex at the time of the rape. I've no doubt that much confusion stems from that phrase.
|
On November 08 2013 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
[quote]
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance. Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions 1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you. Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend." You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude. How is this confusing? Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape. That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?) The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance.
Is it just me or does it seem like you hold the stance that women are helpless and couldn't hold up their resolve not to have sex in the face of threatless persuasion even if they wanted? Do you think women are so dependant on their lovers that they don't have an actual choice?
If I was a woman I probably would be offended by the things you say.
|
heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive.
it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time
|
On November 06 2013 10:25 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2013 10:24 mizU wrote:
this isn't going to help the victim blaming mindset This. There shouldn't be an emphasis on the women to defend themselves, the focus needs to be on dismantling the rape culture that makes sexual assault accepted in our society.
You know what happens to most convicted rapists in prison? (At least in the UK) They get beaten to within an inch of their lives, repeatedly. Even amongst criminals, rape is seen as a big no no.
|
On November 08 2013 05:01 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions 1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you. Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend." You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude. How is this confusing? Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape. That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?) The fact that you find it confusing when a situation is placed before you that a woman is not in the mood for sex is very telling of your stance. Is it just me or does it seem like you hold the stance that women are helpless and couldn't hold up their resolve not to have sex in the face of threatless persuasion even if they wanted? Do you think women are so dependant on their lovers that they don't have an actual choice? If I was a woman I probably would be offended by the things you say.
Which part of what I said shows women as helpless?
The part where if they say no that they mean it or the part where I say that simply being a boyfriend doesn't guarantee you sex when you want it?
|
On November 08 2013 05:02 ComaDose wrote:
heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive.
it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time
Whats a less abrasive way of saying that when women don't want to have sex it isn't them inviting you to have sex?
|
On November 08 2013 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:48 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:52 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 03:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:48 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You're injecting coercion into the example when there wasn't any to begin with. The way you first wrote it,
[quote]
there's no a priori reason to suspect something nefarious. For instance, convincing someone to go to bed with you would just be seduction or romance. Getting people to do what they don't want to is coercion, by definition. co·er·cion kōˈərZHən,-SHən/ noun noun: coercion; plural noun: coercions 1. the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Are you saying words can't be threatening? Are you saying that making you unhappy can't be threatening? By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. You are equivocating again, either deliberately as a result of sophistry or due to having forgotten what you said. The latter is unlikely because of how many times I have quoted verbatim your claim to remind you. Your example was "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood." You did not say "forcing your girlfriend" or "making your girlfriend" or "raping your girlfriend." You are right that not all rape is violent. This is, once again, not a controversial point. But in the process of fumbling while trying to explain that, you're verging on saying all sexuality is rape and nobody can give consent or make a decision, which is probably why Severedevil and I aren't embracing your attitude. How is this confusing? Is she in the mood--no. Did you make her have sex with you--yes. Rape. That is what I said. That is what you quoted me saying. You are arguing over word choices and not actually engaging in the argument. (Isn't that strawmanning?)
I will explain one more time, "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is phrased in such a way that the agency is ambiguous. That may not be what you meant, but it's what you said, and if those two things aren't in agreement then I must be at fault as I can't read your mind. "Forcing your girlfriend to have sex" is much clearer, and it results in a very short conversation because any idiot, even me, knows that forcing someone to have sex is rape. "Getting your girlfriend to have sex" doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't her consent or her decision.
But this bit about "in the mood," I can't even speculate as to what it means - besides being a buzzword that you can change whenever you need to to win argument points - except possibly to again suggest you're saying women are slaves to biology rather than rational people, and are incapable of making their own decisions, whereas I believe otherwise because I have had sex with people when I wasn't in the mood and I don't think of myself as an automatic rape victim.
On November 08 2013 04:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
Inviting no's are not as rare as you'd think; have you never heard of the concept of "playing hard to get"? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that men approach being told no as though it is likely an invitation, but this is where women are oftentimes as complicit as men in harming gender relations. Yes, because women are in a society that tells them that that is how sexual roles are supposed to be.
