Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

No, you're just incorrect on the issue. A lot of what is being said bears little in relation to the actual crime of rape and claims of what people 'know' to be true is simply off base.

The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is acting in a manner that does not inculcate rape as a tradition and is in fact progressively eliminating and reducing its occurrence.

I have no idea what you're getting at with regards to my post. This reads like nothing more than "I'm right, you're wrong" without any elaboration.

 

[FyreWulff]

Do I need her to sign a waiver each time? Is asking "Is it can be sex tiem nao plz?" sufficient?
Or do I need to recite the exact words of a legally defined question?

"You wanna do it?"
"You want this dick?" (example from another poster in another thread)
"Ready for some fucking?"

Takes all of 3 seconds. If it sounds like too much effort to affirm consent, then you need to start valuing other people's wants much higher.

I was attacking the quote "Lack of no doesn't mean yes". Look, if a woman is unconscious or heavily intoxicated, I agree.
But if a woman is still capable of saying no and does not say no but instead goes along with it, that's a yes in my book.

Sigh.

 

[TUROK]

Yes, I said what you quoted from my post and I mean it. Please read my edited post above to understand why I said it. Sorry for the back and forth.

TLR for my above post:
The burden of proof in a criminal trial didn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Choosing to make it beyond a reasonable doubt was a conscious decision with the knowledge that it will change the number of innocently convicted people and the number of guilty people let free. Thus, if you support the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt you support that ratio, rather than the ratio of other burdens.

I accept it as an unfortunate inevitability, but it is not something I am "okay" with.

I was attacking the quote "Lack of no doesn't mean yes". Look, if a woman is unconscious or heavily intoxicated, I agree.
But if a woman is still capable of saying no and does not say no but instead goes along with it, that's a yes in my book.


Edit: Am I the only one who finds the term "rape survivor" weird? I get that it's about empowerment, but this is ridiculous.
I am not a "depression survivor", I'm suffering from depression. And you are not a "rape survivor", you're a rape victim.

You're gonna get a lot of flak for this, but I agree. The notion of verbal consent is silly. I mean, if a girl starts going down on me without warning, am I gonna give her shit for not asking first? Fuck no.

Also, "rape survivor" reminds me of "handicapable." It's a tad silly, but I understand it... As long as people don't start taking offense when being referred to as victims.

 

[scar tissue]

"You wanna do it?"
"You want this dick?" (example from another poster in another thread)
"Ready for some fucking?"

Takes all of 3 seconds. If it sounds like too much effort to affirm consent, then you need to start valuing other people's wants much higher.

Sounds reasonable, I guess. Although I don't get how this stuff will hold up in court?

Sigh.

Please elaborate.

 

[kevm3]

The 'sexual freedom' double standard exists only because women choose for it to exist. Who said it was alright for men to sleep around? Women, of their own volition, CHOOSE 'experienced men' to deal with. Men prefer women who have a low number of notches when dealing with long-term mates. Women could easily choose to deal with men that aren't sexually promiscuous, and hence, the elimination of this 'double standard.'

 

[Mumei]

I think perhaps one issue in these conversations is that a lot of people think, "Well, I'm not a moron who doesn't know what consent is, and I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know what consent is. Who the hell thinks we have a problem with that?"

And yet:

"Usually the bystander absolves himself of any complicity. "Hey, don't look at me," he shouts in protest, "I never raped anyone." And he's usually right. But neither did he intervene at a party when it seemed clear that someone was about to be raped. Nor did he refrain from spreading the rumor about some girl who got "trained" or gang banged, nor say to anyone that he thought such behavior was gross and wrong, let alone illegal.

Rather, here is what he is more likely to say:

Girls are continually fed drinks of alcohol. It's mainly to party but my roomies are also aware of the inhibition-lowering effects. I've seen an old roomie block doors when girls want to leave his room; and other times I've driven women home who can't remember much of an evening yet sex did occur. Rarely if ever has a night of drinking for my roommate ended without sex. I know it isn't necessarily and assuredly sexual assault, but with the amount of liquor in the house, I question the amount of consent a lot."​

That's one guy's description of a party at his fraternity house. He questions it, but doesn't ever have a chat with his roommate, nor does he intervene if he thinks there is a possibility of assault. This is where the dynamics of Guyland are in plain view: Bros before Hos.

