Verily, it IS a demon-haunted world we inhabit.

The very concept of rape relies upon a clear definition of "coercion" and "consent".

Muddying the waters by trying to introduce the concept that sex is not consensual EVEN IF CONSENT IS GIVEN as long as there was "pressure"... that is truly dangerous.

She said she didn't want to have sex with him, and "somehow he ended up inside her"

Unless there's something missing from this story, to me, that sounds fairly unambiguous- I would call it rape.

But given the rest of the piece, I have to think there was some conversation that's being left out; like "come on it'll be fun" "oh, okay". Which may not be a classy thing to do, but it puts a different spin on it.

Otherwise the whole post doesnt make a lot of sense- its a rape situation, no question.

And most likely it was the part where she said "okay, fine" or similar.

Now, the guy may be putting his needs or desires before hers, but it doesn't make him a rapist.

Again, it's quite simple. Consent is consent. Consensual sex is sex in which both parties have given consent. Rape is non-consensual sex.

Do I have that right? Is there some missing element such as "if the guy pleads, pushes or tells the girl "but I love you!", then it is "coercion"? Cause if that's the case, every nearly single boy is guilty the first time they had sex because women have been generally socialized to believe that protection of their virginity is a prime virtue.

ON EDIT: "somehow he ended up inside me" sounds like a pretty massive abdication of personal responsibility as well as a very unlikely description of events leading up to it.

Assuming everyone is coherent and capable of decision making.

Surely no one would argue that if a woman says "i'm gonna $&$$$$ your brains out later" at 7 pm and at 8 decides the guy is a jerk, she has lost the right to change her mind. So is a woman unable to change her mind in the other direction?

Again, there seems to be part of the story missing. If its just as its presented, of course, it is rape.

"Long story short: My friend was uninterested in having penetrative sex and told Hal so. (At what point? In general?) He agreed, and he somehow still ended up inside her before (Somehow? That's the real issue isn't it? Heeither forced her or he didn't. Do women have agency over their own decisions even if guys "push"?) she shoved him off and left. (Again, was this a literal "shove off" or a figurative one? You just don't somehow wind up inside someone with the consent thing being unclear. No consent = rape. Consent = not rape.)

“I don’t know why when you say ‘No,’ guys hear ‘Try harder,’” my friend sighed.

“Yeah,” I said. “Me neither.”

We said our goodbyes and hung up. I stared at the wall.

I was angry, I realized -- angry that this fucking scumbag of a man had ignored my friend’s explicit wishes and had pushed her and pushed her until he’d gotten what he wanted (It sounds to me like he kept saying the equivalent of "come on, come on. I really want to or I really love you or I'm really horny". Not classy, as you said, but not coercive really either.) . I bet he was sleeping fine. He’d gotten her consent, after all. " ( Ummm, does that not settle the issue? )

Interestingly those who claim to have the greatest interest in prevention are the first to demonize all opinions on the subject (professional or not) save their own. Very telling that.

Otherwise, that's pretty preposterous. I'd ask who dreams this crap up, but I bet I know where to find it (if it hasn't been a self-deleted already).

Grand gender-based spurious sociological inference from it, instead of just saying "that is some shitty parenting, right there"

That's kind of the point of them.

I guess the idea was that if these exact same shitty parents had had a girl who did the same thing, they would have corrected her, and not come up with some equally lame-brained excuse for their kid.

Right.

But the fact is, naughty preschoolers come in all shapes and genders, and so do shitty "not my kid" excuse-making parents. The author of the piece was trying to make some spurious connection where it didn't exist.

great fun, indeed, when you're 3 and shit if I don't still enjoy doing it from time to time.

(Better than what Grandpa did, before they buried him in the rocks. But I digress.)

The dubious anecdote was that the parents were in the preschool watching their kids build stuff (because, really, we don't get enough of it at home, right) and sweet sugar and spice (because you know, that's what...) was building an elaborate structure and snakes and tails and puppy dog tails (again) kept knocking it down.

In other words, being a preschool version of a giant ass. And so of course the parents (assuming this happened, in the way it's described) of the girl are right to ask the parents of the boy to get him to knock it off, leave her stuff alone.

But dubious anecdote comes in with all sorts of assumptions and assertions, like oh, ONLY boys knock down other peoples' stuff, or ONLY boys have parents who excuse it or laugh it off, or... whatever. And that leads to ......rape.

