Dr. Ruth: being naked with a man is like playing in traffic.

Started by Valigarmander, June 10, 2015, 05:16:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: aitm on June 13, 2015, 08:23:45 PM
I agree, but the term of this is where we are getting sticky. I suggest to a degree that holding one 100% responsible for a "crime" that is only 10% their fault is non-justifiable.
When person A asks person B to stop doing something and person B refuses, after being informed to stop, person B becomes responsible.
This is where I suppose your equation/percentage game comes in, as you bring up percentages again. But if 90% of the sex was consensual before it became nonconsensual, B isn't only responsible for 10% of the actual crime.
If your 10% was instead referring to person A running in front of a car on a road and person B driving that car and not stopping in time and that making it only 10% B's fault, I can at least see the logic. But there is a problem with that analogy and it took me a while to find the right words to point it out. Here goes.

At first sight I can see why the playing in traffic, jaywalking or running wildly or blindly through a crosswalk analogy would work. It would put the driver in a sudden and unexpected situation. Being asked to stop mid-passion surely is unexpected and sudden. But upon further inspections, I believe, problems arise.

A first problem arises when we realize that the pedestrian and the car driver, in this case, did not plan their activity together. There is no basic trust, there is no relationship between the two. The pedestrian just pops up out of nowhere in the example and is said to have been irresponsible in his/her actions. While sex, if it starts out with consent, is an action at least two partners agree to. It's 'a road they go down together'. The only way this analogy would work if the pedestrian asked the driver to run her over, to which the driver proceeds to try and run the pedestrian over and this pedestrian changes his/her mind last minute and then gets angry for the driver not stopping before running him/her over.

But maybe we can make this analogy work if we look at the responsible behavior we expect in two or more consenting adults to be the equivalent of the responsibility we expect of those who go into traffic as car-drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians… They all have a code they should know about and should follow. And everyone is asked to be responsible out there. But here we find the real problem: The important thing is that the pedestrian isn't, in reality, running into traffic wildly. If we take driving as the metaphore for the one partner having sex and walking as the metaphore for the second partner having sex, then at the time of consent we should look at both of them doing their respective metaphore responsibly.
The pedestrian has thought about how to walk, where to walk and how to do so responsibly. Like the driver he/she follows the code of the road and is doing his/her best to avoid accidents. The pedestrian getting caught in the driver's trajectory, therefore is not something intended beforehand nor is it something that can be prevented as such. The realization of the pedastrian that (s)he doesn't want sex is therefore not him/her changing course suddenly and jumping in front of the driver's car. Up to the point that the sex, aka the walk, was fine, there was no trouble.
A better analogy would be that, while crossing the road the pedestrian has a cramp and can't keep going and thus can't get out of the way or twists his/her ankle or even has a psychological black-out or something. The realization that one does not want sex anymore can be just as sudden and unexpected for the pedestrian as it can be for the driver. The realization is not in the pedestrian's control, but once it's there; it prevents him/her from walking. That's the point; the responsible and  pre-aproved walk is consensual sex; the unplanned problem is something that prevents the pedestrian from completing that walk.

We expect those who go into traffic to, when an accident or a problem occurs, to act responsibly and in time. If the car before me crashes and I didn't keep enought distance and crash into that car, I'm responsible for that second crash. I don't know how it is in America, but that's how it is here, and I believe it's a good system. Therefore, when I drive and a pedestrian crossing the road far enough away from trips, falls to the ground and can't get up and I fail to hit the brakes in time; that's extreme negligence on my part, and I deserve punishment for it. Things are different, I agree, if the pedestrian tries to cross the road, jumping from a blind spot, but a meter from my car when I'm going 60 on a road where I am allowed to go 60. But this hypothetical situation is not in line with the sudden change of mind that can occur within a sexual partner's mind, who up to that point has been just as responsible in traffic as I have. Do you understand what I'm saying?