The culture of silence both enables the worst of the guys in their predatory behaviors and at the same time prevents the best of the guys from speaking up about what they really think about all this sexual predation. Challenging your roommates, stepping in to stop sex from happening when a woman is clearly too drunk either to consent or to refuse sex, is a betrayal of brotherhood. In a sexual culture where men and women are seen as being on opposite teams, where men are mandated to "get over" on women and women are mandated to "protect themselves" from sexual assault, scoring one for the team is crucial. If you refuse to "score" yourself, you are at least expected not to block the shot for your buddies. In this setup, defending or protecting a woman is worse than switching teams; it's an act of treason.

The words ring in my ears today as if they were just spoken. "When it comes to sex, never take no for an answer." Or this: "Look, girls have to say no, even if they want to do it. It's part of being a girl. So if they say no, they're really saying yes. They still really want you to..."

"If she wants to hear that you love her, tell her you love her. If she wants to hear that you'll marry her, tell her you'll marry her. The most important thing is to keep going. Don't stop. If she says no, keep going. If she pushes your hand away, keep going. You only stop if she hits you."

My generation's 'dating etiquette' is now called sexual assault. You can't keep going if she says no. You can't keep going if she pushes your hand away, or if she hits you. Today, guys know that the rules are completely different.

Or do they?

When I mentioned this story to my class recently at Stony Brook, one of the guys looked up at me and shook his head. "It's not 'don't stop until she hits you.' It's 'don't stop until she hurts you'" Time and again, on college campuses, guys told me something similar:

Girls "have to say no" to protect their reputations, they "mean yes, even if they say no" and "if she's drunk and semiconscious, she's willing.

It's really confusing," says Jake, who graduated from Yale two years ago.

I mean, like, really really confusing. On the one hand, like every week you have some dorm seminar or lecture on sexual assault, and like a constant buzz about what's "appropriate" and all, and on the other hand you go to a party on the weekend and it's like everything they said to avoid, everything that is, like, completely illegal and off-limits.

"Like what?" I ask.

Like trying to get girls drunk so they'll have sex with you. Like, I dunno, lying to them, or like telling them how interested you are in them and how much you like them and all, when it's completely not true, and all you really want to do is have sex with them and then get the hell out of there."​

"Omigod, the lies we tell," says Bill, his roommate and fellow grad, a big grin on his face.

Like sometimes I can't believe what I've done to get laid. Like, I've said said, "I'll only put it in a little" - can you fucking believe that? Like, "I won't come in your mouth." Like...

At this point, though, Bill begins to look a little sheepish.

Like, well, look, I know this isn't PC and all, but a couple of times I've pushed girls' heads down on me, and like one time this girl was so drunk she was near passed out, and I kind of dragged her into my room and had sex with her. When she sort of came to a little bit, she was really upset and started crying and asked why I had done that. I think I said something like, "because you were so pretty" or some bullshit, but realy it was because, well, because I was drunk and wanted to get laid. And she was, like, there.​

And if you scroll up again to those numbers by Neil Malamuth or the studies by Lisak about undetected rapists, these attitudes are important and so is changing minds and educating. This assumption that people just "know" sexual ethics is, sadly, mistaken.

A bar is where guys go to pick up girls and vice versa. So unless you get the other party drunk off their feet and you stay sober with the sole intention to have sex with them in that condition, I don't think you can talk about rape.

There actually are men who do this (and may drink a certain amount for liquid courage, but are not themselves "drunk"), and they make up the bulk of rapists who go undetected by the legal system and they tend to be repeat offenders as opposed to people who are making a one-time mistake.

I was attacking the quote "Lack of no doesn't mean yes". Look, if a woman is unconscious or heavily intoxicated, I agree.
But if a woman is still capable of saying no and does not say no but instead goes along with it, that's a yes in my book.

Maybe you'll find this interesting for what is actually being advocated? I promise there's no consent forms.

I liked this part, but you should read the entire thing:

The “it will ruin sex” objection is one of several common objections that I think are rhetorical and fall apart under even casual scrutiny. For example:

“Why does the guy have to secure consent?”