Which is just like 7 dimensions of totally fucking goofy. The parents were shitty parents because (if the story is true) they were laughing as their kid messed with another kid's stuff, and upset her. But to call it some red flag of spooky patriarchal programming; again, goofy.

To say it's all a miniature metaphor for rape?

Er,


And believe me, there are bratty-behaved preschool girls with oblivious parents, just like there are boys.

Here's the thread in question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022901778#post42

(and the link)

Even when those who breach it are prominent feminists. I posted this sometime back and evidently that makes me a rape apologist because those who engage in such mindless defamation are too lazy to look up the qualifications of either one of the authors.





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3379584

At Mon May 27, 2013, 03:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The usual suspects make a big deal about it if the subject is breached
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=8752

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Once again this Warren Farrell fan is posting his favorites flimsy, flawed study. It proves that women really do say no but mean yes, therefore "the no means no meme is bullshit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=905760
3rd paragraph

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=2100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=7415

I'm sick of this guy repeatedly pushing this date rape apologia.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 27, 2013, 03:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Once again the alerter is alerting on information he or she doesn't LIKE I'm sick of this alerter censoring someone because they don't like the material referenced. Alerter, you might want to check out the link to the author of the study--it's not some sexist guy's study, it comes from a female professor in a university Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies department. This is a really frivolous alert; the alerter's goal is to shut this poster up and not discuss the topic. . If you don't like the citations, alerter, argue with the poster about them--but blatant censorship of an academic study? That makes DU suck, big time.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with everything the person who alerted says but see no violation on board standards. Debate the ignoramus on this.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: What does this have to do with Warren Farrell? Oh, right, nothing. Apparently screaming that name is like yelling "Hitler" and ends all discussion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A .gov website would seem to be an acceptable source to cite.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Another frivolous exercise.

So if 1 out of 20 of their alerts succeeds, for them it is not frivolous. It's just 19 missed opportunities to make DU suck a little more. Ironically some of the same posters are the first to complain about people trying to shut them up.

The behavior is well described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I'm sure there will be an alert on this one too, but it's worth mentioning where the defamation comes in. The usual suspects have evidently decreed that Warren Farrell is the anti-Christ, and by proxy I am a "Warren Farrell fan". The strange part is that none of their allegations against Warren Farrell have even made it to his wiki page. If asked, they will produce a plethora of evidence against him, pretty much exclusively provided as content on rad-fem websites, but strangely they have been doing this for years and nobody but them seems to be listening. So either "teh patriarchy" is to blame (as it is for everything), or they can't come to grips with the fact that their "evidence" holds water like a sieve. Even though I have never posted a Warren Farrell article or suggested anyone read any of his books(not that there would be anything wrong with it), I have been labeled a "Warren Farrell fan" because I dared to poke holes in their case.

...say THAT 10 times fast.

Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study

His head is like a drum and his cheeks are sort of ruddy
He drove into a ditch and now his truck nutz are all muddy
Hes a warren farrell fan with a flimsy flawed study

I did some great work about a man from Nantucket.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/no-means-no-sure-whatever/

Looks like Paul Elam is also quite fond of citing that nearly 40-year-old-study.

Which is kinda sorta how the mindless defamation started in the first place.

It's also very telling how those who believe in such fallacious nonsense, don't extend such association to the authors of the study, where it would make the most sense if there were anything to it.

BTW, who the hell is Paul Elam? He doesn't even have a wiki entry. Sounds like someone who is much more well known in rad-fem circles than anywhere else.

Cheers!

Cat's out of the bag, folks! Ya got me!

No, seriously- apparently someone was laboring under that impression. Really, no shit.

I mean, leaving aside the extreme cleverness of my ploy to disguise my MRAness by consistently saying I'm not any sort of MRA....... um, this dude?



No. If I was going to grow a beard, I'd grow the whole fucking thing, thanks. Not this Goatee bullshit.

Plus, I can honestly say I don't own a single yellow shirt, much less one covered with... are those Marlins?

Just like everyone else.

Then again, it's not like you include links to web sites that actually do contain bona fide hate filled rhetoric in your sig line.

No, no.

I did some blogging during the Bush Administration, on the topic of... you guessed it, The Bush Administration.

It ate up an awful lot of time. Even assuming it was something that remotely interested me (no, really, it's not), Would that I had the scheduling wherewithal these days to maintain a soooper-secret alter identity as some kind of MRA Grand Poop-bah.

