Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There seems to be a lot of controversy around this issue. Although there is little debate that women are not responsible for sexual assaults, do they have a duty to protect themselves? If so, how? Avoiding being alone? Not drinking to excess, avoiding skimpy clothing, what? Many individuals of both genders have expressed this opinion. And if she doesn't protect herself in whatever way is deemed necessary or fitting, is the perpetrator less at fault if an assault happens?
I thought that I read the dumb post of the month.
What about a man who leaves a bar drunk?
What about an older couple (or anyone) who leaves their garage, or any, door open?
I've heard this crap ever since I was in highschool 50 years ago, "if you dress provocatively, it's your fault! BULL KAKA!
There seems to be a lot of controversy around this issue. Although there is little debate that women are not responsible for sexual assaults, do they have a duty to protect themselves? If so, how? Avoiding being alone? Not drinking to excess, avoiding skimpy clothing, what? Many individuals of both genders have expressed this opinion. And if she doesn't protect herself in whatever way is deemed necessary or fitting, is the perpetrator less at fault if an assault happens?
Women don't have a duty to protect themselves against sexual assault and they shouldn't have to take so many precautions but the reality of the world the last million years or so is that women do have to take precautions or unfortunately increase their risk of being sexually assaulted....that's just the sad reality.
What about an older couple (or anyone) who leaves their garage, or any, door open?
I've heard this crap ever since I was in highschool 50 years ago, "if you dress provocatively, it's your fault! BULL KAKA!
How many times do I have to tell all of you that I do not believe women are at fault for being sexually assaulted? I simply posted my thread asking for opinions from people at all sides of the political spectrum.
We have a solution for this foolishness in the kink community. Ask first. Before you touch someone, ask. Even a friendly hug. The way I usually do it, is to face my friend, extend my arms, make eye contact and pause for a moment, which is a non-verbal "ask" because they can in that moment easily hold up a hand or say, "No thanks, not today."
We have people who literally suffer extreme days of social anxiety to the point where they do not want to be touched in any way, by anyone. We do not make assumptions. If we can do this with a friendly hug, then people can damn sure communicate before they have sex. And given the real life possible consequences of sex, to your health and wellbeing, you probably should be communicating.
So no, all first moves are NOT "unwanted sexual advances." Not if you know how to use your words.
Thing is, all this talk about clothing and carrying mace and guns and car keys and what-not, is presuming that most rape is the old "rapist jumps out of a bush, pulls victim into alley" type. Stranger Danger. Just like being mugged.
When in fact an awful lot, probably most, rape is nothing like that. It's that girl who got roofied or plied with strong drink at a party until she could not consent. It's the time you agreed to go on a drive with a date and they got way too handsy even when you said no and squirmed away uncomfortably. It's a step-parent, an older relative, a teacher or a priest. It is someone you gave an inch of trust, and they took a mile and assaulted you. It's usually not a complete stranger.
It's all the times that someone said "No" and the other person heard, "Try harder to convince me."
Which, again, is why I prefer the term "consent violation" rather than "rape" in discussing this matter. We have too much of a defined idea of what rape is, that does not account for a lot of other circumstances where someone's consent has been violated.
I've been following your comments with great interest, and you bring up so many valid points. I especially like "consent violation." An unwanted sexual act does not have to be penetrative to be traumatic.
I don't consider myself a member of the kink community; I'm more like a "friend of the family." But I have had friends who are, and have accompanied them to meetings and events. The emphasis on respect, safety, mutual consent, and above all, clarity, was a beautiful thing to see. It didn't seem to be keeping anyone from having a good time, either. It's a shame that these standards do not receive greater emphasis in the general population.
No, I will continue to do so because if the definition of consent is bastardized at gunpoint (ala the social contract) it stands to reason that anyone can make up their own definition of consent at any time to suit their needs. She had on a short skirt. She smiled in my direction. She walked on my side of the street. She wanted it.