He doesn’t. It’s a gender-neutral obligation. Initiator secures consent. Worked fine at Antioch.

“What if they are both drunk?”

Same answer.

“What if nobody initiates?”

Not possible. If two people lay in bed next to each other, no sexual contact takes place. If we mush up “sex” into some gauzy montage, and refuse to consider it as anything but a unified whole, it becomes possible to have a confused situation about initiation. But each act has to have an initiator. It is that person who has the obligation in the first instance.

“What if they initiate mutually?”

Well, that’s enthusiastic participation. If two people lean in to kiss each other at the same time and stick their tongues in each other’s mouths, I think we can be pretty clear on consent.

“But … Isn’t It Awkward?”

Well, here’s the beauty of it. It isn’t, because people can always bargain around the law in private arrangements, and law provides a background rule. The person initiating has the obligation to secure consent. In the presence of enthusiastic participation, that person may be so clear on the existence of consent that they don’t need a verbal confirmation — but they have to be willing to assume the risk of error. The non-initiator, if they are for example a survivor who freezes, faces serious consequences from a mistake, and the initiator faces serious consequences from a mistake theoretically (but not actually because there are no convictions in these situations). But the initiator is more able to avoid the mistake by checking for affirmative consent. As I recall, “stop if your partner goes limp” was a rule of Fight Club. If a bunch of guys fighting in a basement can observe that, we can expect it between sex partners, I should think.

The other way to “bargain around the rule” is to explicitly agree that silence equals consent and set other conditions for revocation, which is what BDSMers do with safewords and safesigns. Empirically, the experiment worked at Antioch, where the students loved the policy.

Edit: Am I the only one who finds the term "rape survivor" weird? I get that it's about empowerment, but this is ridiculous.
I am not a "depression survivor", I'm suffering from depression. And you are not a "rape survivor", you're a rape victim.

Well. I mean. They survived? I'm not sure how to respond.

 

[Kazerei]

Actually, no. Go watch Brainwash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhULaCUqWWc

Women are still as picky and unwilling to have casual sex as ever. Women are simply not made to fuck around as much as men are.
20% of gay men has had over 1000 sex partners, 2% of all lesbian women has had over 100 and 0% have had over 1000.
Plus, women are more likely to choose "the bad boy" for casual sex, as compared to "the provider" for relationships. So actually, most guys on GAF - who are probably not "bad boys" - are going to have it harder, the more sexual freedom women have.

Citation needed.

The point is women are less willing to have casual sex because of social stigmas. Breaking that down means more sex for everyone, not just whatever stereotypes you want to perpetrate.

 

[Devolution]

The 'sexual freedom' double standard exists only because women choose for it to exist. Who said it was alright for men to sleep around? Women, of their own volition, CHOOSE 'experienced men' to deal with. Men prefer women who have a low number of notches when dealing with long-term mates. Women could easily choose to deal with men that aren't sexually promiscuous, and hence, the elimination of this 'double standard.'

Please go read up on some history.

 

[scar tissue]

Well. I mean. They survived? I'm not sure how to respond.

Rape isn't something that usually kills. It's a horrible, horrible experience but not something you can "survive". You can survive a plane crash or a tornado.
Semantics, I guess.

Citation needed.

The point is women are less willing to have casual sex because of social stigmas. Breaking that down means more sex for everyone, not just whatever stereotypes you want to perpetrate.

Actually, no citation needed. Scientists say most of these things in the documentary. Go watch it.

 

[Kazerei]

Actually, no citation needed. Scientists say most of these things in the documentary. Go watch it.

You don't think that's ridiculous? 20% of gay men have had over 1000 sex partners?

 

[Mumei]

You don't think that's ridiculous? 20% of gay men have had over 1000 sex partners?

I can recall a widely debunked pseudoscientific study purporting to find just that, but without a source I won't know if it is the same study. I am... skeptical right now.

 

[scar tissue]

You don't think that's ridiculous? 20% of gay men have had over 1000 sex partners?

A scientist mentions this exact figure. Forgot his name, but he's an actual scientist from an american university.

