Does "Rape Culture" exist?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh goody... just what the new board needed. A rape thread.

 

[laughing dog]

So is the mutual level of intoxication.

Shift the goal posts much? And, more importantly, I think most people would agree that being raped is much worse than falsely being accused of rape.

It is a legitimate part of the discussions of whether there is a "rape apologia culture".

FIFY

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try it this way: Big sports hero can have any woman he wants, so why would he need to rape a woman. The woman who accuses him of rape must be lying.

There's your rape culture.

But that's still a subset of he can do no wrong. They aren't saying it's ok to rape, they're denying that the rape happened because the hero can do no wrong.

 

[arkirk]

The problem is that we are all a little too afraid of being condemned regardless of how the sex occurs and the colleges have rules. If you throw a party and require people who go to the party to bring a ticket or notice of some sort that clearly reads, "Come to this party if you want to get fucked." Then, rape would be unlikely at such a party. When somebody who is not conversant with the atmosphere of the party arrives, it is only by mistake and people who don't want to get fucked should be turned away at the door. In short, if you go there for debauchery including sex, you still have to be sure your momentary partner is there for the same reason and accepts you as a partner.

If the liability of the activity is clearly stated and you get drunk and you fuck with someone you didn't want to fuck, then you are engaging in foolishness if you imagine you were raped. If the girls are adequately informed that fucking will be happening at the party and they go there and get drunk and fucked, frankly, it is on them. If they have insufficient knowledge of the nature of the party, then it is still rape. The problem is the same with rape as any crime...what did each party know and what did each party agree to beforehand. Prior knowledge does count for the guilty and the innocent alike.

Rape usually involves physical intimidation, actual violent attack, and can be very abusive. What I find more serious is sexual attack and sexual harassment. There is a point in the sex act when mere sexual activity can change from just sex to sexual attack. This is most likely to happen in situations where one or both parties have diminished capacities because they are drunk or on some kind of drug. I rarely comment on these rape questions because it is indeed such a murky area rife with passion and hormones and sometimes even a religious zeal to punish sinners.

 

[dystopian]

It's irrelevant about who says it but why.

No, actually, it's quite relevant.

The argument "rape culture" proponents use is how accusations of rape are treated and they presuppose that all of them should be believed. But given the reality of false rape allegations that is certainly not the case - evidence is needed.

The reality of false rape allegations does nothing to alter the reality that rape and/or sexual misconduct is disturbingly often tacitly condoned, dismissed, or swept under the rug. Requiring evidence before someone can be prosecuted for the crime of rape also has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, and you're trying to (once again) redirect an argument about a very serious subject towards your own personal obsession. Incidentally, your history of doing so does in fact fit squarely into the whole issue this thread *is* about; namely the general disposition of large segments of society to dismiss the seriousness of things like rape.

For a normal person, this is actually understandable to a degree. When someone we know or care about experiences something as traumatic as rape, our natural inclination is to deny it. Not because we don't want to believe and support them, but because we don't want what happened to them to be a reality. It's too hard to deal with straight away. So we look the other way and pretend it didn't happen. For a while, and then we realize the horrible truth and that our denial just makes things worse. You, however, seem incapable of that realization. Just try to imagine what your behavior would do to someone you care about experiencing actual rape. Let's say you have a sister, or a wife, or a daughter. Let's say they tell you someone raped them. Your stock response of demanding evidence would only further traumatize them. How much of an asshole would you feel like, if you responded that way only to discover their allegations were in fact correct?

In the case of crimes that cause serious emotional and psychological trauma, the first response of the society that surrounds the victim *should* be to support them. That includes believing them. There is absolutely no conflict with doing so, and also requiring actual evidence and proof before you convict a person for the crime; either in an actual courtroom or the court of public opinion.

When your obsessive standards regarding 'evidence of rape' go so far as to commit further emotional trauma on the victim by delegitimizing their experiences (among the many other psychological consequences of basically accusing a rape victim that she made the whole thing up a priori), and do not even serve the purpose of getting closer to the truth or preventing the punishment of innocent people (as the courts and police are subject to evidence to begin with); then it is your moral and intellectual duty to recognize you're part of the fucking problem, Derec.

