ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags rape culture , sex scandals , sexuality issues

Reply
Old 9th November 2017, 05:07 PM   #41
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,500
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If it's really about power and forced manipulation then Weinstein can demand that the beautiful actresses clean his office and home and scrub his floors and toilets. Instead he just seems to want the sex, so I'm thinking it's a hell of a lot about the sex and the power is only used to get the sex.


Well, sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power. So, of course the sex is important, but only as it relates to the feeling of power over the victim.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 05:08 PM   #42
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,279
Agreed. Projection of power. The are not attracted to refusal. They are attracted to getting what they want, refusal or not.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2017, 08:33 PM   #43
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,004
Originally Posted by dann View Post
That many rapists are married seems to confirm that view. Also, if they don't care if a partner is into them or not, an alternative would be to go to a prostitute. Instead they rape, which seems to indicate that what turns them on isn't sex but rape.
That’s why I said they want to have sex with particular people. As I said in the other thread, sexual partners aren’t fungible. I’m not suggesting that rapists just want sex. I’m suggesting that a rapist may have potential willing partners but the particular person that they want to have sex with is unwilling.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:12 AM   #44
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If it's really about power and forced manipulation then Weinstein can demand that the beautiful actresses clean his office and home and scrub his floors and toilets. Instead he just seems to want the sex, so I'm thinking it's a hell of a lot about the sex and the power is only used to get the sex.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Well, sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power. So, of course the sex is important, but only as it relates to the feeling of power over the victim.
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Agreed. Projection of power. The are not attracted to refusal. They are attracted to getting what they want, refusal or not.

When I read “used to get the sex”, “sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power” and “getting what they want,” it reminds me of the rape scene in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America (the really ugly rape scene, not the funny one!) where we see Noodles, the main character, ‘getting the sex that he wants’ – and has wanted for a very long time – yet getting the opposite of what he wants because the victim is and remains unwilling, and both she, the driver and Noodles himself are disgusted with the whole thing, i.e. with Noodles’ behavior. And what is more important: So is the audience. It’s one of the worst scenes ever. You want it to stop, and it just goes on and on and on, making it excruciatingly apparent how disgusting sexual coercion is.

Another description of this scene:
Quote:
Then comes the second sequence, which is miles away from the first. We're now in a different world -- a self-respecting woman, who has chosen a career over her lover, rejects his proposal. They are in the back of a car, and driver keeps driving during the beginning of the sequence. But as it progresses, and the screams become louder and include screams of pain, the driver stops the car and opens the door. Now, we are back where we started. The man opening the door to stop the rape is our best hero at that moment, and we suddenly are reassured that this is not 'of the time,' and the friends watching the prior rape are horrible people for letting it happen. it permanently ruins the relationship between Noodles and his childhood lover -- it ruins his only chance at happiness and he turns to opium.
You then realize where Leone has taken you -- the first scene was prelude to the second. It more potently drives the point of the wrongness of the act, the destructiveness of it. The rapes were in fact probably the most important plot points. Instead of Leone treating it another "something gangster they do." he treated it with the seriousness it always deserves.
Still, I can't help but feel uncomfortable when it appears on screen.
from Reddit discussion about Once Upon a Time in America

And that is what we’re talking about here. (I know that it's fiction. For obvious reasons there aren't any documentaries.) It isn’t simply a question of breaking the law, like stealing a flat-screen TV that you can’t afford. I’m pretty sure that the stolen flat screen looks much the same as the store-bought one. The movies and TV shows you watch remain the exact same.

But that is not the case when we are talking about sexual coercion. In the movie, Noodles is surprised by what he gets. And what he gets obviously isn’t what he's always desired. But these guys, the ones we’re talking about who do it more than once, they know what they’re getting, and what they’re getting is as different from real sex as it could possibly be.
And it seems to me that some of you aren’t fully aware of that difference: the difference between having sex with a woman who is enjoying it and having sex with a women who definitely isn’t.
‘He got what he wanted – one way or the other,’ is a weird euphemism for what he actually must have wanted and also got: not simply sex, but that exact kind of sex!

