The wonderful world of an all-Female workplace

[Stanton Moore]

Another conservative-trying-to-circle-the-wagons-for-fear-of-the-progress-of-history---thread.


Ignored. Next.

 

[simulatedworld]

Thanks for the clue

And no. Actually it is rape, I'm not making this up either, I promise, it's the law

Giving consent does not mean someone can't be raped and so you know, rape does not need to involve a physical struggle. The law presumes that statutory rape involves coercion and states that the minor is not in a position to give consent, hence rape.

I'm not arguing what the law is, just what I think it should be. Obviously statutory rape is classified legally as rape and therefore considered rape by the justice system; my point was that I don't think it's the same thing and shouldn't be classified as such.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but giving consent absolutely does mean someone cannot be raped. That's the thing about rape--it's forced. I'm not saying statutory rape should be legal, just that it should be separated from the word "rape" because it results in fundamentally innocent people (just look up one of the myriad stories of a 16 year old boy given a 26 year prison sentence for having totally consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and daddy getting pissed) being drastically over-punished and having to register as sex offenders for their entire lives. It's idiotic.

And when people hear that you're a "rapist", they don't much care if the word "statutory" is attached to it--your personal image and professional life are already ruined, even if the charges end up being dropped. This shit really does happen to a lot of people who don't deserve it at all, and it's incredibly depressing. Am I the only one who thinks it's something different when the girl comes to court and says "No, I wanted to have sex with him, please don't do this to him" vs. "Yes, he grabbed me off the street, held me down and forced me into something I never wanted at all"?

How can you possibly assert that these are two situations should be considered equivalent?

 

[jenocyde]

I'm not arguing what the law is, just what I think it should be. Obviously statutory rape is classified legally as rape and therefore considered rape by the justice system; my point was that I don't think it's the same thing and shouldn't be classified as such.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but giving consent absolutely does mean someone cannot be raped. That's the thing about rape--it's forced. I'm not saying statutory rape should be legal, just that it should be separated from the word "rape" because it results in fundamentally innocent people (just look up one of the myriad stories of a 16 year old boy given a 26 year prison sentence for having totally consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and daddy getting pissed) being drastically over-punished and having to register as sex offenders. It's idiotic.

And when people hear that you're a "rapist", they don't much care if the word "statutory" is attached to it--your personal image and professional life are already ruined, even if the charges end up being dropped. This shit really does happen to a lot of people who don't deserve it at all, and it's incredibly depressing. Am I the only one who thinks it's something different when the girl comes to court and says "No, I wanted to have sex with him, please don't do this to him" vs. "Yes, he grabbed me off the street, held me down and forced me into something I never wanted at all"?

How can you possibly assert that these are two situations should be considered equivalent?

Are you arguing that sex with children should be allowed, or that it should just be called something else?

 

[simulatedworld]

Are you arguing that sex with children should be allowed, or that it should just be called something else?

I said about five times that it should only be classified differently and given a lesser punishment, not legalized...it also should depend heavily on the victim's perspective on the case. I think you can bring the victim to court, bring in her doctor, paint an accurate picture of whether or not this particular person is old/mature enough to understand what she was doing. People mature at dramatically different rates; there are 50 year old mentally retarded people who are still cognitively too young to understand the implications of sex. That doesn't mean we need to legally force them to abstain for life.

I don't advocate sex with young children by any means, but there's a real difference between some asshole raping a 6 year old, and a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with his 15 year old high school girlfriend. The former is obviously waaaaay too young to have any concept of what's going on and should be totally protected by the law; the latter is much more of a gray area, because lots of people ARE sexually mature and capable of choosing sex by age 15.

 

[jenocyde]

I said about five times that it should only be classified differently and given a lesser punishment, not legalized...

Ok, sorry - didn't read through the whole thread.

I don't advocate sex with young children by any means, but there's a real difference between some asshole raping a 6 year old, and a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with his 15 year old high school girlfriend.

Agreed.

 

[heart]

(just look up one of the myriad stories of a 16 year old boy given a 26 year prison sentence for having totally consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and daddy getting pissed) being drastically over-punished and having to register as sex offenders for their entire lives. It's idiotic.

Please provide the link to the exact story where a 16 year old has been sentenced to prison for 26 years for having consensual sex with a 15 year old. It needs to be from a real news source. It's your assertion and I don't have the time to crawl the web looking, putting the terms in Google brought up nothing like you're saying here.

If he's 17 and she's 14, that won't be the same thing as you've asserted btw.