Edit: Don't have the time right now, but tomorrow I will sit down and track all sources. I'll find the actual papers so that we can be clear on this.

 

[kevm3]

Please go read up on some history.

Who says male promiscuity is fine? Women have the ability to sleep around in this day and age as men do. Women can give each other pounds and dap to their 'sisses' for sleeping with dudes. So where is this double standard?

Because men don't hold women who sleep around in high regard? What is stopping women from holding men who sleep around in low regard?

 

[cutmeamango]

Ban alcoholic beverages. Not only it helps rape occur and "go undetected" because there are people who aren't drunk-"drunk" (you know she's not under the legal limit, or has been tested?) raping those who are drunk, it cause more than 60% of traffic accidents.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I accept it as an unfortunate inevitability, but it is not something I am "okay" with.

Accepting it as an unfortunate inevitability is exactly what I am talking about. You know as well as I do that realistically we cannot have a justice system where 100% of the guilty parties are convicted and 100% of the innocent parties go free. We have to decide, as a society, what the balance should be. I realize that neither outcome is "okay" or something you would be happy with, but if you were in charge of creating a legal system that would have to be realistically implemented, would you create a system where the burden of proof lets 10 guilty rapists go free so that not even one falsely accused defendant is convicted? Or would you use a different burden of proof to create a different balance? You're in charge now, you have to decide something. What balance are you going to strike, even though you know whatever you choose some injustice will still remain?

 

[A.E Suggs]

Ban alcoholic beverages. Not only it helps rape occur and "go undetected" because there are people who aren't drunk-"drunk" (you know she's not under the legal limit, or has been tested?) raping those who are drunk, it cause more than 60% of traffic accidents.

Almost impossible to do but that would actually stop the is it rape while they are drunk deal that people can't seem to understand.

That said I'll never get wanting to smash a drunk chick anyway, I did it at sex parties before and I find it not all that especially since that just tells me said person either afraid of something or not good enough to do something without being in your right mind. I don't really like mind or body altering anything for that reason because its more often than not the real you when you do.

 

[faceless007]

Who says male promiscuity is fine? Women have the ability to sleep around in this day and age as men do. Women can give each other pounds and dap to their 'sisses' for sleeping with dudes. So where is this double standard?

Because men don't hold women who sleep around in high regard? What is stopping women from holding men who sleep around in low regard?

I'm not sure you understand how social stigmas work. They aren't conscious beliefs that monolithic groups of people all deliberately decide to hold explicitly. They are socially ingrained and often unconscious assumptions that most people never seriously think about or question because it's how they were raised and cultural signals reinforce them. If most women seem to embrace values of chastity and monogamy, it isn't because women, as a group, have declared that's what they believe and how they all want their gender to operate, it's because 2000+ years of male-dominated society have raised countless generations (both men and women) to believe that's what women should want. The same is true for men and promiscuity.

Pushing back against these stigmas is not as simple as telling an entire group, as if they can all act as one, "Stop thinking that."

 

[travisbickle]

Who says male promiscuity is fine? Women have the ability to sleep around in this day and age as men do. Women can give each other pounds and dap to their 'sisses' for sleeping with dudes. So where is this double standard?

Because men don't hold women who sleep around in high regard? What is stopping women from holding men who sleep around in low regard?

GAF's like a school playground in relation to sex.

"GAF's guide to sex" thread would be full of so many mistruths, fallacies and general ignorance about sex you'd think this place was filled with manga and computer game obsessed teenagers with arrested development.

 

[TUROK]

Accepting it as an unfortunate inevitability is exactly what I am talking about. You know as well as I do that realistically we cannot have a justice system where 100% of the guilty parties are convicted and 100% of the innocent parties go free. We have to decide, as a society, what the balance should be. I realize that neither outcome is "okay" or something you would be happy with, but if you were in charge of creating a legal system that would have to be realistically implemented, would you create a system where the burden of proof lets 10 guilty rapists go free so that not even one falsely accused defendant is convicted? Or would you use a different burden of proof to create a different balance? You're in charge now, you have to decide something. What balance are you going to strike, even though you know whatever you choose some injustice will still remain?