(I’m not sure, but even if you have seen Once Upon a Time in America, you may not have seen the rape scene(s).)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 06:45 AM   #45
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,072
It’s been a while, but I did a lot of reading on the subject of paraphilia some years ago... Mostly the works of the late John Money, who was pretty much the authority in the field at the time.
We’re all familiar with the common paraphilias or “fetishes”... Things like exhibitionism, frottage, voyeurism, transvestism, sadism, masochism.. Etc.

There are over 40 known and cataloged paraphilias, and oddly most of them are male-specific. Money felt that this may have had to do with the fact that the male embryo is “masculinized” in the womb (starting out female, as it were) and that this process may lead to more “errors”.
Also, as to causes, Money felt that child abuse was a big factor, as well as the repressive attitude about sexual education and experimentation in young children.

The reasoning was that each person forms a psychological “lovemap” in early childhood...An idealized construct of a mating partner. Usually, this is built on parents, siblings, caregivers, etc.
But he felt that this lovemap could be “vandalized” by child abuse (and perhaps other factors), and this would lead to the person sexualizing “other” things, usually things that have some sexual connotation in society.
These paraphilias can become very powerful and compulsive. I’ve dealt with exhibitionists who have ruined thier lives with constant cases of “exposing person”.... They are unable to stop.
The same applies to other types. They all exhibit bell-curve type distributions of severity.
A “shoe fetishist” may simply be turned on by the sight of a woman in heels... on the other end of the spectrum, he may collect shoes and use them as sex objects... Not able to have relationships with a woman.

This doesn’t explain everything in these “men in power” cases.... But Money went against the grain of the typical meme that “Rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power.”
He felt the opposite was true... That it was about sex. (Serial rape is a form of paraphilia as well)
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:27 AM   #46
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
It obviously has to be both, somehow: sex and power, but what I was trying to point out in post 44 is that only psychopaths will be able to enjoy being with a woman (or man) who isn’t into them, who hates what’s going on. It isn’t simply sex, it’s a particular kind of sex, a very different experience from being with somebody you love – requited love. You also can’t treat somebody you love (or even somebody you just like) the way some people treat their partners, so there’s probably hate or contempt involved as well: ‘Men who hate women’ (misogynists) or ‘Gay men who hate other (gay) men …’ (gay homophobes - Roy Cohn, Trump’s old associate, springs to mind).
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:43 AM   #47
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
I think that, over time, there is a degree of control that [a male who is approximately the same race, build, age, and occupation as me] has in steering, cultivating, pruning, giving in to, sexual impulses and patterns of arousal.

One is greedy for pleasure. In the sexual act, what happens if I introduce this or that? Most things produce nothing.

One is surprised by actual love, actual tenderness, actual mutuality, only in contrast with this other polyp-like, root-like, tendril-like mass of interconnecting images and desires -- the things you jerk off to.

Actual mutuality is surprising, is fresh.

But what if you've never gotten as big a charge from someone giving to you, but only from the jerk-off side, the side of yourself that directs and cultivates your own movies?

You make movies, you gotta break some eggs, some little people get hurt along the way.

Just sayin'.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:45 AM   #48
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Sorry about getting your hackles up!

Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
But NONE of that means I am even a step closer to really understanding WHAT they get out of it, HOW they could possibly do it, WHAT is going through their heads as they undertake vile activities such as rape for pleasure, etc. That's all I was saying. It was almost a philosophical musing, and it certainly wasn't meant to insult you or your question. Merely to point out the futility of trying to understand minds objectively (another reason I quit).