Maybe that's why the games involving socks and multiple accounts and "lets-sneak-back-onto-DU teehee teehee quack" off site obsessiveness confuse me; I just don't have fucking time. Hell, I rarely even post OPs, as I'm sure some have noticed. 10 minutes or so of mildly amusing (at least to myself) yet hopefully good natured snark, that's about all I can spare these days.

No, no, sorry, I just love that line.

I have nothing against them per se. But on me it wouldn't work. Not sure why.

Edited to add: Plus, different rules apply to longhairs anyway.

A bunch of them actually did caddy for a hoity toity country club. The reality was at least as nuts as that movie. Personally I was simply unable to bring myself to spend all summer getting up at 7 am, so I landed a job at a nearby mini mart. The money was worse, but the hours were better.

Chriiiiiiiiist, did we party.

Even though, interestingly enough, none of us were convenience store clerks.. (though I did do a stint as a petroleum transfer engineer lol)

Both of them.

Actually, if I was still the type to partake of the green and over analyze stuff, I'd talk about the great literary device of Randal, Jay, Silent Bob, Kaitlyn and Veronica all being representatives of Dante's different personae. Id, ego, anima, animus, etc.. but really, it's just a funny and existentially truthful flick.

life.

There was kind of a golden age of indie film there in the 90s. All the way up to "American Beauty", and then something changed, around the time Bush came in.

Any more recent studies you'd like to cite proving that "the no means no meme is bullshit", Major Nikon?

As for your association with Warren Farrell, you were the one who quoted him on "date fraud and date lying" (apologia for date rape) and who keeps using the same study he used.

Imagine that. I'm also not entirely sure how 2013 minus 1988 equals a "nearly 40-year-old-study".

So do you really think that a more relevant study that asks the same question has come out since, or are you just demonstrating your ignorance of what a study does and does not do? Competent studies do not expire regardless of what you think. Studies dating back 100 years are more are still being referenced quite competently by people who actually do know squat about studies. Your choices here are you can either provide a more relevant study that asks the same or very similar questions or you can argue with yourself. This isn't my first rodeo with you on this subject and I'm not going to have you demand an endless source of cites from me while you provide squat of your own. You've already demonstrated a considerable amount of ignorance regarding what makes a study valid or not and I'm just not going to play whack-a-mole with you ad nauseum until I just stop replying and you self-declare victory after having the last word. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I quoted Farrell to demonstrate the fallacy of quoting someone out of context. As I said, the only thing I did was poke holes in those who made a piss-poor case against Farrell. I'm sure you think I'm afraid of you for continuing to repost your half-fast meritless accusations, but I can assure you I'm not. If I were, I'd simply use the famous trick of deleting the post and pretend it never happened. I'm sure you've heard of it. Instead I'd rather just offer relevant information that definitively proves you're simply an irrelevant gasbag for bringing it up repeatedly.

I also find it quite telling how you would try and associate me with a person I've never heard of and a web site I've never visited, after spending years cheerleading for a no-shit misandrist and even sig line linking to her site which also included this shit. After the last time I called you on it, I noticed you removed the link from your sig line for whatever reason. I guess you thought I had forgotten. I'll also remind you that Iverglas, who was a no-shit hater of the first degree who got banned for transphobia and other assorted hate filled rhetoric, was defended by you and others on this site. The next time you're trying to make a case for a hater based on guilt-by-association horse feathers, please don't forget that, because I won't and I will call you on it every time you choose to try and defame me based on nonsense. Glass houses and shit...

Cheers!

that's on you.

And yeah, you tried to say that Warren Farrell was quoted out of context. He wasn't.

The fact that you don't get that... well... yeah.



LOL, I deleted the link to make room for the more important line - "what you allow is what will continue".

Why is that one study, done so long ago (almost 30 years now, not 40, mea culpa ), so important to you that you have quoted it ... how many times now? 5? 10? 15?

Just what is it that you think it represents, and justifies?

It means sometimes women say no when they really mean yes. Any other connotations are yours and yours alone. I'm sure you'd like me to say something that you can use your alert button on, but I'm just going to keep linking the study back to you. If you lack the resources to understand it, that's hardly my problem.

Just sayin'

defenses of what Warren Farrell "really meant" when he said that "before we called it date rape or date fraud we called it exciting"?