The second problem is what we concider is the moment one should stop. And that's where our interpretations of het analogy differ, I think. It's a two part-problem
First part: In your previous posts you more than once, it seems to me, seem to suggest that you can't be expected to stop having sex the very nano-second that someone decides not to have sex. And I agree to the point that you can't be expected to the instant the realization in the pedestrian hits. The moment the pedestrian's ankle breaks, for example, you can't see (s)he's not going to be able to go on. However, soon the pedestrian falls or starts hopping; this is a clear signal that follows after the realization. In sex this clear signal would be the partner saying 'stop; I don't want this anymore, please stop'. Failure to act in a timely fashion to such a signal is a fault on the driver's part. The pedestrian can't do anything about it the moment the realization hits or the ankle breaks; so it's up to the driver to follow the code of the road and pull the brakes in a timely fashion.
Second part: Lies with how you, at least so it seems to me, incorporate the idea of prior intent into the analogy. Earlier we both agreed that prior intent makes things worse. And that still applies in this reformed analogy. It's worse if some driver stalks a pedestrian with the clear intent on running that pedestrian over. At least it's worse than if a driver sees a pedestrian, who is far enough away crossing the street but falls down and doesn't get up, and yet fails to hit the brakes in time or sway and thus ends up running over the pedestrian. Prior intent clearly makes this worse, though we still hold the driver accountable for his/her part in the accident. But prior intent being absent doesn't absolve us from responsibility in the here and now. One the one hand you sometimes seem to agree with me on this, but as you (below) make a very strange point about my previous analogy with jack and mark, I don't think you apply it properly. In the jack-mark analogy, you say that if mark had prior intent on forcing jack to take him along and to take the wheel and put his foot on the gas, then we don't hold Jack accountable. But what if it's a spur of the moment thing for Mark as well? What if he doesn't understand why he's being asked out of the car and he lashes out by forcing the car further down the road in that matter? Then somehow Jack becomes an accomplice, an instigator? That doesn't make sense. Same if in my revised analogy that I presented above; if the driver, who we assume to be a responsible driver who knows the code of the road and who knows to follow these rules, in the spur of the moment decides not to put his foot on the brakes or decides not to slow down or sway or try anything to avoid the collision; that still doesn't make the pedestrian with the broken ankle an instigator. Now in most cases the driver's decision wouldn't be to not slow down. I get that. Bar the occasional monster no driver would speed up either. But the lack of appropriate action during the critical moment does make it the driver's responsibility. It's a responsibility he/she accepted prior to getting into the car, aka having sex. Prior intent surely makes things worse, but one can still be responsible for hitting a pedestrian without it.

Quote
oh my friend, we all are judges. This is the whole of the jurisprudence system
Where I come from 'jurisprudentie', which I believe is a translation, refers to the entirety of the decisions and declarations made by actual certified judges. Not sure what your point is here.

Quote
Does it? Does running wildly though a crosswalk in traffic with a baby carriage excuse the driver who does not see her? No. Does it grant her immunity? Does the imprisonment of the driver justify the death she subjected her child to by believing the law protected her assumptions?
See above. The pedestrian can't keep the walk going, aka consensual sex, because of a problem (like a cramp or a broken ankle), aka a realization that makes one not capable of consenting to the sex anymore. To depict the pedestrian as an irresponsible person that doesn't follow the code of the road is a misrepresentation of the character that changes his/her mind in your analogy.

Quote
I must admit this is a wonderful analogy if it was appropriate. Really it is a great argument if was reasonably similar to sexual encounters. I argued your point of prior intent of a rapist. If the car-jacker had prior intent then obviously no we can't blame the poor driver, like wise we can't blame a poor women who stumbles into a man intent on raping her, which so far has not been any part of the argument. Next comes, when consent stops the situation changes, and I agree, but you are suggesting that at one second a mutual act is not a crime at all and in the nanosecond later a crime has been committed simply because of a moral change of attitude and indeed this is not even a moral change of attitude as it may be a frivolous one. And by frivolous I very mean that you think we can now imprison a man because a woman perhaps thinks jesus doesn't want her to have sex and at that moment decides to ask a man to stop.
See above why I think your analogy doesn't work.
And while I have next to no respect for religion; I'd like to point out that the reason for the 'woman' not wanting sex anymore doesn't matter. It matters that she doesn't want it anymore. I don't care if she believes Jesus tells her. I don't care if she believes the Dalaï Lama rode down on the invisible pink unicorn and declares that she shouldn't have sex and she goes with that. I don't care that it's because she's getting flashbacks or whatever reason that leads to a change of mind. Point is; mind has been changed.

Quote
I agree and likewise would suggest that accepting ones accountability and responsibility is to acknowledge ones role in the whole of a situation where you may have purposefully misled a person into a situation that you now demand they extract you from.
See above.