Maybe I didn't understand your original question properly, then. If so, please feel free to correct me.
No, I think you understand me. It's the misogyny (or in the case of Spacey probably a kind of homophobia but expressed in the sexual act that I find difficult to understand - and you appear to have the same difficulties.
I can understand misogyny as such. It is easlily recognizable in some of the early lyrics by Mick Jagger:

Under My Thumb
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Yesterday’s Papers
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Out of Time
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And it's not that I find his contempt for the women he sings about/to less irrational than the contempt expressed by the sexual predators, but in his lyrics the misogyny is separate from and not entangled with the desire in the sexual act.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:50 AM   #49
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
But what if you've never gotten as big a charge from someone giving to you, but only from the jerk-off side, the side of yourself that directs and cultivates your own movies?

You make movies, you gotta break some eggs, some little people get hurt along the way.

I am not sure that I understand you correctly: Are you talking about actual movies (Weinstein, Spacey) or 'movies in your head', i.e. masturbatory fantasies? (as long as they remain fantasies only, they don't hurt anybody)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:53 AM   #50
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
I don't think a lot of these people are sociopaths, but I do think that they shade off into that population. There has to be a spectrum.

I think that Woody Allen is a mediocre artist and an oblivious control freak who's managed to keep his own shuttered world alive for a long time based on his early and considerable comic energy.

Even if he did the worst things he's accused of, he's not really a sociopath.

How common sexual perversity is doesn't really mean that people are free from moral responsibility. I sort of take the view that it's like excretion: everybody is responsible for their ****.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 07:55 AM   #51
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I am not sure that I understand you correctly: Are you talking about actual movies (Weinstein, Spacey) or 'movies in your head', i.e. masturbatory fantasies? (as long as they remain fantasies only, they don't hurt anybody)
There is a moral distinction which has been lost for some movie makers, I think.

I'm saying that everyone is a director of his or her own images, but some people involve other people in these fantasies. Some do it on a grand professional scale. Some do it cruelly and even illegally.

Sorry, dann. What I was trying to do was sort of reach into my inner glop and find continuity with every other male pig in the world. And then compare and contrast.

[see: Camille Paglia (men are fetishists)]
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 10th November 2017 at 08:00 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:12 AM   #52
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
You mean this one - or some of her old stuff?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:18 AM   #53
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
Oh, yes, her, but yikes! I'm 40 years out of date. Her old stuff.

I was thinking of __Sexual Personae__.

The actual benefit here might be that she took the view that every author is a vampire and a pervert, so let's look at every poem that way -- I'm exaggerating a little!

The result was a sexual frankness and lack of pearl-clutching that was refreshing at the time. Also made old poems dirtier, more exciting.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 10th November 2017 at 08:20 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:23 AM   #54
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
I hadn't heard of her. I'll look into it.

This is a surprise (about the new one):
Quote:
At times infuriating, at times glittering, Paglia’s prose is always biting and relentless. It’s more effective, however, when praising Madonna’s sexuality than defending date rape.
27 Nonfiction Books By Women Everyone Should Read This Year (Huffington)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 10th November 2017 at 08:24 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:27 AM   #55
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 41,414
Originally Posted by dann View Post
What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?
Have you tried asking them?
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan

Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 10th November 2017 at 08:30 AM.
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:36 AM   #56
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
I don't know any confirmed rapistst!

Originally Posted by dann View Post
I have mentioned this in discussions with other men, and they also seem (of course, some might be lying; it's hard to tell, but I didn't get that impression) to think that the whole idea of having sex with somebody who isn't really into having sex with you is repulsive.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:41 AM   #57
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
The purpose of reading her would be to challenge your reasonable self -- she intended to be a little provocative.

She was a bit "men will be men, men are pigs, men are fetishists, get used to it".

The thing is, art and life are different domains, obviously.

What is gloriously exciting in fantasy and in art doesn't work in life.

Unless you deliberately combine the two and are rich, maybe. And have good lawyers.

