6:00pm Curfew for men

[Derec]

Your handwaved and unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.

We have discussed it in numerous threads at length. Your continued feigned ignorance of that is duly noted.

 

[Derec]

And a rape is a rape whether it is reported or not, of course. It’s just that it was not reported.

And of course, just because there is a report does not mean a rape actually occurred.
That is the caveat radfems and others pushing the myth of "rape culture" try to ignore.
See "Duke Lacrosse" case or the "Rape on Campus" clusterfuck.

 

[laughing dog]

Your handwaved and unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.

We have discussed it in numerous threads at length. Your continued feigned ignorance of that is duly noted.

You confuse your misogynistic discussion with reality based rational discussion.

 

[Derec]

Rape is not rare.

Rape committed against somebody just because they are women and no other reason/motive is pretty rare I would think.

Legally, they are victims of rape.

Not sure about that (can you show me relevant laws?) but even if so, does not mean that the law is right.
Factually, they are not victims of rape because factually they can make that choice and consent even if there are good reason for the law to prohibit it.

Clearly I do not. You believe that 17 is old enough to choose to become a prostitute.

No I do not. But I do recognize that a 17 year old is capable of making that choice.
Saying that a 17 year old should not be allowed to make certain choices is not the same as saying a 17 year old is incapable of making said choices.

I am perfectly fine in setting minimum age for sex workers at 18. I am not fine with pretending that sex with a willing 17 year old sex workers is "rape".
Btw, would you classify it as "rape" even if the customer had no knowledge of her (or him for that matter) being 17?

By law, a 17 year old cannot agree to be a prostitute. Sex with a 17 year old 'prostitute' constitutes rape under the law.

Those two things describe very different things. You are trying to conflate them together.
That is as illogical as saying that if a 17 year old may not legally buy booze that therefore a 17 year drinking booze is the same as force-feeding alcohol to them.

Nope. Just because something is not 100% effective does not mean that it is not effective.

Prohibition is not at all effective. There is not an epidemic of violence against sex workers in Nevada. Or in Rhode Island during the brief period when indoor sex work was accidentally legalized. Sweden is not some promised land where sex workers are unusually safe just because the nanny state is threatening their customers with prosecution just for wanting a consensual sexual encounter.

I would like to reduce/eliminate violence against prostitutes. I assume you would like to do the same. We just don't agree on what is more effective.

I agree that violence against sex workers, just like violence against all people should be reduced as much as feasible in a free society.
But we disagree that freedom of people to be able to choose to buy or sex sexual services is a significant societal good that needs to be legal and regulated only as far as necessary to prevent involuntary sex work and to keep participants reasonably safe (for example licenses with regular health checks and condom mandates).
Not everybody is in a sexually fulfilling relationship and men who can get casual sex on Tinder or in bars/clubs are a tiny minority. So there is a huge imbalance in the non-commercial marketplace for sex. The commercial marketplace acts as a pressure relief valve in this highly imbalanced marketplace.

I have not seen you address this problem except to say that these men should just have to go without. And that shows a real lack of empathy on your behalf as well as real lack of understanding about human nature and economic forces - where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Which is why all countries that have some form of Prohibition model still have sex workers and sex work. Even repressive theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia could not stamp it out.

Consenting adults is where you lose the argument. After all you are arguing that a 17 year old can consent to be a prostitute.

The hard line between minor and adult is a legal fiction. You seem to pretend that it is somehow ontological.
A 17 year definitely has the mental capacity to make that choice and thus is capable of consenting. Claiming that a 17 year old cannot consent is very different than saying that there should be a minimum age. We agree on the latter, but not on the former.

The law says different. Brain science would also disagree with you about whether or not a 17 year old is an adult. Having mature secondary sex characteristics and sex organs is not the same thing as being an adult.

I am not aware that brain science claims that there is a switch that matures a brain on the 18th birthday. Must have missed that paper in Science. And laws can and should be written in a way that recognize that there is no such switch while at the same time there is practical necessity for minimum ages.

But let's go back to "consenting adults". We agree that there should be a minimum age, and 18 is reasonable as the legal age of majority.

So what is the argument that consenting adults should be prohibited from exchanging sex for money if they so choose?
Why is it ok to date/marry somebody because they are rich ok, but having sex with somebody because they leave some money on the dresser afterward is not?