Like I said, I'd begrudgingly accept the ratio that comes with the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Like I said, I'd begrudgingly accept the ratio that comes with the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

OK, so now all I was really asking in the first place is, do you still accept that ratio when it comes to rape? Do you begrudgingly accept that it is better for 10 guilty rapists to go free than for 1 innocent defendant to be falsely convicted of rape?

(I'd actually be interested to hear an answer for this from other people, not just Mr. Turok. Do people who think societal views on rape need to change also think the law should view rape differently from other crimes?)

 

[fabricated backlash]

GAF's like a school playground in relation to sex.

"GAF's guide to sex" thread would be full of so many mistruths, fallacies and general ignorance about sex you'd think this place was filled with manga and computer game obsessed teenagers with arrested development.

So it would basically be like every day life? Don't think for even a second that GAF is somehow a singular isle of issues that the rest of the population doesn't share.

SEX or rather intimacy is still the biggest taboo to talk about.

Also, should I ever be single again (hope not) I'll pull a Sheldon, having a 25 page legally binding coitus-contract with me at parties, and bring 2 wittnesses and a lawyer with me, audio recording the agreement, sealing the contract. Nothing like strict and legal sound proceedings to get the mood going on friday night.

 

[Chuckie]

Ban alcoholic beverages. Not only it helps rape occur and "go undetected" because there are people who aren't drunk-"drunk" (you know she's not under the legal limit, or has been tested?) raping those who are drunk, it cause more than 60% of traffic accidents.

Yeah, it worked in the 20's/30's right?

 

[fabricated backlash]

Yeah, it worked in the 20's/30's right?

It sure did. We got some kick ass crime stories and characters that still influence popular fiction to date. Think of the poor story writers in 20 years. What will they have to go to for source material? Religious bigots and slimy managers? Yeah, not that enticing.

 

[cutmeamango]

Yeah, it worked in the 20's/30's right?

I wouldn't know, you have some crime index report from the 20's and 30's, and the legislature, and anedoctes or documents about its enforcement to tell me?

 

[Ikael]

I don't think that the American society (or most Western societies for that matter) are mysoginistic, as in, they hate women per se. But I do believe that lack of sexual education and downright ignorance, rather than malice, are the source of these idiotic and harmful stances towards rape, such as the whole "legitimate rape" debacle.

The vibe that I got from them is "do these people knows what a vagina is and how do they work?". Not that this is a small problem, mind you. Like Ortega once famously said, the idiot is more harmful than the evildoer, for he never takes a break from his stupidity. But I think that this is more of an information problem rather than a reprobation one, since fortunately these type of people tends to be called out and dogpiled by the media (and rightfully so).

In short, I don't think that Western societies condone or accept rape, thank God, but rather that there are people out there that are utterly (and willingly) ignorant of everything sex - related when it comes to women. Make sexual education mandatory, stick your religious and moral beliefs up your holy ass when sending your kids to the school and you will see far less of these outrageous claims.

 

[fabricated backlash]

I don't think that the American society (or most Western societies for that matter) are mysoginistic, as in, they hate women per se. But I do believe that lack of sexual education and downright ignorance, rather than malice, are the source of these idiotic and harmful stances towards rape, such as the whole "legitimate rape" debacle.

The vibe that I got from them is "do these people knows what a vagina is and how do they work?". Not that this is a small problem, mind you. Like Ortega once famously said, the idiot is more harmful than the evildoer, for he never takes a break from his stupidity. But I think that this is more of an information problem rather than a reprobation one, since fortunately these type of people tends to be called out and dogpiled by the media (and rightfully so).

In short, I don't think that Western societies condone or accept rape, thank God, but rather that there are people out there that are utterly (and willingly) ignorant of everything sex - related when it comes to women. Make sexual education mandatory, stick your religious and moral beliefs up your holy ass when sending your kids to the school and you will see far less of these outrageous claims.

With one of the US's biggest political parties on a fast track to religious fundamentalism, I can't see much changing for the better.

 

[Chuckie]

I wouldn't know, you have some crime index report from the 20's and 30's, and the legislature, and anedoctes or documents about its enforcement to tell me?