 

[Salomé]

Granted women do bear the greater biological risk, and so it makes biological sense that they get the advantage of being more selective.

It just sucks for men is all!

Well, yes the woman definitely control the sex scene in the west.

But, I think that they bare a greater risk from any single sexual transaction.

1. A Man doesn't lose social value when he has sex, it increases. If a woman is seen as too easy(by you txt her for sex), she risk being call a slut.

And yet women are in control? Who defines this system of 'valuation'?

Answer this, sw, would you want your SO to be the type of woman who responds with open legs to such a txt msg?

It was really just a summation of sexual economics, and the fact that women control it. Biological supply and demand is a good explanation for it, but it doesn't make the point any less valid. How exactly is it nonsense?

You said:

But society doesn't do a damn thing to stop women from using sex as power, which they do, constantly, in nearly every avenue of social interaction.

But you fail to illustrate your point. How exactly, are women wielding this sexual power? Why are they not more economically or politically powerful if your assertion is correct?

Ignoring that, let's accept your premise.
Women make up ~50% of "society". What reason would they have for doing anything about it? The other 50% can take back the "power" any time they want by keeping it zipped up. Therefore, the solution is in your own hands! Quit bitching!

Also, I can hardly see gender-driven "honor killings" being a significant issue in the US.....
....
P.S.,

Then again, apparently you didn't actually read the article you linked to, either. The girl is from a Turkish town called Batman.

Excuse me for not buying into the notion that the US is the centre of the universe. Excuse me too for being so outraged that women are being brutally murdered in the 21st century (because they won't accept arranged marriages or because their husbands are not satisfied with them in some way) that the detail of her town's name coinciding with a comic book character completely passed me by!

Way to miss the point, dude.

But you're too busy worrying that you can't text up booty any time you feel like it to actually give a damn about real human rights abuses, eh?

 

[Kangirl]

But society doesn't do a damn thing to stop women from using sex as power

I know, right? Wtf? Women can just walk around being sexy and controlling men and it's LEGAL?! COVER THOSE WHORES UP!

OK, above is kinda facetious but my opinion on this is basically that yeah, women do wield sexual power. This is no one's fault. Nature has ordained that men want it, and we decide who to give it to, in a general sense. I guess what I have to say to the men, regarding this issue is: deal. Just the way women have to deal with nature when it *doesn't* favour us.

The above fact is also arguably a strong contributor to historical and current laws throughout the world that seek to control women's sexuality, very often at the expense of their human rights.

 

[Salomé]

OK, above is kinda facetious but my opinion on this is basically that yeah, women do wield sexual power. This is no one's fault. Nature has ordained that men want it, and we decide who to give it to, in a general sense. I guess what I have to say to the men, regarding this issue is: deal. Just the way women have to deal with nature when it *doesn't* favour us.

The above fact is also arguably a strong contributor to historical and current laws throughout the world that seek to control women's sexuality, very often at the expense of their human rights.

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Maybe I just have an odd conception of "power"....

 

[cascadeco]

We don't have those issues here, but women on our side are a minority and it's a software dev facility so it's a more "masculine" environment anyway. While I am self-expressive, I've taken care to make sure my appearance -- while feminine -- still earns me credibility in this environment, and all of the women here seem to be more "professional" in nature than the sort of goofy, catty female environment being described by some in this thread. The other side is more of the "accountant types," with a majority of female employees, and they definitely lean more in the catty/socializing direction. I enjoy the connection I share with women, but only to an extent -- as long as it's "normal." I don't like the political/social drama. Men are definitely more straightforward and easier to deal with; you just focus on the task at hand, work to accomplish the goal, and don't let it get too personal or crazy. Simple, right?

I have a good friend in town who's one of just two males in a legal facility where everyone else is female, and the daily drama drives him crazy.

I do think it depends on the type of job and working environment. There are definitely fields/sectors that draw a lot more of the gossipy women. I would NOT do well longterm in that sort of environment. I really hate office drama and tend to keep more to myself in an office environment. [Random somewhat-related aside: I definitely have more fun talking/joking with a group of intellectual, geeky guys, than discussing interior decorating, new purses, or the likes with women. *shudder*]

However in tech/IT/science fields, it's not really an issue, and those types of personalities aren't nearly as prevalent. Certainly don't have the drama and cattiness.

 

[Salomé]

However in tech/IT/science fields, it's not really an issue, and those types of personalities aren't nearly as prevalent. Certainly don't have the drama and cattiness.