 

[dystopian]

The problem is that we are all a little too afraid of being condemned regardless of how the sex occurs and the colleges have rules. If you throw a party and require people who go to the party to bring a ticket or notice of some sort that clearly reads, "Come to this party if you want to get fucked." Then, rape would be unlikely at such a party.

Odd. I wasn't aware that a woman who wants to have sex in general can't complain about being raped because the guy who forced himself on her wasn't one she wanted to have sex with specifically. Or for that matter, why would your example make rape LESS likely? It sounds like it'd do the exact opposite to me: It puts a bunch of young drunk idiots together with the expectation that they'll have sex tonight, and the suggestion that all the girls who come to the party are "sluts who want it."; yeah, what could go wrong?

If the liability of the activity is clearly stated and you get drunk and you fuck with someone you didn't want to fuck, then you are engaging in foolishness if you imagine you were raped. If the girls are adequately informed that fucking will be happening at the party and they go there and get drunk and fucked, frankly, it is on them.

Bullshit. First grade bullshit. No, it is 'not on them'. No, it doesn't make it 'not rape'. It's simple: No matter what the fucking circumstances, if a girl says no and you stick your dick in her anyway; it's rape. If the girl is passed out or so drunk she can't even stand upright anymore and thus can't give informed consent, it doesn't matter if she has a handwritten waiver in her pocket that says she came to the party to have sex. It's rape. This isn't fucking rocket science, and these aren't the fucking 1950's anymore when that sort argument might have sounded remotely acceptable. Women are allowed to go to parties with the stated goal of having sex, and they're allowed to do so without each and every guy at the party thinking he has the right to have sex with her. She gets to pick her partner, not you.

 

[The Paul]

The reality of false rape allegations does nothing to alter the reality that rape and/or sexual misconduct is disturbingly often tacitly condoned, dismissed, or swept under the rug. Requiring evidence before someone can be prosecuted for the crime of rape also has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, and you're trying to (once again) redirect an argument about a very serious subject towards your own personal obsession. Incidentally, your history of doing so does in fact fit squarely into the whole issue this thread *is* about; namely the general disposition of large segments of society to dismiss the seriousness of things like rape.

Aw snap.

 

[The Paul]

Okay, yeah, there's a thing where a person or people pour alcohol (and/or rohypnol) into someone until they're in and out of consciousness and total incapable of any kind of self-defense or even meaningful protest even during the conscious moments and then have sex with them. That is rape. There's also a thing where someone has a couple of drinks, makes a series of poor decisions, has sex with someone, and later regrets it. That is not rape. And there's a whole bunch of confusing situations in between that most of the participants probably didn't even think about.

All of that is rather irrelevant to the question at hand despite Derec's strong personal conviction that the feminists want to lock up every guy who's ever had sex while drinking because that makes him a rapist, or whatever fucking thing.

 

[Bronzeage]

But that's still a subset of he can do no wrong. They aren't saying it's ok to rape, they're denying that the rape happened because the hero can do no wrong.

It is applied far more widely than "he can do no wrong" sports heroes. This defense is used by anyone of moderate attractiveness. It is used by men who have an attractive wife or girlfriend.

As I said in an earlier post, part of rape culture is the flexible definition of rape and of consent. They aren't saying it's okay to rape, they are saying what he did, is not rape, because he doesn't need to rape.

 

[arkirk]

The problem is that we are all a little too afraid of being condemned regardless of how the sex occurs and the colleges have rules. If you throw a party and require people who go to the party to bring a ticket or notice of some sort that clearly reads, "Come to this party if you want to get fucked." Then, rape would be unlikely at such a party. When somebody who is not conversant with the atmosphere of the party arrives, it is only by mistake and people who don't want to get fucked should be turned away at the door. In short, if you go there for debauchery including sex, you still have to be sure your momentary partner is there for the same reason and accepts you as a partner.If the liability of the activity is clearly stated and you get drunk and you fuck with someone you didn't want to fuck, then you are engaging in foolishness if you imagine you were raped. If the girls are adequately informed that fucking will be happening at the party and they go there and get drunk and fucked, frankly, it is on them. If they have insufficient knowledge of the nature of the party, then it is still rape. The problem is the same with rape as any crime...what did each party know and what did each party agree to beforehand. Prior knowledge does count for the guilty and the innocent alike.