It's important to take the two together.

You claim Farrell was taken out of context when he said that date rape used to be called "exciting"... and pair it alongside a 25 year old study of 610 college-age women (nice sample size )...

What is the point of pairing that flimsy, old study with a book in which he claims that we used to call date rape "exciting"?

What is the connection that is so vital that it motivates you to repeatedly post these things together?

The charge that Farrell is a rape apologist seems to come predominately from the echo chamber. Please don't think the burden of proof is on me to prove he isn't when you never proved he is in the first place. That's not how it works. Just because you think he is, does not mean it's so. I'd hate to think of a world where you get to be the determining factor on such things. The fact that rad-fems after years of trying have done a piss-poor job of convincing anyone that doesn't have a vested interest in impeaching Farrell should tell you something.

As far as my posting goes, I don't take my marching orders from you. I'll post this everyday if I like. If you don't like it, tough shit. You've already seen where the alert went. I post it because the echo chamber accuses me of being a rape apologist for posting it. If you don't like to see it, stop trying to defame me and/or Farrell would be a good place to start. You've already reposted it yourself more than I have, so it's hard to imagine you find it all that disturbing.

Furthermore, how about answering for your own hateful associations which unlike mine aren't trumped up, or do the demands only work one way in your universe?

Cheers!

The fundamental point of patriarchy is "I make your decisions because I know what's best for you".

Yes doesn't mean no, and no one else's appraisal of her choice matters.

preferring instead to address a thread in another forum?

Interesting.

Not necessarily from the transmitter. That's what the Muehienhard and Hollabaugh study demonstrated. And despite your best efforts to impeach it, you have not. I'll go with a study conducted by two feminist PhD's over an anonymous internet poster everyday and twice on Sunday.

Just sayin'

Farrell clearly refuted exactly what you and others claimed he said. I even highlighted the relevant text for those too lazy to read the entire passage.

Do that and you will have your answer, or you can continue to feign illiteracy.

And your highlighted text doesn't refute anything.

It only cements it.

It's disturbing that you can't see that.

The opinion of other rad-fems who obviously have a vested interest in impeaching Farrell?

Here is the quoted text, emphasized for the lazy...

Now you can certainly continue to claim that this sentence isn't relevant, or you can pretend you didn't see it, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that anyone outside of rad-fem circles has bought any of your allegations. So you can get disturbed all you want, but it doesn't change reality. None of the allegations have so much as made the cut on wiki, and I find it quite hard to believe it's for lack of trying. You also seem to be disturbed quite often, so one has to believe that charge tends to lose its luster from overuse.

Believe it or not the question of consent is one that can and should be discussed at length because there is quite a bit lacking in the areas of legality and sexual education. I think you would agree with this. However, if you think that only the opinions of you and those who identify as rad-fems are the only ones that are valid, good luck getting anyone to see beyond your egotism.

Just sayin'

Men who assume that, like your little 25-year-old study says, the "no means no is bullshit", and proceed to rape a woman, might "just be trying to become her fantasy".

Yeah, I agree the issue of consent clearly needs to be discussed, at length, repeatedly.

I suggest, once again, you consider dropping in on a critical thinking course or three, since your almost eternal abuse of logical fallcies strongly suggest you haven`t ever even been within a city mile of an institution which regularly offers them.

Those are Major Nikon's words. HE said it.

Jesus fucking christ!

He said the "no means no meme was bullshit. To those of us who understand English, he is obviously referring to the enormous, deliberate, strawman built off of the study by sub-intellectual, knuckle-dragging misandrists like your girl, Twisty, which is then parroted far and wide across the internet (hello... meme definition... ) by people too ignorant to understand that some jack knob in Greater Chelmsford having internet access, time on her hands, and a domain name isn`t just magically a fountain of academic "troof".

She finally admitted that no, in fact, does sometimes mean yes. The reality is that no means yes in a lot more situations and for a lot more reasons. So like all slogans that attempt to condense a complicated subject onto what fits on a bumper sticker, it doesn't take people long to realize it's bullshit which renders the slogan useless.

What it really should say is that no is not a reason to proceed even if the meaning is yes, but that's a bit too long and complicated for those with a bumper sticker mentality.

Just sayin'

Last edited Tue May 28, 2013, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

If you are just going to continue to be disingenuous, I don't really see the point here. I'm not going to play those games. You can either lose that or argue with yourself. Your choice.