Don't you believe it. I've met many a bitchy fella in IT.
And all most of them talk about is fucking FOOTBALL. Give me strength!!

 

[cascadeco]

Don't you believe it. I've met many a bitchy fella in IT.
And all most of them talk about is fucking FOOTBALL. Give me strength!!

Really? I guess I've met a few like that, but for the most part I befriend/chat with the total science/computer geeks. You know...the NT's.

 

[simulatedworld]

And yet women are in control? Who defines this system of 'valuation'?

Answer this, sw, would you want your SO to be the type of woman who responds with open legs to such a txt msg?

I don't judge people for their sexual decisions (assuming they involve only consenting adults.) I think it's extraordinarily hypocritical for men to whine about women not putting out and then call them nasty names behind their backs when they do, and this is something I hate about male culture in general.

I wish there was something I could do to stop other men from doing this, but there isn't much beyond telling them it's lame.

You said:
But you fail to illustrate your point. How exactly, are women wielding this sexual power? Why are they not more economically or politically powerful if your assertion is correct?

Because it's only social power, and since it's biologically based there's not really anything that can or should be done about it. It's just annoying.

Ignoring that, let's accept your premise.
Women make up ~50% of "society". What reason would they have for doing anything about it? The other 50% can take back the "power" any time they want by keeping it zipped up. Therefore, the solution is in your own hands! Quit bitching!

Haha, I don't think male mass refusal to have sex with women would somehow result in more sex. It also seems to me that biology forces men on average to have higher sex drives than women, so this approach would fail utterly. There IS no reasonable solution; again, it's just annoying. Venting!

Excuse me for not buying into the notion that the US is the centre of the universe. Excuse me too for being so outraged that women are being brutally murdered in the 21st century (because they won't accept arranged marriages or because their husbands are not satisfied with them in some way) that the detail of her town's name coinciding with a comic book character completely passed me by!

Way to miss the point, dude.

But you're too busy worrying that you can't text up booty any time you feel like it to actually give a damn about real human rights abuses, eh?

Hey buddy, I'm right there with you that this kind of crap is an outrage. I don't see why complaining about an unrelated topic precludes me from appreciating the seriousness of these human rights abuses; my last string of posts here was all in response to Babylon's post about matriarchy.

At this point we've both wandered away from the OP's topic; don't assume I don't think your point is important just because I'm busy discussing a different one.

 

[simulatedworld]

Please provide the link to the exact story where a 16 year old has been sentenced to prison for 26 years for having consensual sex with a 15 year old. It needs to be from a real news source. It's your assertion and I don't have the time to crawl the web looking, putting the terms in Google brought up nothing like you're saying here.

If he's 17 and she's 14, that won't be the same thing as you've asserted btw.

Wiki say:

Statutory Rape Is Illegal Sexual Activity Between Two People When It Would Otherwise Be Legal If Not For Their Age: In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. Dating without sexual contact can in no way be considered a form of statutory rape.[3] The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.

I don't have a link to a story with those precise ages, but judging from the fact that 16 is the AOC in a majority of US states, statistically this has to have happened. I'm sure you can find similar stories if you care that much, but the exact ages aren't so much the point as the idea that people are being sent to lengthy jail sentences for "rape" when they've had consensual sex with a person who's passed the age of puberty. The problem is primarily that, since people mature at such different rates, one-age AOC laws must necessarily result in a significant number of cases where sexually mature individuals are declared incapable of understanding/choosing to have sex...which is ridiculous.

I don't want to turn this into a repeat of the AOC thread, but suffice it to say that I don't believe the AOC should ever prevent a sexually mature person from choosing to have sex. This is NOT the same thing as sex with 7 year olds. The idea of creating one law to make a blanket declaration of one age at which ALL people reach sexual maturity is silly; this is so person-dependent that it's totally impractical to generalize that way.

Having the law as a general guideline might be reasonable, but charges should be dropped if and when the defense can bring the "victim"'s physician into court to testify that the victim is sexually and mentally mature enough to understand the implications of and voluntarily participate in sexual intercourse (whether or not it was an irresponsible decision is completely immaterial...we're talking about whether she was FORCED, not whether it was a smart decision.) THAT should be the deciding factor here, not some arbitrary age cutoff.

If I convince a 12 year old to play poker with me and I win his lunch money (without cheating), am I guilty of statutory larceny?

 

[Kangirl]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Maybe I just have an odd conception of "power"....

How do you mean? Re: contradicting myself? Seriously asking, not being assy.

