Is it rape if...

[InvisibleJim]

Is it rape if they enjoy it?

 

[Lark]

It depends but if you go butch-femme than the butch woman will be chivalrous and pay for the femme, etc. Some women don't like that. Me? I don't mind. The context is different (different relative power relations and historical context when it's two women involved) and while some people see the re-enactment of traditional roles to be repugnant I look at it more on a total scale. As long as the relationship balances out in the end or ends quickly when it's clear it's unbalanced and one or both people are unhappy - I don't see the harm.

For myself, there is so much more insidious gender stereotyping and power plays that go on everyday, I'd rather focus on those interactions. But, that's just me and I don't fault anyone or minimize it when a woman or man insists on going dutch all the time or not opening doors, etc.

Yeah, I know that there's bigger fish to fry. I would agree and find some of the hair splitting is stupid if people are happy, the same goes for relationships between men and women.

I know some women who I would consider assertive and not liable to tolerate any bullshit but they consider themselves anti-feminist because they believe that feminists would consider their relationships with men, which can be pretty traditional gender wise, to be betrayals of womans liberation.

 

[CzeCze]

It's not so much that you're a feminist, or that you're a woman. It's that you will never have to walk a mile in a man's shoes. I can try to understand women's perspectives, but I'm never going to have the same experience of men that women will. Empathy only goes so far in those situations.

That kinda precludes any semblance of a dialogue between men and women then, doesn't it?

And yes, I'm calling this essentially equivalent to date rape, because it's just as much an emotional violation for men to be used by women like this.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Then again, following your first statement I guess that's all we can hope for. How sad.

The physical, psychological, and physical trauma that a woman experiences in rape is NOT the same as a man feeling like a chump because some dime piece he has been courting rejects his advances after he has spent copious amounts of money on her. Now if you want to say you could place these two things on a CONTINUUM of exploitation? Maybe.

However, if you insist using lived experience as the only frames of reference in a match of compare and constrast? Refer to your first quote. There is no way we are gonna agree on this. Even though as a woman I can still understand the lived experience of being used for money in a dating scenario.

That's a pretty strong claim. Do you have evidence of this? Especially given the disproportionately high number of men who are homeless?

Oh you sound just like one of the judges quoted in my favorite fire breathing feminist classic Sisterhood is Powerful I'm logging soon but let me check with the UN Commission on the Status of Women for some fun facts I can dig up. Funny how there is no UN Commission on the Status of Men. I wonder why that is...

Do you consider deception to be a form of coercion? What about emotional abuse?

Sure and sure.

Is it really that deep? Are we comparing the same thing here?

I'm talking about the everyday, very common issue of men complaining that a woman is a 'tease' or trying to get a fancy dress or access into the best clubs or restaurants through dating them. If you gave me an example of a woman who fleeces a man out of his life savings, lies to him that she loves him when she just wants a monthly allowance, and neglects his children to live the life of a single woman and cheat on him openly - okay, yeah, I can agree she is a con woman, what she is doing is morally wrong, and maybe even that "she is not a nice person".

But, if you are talking about everyday 'AskMen.com' "I've taken this girl out 4 times to Spago and she still won't let me get to 2nd base, etc. etc. etc." then no, I have no sympathy for the guy and I do not fault the woman.

Nice straw man. That's not even close to how it goes in practically any case.

Thank you. It was meant to be satiric. Meaning purposely extreme to point out the factual premises at play.

Clearly, since you've been quite adept at making a few here.

See above comment.

 

[InvisibleJim]

You invent a drug so she enjoys it?

After all, apparently it is not rape on a man because they have to be aroused and thus they enjoy it?

Get it yet?

 

[Spamtar]

You invent a drug so she enjoys it?

After all, apparently it is not rape on a man because they have to be aroused and thus they enjoy it?

Get it yet?

Enjoyment is irrelevant to rape. Its about consent. As far as why a woman cant "rape" a man under the law of most jurisdictions. I think it has to do with both male anatomy and a lack of a social problem of women "raping" men. However there has been cases of forcible sodomy (male against male) where the male victim ejaculated during the sexual assault and that issue was deemed irrelevant to the case.

In other words: No retroactive consent or retroactive withdrawal of consent when it comes to rape and similar sexual assault crimes.