Rape usually involves physical intimidation, actual violent attack, and can be very abusive. What I find more serious is sexual attack and sexual harassment. There is a point in the sex act when mere sexual activity can change from just sex to sexual attack. This is most likely to happen in situations where one or both parties have diminished capacities because they are drunk or on some kind of drug. I rarely comment on these rape questions because it is indeed such a murky area rife with passion and hormones and sometimes even a religious zeal to punish sinners.

Dystopian:

You don't understand. I live in a community where people have sex parties. I know a number of women who are as proud of their sexual prowess as any macho man. While I do not attend these parties, I know a number of these women and they really have no interest in a societal ban on all debauchery and sex. Maybe you have not considered that aspect of humanity. It is wrong for you to throw a protective blanket over a sunbather or a sex seeking woman. The truth be told, these gals are not worried about their complaints of being raped being heard. The rule is always consensuality. I think these rapes at frat houses are a matter of the girls, and sometimes the guys not being informed and not making a prior decision regarding sex they may have at an event.

Generally, I am in agreement with you, but you must accept that there is a wide range of human attitudes toward sex. You are right in being concerned about girls who are nonconsensually fucked whether they are drunk or not. I understand that. I have always respected your posts in this and the other forum and feel you did not consider that there is a wide range of FEMALE ATTITUDES ABOUT SEX. They are not all schoolgirls saving their pussies for their one and only love.

 

[The Paul]

Dystopian:

You don't understand. I live in a community where people have sex parties. I know a number of women who are as proud of their sexual prowess as any macho man. While I do not attend these parties, I know a number of these women and they really have no interest in a societal ban on all debauchery and sex. Maybe you have not considered that aspect of humanity. It is wrong for you to throw a protective blanket over a sunbather or a sex seeking woman. The truth be told, these gals are not worried about their complaints of being raped being heard. The rule is always consensuality. I think these rapes at frat houses are a matter of the girls, and sometimes the guys not being informed and not making a prior decision regarding sex they may have at an event.

Generally, I am in agreement with you, but you must accept that there is a wide range of human attitudes toward sex. You are right in being concerned about girls who are nonconsensually fucked whether they are drunk or not. I understand that. I have always respected your posts in this and the other forum and feel you did not consider that there is a wide range of FEMALE ATTITUDES ABOUT SEX. They are not all schoolgirls saving their pussies for their one and only love.

So to the original question: yes.

 

[arkirk]

I believe somewhere in the world, mostly in Africa and the middle east, there are militant groups who include rape in their military and paramilitary operations. They might be said to be "a culture of rape." I think the phenomenon we see in the frat houses could be characterized as a culture of denial of rape. I do understand this and that is why I find posting on this subject so difficult. When someone does something terribly wrong or tolerates a terribly wrong thing (rape is on a long list of terrible wrongs in my estimation), they tend to minimize the act itself and attempt to bury the consequences. It is a matter of avoidance of confrontation of the violence and avoidance of responsibility for its consequences.

We have a culture of social denial that makes rape more possible and more subject to avoidance of consequences. It is like administrators and police department shrink from facing the fact that rich kids sometimes rape other kids at frat parties. They certainly have no problem whatever suspecting minority people of rape, but the conflict with paid legal defenses by well off violators pushes them aside, scares them out. Being very well off on a small scale gets your kid off on a rape charge. Being stupendously wealthy gives one the power to commit environmental crimes of great import with the same impunity. So is there a culture of rape? Of course there is and it is not just one culture but many. Rape is violence, and we have altogether too much of that in our world.

 

[dystopian]

Dystopian:

You don't understand. I live in a community where people have sex parties.

No, I understand perfectly well.

I know a number of women who are as proud of their sexual prowess as any macho man. While I do not attend these parties, I know a number of these women and they really have no interest in a societal ban on all debauchery and sex. Maybe you have not considered that aspect of humanity. It is wrong for you to throw a protective blanket over a sunbather or a sex seeking woman.

Wow. It is 'wrong' for me to throw a 'protective blanket' over women by saying that a woman who wants to have sex in general can *still legitimately claim rape* when some guy at the 'sex party' she goes to forces himself on her? Unbelievable. What century do you live in?