Also, to the other comment in which you say Drunkenshoe had sex with a woman and I haven't (because I'm counting myself as a regular poster in this thread). Really?
For the life of me I don't know why, aitm, but I thought you would be better than mudslinging.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

the_antithesis


TomFoolery

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 14, 2015, 03:51:55 PM
I think what the issue is is whether or not people are using sense in respect to their sexuality. Many do not. That alone runs the gamut from being careful to plain outright stupidity.

Ok, well, let me then ask this question of all the people who are suggesting that it makes sense that a woman who get naked in front of a man and gets raped should expect it. If you were in that situation, would you look her in the face and say "Sorry, no taksies backsies!"? I somehow doubt it. But acting like there are TONS of people who would perpetuates this idea that it's commonplace and therefore sort of expected. I'm more of the opinion that he's probably a rapist anyway and the the clothes/no clothes boundary is irrelevant. Like who decided that was the line? She took her clothes off, now it's a contract. What if she only gets her shirt off before she decides she doesn't want you as a one night stand? What if she only takes her shoes off at the door? Is that an open invitation?

I see a lot of people on here suggesting that there's almost no "good" reason a woman would get naked and then change her mind. Like the man in that situation is entitled to a good explanation for what gives. I think an explanation would be nice, but I don't think he's entitled to one, because suggesting that he is suggests that if she can't come up with something, then she owes him sex. That mindset reminds me a lot of politicians who want to look over welfare recipients' grocery bills and scrutinize every line item like "Oh, I see here you bought name-brand Cheerios. Not with my tax dollars!"

I remember the day my husband found out his mom died. We were dating at the time and about to get intimate. Needless to say after that phone call, we didn't. Granted, gender roles are reversed, but would that have been an acceptable excuse?
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Mike Cl

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 14, 2015, 03:31:41 PM

Okay--I assume you realize I was being sarcastic?   And I'm confused by the message.  Am I to fuck her correctly in the pussy?  Or am I to fuck her right (and nowhere else) in the pussy? 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

the_antithesis

I can't imagine why someone would change their mind at that point.

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 14, 2015, 04:07:03 PMOkay--I assume you realize I was being sarcastic?
Yes.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 14, 2015, 04:07:03 PMam I to fuck her right (and nowhere else) in the pussy?
Following from your sarcasm: yes.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Mike Cl

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 14, 2015, 04:13:11 PM
Yes.
Following from your sarcasm: yes.
Okay, thanks.  I now have my orders.  I look forward to proceeding.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

the_antithesis

Quote from: TomFoolery on June 14, 2015, 04:06:08 PM
I remember the day my husband found out his mom died. We were dating at the time and about to get intimate. Needless to say after that phone call, we didn't. Granted, gender roles are reversed, but would that have been an acceptable excuse?

I don't think that's the same as the original scenario in that you likely had a similar emotional reaction to the news. The original scenario, as I understood it, involved the other person simply changing their mind without the benefit of an external reason the other could be privy to.

So, to make your example fit, remove it. You and your husband are about to get intimate and he decides he doesn't want to. No reason. He just doesn't feel like it. Then what?

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 14, 2015, 06:22:24 AM
Mr.Obvious

You realise that you are just telling me -Also Hijiri I guess- that

'I am not like this, I wasn't raised like this, personally I don't know this and that you have said AND we know and teach that rape is wrong and that should be enough.' Really? So we teach people rape is wrong, so that should be enough? How on earth I didn't think of this?! You are brilliant. (Sarcasm)

I'm also saying that we shouldn't stop fighting to stop these issues. I'm just saying that 'teach boys not to rape' is already being implemented, just like 'teach not to steal' or 'teach not to harm' or 'teach not to kill'. And to demand something that's already taught be taught as if it's not already taught is a waste of energy, time and resources on top of treating one gender as if they are neanderthals that, after being taught something is bad, can't possibly be expected to just 'get it'.
We shouldn't stop teaching that rape is bad. I'm not saying that at all. But we are being brought up in a society that teaches us that rape is wrong. And guess what, you're right, that, like teaching not to kill or hurt or steal or lie, sinks in. People know rape is bad. Like these other crimes, however, they're not going to go away fully just because people know they are bad. Whenever someone gets killed, you hardly, if ever, hear 'teach them not to kill'. While I can see teaching not to kill can be an important factor in getting down the homicide rates, nobody yells this because we all know everyone is already being taught this. Why should rape be different? We know it's wrong, we have been taught it's wrong; stop implying we haven't been taught yet and that we somehow don't know this very easy to grasp notion.

Also, I can do without the sarcasm, if you don't mind.