Rape is rape. Its an evil act and comparing it to real or perceived inequalities in the dating game simply illustrate a distorted perspective. This is similar to how I think comparing buyers remorse or ass grabbing to rape is absurd (or answering yes or no to all the OPs questions without more information (i.e. was there consent)...and at the same time profess it is also outrageous to lambaste gold digging in a rape thread (regardless of the degree)...as if having to put up with petty bullshit allows a person to drop a claw hammer on another's head. Its completely out of proportion.

 

[onemoretime]

That kinda precludes any semblance of a dialogue between men and women then, doesn't it?

Nah. You just have to accept that the other person's experience of it might be valid, even if it ultimately does not comport with one's own experience of the world.

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Then again, following your first statement I guess that's all we can hope for. How sad.

Is it, though? The question is whether you accept that my feelings on the subject are valid. If not, then yes, that is sad.

The physical, psychological, and physical trauma that a woman experiences in rape is NOT the same as a man feeling like a chump because some dime piece he has been courting rejects his advances after he has spent copious amounts of money on her. Now if you want to say you could place these two things on a CONTINUUM of exploitation? Maybe.

Yes. It's sad indeed that you seem to not even try to understand the hypothetical man's perspective in this scenario. It's sad that you feel so free as to dehumanize him because you think he deserves it in some way. It's sad that you don't seem to think that men's emotions are just as important as your own.

However, if you insist using lived experience as the only frames of reference in a match of compare and constrast? Refer to your first quote. There is no way we are gonna agree on this. Even though as a woman I can still understand the lived experience of being used for money in a dating scenario.

However, do you understand the feeling that you must put up with it, lest you be involuntarily celibate for the rest of your life? Do you understand the constant pressure of making money to attract both women and esteem among so many men? Do you understand the loneliness that comes along with being unable to discuss these things with most of your friends, or the rejection that comes along with your most intimate friends of the opposite sex still being unwilling to have a physical relationship with you for seemingly incomprehensible reasons?

At the very least, do you understand that many men feel an enormous amount of pain because of these issues, pain that they feel like they can never recognize or admit to, lest they be emasculated in the eyes of those around them?

Oh you sound just like one of the judges quoted in my favorite fire breathing feminist classic Sisterhood is Powerful I'm logging soon but let me check with the UN Commission on the Status of Women for some fun facts I can dig up. Funny how there is no UN Commission on the Status of Men. I wonder why that is...

Perhaps because powerful men do not care about the welfare of those men they consider beneath them? They're simply competition, after all.

Still, though, let's keep the scope within Western society, because to expand the scope beyond that is to somehow attempt to affiliate with a group that both of us equally oppress.

Sure and sure.

Is it really that deep? Are we comparing the same thing here?

Yes, we are. It's interesting that you respond with incredulity. It simply speaks to the marginalized position of the "unsuccessful" male in our society.

I'm talking about the everyday, very common issue of men complaining that a woman is a 'tease' or trying to get a fancy dress or access into the best clubs or restaurants through dating them. If you gave me an example of a woman who fleeces a man out of his life savings, lies to him that she loves him when she just wants a monthly allowance, and neglects his children to live the life of a single woman and cheat on him openly - okay, yeah, I can agree she is a con woman, what she is doing is morally wrong, and maybe even that "she is not a nice person".

Once again, it wasn't too long ago that society considered women who "left themselves vulnerable" to be similar when they ended up having sex with someone that they did not consent to. I really hope that you understand that women's control advantage over the access to sex and social acceptance is just as strong as men's advantage in physical strength, and that it is just as intimidating.

But, if you are talking about everyday 'AskMen.com' "I've taken this girl out 4 times to Spago and she still won't let me get to 2nd base, etc. etc. etc." then no, I have no sympathy for the guy and I do not fault the woman.

Why? If she's not interested, then she's leading him on, and is a liar, and essentially guilty of fraud.

Thank you. It was meant to be satiric. Meaning purposely extreme to point out the factual premises at play.

Satire always has a grain of perceived truth.

See above comment.

Ditto.

 

[CzeCze]

Yes. It's sad indeed that you seem to not even try to understand the hypothetical man's perspective in this scenario. It's sad that you feel so free as to dehumanize him because you think he deserves it in some way. It's sad that you don't seem to think that men's emotions are just as important as your own.