I have a nice quote from Rockefeller, a supporter of the Prohibition:

At
When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

And this from wiki:

Effective enforcement of the alcohol ban during the Prohibition Era proved to be very difficult and led to widespread flouting of the law. The lack of a solid popular consensus for the ban resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia, and various other criminal cliques. Widespread disregard of the law also generated rampant corruption among politicians and within police forces.

I thought it was common knowledge the Prohibition was a failure, but I guess I am wrong.

 

[cutmeamango]

I have a nice quote from Rockefeller, a supporter of the Prohibition:

And this from wiki:

I thought it was common knowledge the Prohibition was a failure, but I guess I am wrong.

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.


It certainly was a failure. That added to own govern corruption, poor enforcement and plain inedequacy in time frame. And that it became a criminal activity...

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Hmm, does anyone have a link to that one study that showed that college students (fratboys) think that sex without her consent is okay, and rape slightly less okay - when they are both the same thing and the only things that is different are the connotations of these terms.

I think that a lot of people are more okay with rape becaues they do not consider it to be "rape" - which has unfortunately been characterized as something that only ugly rapists do by dragging a poor white woman into an alleyway/bush and using a weapon to force her to have sex with him.

So yeah, I don't think it's unfair to call said nation "rape illiterate".

 

[Mr.Awesome]

I remember reading on this site that there are evolutionary reasons for the social stigmas regarding men and women. I have no idea if its bullshit pseudo-science so I wonder if there was more info about it. It was basically men sleep around to spread their offspring in the most places. They try for less promiscuous partners so that they know it is their seed being spread, and not someone else's. Women on the other need to be most attractive for these men, needing to find the best partner.

 

[CLEEK]

Maybe you'll find this interesting for what is actually being advocated?

That was a good article, and I agree with a lot of it. But some of the logic and claims within it don't hold up.

RE: false rape claims

The fear of a false accusation of rape is well documented. What is also well documented is the fact that false accusations of rape are no more prevalent than false accusations of other types of major crime. Indeed, when such false accusations do occur, they tend to be made by young women, and are dealt with rapidly and efficiently by the police. Prosecutors act as an effective screening mechanism here as well—given the difficulty of convicting a rapist, they tend only to prosecute the clearest cut cases, where the chances of conviction are greatest.

Male concern around false rape claims doesn't really stem from the likelihood of conviction, but that the simple act of being accused can be enough to ruin reputations and lives. It hardly matters of the prosecutors eventually withdraw the charge before the falsely accuse perpetrator ends up in court - the damage has already been done.

RE: Cases of women not viewing a sexual encounter as rape:

That a woman does not realize she has been raped does not, of course, mean that the rape has not occurred.

They're not talking about a woman being unconscious during sex, but someone who, by the legal definition of rape under certain jurisdictions, could qualify as been raped. If there is no victim, how can there be a perpetrator? It seems to be saying that the most important thing it to increase rape reporting, so woman should always be on the look out for times that can play the victim, even when it goes against their own views on the matter.

More importantly, this under-recognition of rape by the victims themselves may be a result of societal factors. When women see the way other women who have been date raped are treated, they may not wish to place themselves in the same category, even on a subconscious level.

I've not seen any empirical studies that show this to be the case. How many women honestly know other women who have been through the judicial system as a rape victim?

RE: Why Yes Mean Yes is more effective than No Means No

the findings of surveys such as that done in 1988 at Texas A&M University. This survey found that 39.3 percent of the female undergraduates surveyed sometimes said no, although they “had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse.”

I see nothing that reconciles the finding of this study with the ideas behind affirmative consent. How can you confirm affirmative consent when almost half the time you'll be told no (meaning yes).

 

[Kazerei]

I remember reading on this site that there are evolutionary reasons for the social stigmas regarding men and women. I have no idea if its bullshit pseudo-science so I wonder if there was more info about it. It was basically men sleep around to spread their offspring in the most places. They try for less promiscuous partners so that they know it is their seed being spread, and not someone else's. Women on the other need to be most attractive for these men, needing to find the best partner.