Quote
And why is that? Because I am not being politically correct and pointing my finger at a certain culture defined by a certain gender and his culture, which is male? Are you offended? Disturbed? Felt uncomfortable? Aw.
Do I particularly enjoy hearing that the culture I gew up in is a 'rape culture' and that I've been indoctrinated and that just because I have a penis I'm somehow to brainwashed to see what's what? No I'll freely admit I don't particularly enjoy that.
But why it's really not helpfull is because you are painting a picture that isn't true. Or at least that I don't have any reason to believe is true. You put forth this claim that our culture is a rape culture. But I've never seen any quantifiable evidence, any reliable sources to support this claim. There are no statistics that I know of that prove that we as a society teach to rape, that rape is okay or that we think rape is okay. On the other hand I know of many laws, procedures and punishments that are in place and clearly show that we as a society think rape is something bad.

Quote
You should read about that 'rape culture' I am talking about and learn why is it called a rape 'culture'. And why it is important to stop talking with a politically correct language about this issue.  You have some -politely put- naive notions on the issue that teaching rape is wrong, that everyone knows rape is wrong somehow should make a difference. You know that we also teach people stealing, killing are wrong, right? That doesn't change things one bit.

You also have the general western convictions that where you live, as a culture rape is held with a different view. No, it is not sweety, like many other issues. The sooner you get rid of that delusion, the better is for you. Rape is the same everywhere in the world. 
I have read a little about 'rape culture'. I won't claim to be an expert. But I'll see to it that if I have some time to spare, I'll delve a bit more into it. If you can point me to a source that proves it rather than asserts it, I'd like that.

Also. I don't think I understand everything you said in the last paragraph. But it seems like you say I think we think of rape as something different? I'm not sure what you mean by this, and I'd ask you not to make such assumptions. Rape is rape. Rape is bad. Rape is bad in Belgium. Rape is bad in America. Rape is bad in China. Rape is bad in Africa. Does my opinion on this shock you?

Quote
You, most men in this forum, almost all men in the thread, most men in the world are OFFENDED by this issue being defined by male culture. That's the problem. Also the main problem lies BEHIND that rape culture. Heterosexual male ego society builds in men from childhood. You refuse to step out of it, get your heads out of your asses, stop being offended and say 'yes something is wrong with how boys are raised up, how we are conditioned to see the heterosexual male sexuality, there is an accepted entitlement of het male sexuality that comes with ugly consequences, that should change'. Do you have any idea how that would make men's sex lives easier oo?
Again, I admit it not feeling particularly good, as a heterosexual male, to be told that heterosexual masculinity causes society-wide oppression and rape. But that's not a problem if it's the truth. As of yet your claim that heterosexual male ego cause any of this is nothing more than assertions, however.

Quote
None of you are that stupid. You are perfectly aware what is going on. You choose to be blind and willfully ignorant about this, because it is disturbing and offensive to you. You instantly turn in to whining babies or get agressive to support your football team. Well tough, it is not going anywhere. It's real.
Again with the assumptions. All I ask is that if it's real, you show it with evidence.

Quote
And I am sick of this thread, talking to a bunch of men children who is reacting like somebody made a caricature of their muhammeds. You need to grow up.
An asserted claim that hasn't been backed up by anything but conviction and more assertions to me sounds a lot more like 'a muhammed' than me pointing out you just claim your idea to be truth and expect us to go along with it without ample evidence.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Shiranu

I cant speak for Belgium, but coming from the country that exports more "culture" than anyone else, and is talked about more than any other country in the world... yeah, the United States definitely has a rape culture and I can see how we would make it seem like it's a huge problem in the West. I don't know the numbers for Europe so I cant speak for how prevalent it is or isn't over there. I can only speak from my experiences and use examples from people here...

I will use a couple of quotes from this article...

http://time.com/40110/rape-culture-is-real/

QuoteIs 1 in 5 American women surviving rape or attempted rape considered a cultural norm? Is 1 in 6 men being abused before the age of 18 a cultural norm?

Simply put, when 20% of women have faced being raped (the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted this study)... that is a rape culture. When 16.67% of men have been abused before 18, that is a violence/rape culture. This isn't some small minority, some 1-2% of people being raped... that is a combined 36.67% of Americans have been, or attempted to have been, raped or abused. And it's likely there is a solid number of people who refused to report it... so nearly 40% of Americans. Close to HALF of Americans have had rape been a part of their life in one way or another.