The reason you are placing importance on 'the man in this scenario' is because you are a man and thus identify the 'hypothetical man' as yourself. I don't think you get points for an inherently self-absorbed POV? I actually can empathize with his situation and what I am getting is more ego bruising and wounded pride than anything else. What I am trying to say beyond that is that society already sides with 'poor men' in this case because women are essentialized to their sexual and reproductive worth and are already expected to put out once they're courted with lots of cash. So when she doesn't, there is an element of, "uppity wench, doesn't she know her place?"

However, do you understand the feeling that you must put up with it, lest you be involuntarily celibate for the rest of your life? Do you understand the constant pressure of making money to attract both women and esteem among so many men? Do you understand the loneliness that comes along with being unable to discuss these things with most of your friends, or the rejection that comes along with your most intimate friends of the opposite sex still being unwilling to have a physical relationship with you for seemingly incomprehensible reasons?

At the very least, do you understand that many men feel an enormous amount of pain because of these issues, pain that they feel like they can never recognize or admit to, lest they be emasculated in the eyes of those around them?

They got drum circles for that, dood.

But seriously, institutionalized inequality effects everyone, not just the oppressed. The oppressor is just as stuck in their role as the oppressed and gets reduced to a function the same way as the oppressed gets reduced to their function. In this case I am not saying outright that men are oppressor/women are oppressed but you get my drift. Women did not create nor forcibly power this machine which says that to the victor (men) go the spoils (women and everything else). Sure, I can acknowledge men have their own unique set of gender specific stressors in life. Gender issues are beyond being a 'female issue'. I'm not really sure how that all is salient to the discussion. Oh yeah, but because men have all the responsibility and pressure of being the bread winners they really did have an opportunity for spoils, freedom of movement, autonomy, etc. that comparatively their female counterparts did not have. So it's hard if not impossible for me to say, "Yes, but". And as far as those gender tropes in the modern age they are loosening and changing compared to before.

Still, though, let's keep the scope within Western society, because to expand the scope beyond that is to somehow attempt to affiliate with a group that both of us equally oppress.

Ha! Nice try, bro, you still get more oppression points for being a dood. I'm sure if we factor in things like race and class and age we can come up with nice point comparisons. Of course it's easy to keep things to a Western scope when you talk about these kind of issues which basically fall under the realm of 'self elected voluntarily seeming freedom of choice in a comfortable world'. It's easier to ignore and deny things like sexism and they become more ground down nubs of concepts that you can manipulate with more and competing statistics. It's better to compare with other regions and point out the similarities and differences.

Yes, we are. It's interesting that you respond with incredulity. It simply speaks to the marginalized position of the "unsuccessful" male in our society.

I already acknowledged these kind of tropes earlier but when we were talking about 'gold diggers' I never assumed the man was an overall 'failure' or lacking in success. Even NBA stars get tricked. Seriously does no one listen to Kanye West? I wasn't focusing on any value or worth of the people involved, I was speaking of the social mechanisms at play.

Once again, it wasn't too long ago that society considered women who "left themselves vulnerable" to be similar when they ended up having sex with someone that they did not consent to. I really hope that you understand that women's control advantage over the access to sex and social acceptance is just as strong as men's advantage in physical strength, and that it is just as intimidating.

This sounds like it is heading into a PUA intro....

:runs:

Seriously though, yes women are an access point for sex, yes women can scare men, yes women have a feminine mystique (hahaha) created around them. Men for generations have been trying to figure out what makes women tick etc. Women are essentialized, they are othered. I don't disagree with any of this. I'm just saying I'm not going to fault a woman for being coerced of funneled into taking these paths by society of say a straight up gold digger for lack of greater opportunities and choices.

If it makes you feel any better, cougars really like young men? Equality, yes?

Why? If she's not interested, then she's leading him on, and is a liar, and essentially guilty of fraud.

No, because the concept of 'leading on' is very vague here. Am I the only person in this thread who believes that grown men and women, of sound mind and body, voluntarily enter these kind of mutually stroking relationships every day, where there is little promise of a LTR? Where men are quite aware that the woman may not be physically into them or even attracted to them but are going along for a ride? I believe men can and are in many situation svery well aware of these things. Everyone goes in with eyes wide open. How is that fraud? And are you talking 'leading on' as in the woman won't sleep with a dood or that she doesn't want to be a wifey? There is a difference.

