|
|
Post by everso on May 20, 2009 23:22:24 GMT
Jean, it was the reason I left the cakeboard... I was afraid it might have been there but I don't remember exactly how the discussion went. I remember it coming up on the Beeb as well, and I remember how fiercely symi01 would insist that being raped was no big deal and probably less traumatic than a non-sexual violent assault (though she'd never been raped, of course). The problem is that there are a huge range of possible meanings in this area that a woman (especially) has to be aware of - it's relatively simple to suggest that one doesn't go around half-naked in a red light area, but there are grey areas that simply don't exist when we're talking about not leaving your house unlocked or valuables visible in your car (though even there I would resist any suggestion that I am being foolhardy if I do not remove myself to a gated community). I may decide that I had better exercise caution when walking alone late at night, but at the same time I may wish to campaign for the right to walk alone, unmolested. I don't see any hypocrisy or inconsistency in that. Exactly. There is no hypocrisy. Walking alone at night or wearing a revealing dress does NOT give a man the right to attack a woman. It definitely does NOT!! |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 21, 2009 2:53:06 GMT
Why do feminists persist in this myth of women's appearance responsible for sexual assault when they do not in any other case? Nobody pretends that leaving your house open while you are away gives burglars the right to ransack it, but 'feminists' pretend that for women to take exactly the same precautions about their personal safety is blaming them for being attacked. Then again, there is the expectation of some women to use men for sexual thrills and prosecute them for rape when they lose self-control just like women.
It's a couple of years since such a case came up here and was thrown out of court because sexually teasing somebody until they lose control is a matter of being in control of them and applies just as much to women as to men. Men are human equals, not vibrators expected to pay for the privilege.
Like Everso [almost] said, walking alone at night or flashing loads of money does NOT give a mugger the right to attack you. But only feminists ever trot this sexist crap out to pretend that taking care for your own protection amounts to legitimising attackers (for women, not for men). It fits perfectly with the 'feminist' rejection of women's responsibility over their fertility to demand men 'do' full responsiblity for the feeble creatures' inability to control their own fertility.
It's not really about blaming men, it's about fighting reduction of women to responsibility equal with men instead of being the imagined pre-equality sex able to rely on men to do everything for them including think.
Who imagines either that women have such power as to drive men beyond sexual control, or that women themselves are totally unaware and incapable of sexuality themselves except feminists and sado-masochistic nuns torturing teenage girls for turning them on?
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 21, 2009 7:19:06 GMT
Jean, it was the reason I left the cakeboard... I was afraid it might have been there but I don't remember exactly how the discussion went. I remember it coming up on the Beeb as well, and I remember how fiercely symi01 would insist that being raped was no big deal and probably less traumatic than a non-sexual violent assault (though she'd never been raped, of course). The problem is that there are a huge range of possible meanings in this area that a woman (especially) has to be aware of - it's relatively simple to suggest that one doesn't go around half-naked in a red light area, but there are grey areas that simply don't exist when we're talking about not leaving your house unlocked or valuables visible in your car (though even there I would resist any suggestion that I am being foolhardy if I do not remove myself to a gated community). I may decide that I had better exercise caution when walking alone late at night, but at the same time I may wish to campaign for the right to walk alone, unmolested. I don't see any hypocrisy or inconsistency in that. It would be better, I think, if discussions about women's responsibility for behaviour was separated from discussions on rape. The two are not necessarily linked. But there have been suggestions that lap dancing clubs and their ilk increase the likelihood of sexual attacks in their area (something very much in dispute). My argument was that if this was the case, then everyone should be aware that "acting sexy" can be dangerous, and not just for themselves. I've kind of modified my view a bit, largely because I realise now some guys will read sexual provocation into just about everything! Also, I have a feeling that a woman's sexual "power" is not as potent in now as it was when I was a gel - maybe this is linked with the growing sex industry, but which is cause and which effect I wouldn't like to say! |
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 21, 2009 12:45:04 GMT
It would be better, I think, if discussions about women's responsibility for behaviour was separated from discussions on rape. It would - but since these discussions only ever seem to arise when rape is already under discussion, that's going to be difficult to achieve! |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 21, 2009 13:05:26 GMT
Not quite true jean- a couple of times it's been talked about in a different context on threads (including by me) - and someone has come along with "I suppose you think that every raped woman is asking for it" - only not so politely!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 21, 2009 17:03:56 GMT
You are right about women's sense of sexual power decreasing with a more liberal society. It has three reasons: one, that women gain a sense of other power identities, two that they no longer feel the need to control and dominate men to their advantage, three that familiarity breeds contempt or at least no longer has the shock effect it had before.
The trouble comes because we are not that liberal society and there is a range of individual understandings. Women still have much more freedom of expression than men, still expect to be more the attraction than the attracted, but declare themselves just like men. If a man dressed and acted the sexy way of girls' night out, he would be pretty much declaring himself sexually available to anybody. He mostly is anyway.
So if a woman acts that way and says she has as much right to sexual freedom as he does and she is his equal, the logical conclusion is that she is out for any man who'll have her, just as he is for any woman. The rational response is to realise that the sexes have completely different motivational backgrounds and she doesn't know what she's talking about because she cannot experience his experience, so has no idea whether it is the same as hers or not. On top of her own feelings about the matter, she knows that sexually active young women can still be disparaged in some circles as passive sex objects making themselves cheap and giving it away instead of having no sexual desire of their own so they can exploit men's for the highest price.
If they are flirting, then both recognise the possibility of a sexual outcome, but in her case, she is testing to see whether she thinks he is worth it and in his case, it is the motivation for flirting that he hopes she will will not mess up by making herself unacceptable. So often, the woman insisting she is just like a man has behaved in a way that from a man is a clear sexual offer/demand without intending it that way at all. Or if she intends it that way, it is only provisional until he proves himself worthy. In his case, it is definite unless she proves herself unworthy, or more likely turns him down. She may be happy enough with whatever she has enjoyed so far but he will always be motivated to want sexual completion
It's never nice to feel turned down put particularly so when all the apparent evidence was acceptance. That can lead to a resentment that she made the demand on him and only wasted his time playing with his feelings for the power trip when he could have been offering himself to somebody who'd mean what she says.
Put together a lot of resentful sexually frustrated drunken young men and young women, some equally resentful of being expected to keep a contract they were not aware of making and others laughing at their power trip over the men, and you are asking for trouble. We can assume that sexual entertainment clubs would lower the likelihood of sexual offences (if they have any effect at all) because of the maturity of men who can afford to go there and likely availability of prostitution behind the scenes.
|
|