And that's not counting the number of people who know someone who has been raped...

QuoteThe study, called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, was begun in 2010 with the support of the National Institute of Justice and the Department of Defense.

...

Sexual violence affects women disproportionately, the researchers found. One-third of women said they had been victims of a rape, beating or stalking, or a combination of assaults.

The researchers defined rape as completed forced penetration, forced penetration facilitated by drugs or alcohol, or attempted forced penetration.

How is it possible to define this as anything less than sexual violence, if not rape? At BEST you can say the United States is a country rife with a sex-based violence culture, if not rape.

Quote“If we already despise rapists, why are they so rarely held accountable in any way?,” Friedman asks. An analysis by RAINN found that 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail for their crimes. “What we really despise is the idea of rapists: a terrifying monster lurking in the bushes, waiting to pounce on an innocent girl as she walks by,” Friedman says. “But actual rapists, men who are usually known to (and often loved by) their victims? Men who are sometimes our sports heroes, political leaders, buddies, boyfriends and fathers? Evidence suggests we don’t despise them nearly as much as we should.”

How do you define the unwillingness to hold rapists responsible for their actions as anything less than a rape culture?

Quote
-Rape culture is when women who come forward are questioned about what they were wearing.
-Rape culture is when survivors who come forward are asked, “Were you drinking?”
-Rape culture is when people say, “she was asking for it.”
-Rape culture is when we teach women how to not get raped, instead of teaching men not to rape.
-Rape culture is when the lyrics of Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ mirror the words of actual rapists and is still the number one song in the country.
-Rape culture is when the mainstream media mourns the end of the convicted Steubenville rapists’ football careers and does not mention the young girl who was victimized.
-Rape culture is when cyberbullies take pictures of sexual assaults and harass their victims online after the fact, which in the cases of Audrie Pott and Rehtaeh Parsons tragically ended in their suicides.
-Rape culture is when, in 31 states, rapists can legally sue for child custody if the rape results in pregnancy.
-Rape culture is when college campus advisers tasked with supporting the student body, shame survivors who report their rapes. (Annie Clark, a campus activist, says an administrator at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill told her when she reported her rape, “Well… Rape is like football, if you look back on the game, and you’re the quarterback, Annie… is there anything you would have done differently?”)
-Rape culture is when colleges are more concerned with getting sued by assailants than in supporting survivors. (Or at Occidental College, where students and administrators who advocated for survivors were terrorized for speaking out against the school’s insufficient reporting procedures.)

Besides it being said several times in this thread the first bold, the second one I bolded is the government actively saying, "RAPISTS, YOU DID NOTHING WRONG AND YOU DESERVE THE RIGHT TO SEE YOUR CHILD YOU POOR INNOCENT VICTIM!". How the fuck do you define that as anything other than a rape culture?





I don't want to make this post way to long, but ultimately...

Yes, rape culture exists. Maybe it doesn't in Belgium... but just because you are the exception to the rule doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And maybe it doesn't even exist in Europe, though I highly doubt that... while looking at some articles, it seems like the UK at least has some issues with it... and Italy and Spain certainly do as well, but they are also countries I would expect that from. While it may not be as prevalent as it is here in the U.S., Europe certainly does have these issues as well.

I have walked with female coworkers, through the middle of a college campus to their car, because they feared (several knew people who had been assaulted) for their safety. I know people who have been raped and nothing was done about it, that they were told they were asking for it. I have seen case after case where a woman is raped and the VERY FIRST QUESTION that is asked by anyone... the presenter, the guests, my family, society at large... "What was she wearing? Where was she? How was SHE the one who perpetrated the rape?". I have reasons besides just being a some-what decent human being to get pissed off when rape is defended that I don't want to, and don't plan on, ever talking about. So yeah, you managed to piss me off... woopty-fucking-do. You could also probably piss off a black man by calling him racial slurs and telling him to go pick your cotton, would you feel that's such a damned proud achievement too?

And yeah, I have never had sex... therefor, I guess I just cant understand what it's like to not stop fucking a woman when she says stop. I understand, you are caught up in passion. So was the guy who beat someone else's face to a pulp with a monkey wrench and stabbed him in the gut with a screwdriver multiple times... he was just caught up in the passion of anger. So was the woman who cut that guy's dick off and threw it out the car after she caught him cheating... she was just caught up in the passion of anger. So was the guy who had sex with a girl who was too young to understand the concept of no... he was just caught up in the passion of lust.

