User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 189

  1. #111
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm not clear about the final sentence there, I'd think that no means no, whether married or not.
    Of course no means no. But if there is neither a yes nor a no but a general impression of willingness in the context of a ltr, does that mean no? I've personally never asked a woman "Am I allowed now to have sex with you", and I think that's a fairly standard conduct. If she doesn't feel like it (or I don't feel like it), she will tell me beforehand, or during, or whenever she (or I) wants.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #112
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Oh, I see. I think "misogyny" is used to mean a much more broad thing than "men who hate women", even if that's the dictionary definition. Particularly when used to describe culture. I don't think there are many men who hate women but I think there are a lot of men (and women) who think women are less capable, less rational, less intelligent, less trustworthy, etc etc etc. Not the majority, I think, but a sizable minority. It's more complicated to talk about cultural misogyny but that tends to refer to things like objectification (valuing women for sex appeal and nothing else) at a far higher rate than men, and cultural practices that are disproportionally harmful to women, even unintentionally - things like encouraging women to stay at home --> lower wages because you took a year off for mat leave, lower wages/benefits because you work part-time/flexible hours because you're the one taking kids to appointments, etc. "Misogyny" there is not really referring to hatred of women, even on a societal level, but more talking about how women are often at a disadvantage.
    I understand what you're saying. Something that frustrates me is the redefinition of terms for ideological reasons. Misogyny meant the hatred of women in the past and that's how I've always viewed it. Calling someone a misogynist is a very serious accusation, IMO, and feminists throw it around like it's nothing. And now you say it's watered down to mean the same thing as sexism? Oh wait, the definition of sexism has been watered down, too, to making someone of the other gender uncomfortable (according to the Everyday Sexism Thread). This sort of redefining of terms is counter-productive, at best. It does not lead to understanding, it leads to confusion and arguments.

    Of course, a lot of cultural practices that are harmful to women are also harmful to men, in different ways. Promoting women as ideal child/home caretakers --> ideas like men can't be trusted with kids, are incompetent in cooking/cleaning/childrearing, negative ideas about men who become stay at home parents, shitty paternity leave policies in many places, need to pay alimony/child support after divorce (if your wife lost wage opportunities from mat leave/child care), etc etc. So to me it seems a bit short-sighted to call it misogynistic overall. My guess is that the angle of women being harmed is focused on more for two reasons:

    1) lack of support by organizations that focus on the issues themselves rather than on attacking feminism

    2) issues affecting men are often more subtle and less obviously harmful than those affecting women, even though they often parallel issues affecting women

    ex: shitty paternity leave/social discouragement of male primary childcaretakers --> men are deprived of child-care experience (either parental or professional) and often lose custody battles, while women are deprived of independence, wages, discriminated against for jobs because she might get pregnant (yes illegal, yes it still happens), etc

    ex: poor access to birth control/abortion --> men are forced to pay to raise a kid, women are forced to pay to raise a kid AND physically carry a child and give birth
    Traditional gender roles are clearly obsolete because selective pressures have changed due to our technological advancement. They were necessary for survival for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. But the thing that so many feminists fail to acknowledge or even recognize is that gender roles do not bestow privilege. They enslave both genders by their very nature.

    To me it would be ideal if we could be talking about these kinds of things outside of the framework of feminism (or misogyny/misandry), because feminism has been around so long that everyone has a different definition of it as the political groups and social opinions change. Feminist groups have an unfortunate name that leads people to believe that they only care about women, but the groups I'm familiar with try very hard to promote gender equality, not giving women a helping hand and kicking the men away. On the other hand, the mens-rights groups that I'm familiar with seem to operate exclusively on the idea that they must prove that women are not disadvantaged in any way before moving on to promote awareness of the ways in which men are disadvantaged.

    I think a group that promoted awareness of issues disproportionally affecting men (or women, for that matter) would find a lot of popular support if they spent time improving the actual problems rather than fighting with the feminist groups. Ex: determining custody by suitability of the parent rather than gender, more funding for homeless shelters/mentally ill people, improvements to the criminal system, etc. Difficult problems to solve, but even more difficult if people spend more energy fighting about whether men or women have it worse than figuring out how to make it better for everyone.
    I didn't know Men's Rights groups even existed until recently when someone accused me of being "MRA" (I had to google what that meant) because I dared to question the existence of patriarchy. When I looked in to what they were, I didn't stay long. I don't think I had ever seen so many hateful comments made toward women. Even in the instances where they had the semblance of a good argument, it was laced with too much misogyny (real misogyny, not the watered-down definition).