Humans have been monogamous for centuries though, so I'm skeptical of evolutionary reasoning for social stigmas. A far better explanation is that men just want to subjugate women.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Regarding the damaging effects of simply being falsely accused of rape:

Personally, I think one should follow countries where the names of the charged is kept anonymous until they've been found guilty.
If they are found innocent, then their name should remain a secret.

Would that be an acceptable solution to the negative social effects of being falsely accused for rape?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Humans have been monogamous for centuries though, so I'm skeptical of evolutionary reasoning for social stigmas. A far better explanation is that men just want to subjugate women.

It might be this. For me it comes down to:

- For a long term relationship, someone with a limited sexual history is more valued, as it shows long term commitment and stability traits. In my experience, this lines up with what women want as well, or at least the women I know.

- For a single hook up only, give me a crazed freak. I imagine this is reciprocal to a woman's desire.

- But for some minority of men, they seem to want virgin status for a single hook up. This is probably the subjugation tendency.

 

[Zaptruder]

Regarding the damaging effects of simply being falsely accused of rape:

Personally, I think one should follow countries where the names of the charged is kept anonymous until they've been found guilty.
If they are found innocent, then their name should remain a secret.

Would that be an acceptable solution to the negative social effects of being falsely accused for rape?

Yes. Would work well to counteract against people rallying around the rapist as well.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Yes. Would work well to counteract against people rallying around the rapist as well.

The most obvious downside to that is that by revealing the name and picture of arrested suspects, you might make it easier for other victims to come forth and tell their story.
Then again, you might be able to circumvent that by giving out a vague description and just generally asking for other victims within X-Y time period to contact the police.

 

[bjb]

Slightly off-topic but I cannot stand Melissa Harris-Perry. I know it's MSNBC, but she's quite possibly worse than Ed Schutlz in the liberal-mouthpiece department. I saw her last show where she read an "open-letter" to Obama about his debate performance. It was utterly cringe worthy.

Also her lisp is really distracting.

 

[pigeon]

I remember reading on this site that there are evolutionary reasons for the social stigmas regarding men and women. I have no idea if its bullshit pseudo-science so I wonder if there was more info about it. It was basically men sleep around to spread their offspring in the most places. They try for less promiscuous partners so that they know it is their seed being spread, and not someone else's. Women on the other need to be most attractive for these men, needing to find the best partner.

It's bullshit.

Here's the way you can tell: men are the ones who can't tell whose kid is whose. It's evolutionarily advantageous for them to support monogamy at all costs. Women, on the other hand, are guaranteed to pass on their genes -- the evolutionary pressure is for them to want to sleep with as many different men as possible, so that their kid has the best set of genes going forward.

Same bullshit justifications, exactly opposite conclusion.

 

[Eidan]

I think it's disturbing that in all rape threads the discussion centers around how to better protect men.

 

[User 100115]

I think it's disturbing that in all rape threads the discussion centers around how to better protect men.

I find that pretty odd too. Considering how many posts in this thread are about false accusations or freaking out about the whole 'then all sex is rape!' straw man, it really drives home the point that people can be rape illiterate.

 

[Orayn]

I find that pretty odd too. Considering how many posts in this thread are about false accusations or freaking out about the whole 'then all sex is rape!' straw man, it really drives home the point that people can be rape illiterate.

Yeah, what really bothers me about what happens in this sort of thread are the continued efforts to change the subject and refusal to acknowledge any kind of problem. It's not always done with explicit misogynist intent, but it's myopic and callous to say the least.

 

[FyreWulff]

Please elaborate.

You're ignoring the whole intimidation, fear of the unknown and just-waiting-for-it-to-be-over aspect that can occur. Not hearing "no" doesn't mean you get to have sex on a technicality.

Also, I find it disconcernting that others are essentially mocking the concept of consent.

 

[User 100115]

Yeah, what really bothers me about what happens in this sort of thread are the continued efforts to change the subject and refusal to acknowledge any kind of problem. It's not always done with explicit misogynist intent, but it's myopic and callous to say the least.

I also don't understand the defensiveness we also see when having conversations of this nature. If you aren't a rapist, there isn't a reason to be defensive about the subject. It's not hard to just...not rape people.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I think it's disturbing that in all rape threads the discussion centers around how to better protect men.

This, so fucking much. It happens so quickly, too.