I have never raped a little girl or beat a man to death, so I guess I just cant understand what it's like to be so caught up in an emotion that you do something that hurts someone else. I guess that makes pedophiles and murderers okay then, because they were just caught up in their emotions and did something wrong while they were.

I mean seriously, what the fuck? Since when has, "I was emotional, judge!" even been a good excuse? But everyone here is so willing to jump on anyone who dare support Christianity because it makes them feel good... then emotions are fucking terrible, you fucking peasant, you are a fucking idiot tool knob sheep! But if emotions make you hurt someone... meh, you just don't understand.

It's one thing to be a hypocrite about a philosophy or religion, it's another to be a hypocrite in the defense of rape... which, in my sense of morality anyways, is a little bit more of a fucking issue than someone believing in god.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2015, 05:40:45 PMyeah, the United States definitely has a rape culture and I can see how we would make it seem like it's a huge problem in the West.
Yeah, I remember that time in sex ed when we were encouraged to rape people, or how during martial arts and psychology classes I was always encouraged to commit rampant acts of physical and mental abuse against people I'm close to. :V

I'm not gonna argue with statistics, but "rape culture" is the dumbest fucking term for it I've ever heard for it.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Shiranu

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 14, 2015, 05:59:38 PM
Yeah, I remember that time in sex ed when we were encouraged to rape people, or how during martial arts and psychology classes I was always encouraged to commit rampant acts of physical and mental abuse against people I'm close to. :V

I'm not gonna argue with statistics, but "rape culture" is the dumbest fucking term for it I've ever heard for it.

Playing intentionally moronic is not particularly becoming. I'm not sure what other term you could use for a culture that apologizes for rapists, that does not punish rapists, that blames the victims before the ACTUAL CRIMINALS. It's hard to define that as anything else than a culture that tolerates rape.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

the_antithesis

Quote from: Shiranu on June 14, 2015, 05:40:45 PM
Simply put, when 20% of women have faced being raped (the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted this study)... that is a rape culture.

So if it were 19%, it would not?

If not, where is does this mine shaft it bottom? 10%? 5%? When?

Shiranu

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 14, 2015, 06:08:55 PM
So if it were 19%, it would not?

If not, where is does this mine shaft it bottom? 10%? 5%? When?

What is with these fucking percentage games in this thread?

The number is simply one part of a huge problem, hence the reason that was only a section of my post. The point is a large percentage is being sexually assaulted, AND the common attitude is to find fault with the victim before the perpetrator, AND the fact that rapists get away scott free the majority of the time, AND we have a government that tells rapists they have a god-given RIGHT to their kids, AND the fact that...

If it was 10% and the above factors were still in play, yes it would be a rape culture. If it was 5% and the above factors were still in play, yes it would still be a rape culture. If it was 1% and the above factors were still in play, yes it would still be a rape culture. A rape culture is not just that the act is happening but that society tolerates it.

The fact that it's 20% of women are raped or attempted to be raped, as well as however many men, is simply one part of the equation meant to show how out of control the problem is. The percentage only makes matters that much worse and that much more needed to be addressed, it does not the rape culture make.

Seriously, I just don't get what this coy bullshit is about. No one is calling anyone here a fucking rapist. No one here is assaulting anyone's manhood, or saying that they support rape, or that we are terrible human beings. What is being said is that the society we were born into does promote victim blaming and that several times people in this thread have blatantly defended rape. Defending rape is not the same as supporting it, you can be completely against anything and still defend it without realizing it. And that's exactly what has happened... a umph-paged thread of shit-slinging about, "well... what is rape REAAAAALY? How do you REAAAAALY define rape? How can you not blame the victim because, I mean, she was asking for it!"?

That is defense of rape, and I don't believe for a second that anyone has said those things support rape in the least bit; I figure they are just as anti-rape as anyone else. But their mindset only promotes a society that doesn't give a shit about rape victims and the mental gymnastics and hypocrisy, and honestly just down right toxicity, that has been used to "prove they are right" puts any religious person who has come here to shame. 
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

the_antithesis

Then do not say things like "Simply put, when 20% of women have faced being raped, that is a rape culture" because it muddies the waters. It does because you then said that your quoted statement is not true. Simply put, the percentage of women who've faced being raped does not mater. Do not use percentages, then unless you want to confuse people if they focus on that part of your post. And if you think people won't or shouldn't, welcome to dealing with human beings. We fucking suck.