    Sorry, can't watch the video right now. If you summarize briefly I can comment. I will say that jokes often go better when they're directed at the powerful rather than the weak, as a general rule. I don't really think anyone should be joking about mutilating anyone but I'm not sure what the context is in this case, and there is always a certain subpopulation who enjoys their "dead babies"-style off-colour jokes, so there is often a pass given for humour, particularly at the expense of a historically more powerful group. (I can't think of a good example, but think about good, insightful jokes about racism vs. jokes that are thinly-veiled racist statements that are intended to be "funny cause it's true")
    It's a clip of a CBS daytime show called The Talk. They made fun of the guy who had his penis cut off and thrown into a garbage disposal by his wife. Sharon Osbourne gave a forced apology the next day, where she couldn't keep a straight face...she kept trying to hold back laughter. She said was against genital mutilation, but her facial expressions and laughter betrayed her true feelings.

    I have a problem with you saying this joke was directed at the "powerful'. The guy who had his penis cut off was not Lloyd Blankfein or David Koch. The most powerful people in the world are male, but most males have very little power, if any.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #113
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    I think it should only qualify as rape if a sober person has sex with an inebriated person (past the point or coherence/consent). In my mind there is a difference between drunk sex and predatory focus on inebriated people. If women get sexually aggressive when drunk and is propositions someone, I don't think that person is commuting rape if they accept. I would consider it "taking advantage" and definitely a shameful thing to do. But not a rape.


    I think a good idea for a poster would be something that stresses responsible sexual decisions I.e "Want them to remember how awesome you were? wait till your both sober." Or something targeting both genders that says "Don't let it be something they regret. Wait till your both sober" . That sort of target both rape, stds and uninteded pregnancy that results from drunk hookups.

  4. #114
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Sometimes rape victims commit suicide. I have a close friend who was raped and brutally assaulted with a lot of physical damage. The man who did it worked at a clinic and was a stranger. He had raped several other women over the years with escalating violence. A number of the former victims committed suicide. In this case you could argue that this individual did in fact commit murder through rape.
    How many people a year does that add up to? I'm more interested in verifiable statistics than anecdotes.

    The presence of a "tone" implies something other than a pure focus on ideas. This is an important point for many of these debates - a "tone" of dismissal, anger, etc. is emotional just like sharing personal anecdotes. Remove the "tone" and perhaps we can exchange pure ideas.
    There is always a tone. Tone is an intrinsic trait of communication. And what I expected was for someone to say I was being mean because I didn't go out of my way to make sure everyone's feelings were acknowledged and validated. My expectations were met.



    You have a position that needs to be explored, but I still don't see how it compares to the Hilary quote.

    This is a pretty messy subject to attempt to rate "assault" vs. "rape" vs. "murder" in terms of degree of harm. Some individuals would rather die than be raped, or rather be raped than assaulted, etc. How would people even go about trying to establish which is "worse". You can establish which crimes result in more bodily harm, you may be able to find statistics that demonstrate degree of emotional harm, but it just seems like an approach to the topic that doesn't have much chance at being explored objectively. Maybe you could say murder is the worst violation, but that should include those assaults and rapes that later result in death either through suicide or from complications. Beyond that isn't this discussion impossible for reaching "objective" conclusions?
    This whole thing about a hierarchy of harm for the types of violence was started by Amargith when she claimed rape was the worst, period. If you're going to try to argue that one type of violence is worse than all others, then we need to start using objective measures, but I'm content with the blanket statement that all violence is bad and should be minimized. Different types of violence affect people differently and it would be incredibly difficult to quantify that objectively. And even if it was done, I'm not sure how applicable that information would be to any individual.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #115
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Of course no means no. But if there is neither a yes nor a no but a general impression of willingness in the context of a ltr, does that mean no? I've personally never asked a woman "Am I allowed now to have sex with you", and I think that's a fairly standard conduct. If she doesn't feel like it (or I don't feel like it), she will tell me beforehand, or during, or whenever she (or I) wants.
    I tried waking up my ex with oral one time and he was really upset. He's also a psycho. Regardless I learned my lesson ask first.

