Breitbart: rape now means "any sex that the woman ends up regretting"

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is a rank fear of women at the core of this issue. A woman's power to dispense sexual favors, or deny them, is coupled with her power to claim such favors were stolen. Some men are threatened by the very idea. In order for this mindset to exist, there must be a firm conviction that a woman is basically malevolent, and always looking for some way to inflict pain on a man.

That's not the claim I am seeing being made here. I think the claim is that society allows and accommodates and sometimes encourages such behaviour from women, so some women engage in it. That's not the same as presuming all women are malevolent all the time. It isn't sexism. It isn't prejudice. It is a claim about societal norms, expectations, and culture. It may be correct or incorrect, but its more similar to claiming "white privilege" exists or that there is a "soft bigotry of low expectations" for black people than claiming white people or black people are malevolent.

 

[Bronzeage]

There is a rank fear of women at the core of this issue. A woman's power to dispense sexual favors, or deny them, is coupled with her power to claim such favors were stolen. Some men are threatened by the very idea. In order for this mindset to exist, there must be a firm conviction that a woman is basically malevolent, and always looking for some way to inflict pain on a man.

That's not the claim I am seeing being made here. I think the claim is that society allows and accommodates and sometimes encourages such behaviour from women, so some women engage in it. That's not the same as presuming all women are malevolent all the time. It isn't sexism. It isn't prejudice. It is a claim about societal norms, expectations, and culture. It may be correct or incorrect, but its more similar to claiming "white privilege" exists or that there is a "soft bigotry of low expectations" for black people than claiming white people or black people are malevolent.

Okay, try this one: For a man, having sex is a critical need, but having sex with a woman places him at her mercy, because she can claim rape and have total control over his freedom and his life. There is no defense against a rape accusation, because a woman is always believed.

In order for this scenario to be possible, within the closed mindset which created it, the woman must be malevolent and all women share this malevolence. A woman's power over men is so great, not even white privilege can overcome it.

It's all very scientific, based on facts and statistics, and all that.

 

[laughing dog]

Then how do you explain Vassar, Amherst and other miscarriages of justice?

Which one of these cases resulted in a criminal conviction for a crime they did not commit? You know, like in the actual definition of a miscarriage of justice.

Being expelled from the university is a very serious punishment. You're stuck with huge student loans you very well might never be able to repay. Think another college will take you with the expulsion on your record?

What makes you think that the institution necessarily puts the reason or expulsion on the transcript?

- - - Updated - - -

Always telling when Derec lays out some facts like that and makes a rational and somewhat convincing argument, and all he's met with is some personal attacks and eye rolling.

Derec, the reason why nobody can tell you why two drunk people having sex only results in the woman not having given consent, and the reason why women can get away with rape accusations after the fact and despite little if any evidence behind the charge, is pretty obvious to everybody here, even the feminists, but they don't want to admit it to themselves. That's why you're not getting a mature and cogent counter argument. And you won't. It will all be about outrage and feelings and personal attacks. You know that by now. So why do you keep posting what you do?

Derec has gotten mature and cogent counter arguments, often the same ones over and over again. There's plenty of people here willing to engage with him in a genuine discussion. But that's not possible when the arguments he presents are fundamentally dishonest.

For example, he knows damn well that the Amherst case wasn't about two students having a drunken hookup and only the guy being punished for it. It was about a guy forcing a gal to continue fellating him when she tried to stop. But Derec keeps claiming both students did the exact same thing so he can cry about how wrong it was that the guy was expelled, and never mind the part about forcible sexual assault. He doesn't even mention it.

In the Columbia University case, he is using a single text message (and he can't even tell you when it was sent, much less the context or if was meant to be taken literally) as evidence the girl wanted a romantic relationship with the guy and only cried rape when he broke up with her. He ignores the woman's testimony that their consensual sexual encounter became non-consensual aka rape when he flipped her over and forcibly penetrated her anally despite her repeated cries of "No, no!" and attempts to escape. He's also ignoring the three other people who came forward and said the guy committed a forcible sexual assault against each of them, too.

You ask why he keeps posting what he does. I'd like to know that, too.

This is a breath of fresh air. See, it can be done folks.

The funny thing is that it is routinely done, but you seem unable to recognize.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is a rank fear of women at the core of this issue. A woman's power to dispense sexual favors, or deny them, is coupled with her power to claim such favors were stolen. Some men are threatened by the very idea. In order for this mindset to exist, there must be a firm conviction that a woman is basically malevolent, and always looking for some way to inflict pain on a man.

That's not the claim I am seeing being made here. I think the claim is that society allows and accommodates and sometimes encourages such behaviour from women, so some women engage in it. That's not the same as presuming all women are malevolent all the time. It isn't sexism. It isn't prejudice. It is a claim about societal norms, expectations, and culture. It may be correct or incorrect, but its more similar to claiming "white privilege" exists or that there is a "soft bigotry of low expectations" for black people than claiming white people or black people are malevolent.

Okay, try this one: For a man, having sex is a critical need, but having sex with a woman places him at her mercy, because she can claim rape and have total control over his freedom and his life. There is no defense against a rape accusation, because a woman is always believed.

In order for this scenario to be possible, within the closed mindset which created it, the woman must be malevolent and all women share this malevolence. A woman's power over men is so great, not even white privilege can overcome it.

It's all very scientific, based on facts and statistics, and all that.

No, that still isn't what is being claimed. Nor does paragraph two follow from paragraph one. Because she CAN "claim rape and have total control over his freedom and his life" and because "there is no defense against a rape accusation, because a woman is always believed", if accepted as true, does NOT mean that women WILL do so, much less that all of them will do so. It says nothing of females being malevolent. It speaks to the ability for females to get away with such.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Post - WITH LINK TO A FACTUAL SOURCE - any feminist who defines "rape" as "any sex that the woman ends up regretting that she had".

Do not trot out your handful of real or imagined "false rape claims" because that is not what Breitbart's jackass was quoted as saying, nor what Loren claims "some feminists" "define" as rape.

Beyond that, I have zero intention of discussing your hobbyhorses with you, so don't start.

We've seen survey questions that counted as rape any sex she didn't want--even if it was fully consensual.

Really? Post a link to factual source

(I won't hold my breath, and I reject your claim)

You were part of the discussion. Fixing your memory isn't my job.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

 

[fromderinside]

More like she didn't want sex but she wanted to keep the slug as a friend so she submitted. Then, when he revealed himself as the slug she thought he was she admitted the sex was unwanted. Weinstein would like to have it written Loren Pechtel's way.

 

[RavenSky]

We've seen survey questions that counted as rape any sex she didn't want--even if it was fully consensual.

Really? Post a link to factual source

(I won't hold my breath, and I reject your claim)

You were part of the discussion. Fixing your memory isn't my job.

My memory is just fine. The problem is you don't, won't and can't post any such factual source. Your claim is false.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

So she accuses him of rape the next day Absurd

 

[Arctish]

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

The article that gave that as an example of unwanted sex described it this way: a man threatens to render his wife or girlfriend homeless and destitute by withdrawing financial support if she doesn't 'put out' on demand, so she complies.

Think about it for a minute. Most domestic arrangements would collapse if there was a sudden loss of income. Most people can't afford rent by themselves unless they live alone in an efficiency apartment, live with parents, or have a job that pays very well. Most women with young children can't work full time unless they have a partner who can take over child care duties for part of the day. Most couples carry the debt load they can manage together, far beyond what one alone can afford. If a guy threatens to walk out on a relationship, he's putting a hell of a lot of pressure on his wife or girlfriend. It's coercive.

Coercing you into letting someone do whatever they want to you isn't the same thing as having your consent, even if you allow it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Coercing you into letting someone do whatever they want to you isn't the same thing as having your consent, even if you allow it.

That is a very good point.

But does he have an obligation to support her? Or can he withdraw that support on a whim? It will vary from case to case (wife vs dating etc). If he can just walk away on a whim, then why would it be wrong for him to say he is walking away unless there is sex? It becomes more of a bargaining chip for something she is not otherwise entitled to, than a threat to take something she should have away.

 

[Arctish]

Coercing you into letting someone do whatever they want to you isn't the same thing as having your consent, even if you allow it.

That is a very good point.

But does he have an obligation to support her? Or can he withdraw that support on a whim? It will vary from case to case (wife vs dating etc). If he can just walk away on a whim, then why would it be wrong for him to say he is walking away unless there is sex? It becomes more of a bargaining chip for something she is not otherwise entitled to, than a threat to take something she should have away.

Neither one has an obligation to support the other unless they had a prior agreement that they would. If the only reason they signed a lease was because they agreed they would split the cost, then they each have an obligation not to leave the other holding the bag.

I've seen couples go through bitter divorces where one person wanted the other to suffer. I've also seen couples split up in a way that left them both able to pay the bills and move on. I have a relative who lost a house when the departed spouse concealed the fact that the mortgage wasn't being paid. Being homeless with four children to take care of while trying to hold down a full time job was absolutely awful. No sane person wants to go through that. A lot of people would consent to a lot of things they'd rather not do, just to avoid it. And that's why using the threat of withdrawing support to coerce sex is wrong, and the sex that results isn't really consensual.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's why using the threat of withdrawing support to coerce sex is wrong, and the sex that results isn't really consensual.

If she isn't entitled to that support, then I don't see why this would be so different than any other form of prostitution. And if prostitution is wrong, then he shouldn't support her in exchange for the sex, and off he goes, and she's left in the dire situation.

What we really need is better social supports for people in her situation, so she doesn't feel the need to sell her body to this guy in exchange for his support.

 

[Bronzeage]

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

In the world where I live, any man can leave any woman for any reason and the same is true for any woman.

If we take your definition of fully casual unwanted sex and applied it to other human needs and desires, working for a paycheck could be classified as a form of slavery.

I don't like changing the oil in my car, but I still do it. It may not be the nicest part of my day, but I don't consider my car to have coerced the work out of me. I made an reasonable exchange, which is the expectation of continued service from the engine, for a little discomfort.

We all know the old joke about the woman who offered to have sex for $1000. The man says, "How about $20?" The woman says, "What do you think I am?" He answers, "We both know what you are. Now, we're just arguing over the price."

 

[Arctish]

And that's why using the threat of withdrawing support to coerce sex is wrong, and the sex that results isn't really consensual.

If she isn't entitled to that support, then I don't see why this would be so different than any other form of prostitution. And if prostitution is wrong, then he shouldn't support her in exchange for the sex, and off he goes, and she's left in the dire situation.

What we really need is better social supports for people in her situation, so she doesn't feel the need to sell her body to this guy in exchange for his support.

Why do you call it prostitution instead of extortion? You're getting awfully close to victim blaming and slut shaming, and ignoring the intimidation and scare tactics inherent in the ploy.

"You will do as I say or I will hurt you" isn't a offer to pay for sex.

"Okay, I'll do it; please don't hurt me" isn't prostitution.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's why using the threat of withdrawing support to coerce sex is wrong, and the sex that results isn't really consensual.

If she isn't entitled to that support, then I don't see why this would be so different than any other form of prostitution. And if prostitution is wrong, then he shouldn't support her in exchange for the sex, and off he goes, and she's left in the dire situation.

What we really need is better social supports for people in her situation, so she doesn't feel the need to sell her body to this guy in exchange for his support.

Why do you call it prostitution instead of extortion? You're getting awfully close to victim blaming and slut shaming, and ignoring the intimidation and scare tactics inherent in the ploy.

"You will do as I say or I will hurt you" isn't a offer to pay for sex.

"Okay, I'll do it; please don't hurt me" isn't prostitution.

Because I am talking about the situation in which she is not entitled to his support. I stated that repeatedly and I thought I made it clear. Its different where she is, such as him being the father of her child or them having been married and him owing spousal support post-divorce, etc. In those cases it would indeed be extortion and she would indeed be his victim.

It would be an odd argument if somebody were to claim that not supporting somebody who is not entitled to your support is somehow you hurting them.

 

[laughing dog]

No, dog, it really isn't. ..

Your response is proof that the half-truths, strawmen and bile in posts like Derec's can convince shallow thinkers of their validity. The content in Arctish's response was not news to anyone who actually paid attention to those threads or one of the myriads of Derec's derails. Nor is his lack of response news.

That you are blind to the optics you create on this board isn't on me.

Optics requires one's eyes to be open. But the irony in your response is overwhelming.

 

[Arctish]

If she isn't entitled to that support, then I don't see why this would be so different than any other form of prostitution. And if prostitution is wrong, then he shouldn't support her in exchange for the sex, and off he goes, and she's left in the dire situation.

What we really need is better social supports for people in her situation, so she doesn't feel the need to sell her body to this guy in exchange for his support.

Why do you call it prostitution instead of extortion? You're getting awfully close to victim blaming and slut shaming, and ignoring the intimidation and scare tactics inherent in the ploy.

"You will do as I say or I will hurt you" isn't a offer to pay for sex.

"Okay, I'll do it; please don't hurt me" isn't prostitution.

Because I am talking about the situation in which she is not entitled to his support. I stated that repeatedly and I thought I made it clear.

I get that. But the issue is extortion, not whether a person has the right to end a relationship. And it has nothing to do with people prostituting themselves.

We are discussing a situation in which a person is using threats of unpleasant consequences to coerce sex from someone who would otherwise refuse. If the 'financial ruin' tool is ineffective, the one trying to force compliance will use something else, like threatening to spread nasty rumors about the other one at their workplace, or sell a precious bit of personal property for beer money, or lock up the car keys.

Its different where she is, such as him being the father of her child or them having been married and him owing spousal support post-divorce, etc. In those cases it would indeed be extortion and she would indeed be his victim.

It would be an odd argument if somebody were to claim that not supporting somebody who is not entitled to your support is somehow you hurting them.

My grandmother wasn't entitled to my father's financial support when she developed senile dementia, but had he withdrawn his support it most certainly would have hurt her. And if he'd threatened to do it in order to frighten her, to coerce her to do things she didn't want to do, it would have been abuse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

The article that gave that as an example of unwanted sex described it this way: a man threatens to render his wife or girlfriend homeless and destitute by withdrawing financial support if she doesn't 'put out' on demand, so she complies.

Think about it for a minute. Most domestic arrangements would collapse if there was a sudden loss of income. Most people can't afford rent by themselves unless they live alone in an efficiency apartment, live with parents, or have a job that pays very well. Most women with young children can't work full time unless they have a partner who can take over child care duties for part of the day. Most couples carry the debt load they can manage together, far beyond what one alone can afford. If a guy threatens to walk out on a relationship, he's putting a hell of a lot of pressure on his wife or girlfriend. It's coercive.

Coercing you into letting someone do whatever they want to you isn't the same thing as having your consent, even if you allow it.

Wife he has some obligation to. Girlfriend he doesn't. If he decides he doesn't want a relationship without enough sex and thus ends it he has zero obligation to her no matter how badly off she ends up because of it. (Note, however, that if she's living in his place she might have a period of time before she can be compelled to leave {normal rules for evicting someone apply even to cohabitants}--but that only applies to a roof, not food or the like.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

- - - Updated - - -

Did you read that sentence before you posted? What is fully consensual unwanted sex?

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

In the world where I live, any man can leave any woman for any reason and the same is true for any woman.

If we take your definition of fully casual unwanted sex and applied it to other human needs and desires, working for a paycheck could be classified as a form of slavery.

I don't like changing the oil in my car, but I still do it. It may not be the nicest part of my day, but I don't consider my car to have coerced the work out of me. I made an reasonable exchange, which is the expectation of continued service from the engine, for a little discomfort.

We all know the old joke about the woman who offered to have sex for $1000. The man says, "How about $20?" The woman says, "What do you think I am?" He answers, "We both know what you are. Now, we're just arguing over the price."

I'm totally confused. If anything you seem to be arguing my side here.

The typical worker doesn't want to work, they want what work brings--a paycheck. Thus you have unwanted but consensual behavior.

 

[Arctish]

The woman doesn't want to have sex but she wants something that having sex will get her. Say, her boyfriend sticking around.

The article that gave that as an example of unwanted sex described it this way: a man threatens to render his wife or girlfriend homeless and destitute by withdrawing financial support if she doesn't 'put out' on demand, so she complies.

Think about it for a minute. Most domestic arrangements would collapse if there was a sudden loss of income. Most people can't afford rent by themselves unless they live alone in an efficiency apartment, live with parents, or have a job that pays very well. Most women with young children can't work full time unless they have a partner who can take over child care duties for part of the day. Most couples carry the debt load they can manage together, far beyond what one alone can afford. If a guy threatens to walk out on a relationship, he's putting a hell of a lot of pressure on his wife or girlfriend. It's coercive.

Coercing you into letting someone do whatever they want to you isn't the same thing as having your consent, even if you allow it.

Wife he has some obligation to. Girlfriend he doesn't. If he decides he doesn't want a relationship without enough sex and thus ends it he has zero obligation to her no matter how badly off she ends up because of it. (Note, however, that if she's living in his place she might have a period of time before she can be compelled to leave {normal rules for evicting someone apply even to cohabitants}--but that only applies to a roof, not food or the like.)

A wife has no obligation to provide sex on demand; neither does a husband. Same for girlfriends, boyfriends, mistresses, gigolos, brothers, sisters, and random strangers. And anyway, legal entanglements and promises to love, honor, and sexually satisfy aren't the issue. The issue is coercion.

There are some people who use the threat of financial ruin to coerce others into sex.

There are some people who use the threat of violence to do the same.

There are some people who use the threat of public humiliation, of loss of access to other family members, and similar unpleasantries to force others to comply with their wishes. We generally call those people abusive assholes, and we call what they do coercion. People who submit to demands for sex under those circumstances are not consenting, they are unwilling participants trying to find the least awful way out of a bad situation.

 

[Ford]

Relevant:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Nii5w2FaI[/YOUTUBE]