No. To be frank, I'm only glad that I don't have to be morally ashamed of my particular sexual fantasies. Only by the degree that I gave in to them by being greedy for pleasure and deliberately cultivating my own scenarios rather than the opposite approach: sex like a spartan diet -- just as much as necessary. Perhaps someone who never cultivated those vines would be less occasionally appalled with himself. Not for how he's hurt other people, but for how he turns into a different person with different desires, depending. Sex could be as bland as oatmeal, or it could be something you cultivate to extremes: think about autorerotic self-asphyxia.

Someone who goes to extremes is to some degree to blame: We expect people to control themselves.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 10th November 2017 at 08:49 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 10:53 AM   #58
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
I'm not sure that I can follow you. That is, "sex like a spartan diet -- just as much as necessary." Necessary?! Sex is fun, sex is enjoyable. Why not indulge if you're with a partner who feels the same way? (Or if you're not, on your own.)
"Sex could be as bland as oatmeal, or it could be something you cultivate to extremes: think about autorerotic self-asphyxia."

I don't really get the contradiction, which seems to be based on the idea of indulging to the extent where it may kill you, which really isn't possible as long as we are talking about sexual intercourse. Auto-erotic self-asphyxiation is not the extreme end of a scale. At least, I don't think that it is. I've never tried it, I've never felt the least bit tempted, i.e. I don't see the point.

I feel the same way about stuff like poppers meant to enhance the pleasure you get from sex. I don't need it, I don't even feel the slightest bit tempted, and I am not even curious about what it would feel like. I don't think that poppers sound very sexy! (And I feel the same way about stuff like tantric sex etc: Why would I want to postpone my orgasm? Why would I want to learn how to hold back? ('Relax, don't do it!') If I were troubled by premature ejaculation, I might consider it, but as it is, I don't see the point.)

Controlling ourselves, yes, maybe, but I don't think that I walk around controlling myself, and I can't see how it might be a question of 'going to extremes'. Some people would definitely have to control themselves: A character of fiction, played by the other Kevin in The Woodsman: He is sexually attracted to children, knows that living out this desire would hurt them, and so he chooses to abstain. Very admirable, in my opinion, but only because of the direction of his sexual desire. (And I don't know what turns people into pedophiles. I suspect that it is also a kind of power trip, but once (?) you have this particular fantasy/desire, the best thing you can do is probably to seek help. But I have a hard time seeing it on a scale of extremes: Having sex with a child even once is once too many.)

But on the other hand, if two people (adult, consenting etc.) want to or feel the need to have sex five times a day, I would say go for it! Good for you! You may have to remind yourselves to get up for work and maybe pick up the children after school, but apart from that: no problem whatsoever!

My point is that I don't really think that most people need to "control themselves" in this respect. And I also think that the attempts to control oneself may have something to do with the need or temptation to 'go to extremes.' (Like the poor girls who try to control themselves and end up with an eating disorder.)

I've kindled the Paglia book and look forward to reading it. I am reading the British Romantic poets with a class right now, and she seems to write some interesting things about Byron and Shelley!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 02:05 PM   #59
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,324
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Sorry about getting your hackles up!



No, I think you understand me. It's the misogyny (or in the case of Spacey probably a kind of homophobia but expressed in the sexual act that I find difficult to understand - and you appear to have the same difficulties.
I can understand misogyny as such. It is easlily recognizable in some of the early lyrics by Mick Jagger:

Under My Thumb
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Yesterday’s Papers
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Out of Time
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And it's not that I find his contempt for the women he sings about/to less irrational than the contempt expressed by the sexual predators, but in his lyrics the misogyny is separate from and not entangled with the desire in the sexual act.
Ah! I think I've got you now. Forgive me for snapping, I shouldn't even have been posting yesterday. I was doing too many things at once.

That is a whole other kettle of discussion fish than my parroted, outdated clinical drivel, and one I'd like to explore more. I have to take a 2-hour train ride this evening (dreading it), so I will check back with some thoughts then. Trains have wifi now, which I quite enjoy.

