The rape culture thread.

[NodmiTheSellout]

There's consent and then there's "consent". Sex that is not consensual is rape. Coerced consent is not actual consent, it is "consent", meaning, it is consent in word only, not in spirit. She would rather not have consented. If her desires were respected, she would not have consented. I believe it's rape in a situation like this.

I know people don't like hearing this. . .that's why this sort of discussion needs to happen more openly, more often. The way sexual activity is painted is just so supremely fucked up, and not conducive to consent. Many people continue to paint sex as something that's enjoyable for men, and doesn't necessarily have to be for women. That attitude doesn't do well for ACTUAL consent, because it causes women to value their own sexual desires beneath those of men.

[the_std]

I agree with all of that being bad, and him being scum and should know better, but it is not rape if he waits until she says yes. If she says yes, if she consents, if she still has that choice, it is not rape. It still sucks, but it's not rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

But the point is, a man uses that trick KNOWING that it will produce that reaction. The force necessary to rape someone is relative to the person being raped. A woman should not be blamed when a man preys on her weakness--he is still the predator. He is still the one doing the wrong thing.

[the_std]

Who are you talking about? All women? If a man tried that shit on me his ass would be out the door. I wouldn't give in to him. Not all women are delicate little flowers who will do anything to please the man they love. If she gives in to that kind of manipulation, she has other, bigger problems. She is not mentally healthy, she is not strong enough, all of those kinds of things. But just because she believes she has no choice does not mean that she doesn't have a choice. It is not rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

That level of manipulation makes her believe that her choice is taken away.

[the_std]

I think the woman in that situation felt she had to please the man she's in love with. He is emotionally forcing her hand--she loves him, so she feels she must do this. I believe manipulation to this degree is, at least, EXTREMELY rapey. It shares the same sentiment behind, say, a date rape--I don't care what she wants, I want to fuck her. It is a form of rape, even if it isn't one that is likely to win in court.

Hardly. The woman has the choice to say no, and to continue to say no, for as long as he asks. Emotional blackmail and coercion are tactics that men like that will use, but she still has the choice until he takes it away from her. Forcing a woman to have sex is rape. Taking away that choice is rape. But if the man will not do it until she says yes, that is not rape, as she still has a choice. Yeah, it's despicable on his part, but it is not rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I still don't see why it's so important to have "rape" in the headline. Take the 7-year old discussed on another thread. Article didn't say "rape" but, hey I've gone to school and know how to make inferences. "Hey, that's rape," said I.

It's important because, although the fact that it is rape is inferred, it is not enforced. The article I linked said "took turns having sex with Johnson", which isn't accurate. There is no "with" when there is not consent. There is "took turns sexually abusing Johnson", maybe "took turns penetrating Johnson", if you want to refer to the act--but she was not a participant in the act, thus, it did not occur "with" her; she became an object that was used for sexual gratification. In this instance, it is harmful because it suggests that it is possible to "have sex with" someone who is incapable of consenting. Rape of extremely intoxicated women is rather common and, logically, I would think even a bit underreported, since there's a lot of victim-blaming going around regarding drunk women. You know, "She shouldn't have drank so much that she passed out there", which is really nothing compared with "No one should look at a woman that drunk/a woman passed out and think "Mmm, I'm gonna fuck her!" There is really no use in doing that sort of blaming, it doesn't help anything.

Nodmi, you're still not giving women any credit for the ability to MAKE CHOICES. You say that men are somehow to blame for every bad decision women make, which is utter, to borrow your term, BULLSHIT.

I am. The situation we're discussing is one in which (extremely paraphrased, since people generally don't talk this way) a man says "Hey, let's have sex," the woman says, "I don't want to", and the man responds, "But I want to! It's been a long time. Please?" and it continues on for a bit until she goes, ". . .OK, if it'll make you happy." The woman is NOT to blame for failing to immediately recognize that the man she loves is completely selfish and doesn't respect her consent. She already MADE the decision--he chose not to respect that decision.

"Moreso"? No. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think the guy in that situation is a total douche.

I think the woman in that situation simply has bad judgment that led her to consenting to sex with a douche.

But I just can't see it as rape.