 

[Kasper]

How can you possibly assert that these are two situations should be considered equivalent?

When did I say they were?

I think you'll find that not only have I not given my personal opinion anywhere in here I've also stated that the law does consider them different.

Your example of a 16 year old being convicted for having sex with a 15 year old is extreme, most places would cover that under Romeo and Juliet laws which provides a defence where age differences are minor, it doesn't make it legal but the penalties, classification and after effects such as registering as a sex offender can be greatly reduced. The laws are there to stop situations where adults, especially those in a position of power such as a teacher/guardian/etc can claim consent when having sex with a minor, not to lock up teenagers for having sex with each other.

This is NOT the same thing as sex with 7 year olds.

Um, the law agrees with you there, sexual abuse of a minor like you've mentioned there is paedophilia not statutory rape and would be considered child sexual abuse. You see how they're all a little bit different, rape, sexual abuse and statutory rape? The law has many other categories these things can fall under. Your suggestion that the law considers them the same is ludicrous.

 

[Salomé]

Really? I guess I've met a few like that, but for the most part I befriend/chat with the total science/computer geeks. You know...the NT's.

Yeah. The bitches tend to be SJs.
I DO know the NTs. The men don't get interesting until they hit middle age, and start developing some social graces, IME. (Some of them never get there). The best conversations I've had have been with NF techies. They has the whole package.

 

[Salomé]

How do you mean? Re: contradicting myself?

women do wield sexual power.
....
The above fact is also arguably a strong contributor to historical and current laws throughout the world that seek to control women's sexuality, very often at the expense of their human rights.

Again I ask: how is this power?

What you, sw and others are saying is basically, women (I would qualify women in progressive democracies) have some say over who they have sex with. So that if they don't want to whore around with everyone, they don't have to.

Whoop-de-doop.


Power, in the sense of having something someone wants? That's like saying a gazelle has power because a lion wants to eat her.

 

[heart]

Wiki say:

Statutory Rape Is Illegal Sexual Activity Between Two People When It Would Otherwise Be Legal If Not For Their Age: In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. Dating without sexual contact can in no way be considered a form of statutory rape.[3] The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.

I don't have a link to a story with those precise ages, but judging from the fact that 16 is the AOC in a majority of US states, statistically this has to have happened. I'm sure you can find similar stories if you care that much, but the exact ages aren't so much the point as the idea that people are being sent to lengthy jail sentences for "rape" when they've had consensual sex with a person who's passed the age of puberty. The problem is primarily that, since people mature at such different rates, one-age AOC laws must necessarily result in a significant number of cases where sexually mature individuals are declared incapable of understanding/choosing to have sex...which is ridiculous.

I don't want to turn this into a repeat of the AOC thread, but suffice it to say that I don't believe the AOC should ever prevent a sexually mature person from choosing to have sex. This is NOT the same thing as sex with 7 year olds. The idea of creating one law to make a blanket declaration of one age at which ALL people reach sexual maturity is silly; this is so person-dependent that it's totally impractical to generalize that way.

Having the law as a general guideline might be reasonable, but charges should be dropped if and when the defense can bring the "victim"'s physician into court to testify that the victim is sexually and mentally mature enough to understand the implications of and voluntarily participate in sexual intercourse (whether or not it was an irresponsible decision is completely immaterial...we're talking about whether she was FORCED, not whether it was a smart decision.) THAT should be the deciding factor here, not some arbitrary age cutoff.

If I convince a 12 year old to play poker with me and I win his lunch money (without cheating), am I guilty of statutory larceny?

Is this your way of saying there are no newstories to link to where a 16 year old boy had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl and then was sentenced to 26 years in jail?

You said previously there were many cases just like this. I saw many listed for 30-40 year olds with 14-16 year olds, none for 16 year olds with 15 year olds.

 

[nightning]

I do think it depends on the type of job and working environment. There are definitely fields/sectors that draw a lot more of the gossipy women. I would NOT do well longterm in that sort of environment. I really hate office drama and tend to keep more to myself in an office environment. [Random somewhat-related aside: I definitely have more fun talking/joking with a group of intellectual, geeky guys, than discussing interior decorating, new purses, or the likes with women. *shudder*]

However in tech/IT/science fields, it's not really an issue, and those types of personalities aren't nearly as prevalent. Certainly don't have the drama and cattiness.

+1

The problem isn't in women... but the type of women in the workplace. Put in a bunch of problematic people... regardless of gender you'll get problems. It's just a matter of the sort of problems that crops up.