Which was quite obviously inspired by this one. Sorry, but you`re a little obvious, ReallyQuiet.

So... yeah, I can't say it... but yeah... !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125522579

I posted ANOTHER link elsewhere, BEFORE he started this thread.

Seriously, so done.

It was her link to that blog story that encouraged me to write this OP.

Redqueen, is there a problem with me being "inspired" by your OPs?

You bring up an issue, I want to respond but I am blocked from your group and I think it is an important topic.

No problem, is there?

Your OP, on the other hand...

Goodnight.

She was trying to accuse LumberjackJeff of derailing this thread with this post. Which is in response to the other post I linked to from HoF... around and around it goes..

I believe that was the commentary accompanying the study.

I'm pro choice. That means I support the right of people to choose to say no. I support the right of people to choose to say yes.

Just as I believe every child should be wanted, I believe every sex act should be a mutually agreed upon and enthusiastically enjoyed act performed by consenting adults. I understand why ANY messaging that indicates anything other than "no means no" would make people upset, even if it's an implication taken away from an NIH study. The fact is, people need to ASSUME no means no, that's the only way to proceed as a decent human being in the world. And no one should want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them, I agree completely.

Some people have argued, in this group, for understanding of an "extremely nuanced view of consent". I am not one of them.

Not too long ago, in one of these discussions, I threw out a fairly simple statement on consent, suggesting it was something we all ought to be able to agree on:

Perhaps suprising, perhaps not surprising, it was not judged acceptable.

In other words - it pushes people to be more cautious about whether their partner is actually, freely saying yes, or if they are being pressured into saying yes. Not less cautious. Not only interested in securing the magic word, so that they can proceed, guilt free.

Some people clearly have no issue at all with pressuring and coercing someone into going along with something they clearly don't want to do, and comfort themselves with ideas about how it was their partner's responsibility to resist the pressure and coercion, and since they didn't, well that's just too damn bad. That's indefensible IMO, but what can you do.

I would think that we could all agree that that's wrong. Very wrong. Unmistakably wrong.

Further, I would think that people would only want to have sex with partners who also want to have sex with them, but obviously I'm way, way, WAY off there. Sadly.

Do women ever feel pressure to say no even when they want to say yes?

Please try to answer honestly.

and another sexy guy is hitting on them... there is pressure to say no, even though their marriage is for all intents and purposes over, because they are still married.

So yeah, it happens.

I know that's not what you want to hear. You want to hear the story about the religious young woman who wants to say yes but jesus.

Well I got news for you, there's a reason teen pregnancy is the highest in the most religious states. And it ain't cause they're all saying "no" and being "excitingly" date raped.

Because you are wrong.

The thing is, if you want to redefine consent so that it is not binary, this is because you know that the mind is often in conflict -which is true. It is quite complicated negotiating a relationship. Guilt over another relationship, wanting to appear one way and not another, physical desire, wanting to please, religious concerns, baby sleeping next door, et. etc. etc.

It is complicated. We all agree. A person can be reluctant in one way but eager in another. You simply CANNOY lay the blame on a person that tries to persuade another to listen to one side of their brain over the other.

I may want to say no when my wife offers to buy me a new pair of expensive shoes because the money can be spent elsewhere. So I am non-commital. Part of me wants them, the other doesn't. If she says "Come on, you deserve them!".. Is she taking away my right to decide?

"Yes means maybe and maybe means no?" Sorry, that is bullshit. Condescending, disempowering bullshit. Yes means yes. No means no.

Responsibility.

Meanwhile, the study I referenced listed 26 different reasons given by some 240 different women, so it seems like there are quite a few other reasons.

it pushes people to be more cautious about whether their partner is actually, freely saying yes, or if they are being pressured into saying yes.

But does it? Was that what Twisty was saying? Was that what she was saying when she told women that any time they came first and didn't immediately stop, they weren't "doing Nigel a solid" they were "letting him use her as a t****t"?

Those were Twisty's words, in that same piece.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/



Now, you can reinterpret that as "gents, make damn sure that the woman you're having sex with really wants to", which, I would agree, is some stellar advice in all cases- but that's not what she's saying.



Except, is that really what you think is going on here? I don't. The original blog post was not well written and certainly seemed to be leaving information out. But I said upthread, if the story was ONLY as it was presented; "she had told him she didn't want to have sex, and somehow he ended up..." then no question, it's rape.

I agree, sex should be mutually and enthusiastically consented to. And as I said upthread, the ONLY way to ethically proceed in the world is to assume no always means no. I can see why the NIH study could be seen to be sending the wrong message; even though the study's authors themselves stated that they felt sexual shaming and cultural pressure might be the cause of the phenomenon and the negative fallout could include more people feeling that "no does not always mean no". That's what they said.

However, I don't think any of us are served by the personal attacks and attempts at character assassination, not to mention the dredging up of stuff from last year or beyond. We can go there, but we don't have to.

He quoted that same 25-year-old study today.

Because what 610 college women did 25 years ago is totally relevant today.


As for the OP, here:

Yep, that's one you only hear every time this issue is raised. Whaaaat? Pressuring women is wrong? Does that mean it'll be a crime?!!

How is not obvious as all hell that pressuring your partner is fucking wrong? HOW? How are yall even having this conversation?

NO ONE said SHIT about making it a crime, but that's the all too common response when rape comes up. 'oh, now we have to get a contract to have sex!' Nothing new there!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=38682

As if this was so incredibly confusing... or amazingly wrong, that people should be able to say no and be listened to.

You guys want to continue to dance around this and ignore the relevance of the issues I've raised wrt Farrell and those who claim he's only being 'taken out of context', then feel free.

I'm done.

We all accept that no means no. You are the one who is trying to change the definition of consent and consensual sex so that suddenly yes means maybe.

Still, Nikon- and he's a big boy, he can answer for himself- didn't quote Farrell here, he posted a study from the NIH that had in and of itself nothing to do with Farrell. Unless I'm mistaken. So the Farrell link, such as it was, is a year old.

Or am I incorrect?

When you made your guilt-by-association defamation that you couldn't even begin to support, then you flatly refused to answer for your own. As usual your standards clearly only work in one direction only.

Just sayin'

"I don't think you're really making a prudent choice in taking this job/buying this car/renting this house."

Let's be clear about what this is about. This is about reserving the right to legally and retroactively withdraw consent.

Mote, plank, eye, genius.

Then again, I'll take a 30 year old scientific study over the uncredentialled, nutbag blogs you seem to live by every day of the week.

Most everything short of that is a pickup line and the women involved should be considered capable to make their own decisions.

its pretty clear that made up woo woo theories aren't what the writer is pissed about.

i see it alllllll the time but then again i'm in the thick of this cultural abortion that gets labled a gender war. fyi, there is no war.

just gotta keep smacking down the woo. people are screaming for leadership out of this second wave hellhole.

Do not call persuading a woman into sex "Coercive sex".

It isn't.

Coercion HAS a meaning wrt to sex and sexual crimes.

You are perverting the meaning of it and, at the same time, diminishing the crime of true coercive sex while you insult women by acting like they cannot make up their own minds.

This is NOT a case of "no not meaning no". This is a case of you trying to make "Yes not equal yes".

So cut the crap.

I figured that out when there was a giant brou-ha-ha in meta over "they're defending Daniel Tosh's rape jokes in the mens group" and I looked over here and was like, "uh... where????"

If you say "It is never acceptable to eat puppies under any circumstance" it will get telephoned into "look at them discussing the acceptability of eating puppies in the mens group!" "Rational people, unlike those in the mens group, don't think there are ANY circumstances under which puppy-eating is acceptable".... and before long "the mens group is a den of puppy-eaters" becomes accepted common knowledge.

Same shit, diff. day.

A) god is love

B) love is blind

Therefore,

C) Stevie Wonder is god.

that no one -NO ONE- here says "no doesn't mean no" and that -NO ONE- defends date rape in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile, "yes doesn't mean yes".

Jeezus, how do you even twist yourself up that much to SAY that?

How do you convince yourself that THAT isn't patronizing, patriarchal and throwing all the power into the men's courts.

How about taking back your ability to speak for yourself? That'd be nice, especially if re-taking power is a big issue for yourself.

Like i said, it was not deemed acceptable. Only reason I can imagine that there might be a problem with it, again, is attachment to extreme ideological positions.

And for the record, i DO support teaching boys not to pressure girls into sex.

I stay away for that reason alone, regardless of the ethics.

Those you get from the pound are hit and miss.

http://www.smith.edu/sao/sexualassaultresources/definition.php

What constitutes as consent?

You can't have sex with someone if they say "No." That is easy to understand. But the fact is that you cannot have sex with someone unless you have consent. So how do you know exactly what consent is? Generally defined, consent is an explicitly communicated, reversible, mutual agreement in which both parties are capable of making a decision. But sometimes it is more complicated than this.

Is it a simple "Yes"?
Does it have to be verbalized?
What if the person is drunk or high?
What if they don't say anything at all?
Can consent be implied?
This combination of cultural messages about sex and consent creates confusion over what exactly constitutes consent. To clarify:

Consent is a "Yes" in response to requests for sexual acts.
Silence is not consent.
"No" is not consent.
In Massachusetts, consent cannot be given by someone who is not of sound mind and body. Someone who is drunk, high, unconscious or mentally incompetent may not be able to give consent to a sexual act.
Submission is not necessarily consent. There is a fine line between persuasion and coercion. Having sex with someone who reasonably believes that there is a threat of force meets the legal definition of rape in Massachusetts.

The above warning that an implied threat of violence naturally invalidates the "yes" of consent. No one would argue with this. However, I do not think even Smith college would argue that pleading, begging or romancing would fall under the category of coercion.

NOW CONTRAST WITH THIS:

"Yes means maybe, and maybe means no"
http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-two-yes/

Radical feminists argue that the concept of a straightforward “yes” is unique to those groups who don’t experience pressure on their consent. A “yes” under pressure can’t be unequivocally understood as “yes” because it may mean “maybe” or indeed “no”. The act of a man taking a woman’s “yes” as a “yes” is an act which directly denies conditions of sex inequality between men and women under patriarchy.

Properly, the radical feminist understanding of consent can’t be summed-up as an “x means y” statement. When under duress, there’s no such thing as a simple “yes” or “no”; the very idea of a statement ‘meaning’ one of those things becomes questionable when an answer may have as much (or more) to do with the power factors at play than with what a person really wants to communicate.

First they say...

Then they say...



Which seemingly contradicts itself. First they suggest consent can't be given if someone is intoxicated, they they say they "may not be able" to give consent.

Here's a more informative site which actually lists the relevant statues and case law:


http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/rape.html

So this seems to cover the issue if both parties are drunk or high. Otherwise it would be problematic to determine who raped whom.

And as some have said elsewhere, when in doubt, ask.

Others may differ with me, but I really don't need any complicated, abstract theorizing on top of that.

And finally, just because something doesn't rise to the level of a criminal act, doesn't mean it's "okay" from an ethical standpoint. But I think we all know that already.

And you have to leave it at that on some level.

My main problem is the misuse of the word coercion.

To call persuading someone into having sex "Coercive Sex" is to undermine the real meaning of the word and create a category of demi-criminal behavior where none exists.

The truth is that women are socialized into believing that it is their sexuality is a thing which loses value if given too easily; that their honor and purity is hanging upon not having sex. In contrast, and as a direct result, men are pushed into the position of initiating, begging for, persuading, romancing and negotiating for sex. This is an ancient "game" (dance, behavior) that exists not just in humans but among all animals.

As a result of their socialization, women may want, on some level, to have sex but feel that they have to externalize some hesitation, regret, unsureness. This is understandable but it makes the issue of consent somewhat more complex. Humans cannot read minds nor can they judge whether the "want to" has tipped the balance weighed against the "not sure" or the "let's wait"...

Ultimately a woman's word is what MUST prevail. "Yes" or "No". That is how we define consent. Men are not mind-readers and women, in the quest for equal power must also accept equal responsible for exercising of that power or agency. A woman may say "yes" but have some conflicting feelings of guilt or whatever. This too is understandable, but it is NOT the problem of anyone ultimately but the woman.

Her "NO" MUST be respected. Also too, her "yes".

And so, no. "Yes" doesn't mean "maybe" and "maybe" doesn't mean "no". The words mean what they mean and "persuasion" or "negotiation" is not "coercion".

is ultimately pointless. But there's also more to consent than just a word - "yes" or "no" - there's also situational context, body language, etc. That said, I don't think it's very difficult to ascertain whether someone is a willing participant in things or not.

Try looking at the definition of the word 'coerce' and explain the inaccuracy of its usage in this context, regardless of the magical powers you think people have...