I've already said I sympathize (regardless of my gender) for people who's emotions get toyed with. The kind of situations that were described to me and I said I feel no sympathy - it sounded more like sour grapes by a guy who made a calculated gamble and lost. I think [MENTION=7897]spamtar[/MENTION] had a nice commentary about it. The kind of outright conning/fraud you are describing a woman as committing is only in the most extreme cases which I don't feel we were talking about.

Satire always has a grain of perceived truth.

Fixed!

BTW, dear lord how many pages is this thread going now I told you all this is why I don't usually enter threads like this.

 

[onemoretime]

The reason you are placing importance on 'the man in this scenario' is because you are a man and thus identify the 'hypothetical man' as yourself.

Congratulations! You've identified me as a human. Most people don't pick up that quickly.

I don't think you get points for an inherently self-absorbed POV? I actually can empathize with his situation and what I am getting is more ego bruising and wounded pride than anything else. What I am trying to say beyond that is that society already sides with 'poor men' in this case because women are essentialized to their sexual and reproductive worth and are already expected to put out once they're courted with lots of cash. So when she doesn't, there is an element of, "uppity wench, doesn't she know her place?"

Are they, though? Honestly?

They got drum circles for that, dood.

But seriously, institutionalized inequality effects everyone, not just the oppressed. The oppressor is just as stuck in their role as the oppressed and gets reduced to a function the same way as the oppressed gets reduced to their function. In this case I am not saying outright that men are oppressor/women are oppressed but you get my drift. Women did not create nor forcibly power this machine which says that to the victor (men) go the spoils (women and everything else). Sure, I can acknowledge men have their own unique set of gender specific stressors in life. Gender issues are beyond being a 'female issue'. I'm not really sure how that all is salient to the discussion. Oh yeah, but because men have all the responsibility and pressure of being the bread winners they really did have an opportunity for spoils, freedom of movement, autonomy, etc. that comparatively their female counterparts did not have. So it's hard if not impossible for me to say, "Yes, but". And as far as those gender tropes in the modern age they are loosening and changing compared to before.

They're both oppressor and oppressed. That's why it's hard to have these conversations - because there is a certain aspect of feminist dogma that will rarely allow a woman to accept that she is anything but a victim in her interactions with men. It dehumanizes her.

Ha! Nice try, bro, you still get more oppression points for being a dood. I'm sure if we factor in things like race and class and age we can come up with nice point comparisons. Of course it's easy to keep things to a Western scope when you talk about these kind of issues which basically fall under the realm of 'self elected voluntarily seeming freedom of choice in a comfortable world'. It's easier to ignore and deny things like sexism and they become more ground down nubs of concepts that you can manipulate with more and competing statistics. It's better to compare with other regions and point out the similarities and differences.

No one told me that the oppression Olympics had started. It's proper to keep things within a Western scope because that's the context in which we live. It's more accurate to assume that we've had the same general sorts of cultural influences, particularly those involving the roles of the sexes. Universalizing any further tends to become an excuse for cultural imperialism.

I already acknowledged these kind of tropes earlier but when we were talking about 'gold diggers' I never assumed the man was an overall 'failure' or lacking in success. Even NBA stars get tricked. Seriously does no one listen to Kanye West? I wasn't focusing on any value or worth of the people involved, I was speaking of the social mechanisms at play.

Hmm, I guess you've never see that side of it. Let me assure you - it's painful and humiliating to get "played" like that, and men learn that message very early on. Still, we're also taught that it's one of the inherent risks of trying to have relationships with women, and that it's even more humiliating to show this pain.

Did you really not notice how sad and bitterly frustrated that those lyrics actually are?

This sounds like it is heading into a PUA intro....

:runs:

Seriously though, yes women are an access point for sex, yes women can scare men, yes women have a feminine mystique (hahaha) created around them. Men for generations have been trying to figure out what makes women tick etc. Women are essentialized, they are othered. I don't disagree with any of this. I'm just saying I'm not going to fault a woman for being coerced of funneled into taking these paths by society of say a straight up gold digger for lack of greater opportunities and choices.

And yet, you're missing my point entirely. We haven't been trying to figure out what makes y'all tick - we've been trying to figure out why y'all can be so blithely cruel, and then still claim to be the victim. Why you can claim that when a man exploits women, that it is a marker of the original sin of his sex, while when a woman exploits men, that it is merely a niche that she had been forced into, and therefore she should be absolved of her sins.

Can you admit that at times, women can be selfish and vicious, not because of anything that a man has done, but because she's human?