Last edited by isissxn; 10th November 2017 at 02:07 PM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:10 PM   #60
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Considered, yes, but I don't think that's the case. A similar theory existed about rape a long time ago: Rapists wanted to have sex, that's all, but since they hadn't succeeded to have sex with a consensual partner, they would rape somebody instead. However, nowadays the consensus seems to be that rape is more about power than about sex. That many rapists are married seems to confirm that view. Also, if they don't care if a partner is into them or not, an alternative would be to go to a prostitute. Instead they rape, which seems to indicate that what turns them on isn't sex but rape.
Drug rape is also odd: People usually prefer a partner who is active (or at least conscious). Sex with a person who's drugged seems to come close to necrophilia. (And IIRC, that's how Jeffrey Dahmer started.)

By the way, I find your "just" a little weird.
I assumed it was simply a limiting notice (as in the only reason rather than as one of multiple reasons).
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 08:15 PM   #61
Yeggster
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,706
I have to say in answer to this question I REALLY have NO idea why anyone would want that

Maybe that's why we have so many laws in this regard!
Yeggster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2017, 10:15 PM   #62
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
I don't know if there are more laws in this area than in others, but I think that the difficulty for the law is that the two persons who engage in intercourse (or not) don't usually sit down and sign a contract of consent before they consummate their relationship. That would have made it so much easier for a lawyer!

Quote:
using consent to distinguish between assaultative and non-assaultative forms of sexual contact does not mean that adults must have a written, signed agreement before engaging in physical intimacy. Nor does it even mean that partners must verbally express their consent to sexual contact. "Consent for an intimate physical intrusion into the body should mean in sexual interactions what it means in every other context—affirmative permission clearly signaled by words or conduct." There are many ways to make this permission clear through verbal and nonverbal cues. Permission is not manifested, however, though silence or ambivalence.”
Consent, Force and Coercion

'I, XX, being of sound mind and judgement, hereby consent to let my body be intimately, physically intruded into by the other party, YY, …'

It reminds me of a case from the late 1970s when a rapist, a student of law and chairman of the conservative student organization RCDS (Ring Christlich-Demokratischer Studenten) in Germany (West) made his victim sign a contract like this. A Marxist student group, the enemies of the RCDS, of course, published an article in their newspaper MSZ that pretended to defend the rapist by pointing out how being the leader of the RCDS and a student of law had led him to believe that it was acceptable behavior to force young women to have sex against their will as long as he had them sign a contract post festum.

Against the bad practice of dragging RCDS students into the dirt (Marxistische Studenten Zeitung (MSZ), May 1977)

The article is very funny, but the case obviously wasn't! Google Translate produces a fairly readable version in English.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 06:01 AM   #63
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
I would like to elaborate on something I wrote in post 44 when I mentioned:
Originally Posted by dann View Post
the rape scene in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America (the really ugly rape scene, not the funny one!).

"Funny rape" is an oxymoron, of course. One of the more memorable cinematic rape scenes is the one in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange where Alex rapes a woman while performing Singing in the Rain. Alex and the other members of his gang find the whole thing funny, but the victims, the woman who is raped and her husband who is crippled, don't, of course, and neither do the people watching the movie - except for the scattered psychos in the audience, maybe. That Alex considers it to be a joke makes the whole thing even worse. It's a rape scene (not the only one in the movie), and it isn't funny.

What makes the first rape scene funny in 'Once Upon a Time' (but not the first time you watch it) is that it isn't really rape: Noodles and his gang are robbing a jewelry store, and while the robbery is going on Noodles appears to rape one of the employees, who appears to enjoy it in spite of her protests. This makes the scene very disturbing the first time around because you think that the director has recreated the misogynistic stereotype of victims of rape enjoying the experience.