I think semantics has explained before in another thread that this amounts to a conspiracy theory.
On November 08 2013 04:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:43 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:36 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:32 NovaTheFeared wrote:On November 08 2013 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 04:26 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
The dude called a woman who gives in to the sexual demands of her partner a "pathetic subhuman pet", I wouldn't expect much to move him. He wasn't doing that, he was suggesting that was Thieving Magpie's view of women due to Thieving Magpie apparently not respecting that women are rational people and can make their own decisions. On November 08 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 08 2013 03:57 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
By this logic, asking any person to do anything constitutes coercion, because any request carries with it the implication that you want them to do that thing, and therefore if they do not do that thing, you will be less happy. It depends on the relationship and the power dynamic. A boss asking you to have sex with them is different from a stranger in a bar and is different from a hooker in a street corner. But being that domestic violence is one of the leading causes of injury to women, significant others and spouses are a lot more threatened by it statistically. And women know that. You have yet to connect the dots between the fact that domestic violence exists (which is an uncontroversial point) - and takes victims of any gender - and your conclusion that "Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood" is categorically rape. If she does not want to have sex with you, but you make her have sex with you anyway, it doesn't stop being rape just because you don't punch her. If by force or threat of force, that's one thing. But you make it sound as if a boyfriend who persuades his girlfriend to have sex despite her initial reluctance, in the absence of force or threat, is also rape. Is that your position? The idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex is merely "initial reluctance" is my problem. That's interesting, then. You don't believe a person can be persuaded to have sex, because that makes it rape. No, I believe that the mindset that a woman saying no is just invitation for you to pursue her is what causes not only rape culture, victim blaming, and unintentional violent sexual assault acts--but is also a side effect of a society who so deeply ingrains the concept that a woman's body is not under her control that they teach men AND women to believe that saying no as foreplay is normal. I'm more inclined to follow the standard of law which holds that consent is much stronger than your extreme view suggests. It really is an infantalizing view, at that. In law force or threat can vitiate consent, not asking someone the same question twice in a row. Which part of it is infantilized? The part where I feel its a side effect of rape culture or the fact that its a practice that creates confusion since women are told that both saying yes and no is giving consent.
If your assumption is that there's no way for a person not to consent to sex, then of course it's not falsifiable whenever you invent a situation and conclude "therefore x is rape."
|
On November 08 2013 05:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:02 ComaDose wrote:
heh magpie you get that thrown at you everytime. gotta learn to play it like a cool cat. stop making it so abrasive.
it wasnt even just xmz trying to cause shit this time Whats a less abrasive way of saying that when women don't want to have sex it isn't them inviting you to have sex?
Asking less sarcastic paraphrased questions. Don't give me the attitude. we are "on the same team" i just find that most threads that have this debate are harder for me after you show up.
I would go with something like: the majority of rapes are caused by scorned lovers who feel entitled to sex. often this comes around without violent action taken against the women who are "forced" to "consent" under duress. this includes unwanted physical contact and forceful convincing often leading to them "giving-in" and letting you fuck them. but this is bad, still rape, and is unfortunately due to our culture not frowned upon. There exists seduction that is not rape.
This doesn't make the less enlightened people that don't understand rape get as offended and put their backs up but hopefully they read it and understand more.
|
Magpie, you are actively ignoring the signal distortion that takes place in male-female interactions for the sake of holding up your hypothetical. Yes, when a woman clearly states that she does not want to have sex and yet her partner compels her to do so, that is rape. The problem is that many relationships involve nebulous exchanges of desire and many opportunities for miscommunication, and this is why your hypothetical isn't so useful. Say there was a man and a woman who are dating. The woman sees it as a mans job to chase her, and friends/family have borne witness to a host of examples in which the woman told the man no only to tell her friends yes. This is not uncommon. Given a background like that, one in which the woman's lack of certitude becomes a key component of the relationship, phrases like "I'm not in the mood" begin to look different than they did before. No should mean no, and women should learn to say it more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