 

[scar tissue]

It's bullshit.

Here's the way you can tell: men are the ones who can't tell whose kid is whose. It's evolutionarily advantageous for them to support monogamy at all costs. Women, on the other hand, are guaranteed to pass on their genes -- the evolutionary pressure is for them to want to sleep with as many different men as possible, so that their kid has the best set of genes going forward.

Same bullshit justifications, exactly opposite conclusion.

Wrong. Everything humans do has some kind of evolutionary origin.

Women need(ed) a man to protect/support them when they have a child. It is (was) essential for them to have a partner. If they have sex outside of a relationship, the male needs to have excellent genes, so the risk of being an only mother is worth it. Not my words, but the words of an evolutionary biologist. There is a difference between the guys women have one-night stands with, and the guys women have LTRs with.
Ideally (evolutionarily speaking), a woman has a man with excellent genes who supports her and his kids, OR kids from a man with excellent genes and a supportive man with bad genes who supports her and the kids. The maximum amount of kids she can have is limited, fucking around indiscriminately makes no sense for her.

Men fuck around because their minimum investment is very little. However, the survival rate of their offspring is higher when they choose to support them, thus they also do long-term relationships. Ideally (from an evolutionary point of view), a man has a wife with kids whom he supports, and also sleeps around to leave as many kids as possible. A man can have almost infinite kids at very low cost, so it makes sense for him to fuck anything that moves, while still supporting a select few kids.
Maximum evolutionary fitness.

10% of all kids are illegitimate kids, due to women's tendency to look for genes and support separately, and due to men's tendency to fuck around.
Also, women are more distressed by their boyfriend falling in love with another woman (because that would mean he could leave her without support), and men are more distressed by their girlfriend fucking another guy (because that means "his" child could actually be someone elses'). In contrast, women don't care as much about their bf fucking someone else (as long as it's "just sex", he won't leave them without the much-needed support), and men don't care as much about their gf falling in love with another guy (because her leaving him means that, while a bad situation, at least he won't pour his time/resources into a kid that's not his).
This is actual science and was tested in experiments.

 

[pompidu]

I also don't understand the defensiveness we also see when having conversations of this nature. If you aren't a rapist, there isn't a reason to be defensive about the subject. It's not hard to just...not rape people.

It's one of the few crimes where you can be convicted without evidence. I think that's why people tend to focus on that part.

 

[pigeon]

It's one of the few crimes where you can be convicted without evidence. I think that's why people tend to focus on that part.

How can you be convicted without evidence?

 

[TheFightingFish]

Honestly I'm not an expert in the slightest, but I've always kinda thought that one of the best way to cut down on this is hardcore targeting / enforcement against the type of situations where this behavior happens. Particularly against college campus parties with drugs / alcohol. The rate of rape and sexual assault in these situations in particular is just through the roof, and honestly I don't see education as being quite enough to help once people start getting smashed. It has to be stopped before it gets started and before something terrible happens. Does your fraternity keep having parties where women are passing out in vulnerable situations? Or being pressured to drink heavily? Well don't wait for a rape to happen, they are already putting women in dangerous positions, make 'em a dry fraternity with campus security oversight into their events.

I have a daughter, and while she is a long ways away from college it scares the crap out of me thinking of sending her to some of these schools that seem to take a "ohh, college kids will be college kids, you can't really control them" attitude about this stuff.

Reminds me of this article about UW tight end Jerramy Stevens:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html

 

[ronito]

I also don't understand the defensiveness we also see when having conversations of this nature. If you aren't a rapist, there isn't a reason to be defensive about the subject. It's not hard to just...not rape people.

One of my good friends had his now ex-wife claim he raped her.

He wasn't convicted, but it destroyed his entire life (lost his job because he couldn't post bail, 200k+ in lawyers fees, etc), not to mention his kids' lives.

Not hard to see why some people are wary.

Life's not split into rapers/non-rapers at least not legally.

Don't see why everyone looks at this with bemused surprise.

 

[pompidu]

How can you be convicted without evidence?

A single testimony from the victim is enough to put someone in jail. It does happen.

Edit: I'm not defending that position, im just stating that it does happen and people use that to defend men.