However, later the woman appears to have been in on the whole thing from the very beginning. She isn't a victim, she is an accomplice to the robbery, and 'raping' her was a way of making her appear to be a victim - the police won't suspect her, the rape victim, of all people! - similar to the many films where an insider, an accomplice, is roughed up (and asking to be roughed up) in order to make him seem to be a victim.*
The first time you watch the scene, it's disturbing. The next time(s) you watch it (if you remember), you are in on the joke, which is what makes the scene funny.

And if somebody misunderstands the scene to mean that rape in general is fun - and I think that some people do - the film makes up for it with the later rape scene, which ought to be compulsory watching for everybody.


However, the movie's attitude to prostitution is debatable.

* I just watched the scene again (the first one). I had forgotten that the 'rape victim' in the movie also asks to be roughed up, but the first time you see it, she appears to be a masochist. Only later do you discover her true reason for wanting to be bruised as well as 'raped'.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 11th November 2017 at 07:30 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2017, 09:59 PM   #64
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 41,414
Actually, rape can be very funny and George Carlin already explained in detail how
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 01:04 AM   #65
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
No, unfortunately the guy may go into great detail, but he doesn't explain anything, and what's worse in the context is that he isn't even funny. What has the outward appearance of jokes only works with his audience because they're willing to laugh at the most stupid stereotypes, thus confirming them.

E.g: A guy who rapes an 81-year-old woman while breaking and entering is a loser - not because he's raping as well as breaking and entering, but because he's raping an old woman.

George Carlin pretends to sympathize with sensible feminist substitutes of certain words: humankind instead of mankind, for instance, but only to come up with absurd examples that he himself invented for the purpose (a pretty easy exercise): "personholes" instead of "manholes"), pretending that those are the changes that feminists propose in order to make them look ridiculous (and also pretending that the feminists to whom this question seems important are incapable of coming up with better suggestions). (We know the stereotype: 'It's political correctness gone mad.')

And arrived at that point, he crowns it with: "If you wanna piss off a feminist, call her a cum catcher," a 'joke' that he justifies by pointing at the audience, many of which are couples, thus 'proving' that this is what women really are: cum catchers!

And an <SNIP RULE 10> like George Carlin probably doesn't even know what he's doing: denigrating women by reducing them to one small part of what they may do as part of having sex - which he has already debased with his use of the language, which only picks up on an old tradition: 'sperm receptacles', for instance, or all the variations of 'Women are good for one thing only.' We're all familiar with the stupidity of these stereotypes that imply that women are soiled by having sex, which, by the way, might be the subject matter of a clever comedian (which it probably already is).

That might also be a way of making jokes about rape that are actually funny: by looking at the stupid ideas of rapists: the bad excuses, the attitude that the victims deserve to be raped. I'm not saying that it is impossible to make a funny rape joke. (Which is very different from your: "rape can be very funny." No, it can't!) I'm only saying that George Carlin isn't up for the job: A rapist is supposed to be ridiculous because he rapes an old woman instead of a young one? Really?! And that's the whole joke?! You gotta be kidding!
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 0
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 16th November 2017 at 01:58 AM. Reason: Improperly masked profanity
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 11:31 AM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,677
I'll mention here that it used to be a fairly common trope in pornography that resistance is only pro-forma, and that once the sex act starts, the former refusenik enjoys it every bit as much as the ravisher. Indeed, this was not uncommon in romance novels as well; the term "bodice-ripper" was used to describe those books.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 08:25 PM   #67
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,040
In a lot of people's cases, this looks like a fairly straightforward expansion on something that, in its original milder form, is already naturally built in to most straight sexual relationships. The physical differences between men & women doesn't just exist in a vacuum; they're the main thing that makes us want to have sex, and they significantly affect how having sex works. Typically, in any straight couple, the man is physically capable of pinning the woman down, or pinning her to a wall, or picking her up, or changing her position to whatever position he wants her in, and so on, and she really has no ability to either do any of the same to him or physically stop him from doing it to her. And they both like it this way and enjoy demonstrations of this disparity, to such an extent that sex would seem weirdly restrained and lifeless, including to her, if he held back from it too much. The problem, then, would be people who take this too far.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 09:49 PM   #68
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I'll mention here that it used to be a fairly common trope in pornography that resistance is only pro-forma, and that once the sex act starts, the former refusenik enjoys it every bit as much as the ravisher. Indeed, this was not uncommon in romance novels as well; the term "bodice-ripper" was used to describe those books.
That’s true. And it’s possible (or at least, I think that it was possible at some point in the past) for a sexual coercer to be under the impression that at some point the unwilling woman would give up her resistance to the adamant coercer and actually enjoy the act. But, of course, that excuse (ignorance, false perception) would be valid only once, and among sexual coercers the persistent group seems to be the biggest:
Quote:
… researchers identified four sexually coercive groups (i.e., noncoercer, desister, initiator, and persistent) with past sexual coercion being the biggest predictor of sexual coercion.
Sexually Harmful Youth – Successful Reintegration to School (Springer, 2016)
In Once Upon a Time in America, Noodles also seems to suffer from this delusion, expecting Deborah, the woman he's been attracted to his whole life, to surrender to his assault, but at least he is disgusted with himself when he realizes that he is nothing but a rapist. His past experience with prostitutes earlier in the movie seems to have contributed to his delusion.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 12th November 2017 at 10:06 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2017, 10:05 PM   #69
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
In a lot of people's cases, this looks like a fairly straightforward expansion on something that, in its original milder form, is already naturally built in to most straight sexual relationships. The physical differences between men & women doesn't just exist in a vacuum; they're the main thing that makes us want to have sex, and they significantly affect how having sex works. Typically, in any straight couple, the man is physically capable of pinning the woman down, or pinning her to a wall, or picking her up, or changing her position to whatever position he wants her in, and so on, and she really has no ability to either do any of the same to him or physically stop him from doing it to her.

Yes, men are usually bigger and stronger than women.

Quote:
And they both like it this way and enjoy demonstrations of this disparity, to such an extent that sex would seem weirdly restrained and lifeless, including to her, if he held back from it too much. The problem, then, would be people (?) who take this too far.

Sometimes a woman may want to be pinned down, but that is not always the case, and it doesn't mean that it is OK to pin her down when she indicates that it isn't. So it's not just a question of taking it too far. Pinning somebody down who doesn't want to be pinned down is always taking it too far.
And if you actually think that sex without pinning her down is restrained and lifeless, I think that you're deluded.
What you are describing is the trope in pornography and romance novels mentioned by Brainster.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 05:06 AM   #70
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by dann View Post
And aren't they even aware that they're actively trying to interpret what's going on as consent? They actually think that freezing up is the state a woman is in when enjoying or looking forward to having sex? (Unlike many others, that is one delusion you probably won't get from watching porn!)
To me the description sounds like a very bad excuse from somebody who feels entitled to have sex with an unwilling partner.
Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 06:08 AM   #71
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,185
Originally Posted by dann View Post
What would make it instinctual? I know that you can find analogous behavior in the animal kingdom, but still … It also wouldn't explain how the alleged primal instincts would be transformed into human consciousness and concepts.
The reciprocity of the sexual act seems to be how we humans usually enjoy having sex so how do you go from that to the (apparently) complete lack of empathy?
For myself, this is critical. As in I can hardly even maintain ..err... adequate blood flow if my partner appears to be anything less than enthusiastic about our activities.

But I suspect that's hardly the norm, given the typical range of women's reported sexual satisfaction.

I've understood for years, though, that "rape isn't about sexual satisfaction." Since sexual activity occurred, most of us well-adjusted types conclude that must have been the goal, right? What would anyone need to add to that?!

Sex is the weapon used, yes. The goal is to overthrow another person's will, to instill in them shame, humiliation, utter helplessness, self-doubt, etc. It is quite simply among the worst kinds of abuses that a human being can inflict on another.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 06:28 AM   #72
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,698
<snip>

Edited by TubbaBlubba:  Removed for Rule 9 breach.