I think the woman in that situation felt she had to please the man she's in love with. He is emotionally forcing her hand--she loves him, so she feels she must do this. I believe manipulation to this degree is, at least, EXTREMELY rapey. It shares the same sentiment behind, say, a date rape--I don't care what she wants, I want to fuck her. It is a form of rape, even if it isn't one that is likely to win in court.

[Boozy]

. . .so you're going to blame the woman for succumbing to an emotionally manipulative phrase like "you would if you loved me", more so than the man who seeks to manipulate her that way?

"Moreso"? No. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I think the guy in that situation is a total douche.

I think the woman in that situation simply has bad judgment that led her to consenting to sex with a douche.

But I just can't see it as rape.

[Hobbs]

Language is important, as you have acknowledged in regards to profanity. Having sex is not a crime. Rape is. Sexual activity without consent = RAPE.

I still don't see why it's so important to have "rape" in the headline. Take the 7-year old discussed on another thread. Article didn't say "rape" but, hey I've gone to school and know how to make inferences. "Hey, that's rape," said I.

Nodmi, you're still not giving women any credit for the ability to MAKE CHOICES. You say that men are somehow to blame for every bad decision women make, which is utter, to borrow your term, BULLSHIT.

[Greenday]

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying.

It IS emotional abuse though. And what if a guy keeps asking and asking until the woman feels like he's not leaving her with any other choice to get out of there until she has sex with him? That's still rape.

[NodmiTheSellout]

. . .so you're going to blame the woman for succumbing to an emotionally manipulative phrase like "you would if you loved me", more so than the man who seeks to manipulate her that way? Sexual coercion like that is NOT OK. It is NOT OK to constantly hound a woman who doesn't want to have sex to have sex. This is the whole "I am entitled to sex" thing that I made reference to sometimes, and it's a hurtful place to start out from. People regard consent as the default state of sexuality. As in, "This person is prepared to have sex, there is some reason this person does not want to have sex WITH ME." So, since this person is clearly just "holding out", it's fair to "convince" - manipulate, often - them to consent. Which is just fucking selfish and wrong, never mind the ickiness of coercing someone into sexual activity they didn't want to be having in the first place.

(Be aware that there's crude description of pornography in the following paragraph.)

Often, people (let's be honest, it's usually men, but I am in no way saying that ALL MEN are like this) fail to realize that sex is not just about what THEY want. The media doesn't do much to dissuade this attitude in men. "Women's magazines" (in quotes to reference stuff like Cosmo, as opposed to, say, a feminist publication) that address sex will have infinitely more articles about how to please a man than how to convince that man to please you--men's magazines will have more articles about how to dress, how to carry yourself, how to speak, and "obtain a hot girl" that way, than they will articles about how to make a woman orgasm. Pornography will often spend ages showing a blowjob, then there will be a comparative two seconds of oral attention to the woman (MAYBE) before there's a bit of intercourse and then he blows his load all over her chest. And that's what's painted as sexy, for both men and women--men think that's what a successful fuck goes like, women think that's what should be expected, and it's all ridiculous. (PS: On the expectations of men, too--a man doesn't need a huge dick to please a woman, since most women aren't going to be brought to orgasm by penetration alone anyway.) Women's enjoyment is devalued--all that matters is a man gets off. If you have to do very much convincing to get a woman in bed, you're doing it wrong--you're trying to make things sexual before she's ready, maybe, or you're disrespecting her right to just say "no, not in the mood, sorry". In certain contexts, convincing can be understandable (as a gradual introduction of sexual elements to someone who's uncomfortable with them, with full respect of her boundaries, for instance), but as a general rule. . .both parties should be enthusiastically consenting. If that isn't true, go masturbate--your hand isn't going to wind up feeling used and/or degraded because she said "yes" when she really just wanted to sit in bed and read.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.

I've never seen Spring Awakening, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds that this Melchior did not proceed until he had obtained consent.

This is NOT date rape.

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying. Bullying is threatening physical harm. I would even be receptive to arguments that bullying could involve intense psychological manipulation and lying, to some degree. But "you would if you loved me?" This isn't bullying, this is whining.

I don't like to see women infantilized. A man is allowed to try to convince a woman to change her mind. A woman is allowed to change her mind in response to those arguments.