If consent meant consent all the time...we could drastically reduce the cases of legit rapes/sexual assaults (along with other violations of the non-aggression principle) because different definitions wouldn't apply based on persons, places, or other factors.
Ya see, if you have principles then you don't have to create alternate definitions and do other mental gymnastics to justify things that make no moral or logical sense in terms of consistency.
At the very least you'll have a ton more energy because your brain doesn't have a whopping case of cognitive dissonance all the time.
So basically you are saying that as long as the state exists, rape is okay, because one justifies the other.
So basically you are saying that as long as the state exists, rape is okay, because one justifies the other.
Got it.
No, there is no moral or logical justification for the State or rape.
If you believe in the State (the social contract) then you are legitimizing the meandering definition of consent that includes birth, standing in a certain geographic location, and walking from Point A to Point B (because you may walk on a public sidewalk) that is used under Statism.
So if consent doesn't have to really be consent all the time, as sanctioned by the State and embraced by the vast majority of folks, then it stands to reason that any individual can make up their own definition of consent as it suits their needs.
I'm pointing out the logical and moral inconsistency that leads to people not knowing or embracing the two values that I hold sacrosanct: legitimate consent and non-aggression.
I've been following your comments with great interest, and you bring up so many valid points. I especially like "consent violation." An unwanted sexual act does not have to be penetrative to be traumatic.
I don't consider myself a member of the kink community; I'm more like a "friend of the family." But I have had friends who are, and have accompanied them to meetings and events. The emphasis on respect, safety, mutual consent, and above all, clarity, was a beautiful thing to see. It didn't seem to be keeping anyone from having a good time, either. It's a shame that these standards do not receive greater emphasis in the general population.
Like what act? Traumatic? Something desirable can also be traumatic just because you aren't in the mood?
I personally don't have a problem with women dressing sexy and acting sexy per se. Most of them are promiscuous and sleazy on the down low anyway.
But I can't get on board the sexual harassment of women hysteria for one of many reasons because I don't respect their choices in cads and low lives over decent men, so why should I in principle respect their choice of who they don't want either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
This is partly what I was alluding to about hysteria about women not getting their choice. The choice is mostly superficial and about appearance anyway. A given woman goes from cold fish to sexual maniac just based on a guy's exceptional physical attractiveness and little else or despite of everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I'm not quite saying those who lack sympathy and fairness deserve none, but the kind of guy who would actually rape women is the kind of guy many women would consent to or go for if the exceptional physical attractiveness or interest is there, a la Hillary Clinton. So I'm not going to have a hysterical conditioned response that feminist demand I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Yes it does, because often whether it is "assault" hinges on whether it was unwanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I was more replying to the concept that women complain about men suitors but often don't choose the ones who don't do what they complain about. I think women just complain about everything and choose men mostly based on physical attractiveness despite their complaints.
I stopped gathering quotes of yours because I got too tired to go on.
Yes, whether or not it is assault hinges on whether or not it is unwanted. My god, it's the very definition of the term. Ask her out if you want to. If she says no, back the eff off.
It does not matter why the woman says no. No is no. Even if she has said yes before, one time or a hundred, to one man or to many. If a woman wants to choose a sex partner on the basis of physical attractiveness, so what? Men do it all the time.
I guess you think that you are a decent man, don't you?
I stopped gathering quotes of yours because I got too tired to go on.
Yes, whether or not it is assault hinges on whether or not it is unwanted. My god, it's the very definition of the term. Ask her out if you want to. If she says no, back the eff off.
It does not matter why the woman says no. No is no. Even if she has said yes before, one time or a hundred, to one man or to many. If a woman wants to choose a sex partner on the basis of physical attractiveness, so what? Men do it all the time.
I guess you think that you are a decent man, don't you?
I never said no didn't mean no, just how capricious and arbitrary its basis is. That's not so decent. Not everyone has to get on the sexual offense hysteria bandwagon and see it the way feminist and liberals demand. And I don't accept mere accusations as fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