    While I agree that let implies some consent their are limits. I.e having sex with a passes out spouse is only slightly less creepy than passed out sex with stranger.

  6. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Of course no means no. But if there is neither a yes nor a no but a general impression of willingness in the context of a ltr, does that mean no? I've personally never asked a woman "Am I allowed now to have sex with you", and I think that's a fairly standard conduct. If she doesn't feel like it (or I don't feel like it), she will tell me beforehand, or during, or whenever she (or I) wants.
    Hmm, I know what you mean, although I'm pretty conflicted about this, if I thought there was even a remote chance that they were not having a good time I'd think the proper thing to do is cease and desist right away. The thought of someone simply "getting it over with" actually disgusts me, so it couldnt be otherwise.

    I've heard someone talk about how they considered sex with an unresponsive or some how reluctant person as tantamount to using another person for masturbation and gross and all as it is I understand what they mean, although I personally think of it as something worse than that even, its worse than objectification because I dont simply believe there's dehumanisation of the other person involved there's dehumanisation of the self too.

    Ultimately you wind up a subhuman sort of being who's not inclined to be influenced by campaigns against rape or opinion of any sort in the pursuit of momentary physical or chemical highs. I used to think that some people were physical ruins to begin with, trauma or alcohol or something leaving them that way, leaving them some how deficient but I think the behaviour serves as a sure and certain accelerant.

  7. #117
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Someone commented that these posters are unlikely to have any effect on hard core, often serial rapists. That's probably true. They are likely to have more effect on date-rapists and guys who are just really pushy with girls.
    Yeah, I'd agree. Not an immediate effect, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I don't have a problem with my white sons seeing public service ads featuring white men explaining consent. Hopefully, it's a no-brainer for them if we've done our job and if not, well, it's a lot better than nothing.
    Basically this. I didn't see the ads as an attack, because they seemed to be phrased as "If you do X, then..." not as "All you pigs reading this poster above the urinal, stop raping." Hopefully, you don't need this ad, in the same way you don't need to ad posted above the next urinal over explaining that if you're drunk, you shouldn't drive home and getting a cab is easy, but I think it can do something to benefit.

    As far as the race thing goes, when you are the majority, you are the 'generic person' for better or for worse. Most of the time it's for better, so fussing about the few times when it happens to be for worse is a little overwrought, IMO.
    I agree with this, however!!! I have seen more than one occasion where depictions of or assumptions about white/male privilege has been taken to such extreme that it seems to suggest almost a paranoid conspiracy level of organization among white men or that white men don't actually work or do anything to deserve anything they have because they're all criminal jerks. Take a little search around say, Tumblr.com, and you might find what I'm talking about.

    For what it's worth, I do recognize and believe in privilege, but not to that degree. I also believe that it's not as clear cut as it may seem, and that different groups all enjoy various 'privileges' (some based in positive stereotyping which yes, can cause issues, but can be of benefit if played right [not saying that's A-OK]), but that's a whole other can of worms.

    But I don't think this campaign seemed 'aimed' at white men to show them how terrible they are.

    I don't have any experience with being drunk or sleeping with people who drink. Myself, I think I'd err on the side of caution, but that's my general approach to most things in life and most people probably aren't going to do things that way. We had an issue of consent several years ago when I did not realize my husband was asleep and I felt terrible about it. Since that happened, we've discussed our wishes should one of us make advances while possibly being asleep so there shouldn't be any problems in the future. Even though he is my husband and we've been having sex for over twenty years, he, IMO, he has a right to be able to give or withdraw consent at any point. In my mind, that isn't even up for debate. It's a no-brainer.
    I agree with your reasoning, but if you don't mind me asking...was he really upset with you?

    I suppose there are some times I'd be upset (maybe I'm injured?) but I can't really think of them (with a girl I'm already cool being with).

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Are there any statistics as to what percentage of men commit sexual assault or rape etc...

    I think putting into perspective, how prevalent this behavior is among men would clarify many things.
    .
    I'm very curious about this myself.

    Are 80% of the assaults being committed by 3% of men, or is it more widespread? (80/80? Certainly not. 80/40? Doubt it. 80/20? Maybe?)

