|
On November 08 2013 05:13 oBlade 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?) 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. Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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."
A.) It is only ambiguous if you believe that it is okay for a society to have word play be able to overpower a woman's agency.
B.) You not wanting to believe that women are just as affected by rape culture as men is your fault not mine.
C.) My assumption is that consent should always be a priority and putting women in a culture that fetishes their reluctance to sex (and they are fetishizing it as well, hence why they play "hard to get") is one of the problems with Rape Culture.
|
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).
Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other.
Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no.
|
On November 08 2013 05:20 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 04:50 Kickboxer wrote:
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). Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other. Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no.
what you talking about my answer was way better.
there is no logical connection between having sex and being in a relationship. you can be in a relationship and never have sex and you can have sex and never be in a relationship.
|
On November 08 2013 05:22 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:20 Zooper31 wrote:On November 08 2013 04:50 Kickboxer wrote:
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). Your significant other can definitely deny you sex if you are in a relationship. But being in a relationship opens you up to being very sexual with her and know how far you can go with touching her before she either says "no, not right now" or starts making out with you and grabbing you back. Both of you are just 100% more relaxed and have way less restrictions with each other. Has your gf/bf never been mad at you and wouldn't let you have sex with them, even if it was only for like a day or two? Know I've been there and had to wait it out/make it up to them lol. If I still forced her to have sex while she was mad at me, I'd say that was rape if she was telling me to stop and saying no. what you talking about my answer was way better. there is no logical connection between having sex and being in a relationship. you can be in a relationship and never have sex and you can have sex and never be in a relationship.
One girl I knew didn't think that. She thought getting drunk and having sex meant we were in a relationship :/ Then again she was crazy.
|
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty.
|
Some people here definitely don't have a girlfriend.
|
On November 08 2013 05:39 Kojak21 wrote:
Some people here definitely don't have a girlfriend.
Yeah, based on the number of people in the thread it would be a pretty big anomaly if everyone had girlfriends
|
On November 08 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:13 oBlade wrote: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:
[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. 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: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: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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." A.) It is only ambiguous if you believe that it is okay for a society to have word play be able to overpower a woman's agency.
This is a complete fucking non sequitur. Your invented example was ambiguous because of linguistics, not because of society. In fact forget we have a society, just take an analogy:
"Getting my landscaper to do the lawn even if she's not in the mood"
This doesn't mean my landscaper is a Soviet gulag slave. It's possible for rational people to agree to do things even if their heart isn't 100% in it to your satisfaction. Similarly,
"Getting your girlfriend to have sex even if she's not in the mood"
isn't necessarily rape as you phrased it.
B.) You not wanting to believe that women are just as affected by rape culture as men is your fault not mine.
I don't know what this means or how you concluded it but I'll make a side bet that it's completely irrelevant anyways.
C.) My assumption is that consent should always be a priority and putting women in a culture that fetishes their reluctance to sex (and they are fetishizing it as well, hence why they play "hard to get") is one of the problems with Rape Culture.
So to summarize your idea, you think women and men get off on women playing hard to get, but they can't actually consent to sex because the women are playing hard to get, insert petitio principii buzz word (rape culture), Q.E.D. what, exactly?
|
On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty.
The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness.
|
On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness.
i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho
|
On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness.
I'm not convinced. I can't speak for American girls, obviously, but I think you can tell if a girl /really/ wants something, kinda wants something, is willing to do something, and is outright against it.
EDIT: Though, granted, the sluttiness issue is a really big problem too
|
On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness.
That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.')
However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to.
|
On November 08 2013 06:03 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.') However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to.
I think it certainly puts it into a grey zone. It would be a great deal simpler if people just got it on when they both wanted to, instead of these weird situations.
|
On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho
Of course not, but it does complicate the notion that men who act on nebulous exchanges in forcing the issue of sex are necessarily rapists as a rule.
|
On November 08 2013 06:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 05:48 ComaDose wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. i don't think we can blame that on the girls tho Of course not, but it does complicate the notion that men who act on nebulous exchanges in forcing the issue of sex are necessarily rapists as a rule.
true... not to mention how nice it would be for us guys to have women be more comfortable being forward 
|
|
|
If only we could convince people to stop hating on women for having sex.
|
On November 08 2013 06:05 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 06:03 Severedevil wrote:On November 08 2013 05:47 farvacola wrote:On November 08 2013 05:39 Zealos wrote:
There's a cool concept call enthusiastic consent. Instead of working out if she's saying no or not, only have sex with her if she is totally into it and wants to get down and dirty. The problem is that large swaths of otherwise nice American girls consider enthusiastic sexual consent as a sign of sluttiness. That is certainly a problem. (The disdain for 'sluttiness' is also an issue. If a person is honest, and reasonably cautious about STD prevention and contraception, there is nothing wrong with being a 'slut.') However, even were that problem solved, the lack of enthusiasm in consent does not invalidate consent. I don't see the appeal to sex with someone who doesn't really want to have sex, but people have every right to do things they don't want to. I think it certainly puts it into a grey zone. It would be a great deal simpler if people just got it on when they both wanted to, instead of these weird situations.
It's a scenario to avoid. But rape is determined by consent, not desire. To see that it's not a grey area, consider the opposite scenario, which I will spoiler because triggers:
+ Show Spoiler +Suppose a woman desperately wants to have sex with a man, but absolutely refuses when he propositions her, and subsequently refuses his advances every step along the way. Now suppose the man in question physically overpowers her and penetrates her despite her continued vocal objections.
Is this a grey area? Isn't this obviously rape? I don't see how a person's desires are relevant to the issue of rape; sure, a person is much more likely to consent to sex if they desire it, that's a no-brainer... but the critical determiner of what is rape vs. what is consensual sex is the consent.
|
On November 08 2013 06:37 ComaDose wrote:
If only we could convince people to stop hating on women for having sex.
If only we could convince people to stop hating on women for not wanting sex.
|
On November 08 2013 06:37 ComaDose wrote:
If only we could convince people to stop hating on women for having sex.
Tell me about it, I'd absolutely love to live in a world in which women approached men as much as the converse. Alas, that seems rather far off, particular in light of rape proof underwear 
Magpie, that's nonsense. Being a prude is not nearly as lambasted as being a slut. And if you are still harping on your bad hypothetical, that's too bad. It's a very poor working example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