 

[Derec]

You confuse your misogynistic discussion with reality based rational discussion.

You are confused if you think skepticism of radfem claims of "rape culture/epidemic" is "misogynistic".

 

[starwater]

You confuse your misogynistic discussion with reality based rational discussion.

You are confused if you think skepticism of radfem claims of "rape culture/epidemic" is "misogynistic".

Derec Do you identify with:

incels - involuntary celibates
MRAs - Men's Right Activists
PUAs - Pick Up Artists
?

[removed]

 

[Toni]

Rape committed against somebody just because they are women and no other reason/motive is pretty rare I would think.

Not at all. I think it would be rare for a rapist to be indifferent to the gender of his victim.

Not sure about that (can you show me relevant laws?) but even if so, does not mean that the law is right.
Factually, they are not victims of rape because factually they can make that choice and consent even if there are good reason for the law to prohibit it.

Factually, rape is defined by law. If the law defines something as rape, then, legally that is rape.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-sex-trafficking

Here's another version of the same info: https://www.wksexcrimes.com/what-is...ry year, over one million,under the age of 18.

In the US, a person under the age of 18 cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages, get a tattoo or get a drivers' license without parental permission, cannot sign a legal contract, cannot (in most cases) agree to their own medical treatment, cannot rent an apartment, take out a credit card, or engage in lots of different kinds of employment or enlist in any branch of the US miliatry or open a bank account in their own name, or get married without parental consent. For starters.

Clearly I do not. You believe that 17 is old enough to choose to become a prostitute.

No I do not.

But I do recognize that a 17 year old is capable of making that choice.
Saying that a 17 year old should not be allowed to make certain choices is not the same as saying a 17 year old is incapable of making said choices.

A 17 year old can make all sorts of (illegal) choices. We're talking about federal law here.

I am perfectly fine in setting minimum age for sex workers at 18. I am not fine with pretending that sex with a willing 17 year old sex workers is "rape".

Depending on the state and the age of the other person, it may or may not be classified as rape. Again, what is and is not rape is defined by law.

Btw, would you classify it as "rape" even if the customer had no knowledge of her (or him for that matter) being 17?

Yes. I think that one must perform due diligence. A customer who 'purchases' a motor vehicle has the duty to ensure that the vehicle he is purchasing belongs the the person who is selling it and that the sale is legal and in accordance with the law.

I think people are a lot more important that cars.

An employer has the legal obiligation to determine that any employees are able to be legally employed in whatever industry and under whatever conditions the employer is offering employment. This includes being of age, as determined by law, and being a US citizen, if required by law or having papers that allow the individual to be employed.

By law, a 17 year old cannot agree to be a prostitute. Sex with a 17 year old 'prostitute' constitutes rape under the law.

Those two things describe very different things. You are trying to conflate them together.
That is as illogical as saying that if a 17 year old may not legally buy booze that therefore a 17 year drinking booze is the same as force-feeding alcohol to them.

No, I am stating the law. You want wiggle room to have sex with underage prostitutes. There is none, legally.

Nope. Just because something is not 100% effective does not mean that it is not effective.

Prohibition is not at all effective. There is not an epidemic of violence against sex workers in Nevada. Or in Rhode Island during the brief period when indoor sex work was accidentally legalized. Sweden is not some promised land where sex workers are unusually safe just because the nanny state is threatening their customers with prosecution just for wanting a consensual sexual encounter.

Actually, there is significant violence against prostitutes in Nevada and across the US and throughout the world. Whether prostitution is legal or not.

I agree that violence against sex workers, just like violence against all people should be reduced as much as feasible in a free society.
But we disagree that freedom of people to be able to choose to buy or sex sexual services is a significant societal good that needs to be legal and regulated only as far as necessary to prevent involuntary sex work and to keep participants reasonably safe (for example licenses with regular health checks and condom mandates).

You've nicely summed up our differences. FWIW, I would feel differently if I believed that legalized prostitution made prostitutes safer. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to nor does it seem to reduce the demand for trafficked women (sex workers agains their will) or minors.

Not everybody is in a sexually fulfilling relationship and men who can get casual sex on Tinder or in bars/clubs are a tiny minority. So there is a huge imbalance in the non-commercial marketplace for sex. The commercial marketplace acts as a pressure relief valve in this highly imbalanced marketplace.

I have not seen you address this problem except to say that these men should just have to go without. And that shows a real lack of empathy on your behalf as well as real lack of understanding about human nature and economic forces - where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Which is why all countries that have some form of Prohibition model still have sex workers and sex work. Even repressive theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia could not stamp it out.

Actually, that's not at all true. First of all, there are a lot of women who are lonely or just horny and have trouble finding a sex partner, either for casual sex or for a relationship.

Secondly, I do have sympathy for those who have difficulty in finding satisfying relationships where they can engage in sex, whether those relationships are 15 minute hook ups in a bar parking lot or long term relationships. I think in most cases, people can find the type of relationship they want if they are willing to take more chances and actually put themselves out there, instead of hiding in a room with a computer screen.

Consenting adults is where you lose the argument. After all you are arguing that a 17 year old can consent to be a prostitute.

The hard line between minor and adult is a legal fiction. You seem to pretend that it is somehow ontological.
A 17 year definitely has the mental capacity to make that choice and thus is capable of consenting. Claiming that a 17 year old cannot consent is very different than saying that there should be a minimum age. We agree on the latter, but not on the former.

I have both brain science and the law on my side.

I have no desire to see consensual sex between a 17 year old and someone within 2 years of their age criminalized. Engaging in sex for mutual pleasure is vastly different than engaging in sex as commerce.

The law says different. Brain science would also disagree with you about whether or not a 17 year old is an adult. Having mature secondary sex characteristics and sex organs is not the same thing as being an adult.

I am not aware that brain science claims that there is a switch that matures a brain on the 18th birthday. Must have missed that paper in Science. And laws can and should be written in a way that recognize that there is no such switch while at the same time there is practical necessity for minimum ages.

That's pretty much what the law does: there is indeed a practical necessity for a minimum age. The law has determined that 18 is that age. Unfortunately, the law isn't a sliding scale that calculates that this person at age 17 is as mature as that person at age 23 although that does indeed happen. I think they picked a low end for age, myself, based upon what I know about the growth and maturation of human beings.

So what is the argument that consenting adults should be prohibited from exchanging sex for money if they so choose?
Why is it ok to date/marry somebody because they are rich ok, but having sex with somebody because they leave some money on the dresser afterward is not?

I think it is very difficult to discern what constitutes 'consent' for prostitution. I'm much less concerned about whether a 40 year old is making a rational decision about how to earn her living than I am about a 17 or 18 year old who may make a decision that puts their life and health in significant danger. And yeah, I'm not keen on 18 year olds being able to enlist in the military, either.

 

[Metaphor]

Not at all. I think it would be rare for a rapist to be indifferent to the gender of his victim.

I don't think there has been a single rape of anyone anywhere where the gender of a victim has even entered the mind of the rapist. Gender identity is a thought in a person's head.

People (including rapists) are certainly not indifferent to the sex of an individual in their sexual interests.

 

[Toni]

Not at all. I think it would be rare for a rapist to be indifferent to the gender of his victim.

I don't think there has been a single rape of anyone anywhere where the gender of a victim has even entered the mind of the rapist. Gender identity is a thought in a person's head.

People (including rapists) are certainly not indifferent to the sex of an individual in their sexual interests.

That's what I said.

 

[Metaphor]

Not at all. I think it would be rare for a rapist to be indifferent to the gender of his victim.

I don't think there has been a single rape of anyone anywhere where the gender of a victim has even entered the mind of the rapist. Gender identity is a thought in a person's head.

People (including rapists) are certainly not indifferent to the sex of an individual in their sexual interests.

That's what I said.

No, Toni. You said it would be rare for a rapist to be 'indifferent' to the gender of their victim. I said it isn't rare at all. Rapists are so indifferent to gender that I do not think a single rapist has ever tried to discover the gender of their victim.

 

[Toni]

That's what I said.

No, Toni. You said it would be rare for a rapist to be 'indifferent' to the gender of their victim. I said it isn't rare at all. Rapists are so indifferent to gender that I do not think a single rapist has ever tried to discover the gender of their victim.

I’m pretty sure that rapists use gender as a primary selection criteria.

 

[Metaphor]

That's what I said.

No, Toni. You said it would be rare for a rapist to be 'indifferent' to the gender of their victim. I said it isn't rare at all. Rapists are so indifferent to gender that I do not think a single rapist has ever tried to discover the gender of their victim.

I’m pretty sure that rapists use gender as a primary selection criteria.

Your deliberate obtuseness is vexing if unsurprising.

Gender identity is a thought in a person's head. Rapists are generally not interested in their victim's thoughts. No rapist has asked about or thought about the gender of one of their victims.

On the other hand, rape is unconsented sex, and rapists are indeed not indifferent to the sex of their victim when they want to have unconsented sex.

 

[Politesse]

I’m pretty sure that rapists use gender as a primary selection criteria.

Your deliberate obtuseness is vexing if unsurprising.

Gender identity is a thought in a person's head. Rapists are generally not interested in their victim's thoughts. No rapist has asked about or thought about the gender of one of their victims.

On the other hand, rape is unconsented sex, and rapists are indeed not indifferent to the sex of their victim when they want to have unconsented sex.

I see you're buying into the myth that rapists don't usually know their victims personally.

 

[Metaphor]

I’m pretty sure that rapists use gender as a primary selection criteria.

Your deliberate obtuseness is vexing if unsurprising.

Gender identity is a thought in a person's head. Rapists are generally not interested in their victim's thoughts. No rapist has asked about or thought about the gender of one of their victims.

On the other hand, rape is unconsented sex, and rapists are indeed not indifferent to the sex of their victim when they want to have unconsented sex.

I see you're buying into the myth that rapists don't usually know their victims personally.

No, I am trying to explain simple concepts to Toni, who appears to have forgotten that sex and gender are different, and sexual orientation is attraction to a particular sex.

No rapist chooses a victim based on a person's gender identity, but on their sex.

 

[Trausti]

No rapist chooses a victim based on a person's gender identity, but on their sex.

Well that's transphobic.

 

[Toni]

I see you're buying into the myth that rapists don't usually know their victims personally.

No, I am trying to explain simple concepts to Toni, who appears to have forgotten that sex and gender are different, and sexual orientation is attraction to a particular sex.

No rapist chooses a victim based on a person's gender identity, but on their sex.

Obviously you are unaware that trans people experience a high degree of sexual assault and rape.

 

[Metaphor]

I see you're buying into the myth that rapists don't usually know their victims personally.

No, I am trying to explain simple concepts to Toni, who appears to have forgotten that sex and gender are different, and sexual orientation is attraction to a particular sex.

No rapist chooses a victim based on a person's gender identity, but on their sex.

Obviously you are unaware that trans people experience a high degree of sexual assault and rape.

You appear to believe that the fact that rapists choose victims based on their own sexual orientation and the sex of their victim and not the gender of their victim somehow conflicts with the putative fact that trans people experience 'a high degree of sexual assault and rape'. These two facts do not conflict.

Please try and understand the difference between sex and gender for future dialogue.

 

[Toni]

Obviously you are unaware that trans people experience a high degree of sexual assault and rape.

You appear to believe that the fact that rapists choose victims based on their own sexual orientation and the sex of their victim and not the gender of their victim somehow conflicts with the putative fact that trans people experience 'a high degree of sexual assault and rape'. These two facts do not conflict.

Please try and understand the difference between sex and gender for future dialogue.

I am well aware of the difference.

You seem to be aware of your own reflection riding a broken hobby horse.

 

[Metaphor]

Obviously you are unaware that trans people experience a high degree of sexual assault and rape.

You appear to believe that the fact that rapists choose victims based on their own sexual orientation and the sex of their victim and not the gender of their victim somehow conflicts with the putative fact that trans people experience 'a high degree of sexual assault and rape'. These two facts do not conflict.

Please try and understand the difference between sex and gender for future dialogue.

I am well aware of the difference.

You seem to be aware of your own reflection riding a broken hobby horse.

You were not aware of the difference. This is betrayed by your previous post that conflated sex and gender.

 

[Toni]

I am well aware of the difference.

You seem to be aware of your own reflection riding a broken hobby horse.

You were not aware of the difference. This is betrayed by your previous post that conflated sex and gender.

It must be difficult to ride multiple broken hobby horses at the same time.