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Yeah, that's allright. The sketchier problem is in a context of a long-term relationship, or marriage. *Personally* I would think that there is a degree of implied consent whereby if we are both drunk and have a relationship, I'm not going to think if it's right to have sex if the other party doesn't tell me that she doesn't feel like it.
    I mean, as long as you're both enthusiastic about having sex, I don't think you need to be like signing contracts with each other before heading to the bedroom.

    I think the big thing is that there isn't an assumption that because she's your wife or girlfriend that you effectively own her AKA people laughing off the concept you could rape your wife because how can you rape something which is already yours?

    Also, small thing but you can add user tags to quotes by either multi-quoting or by adding equal sign and name like say [quote=cafe] otherwise it looks like the rest of these quotes were to me and not to @cafe and @Coriolis respectively.

    Ahaha. I think that could be more "funny" than terrible. I do think this kind of stuff should be taken a bit more lightly in the context of a LTR where you trust your partner and everything is going well, compared to a random sexual encounter. It can't really be taken in isolation.

    Nah. They'll only have effect on guys who wouldn't even think about raping or being pushy with women, because they'll be the ones who possess enough self-awareness. At least, that's my prediction.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  8. #118
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I think it should only qualify as rape if a sober person has sex with an inebriated person (past the point or coherence/consent). In my mind there is a difference between drunk sex and predatory focus on inebriated people. If women get sexually aggressive when drunk and is propositions someone, I don't think that person is commuting rape if they accept. I would consider it "taking advantage" and definitely a shameful thing to do. But not a rape.
    That's pretty reasonable. Some people should be more aware of that distinction.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  9. #119
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I understand what you're saying. Something that frustrates me is the redefinition of terms for ideological reasons. Misogyny meant the hatred of women in the past and that's how I've always viewed it. Calling someone a misogynist is a very serious accusation, IMO, and feminists throw it around like it's nothing. And now you say it's watered down to mean the same thing as sexism? Oh wait, the definition of sexism has been watered down, too, to making someone of the other gender uncomfortable (according to the Everyday Sexism Thread). This sort of redefining of terms is counter-productive, at best. It does not lead to understanding, it leads to confusion and arguments.
    The same thing has occurred with Racism. The reason these terms are defined down is that relaxing the definition makes the term relevant in the modern age. If the only people who were, considered misogynist, racist etc.. were those who fit the original definition, then racists and misogynists would be so vanishingly rare that people would have nothing to be outraged about, and therefore no one could fund raise as effectively as they do now.

    Think about it this way, the job of the army or cops is to render themselves useless by either ending crime as we know it, or preventing any need to go to war. Obviously this is a hypothetical, but stick with me. Now there is no arguing that there is nowhere near the amount of crime there used to be, or the threats from abroad that there used to be (USSR). Despite that all we ever hear is that we need more military and police spending etc... The reason for that is that some of these people (especially the higher ups) care about their jobs more than they care about curing the social ills their professions are aimed to combat. I'm not blaming anyone here, its just the way things work.

    The same thing occurs in the civil rights and gender issues. Despite how far we've come, those who benefit from racial/gender outrage can never let the battle be over, because then they would have no job, no way to fund raise, and hardly any emotional narrative to spoon feed to their captive audience.

    In my view, the battle will never be over, as long as they can define down racism and misogyny until both are nebulous thought crimes.

    This tactic is too effective to argue on their terms. Saying things aren't as bad as they were will never sound as strong as an accusation or racism or misogyny.

    You've gotta fight fire with fire, and play their game from the other side.

    Basically, terrorism (or whatever paper tiger they can come up with) will always be a big enough threat to justify whatever ridiculous hardware development project the military industrial complex can come up with.

    In the same vein, racism or misogyny will always (in the mind of those who benefit from it) be a big enough problem to justify whatever level of outrage those in the chattering class would prefer.

  10. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    That's pretty reasonable. Some people should be more aware of that distinction.
    A predator's a predator.

Similar Threads

  1. "Don't be that guy" / "don't be that girl"
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 11:21 PM
  2. Don't be that guy, please...
    By Rail Tracer in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. ISFJ girl....please don't be afraid!
    By Little Laura in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 11:55 AM
  4. BroRape Awareness: Don't be a Victim!
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
  5. To Be or Not to Be...That is the Question!!
    By Winds of Thor in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 05:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO