What is "Rape Culture"?

Perhaps I've simply been out in the sticks and almost entirely incommunicado (and I intend this quite literally) for far too long, but I honestly cannot even begin to understand the motivation here. I suggested "trolling," but I don't really think that a satisfactory answer: Bowser simply doesn't strike me as the type who would invest so much (or so little, depending upon your perspective) into "trolling," as I understand it. (Trolling is willful and intentional, right?)

As billvon noted:

and yet there are white people and cops who do, in fact, feel this. Of these, I think most are simply racists and murderous thugs, respectively; some are just really stupid and incapable; and the remaining few I can't begin to comprehend.

Same here.

When you rule out trolling and stupidity, what's left? Again, many are misogynists and rape advocates, but surely there exists an alternative explanation for this sort of behavior in other cases.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, the majority of the discrepancy in the methodology is how 'sexual assault' is defined.

The survey’s definition of sexual assault ranges from “sexual harassment, stalking, and intimate partner violence” to “nonconsensual penetration” and “nonconsensual touching.”
- http://college.usatoday.com/2015/09...t-statistic-validated-in-new-national-survey/​

sex·u·al ha·rass·ment
noun

1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

​

Some social situations are designed to promote sexual advances, like frat parties, and there is no sure way to predict that any advance may be unwanted. Hence, by definition, there can be no sexual advances of any kind, because there is no way to ensure a wanted advance. Remember, a sexual advance can be as little as touching someone in a platonic manner, and if we include stalking, could even be construed as unwanted looking.

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking​

'Unwanted or obsessive attention', IOW, 'unwanted attention' or 'obsessive attention'.

And that's aside from the sexism inherent in assuming a woman cannot give consent while drunk but a man can. If one is not held responsible for their actions, gender equally demands the other not be as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by that, functionally speaking?

 

con·sent
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

If consent cannot be given while drunk, then gender equality dictates that this include both permission and doing something. Even if actively engaging in a sex act, they cannot give consent for that act while drunk.

 

[quote"syne"] Some social situations are designed to promote sexual advances, like frat parties, and there is no sure way to predict that any advance may be unwanted. Hence, by definition, there can be no sexual advances of any kind, because there is no way to ensure a wanted advance. Remember, a sexual advance can be as little as touching someone in a platonic manner, and if we include stalking, could even be construed as unwanted looking. [/quote] If you change the reasoning and misconstrue what is said, you can claim all kinds of nonsense - such as an equivalence between stalking and unwanted looking, or between sexual advances and sexual assaults.

The motivation for doing that would be the issue raised, of course - not anything in the "content" of the misconstrual.

Likewise here:

Who but a rapist would assume that a drunk woman was incapable of consent? Or that action was the same as inaction?

It does get ugly, this rape culture - there's rot under the veneer.

 

the fuck did i just read? are you seriously offering up what amounts to a defense of rape if someone's drunk. the difference is if your drunk and raping someone your forcing them. nobodies forcing you to fucking rape someone when your blitzed. do you really not get such a simple concept?

 

Okay ... again, functionally, what are you ... discussing? ... on about? ... trying to say?

No, seriously, take a look at the responses you've gotten so far. Clearly people are reading a particular context into it. To the other, that can't possibly be what you mean. Yet, it remains unclear what the functional context or application of your point actually is.

I don't think you're insensate toward the implications of the reactions; to the other, since that's not what you mean, what, exactly, are you getting after?

 

Maybe you can tell me, since I assume neither. These people certainly assume the former:

According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/​

Who said anything about inaction? That's sick. I'm talking about both parties demonstrating consent:

Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/​

So apparently both parties can demonstrate consensual behavior, but being drunk, cannot legally give consent. Gender equality demands that either neither or both are then guilty.

Apparently you can't read. A drunk woman cannot give consent (according to the definitions used by such surveys), no matter how much she may demonstrate fully consensual behavior. Without a rape-kit providing evidence of forced sex, and thus evidence for non-consensual behavior, how is the reciprocated consensual behavior of a drunk man any different?

 

There Really Isn't Any Good Day for This

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"Most girls do not really understand how horny guys are, how much stronger guys are, how guys will rationalise what they do."

―Anonymous↱​

The setup is straightforward; in 2012, a social media discussion asked sexual assault perpetrators to tell their stories. Naturally, social scientists watched. Liz Burke↱ explains:

It’s the first time the viral social media site has been used as the basis for an academic study, and the results are as fascinating as they are disturbing.

Using a sample of 68 responses, academics found respondents justified their actions “by citing sexual scripts and blaming their victims”. They also “described being motivated by their hostility toward women, their uncontrollable hormones, and an unrestricted desire for casual sex”.​

It's not a matter of everything going downhill from there; the article plunges straight into the abyss.

Many perpetrators, like a man who admitted he insisted on raping a woman who had been raped by her father in the past and insisted she “finish me off” as she kept crying, suggested hormones controlled their behaviour.

“My hormones were going insane, I didn’t have any empathy in my heart at that moment, just my own concerns,” the respondent wrote.

“An erect d*** has no conscience,” another said.

The same respondent, who admitted to raping a woman while “extremely horny”, even after she “realised what was happening and tried to clamp her legs shut”, disturbingly describes how he plans to educate his own daughter about the dangers of men’s uncontrollable sexuality.

“When my daughter is old enough, I’m going to have a very frank conversation on male-female relations of the sort that I do not think most girls get,” he wrote.

“Most girls do not really understand how horny guys are, how much stronger guys are, how guys will rationalise what they do.”​

Oh, no, it's not done yet. It gets worse. And the thing is none of this is really unfamiliar; there is nothing in the article we haven't heard before in explanation, defense, or justification of rape.

But, you know, this is what the rapists tell us. It seems worth mentioning.

Meanwhile, I got nothin'. This sickening sensation just never does get old. I mean, you'd think I'd get used to it after a while, but no.

Still, though, what they're telling us isn't new.
____________________

Notes:

Burke, Liz. "Victim-blaming, hormones and objectification: Reddit-based study reveals why men rape". 22 January 2016. News.com.au. 24 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1lEsnSQ

 

No, they don't. I hope I'm simply reading you being trollish, rather than attempting some kind of "offense is the best defense" strawman.

You did. And I agree.

You are pretending to not know what "drunk" means, or what consent means, or what actions are involved in the act of sexual assault.

That's not what they say.

What is "fully consensual behavior"? Why are we suddenly talking about that instead of consent?

 

Do you seriously want to precede under the assumption you are that fucking stupid? cause i'm willing to, your won't like it but i'll do it if you want me to.

 

I just need to pitch two cents at this point in order that we might consider the question of whether he has actually said what he means yet. As I noted↑ in my earlier response to Syne's post, there is a reason people―i.e., as such, you―are responding to the context they are, and I don't think he's numb to the reasons why.

He does not seem willing to come right out and say it.

We should, in my opinion, let him either explain the functional application of his argument or withhold that explanation.

I might suggest that if he cannot or will not explain, we are probably better off ignoring his petulant piping because the whole point seems to be about disrupting the discussion.

We both know what it sounds like. If he cannot explain this argument he made, we might consider simply not giving him much for time of day. And think of the way it goes; sure he might have the appearance of an unfettered soapbox, but some will object, and those will be reminded that Syne need not be given any credibility because he has openly refused to demonstrate it. And then he'll object to being treated that way, but those objections will be written off as trolling because we've been through this enough that we need not really give him any more chances until he stops trying to play this stupid troll game.

The reason he won't illustrate his context in any applicable way is that he knows nothing good comes of it. He's in a corner, and it's well enough to leave him there if it means a real discussion of rape culture occurs in the meantime.

 

Come on, you people can't be this dense. Yes, they claim a drunk woman cannot give consent. Again, here's the reference:

According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/​

I'm talking about behavior because it's in the definition of consent I already posted:

Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/​

Apparently confirmation bias has overwhelmed you. I'll be happy to give a "functional application" (as Tiassa keeps calling for) as soon as people quit pretending they haven't read or understood these simple definitions of consent and when it can be considered given.

 

It appears Syne is working very hard to convince us that there are no alternatives.

Maybe he really has no clue... Nahh - scratch that.

 

No, they don't. The claim is that a mentally or physically incapacitated person cannot give consent. You are attempting to equate that with being "drunk", so that you can set up a straw man argument against consent rules, and deny the influence of rape culture.

 

Even if one was totally naive to Syne's naked attempt at a setup here, the statement would still be false on face-value. A mentally incapacitated man, whether due to extreme intoxication or other cause, cannot give consent anymore than a woman can. Apparently, law enforcement agrees: A Seattle woman is accused of raping her neighbor as he slept after a party.

Given that, what were you trying to prove there, eh Syne? I mean, WTF, do you really think anyone engaged in this discussion is stupid enough to fall for your transparent BS?

 

Examine these definitions:

According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity.
- https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

Mental incapacity is when someone cannot understand relevant information or cannot appreciate what may happen as a result of decisions they make—or do not make...
- https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/incapacity/
​

If you disagree with any of these, please provide alternatives (with sources).