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 13th November 2017 at 07:54 AM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 06:55 AM   #73
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,072
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.
I know from my studies that there are several different types of rapists, so they are not monolithic. One type is the serial rapist who is deluded to believe that if he only has sex with the woman, she will reciprocate and fall in love with him.
These people may use the threat of violence... Usually a knife or something equally intimidating, but rarely if ever physically assault the victim. When arrested, they frequently make repeated attempts to re-contact their victims, sure that they now have a “relationship”.

We have had a couple here in the area. One was a police officer....

The other, the “South Side Rapist”, had something like 30 victims. This particular type is often referred to as “gentlemen rapists” in older literature because they don’t harm the victim.
It’s been noted that if the victim resists these people, they will often cease the attack. They can’t understand why the victim would resist.

Yet there is another type who is excited by the struggles and attempted resistance of the victim. These people are usually extremely violent, and resistance on the part of the victim will only excite them to further violence. Death is not uncommon.
Money thought that a certain variety of serial killer was also exhibiting a paraphilia involving violent rape:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

Last edited by Bikewer; 13th November 2017 at 07:01 AM.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:13 AM   #74
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I've understood for years, though, that "rape isn't about sexual satisfaction." Since sexual activity occurred, most of us well-adjusted types conclude that must have been the goal, right? What would anyone need to add to that?!

Sex is the weapon used, yes. The goal is to overthrow another person's will, to instill in them shame, humiliation, utter helplessness, self-doubt, etc. It is quite simply among the worst kinds of abuses that a human being can inflict on another.
I think it's probably both: They get off sexually on overthrowing another person's will etc. The way Bikewer describes it:

Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Yet there is another type who is excited by the struggles and attempted resistance of the victim. These people are usually extremely violent, and resistance on the part of the victim will only excite them to further violence. Death is not uncommon.
Money thought that a certain variety of serial killer was also exhibiting a paraphilia involving violent rape:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia
A very bizarre case in Copenhagen, still under investigation:
Kim Wall: What we know about macabre submarine death case (BBC News, Oct. 30, 2017)
The guy used to frequent fetish clubs - who, by the way, must have a serious problem with keeping people like this away
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 13th November 2017 at 11:32 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:38 AM   #75
dann
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,686
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.

I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 13th November 2017 at 10:39 AM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:44 AM   #76
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!
No, I think what he's talking about is more that the male here is obsessed and believes there is some kind of romantic bond when there isn't one -- possibly some weird variant of the severely socially inept, I don't know.

I do know that one-sided stalker relationships exist where the stalker wills him or herself constantly to believe that there is a mutual relationship.

So I think this is different from Weinstein, who is different from Dahmer, who is different from Woody Allen, who is different from Submarine Man.

It looks like I'm a splitter rather than a lumper. The reason is that I want thinking to be cool and careful rather than broad-brush and moral and wtf.

Dahmer's father writes an extremely sad book in which he speculates about how what he calls "the engine" of his son's sexuality became attached to increasingly weird stuff.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 13th November 2017 at 10:46 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:47 AM   #77
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!
The thing is that they are not resisting, they are freezing up. The post I cited never had her resisting, just saying no and not fighting back.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:49 AM   #78
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
No, I think what he's talking about is more that the male here is obsessed and believes there is some kind of romantic bond when there isn't one -- possibly some weird variant of the severely socially inept, I don't know.
Not obsessed, just not getting that there is a difference between frozen panic and consent.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 10:58 AM   #79
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,471
Ok. I was speculating why a stalker-type person may completely distort the truth to themselves.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 11:02 AM   #80
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
Ok. I was speculating why a stalker-type person may completely distort the truth to themselves.
That is a separate issue. I was talking about cases where people have gotten through the idea that no means no, but assume yes in the absence of a clear no. So if the victim freezes up and stops responding they think it is consensual.

It is the same reaction that molesters on the subway use.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.