Women can make mistakes, and I agree (to an extent) that a man can try to convince a woman to change her mind. However, when you're laying prone and the man is on top of you, and you feel that if you don't, then he'll leave you, then that's wrong. Especially when talking about teenage girls, I don't think they should be pressured into sex in any way whatsoever. Consent should not be a product of fear or ignorance.

As far as Spring Awakening: The Musical goes, here is the scene in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzo5YW3aYfY (And yes, that is what's-her-face and what's-his-face from Glee)

[Boozy]

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me." See Spring Awakening: The Musical for a wonderful example. Yes, she says yes, after saying no repeatedly. The whole scene is depicted sooooo romantically, and the musical is extremely popular with the 14-21 crowd. It scares me...how many girls will become convinced that Melchior's behavior is acceptable?

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.

I've never seen Spring Awakening, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds that this Melchior did not proceed until he had obtained consent.

This is NOT date rape.

"You would if you loved me" is not bullying. Bullying is threatening physical harm. I would even be receptive to arguments that bullying could involve intense psychological manipulation and lying, to some degree. But "you would if you loved me?" This isn't bullying, this is whining.

I don't like to see women infantilized. A man is allowed to try to convince a woman to change her mind. A woman is allowed to change her mind in response to those arguments.

No doubt consenting is sometimes a bad choice for women. But I feel it's important to recognize when it IS a choice. Women can make mistakes, and they have to own them.

Putting on the shoulders of a man and demonizing him; what good does that do? Do we not teach women that they are responsible for their own sexual choices? This means they might make bad ones. They can't then turn around and blame the participant with the penis.

[NodmiTheSellout]

I know the Site Rules say a little profanity is okay, but personally, I feel that once someone brings profanity into a conversation, you start to debase the merits of the argument. I was merely asking for your respect.

I don't agree. I feel that profanity - at least words like "shit" or "fuck" - doesn't do anything but add color or passion into an argument, UNLESS those words are pointed AT the person you're arguing with, in which case, I agree with you. I didn't say "fuck you", I didn't call anything you said "some bullshit argument", I'm using it as a descriptive for either a. vague things or b. specific things relating to myself.

The use of profane words and a subsequent desire to discourage or censor the use of those words is a different topic, though. If it concerns you, make a topic about it--I'm done here. Expect me to drop the f-bomb occasionally, too, and live with it. I'm clearly capable of expressing myself without those words, but I like them, so I use them sometimes. It's a valid choice and I intend to keep making it, hopefully without someone telling me how I'm allowed to express myself. Unless your issue is a woman's right to choose. . . (WINK!).

Language is important, as you have acknowledged in regards to profanity. Having sex is not a crime. Rape is. Sexual activity without consent = RAPE.

One of the issues with the media/arts/culture is the promotion of rape myths. "She had it coming" if she was wearing revealing clothing, flirtatious, or intoxicated. "She's just a slut" if she has a reputation of being sexually active. And, here's the fun one, even if she was passed out, if the last thing she did was interpreted by the male as consent, then it isn't rape. Ain't that fun? Or, another fun one, "real rape". It's only "real rape" if the attacker is violent, the victim puts up enough of a struggle, and is beaten. So, "have sex with me or I'll kill you", is not rape, according to that myth.

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me." See Spring Awakening: The Musical for a wonderful example. Yes, she says yes, after saying no repeatedly. The whole scene is depicted sooooo romantically, and the musical is extremely popular with the 14-21 crowd. It scares me...how many girls will become convinced that Melchior's behavior is acceptable? (And what really pisses me off is that the whole musical stomps on what Wedekind was trying to say, that adults should not oppress their children.)

Plus, rape as depicted in the media is almost exclusively heteronormative (man rapes woman). While that's the majority of cases, men can be raped by both women and men, and women can be raped by other women.

I agree with this entirely. This is what I'm trying (and was failing) to get at. Thank you, more articulate person.

[Boozy]

I know the Site Rules say a little profanity is okay, but personally, I feel that once someone brings profanity into a conversation, you start to debase the merits of the argument. I was merely asking for your respect.

"Bullshit" is pretty vanilla as far as swear words go.

Sorry, but as you said, Fratching does not prohibit cursing. If you feel that a member's potty mouth is upsetting your sensibilities, put them on "Ignore". You can't really ask them to stop doing something that the forum and it's administrators allow.