If it makes you feel any better, cougars really like young men? Equality, yes?

Moving on...

No, because the concept of 'leading on' is very vague here. Am I the only person in this thread who believes that grown men and women, of sound mind and body, voluntarily enter these kind of mutually stroking relationships every day, where there is little promise of a LTR? Where men are quite aware that the woman may not be physically into them or even attracted to them but are going along for a ride? I believe men can and are in many situation svery well aware of these things. Everyone goes in with eyes wide open. How is that fraud? And are you talking 'leading on' as in the woman won't sleep with a dood or that she doesn't want to be a wifey? There is a difference.

Yeah, it doesn't quite work that way. Women have the luxury of knowing that men generally take the initiator role when it comes to romantic interactions. Men, on the other hand, have to read in between the lines. Therefore, we're never quite sure where we stand with a woman, and struggle between caution out of respect for her as a person and the risk-taking that we must engage in to successfully reproduce.

By leading on, I mean indicating that she cares for him in a way that goes beyond their current relationship status.

I've already said I sympathize (regardless of my gender) for people who's emotions get toyed with. The kind of situations that were described to me and I said I feel no sympathy - it sounded more like sour grapes by a guy who made a calculated gamble and lost. I think [MENTION=7897]spamtar[/MENTION] had a nice commentary about it. The kind of outright conning/fraud you are describing a woman as committing is only in the most extreme cases which I don't feel we were talking about.

That's what it might sound like, but did you stop to consider what it might feel like?

 

[Viridian]

Question: what does "PUA" mean? I thought it stood for "pick-up artist", but, from the context in which it's used here, it sounds more like an organization/community of sorts...

 

[wolfy]

Question: what does "PUA" mean? I thought it stood for "pick-up artist", but, from the context in which it's used here, it sounds more like an organization/community of sorts...

It is a community, with forums, get togethers and Tupperware parties.

 

[Fluffywolf]

It is a community, with forums, get togethers and Tupperware parties.

Where lids slide seamlessly over all kinds of edges.

 

[Viridian]

It is a community, with forums, get togethers and Tupperware parties.

Really? I didn't know that... This thread is quite edumacational!

 

[MacGuffin]

I don't agree that a chump (man taken advantage of by a woman into spending money on her) is equivalent to rape.

But then again, I don't think a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him is rape either.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I don't agree that a chump (man taken advantage of by a woman into spending money on her) is equivalent to rape.

But then again, I don't think a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him is rape either.

Manipulation is a big word. There are some means through which someone can be manipulated that could probably be considered worse than 'just rape'.

 

[onemoretime]

I don't agree that a chump (man taken advantage of by a woman into spending money on her) is equivalent to rape.

But then again, I don't think a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him is rape either.

The unifying factor is that one person is dehumanizing, objectifying, and using the other to satisfy a personal desire, regardless of the other person's feelings on the matter. That's what ends up hurting the other person the most; not the particular means of doing so per se.

 

[MacGuffin]

The unifying factor is that one person is dehumanizing, objectifying, and using the other to satisfy a personal desire, regardless of the other person's feelings on the matter. That's what ends up hurting the other person the most; not the particular means of doing so per se.

I say rape is all that and more.

 

[Spamtar]

The unifying factor is that one person is dehumanizing, objectifying, and using the other to satisfy a personal desire, regardless of the other person's feelings on the matter. That's what ends up hurting the other person the most; not the particular means of doing so per se.

but doesn't that broad criteria cover a lot of the human condition in general?

 

[onemoretime]

but doesn't that broad criteria cover a lot of the human condition in general?

Yeah. We're pretty much assholes to one another, if we don't know you personally.

That's the answer to the question "why is there so much evil in the world?" BTW

 

[Viridian]

The unifying factor is that one person is dehumanizing, objectifying, and using the other to satisfy a personal desire, regardless of the other person's feelings on the matter. That's what ends up hurting the other person the most; not the particular means of doing so per se.

Yes, but I'd say one is about exploitation of someone else's resources and the other one is about violation of someone else's body and possibly subjugation by violent means... Apples and oranges, methinks.

 

[onemoretime]

Yes, but I'd say one is about exploitation of someone else's resources and the other one is about violation of someone else's body and possibly subjugation by violent means... Apples and oranges, methinks.

Only if you consider physical harm to be "worse" than psychological harm. I do not.