*I* am not the one here who 'did not consider that there is a wide range of female attitudes about sex here', *you* are. *You* are the one who outright stated that if a woman goes to a sex party, that she then can't complain about being raped when some guy she didn't want to have sex with fucked her. That's *you* not recognizing that a woman's sexuality isn't a fucking on/off switch where as soon as it's turned on any guy will do. *I* on the other hand, am the person who stated that it is perfectly fine for a woman to want to have sex in general (and go to a sex party if she so chooses) while still having *the goddamned right to refuse a specific partner*.

You are part of the problem. I mean, go and objectively look at what you're doing here; you're *literally* defending frat house rapes by pretending it can only be rape if the woman was completely and utterly uninformed; and you're dismissing the counterargument by characterizing it as some ridiculous strawmen where I'm supposedly seeking a societal ban on 'debauchery and sex'. I mean wtf?

So once again;

Yes, a woman can go out, walk around naked for all I care, advertising that she's looking for sex.

No, that doesn't mean you can stick your dick in her without her explicit permission.

How hard is it to understand this? If the 'girl obviously looking for sex at a sex party' tells a guy no; it means no. The time, place, and her intent are irrelevant. All you need to know is the difference between 'yes' and 'no.' Just because a girl wants to have sex, doesn't mean she wants to have sex with *you*.

 

[arkirk]

No, I understand perfectly well.




Wow. It is 'wrong' for me to throw a 'protective blanket' over women by saying that a woman who wants to have sex in general can *still legitimately claim rape* when some guy at the 'sex party' she goes to forces himself on her? Unbelievable. What century do you live in?

*I* am not the one here who 'did not consider that there is a wide range of female attitudes about sex here', *you* are. *You* are the one who outright stated that if a woman goes to a sex party, that she then can't complain about being raped when some guy she didn't want to have sex with fucked her. That's *you* not recognizing that a woman's sexuality isn't a fucking on/off switch where as soon as it's turned on any guy will do. *I* on the other hand, am the person who stated that it is perfectly fine for a woman to want to have sex in general (and go to a sex party if she so chooses) while still having *the goddamned right to refuse a specific partner*.

You are part of the problem. I mean, go and objectively look at what you're doing here; you're *literally* defending frat house rapes by pretending it can only be rape if the woman was completely and utterly uninformed; and you're dismissing the counterargument by characterizing it as some ridiculous strawmen where I'm supposedly seeking a societal ban on 'debauchery and sex'. I mean wtf?

So once again;

Yes, a woman can go out, walk around naked for all I care, advertising that she's looking for sex.

No, that doesn't mean you can stick your dick in her without her explicit permission.

How hard is it to understand this? If the 'girl obviously looking for sex at a sex party' tells a guy no; it means no. The time, place, and her intent are irrelevant. All you need to know is the difference between 'yes' and 'no.' Just because a girl wants to have sex, doesn't mean she wants to have sex with *you*.[/QUOTE]

Dystopian: You have unwittingly repeated just what I said in my post. I highlighted in my original posts to make it clear I clearly agree with what you are saying here. Consensuality is the measure of whether or not it is rape. That is the matter of whether one says Yes or No regarding any specific sex partner. I was crystal clear on that matter, so don't imagine for one second I condone rape. I mentioned earlier that I was hesitant to post on this topic because any post that allows for debauchery of any kind is very likely to be interpreted as you have done here. Please re-read my posts, especially the highlighted portions and see that we are in substantial agreement...excepting for perhaps your interpretation of me in a personal sense. Because of your misunderstanding of me, I am through posting on this thread.

 

[The Paul]

Arkirk, you basically said that if someone advertises they are promiscuous in a certain way (Say, by going to a "sex party") then if someone fucks them without their consent its not really rape because they tacitly gave consent by being there.

This position could be rephrased as "She was asking for it."

 

[arkirk]

Arkirk, you basically said that if someone advertises they are promiscuous in a certain way (Say, by going to a "sex party") then if someone fucks them without their consent its not really rape because they tacitly gave consent by being there.

This position could be rephrased as "She was asking for it."

At risk of being spanked again for ideas I do not entertain, I will restate my position and attitude on this issue. Consensuality is required or it is rape. That is specific in all ways...which partner is accepted, which partner is not accepted. It is always approval or disapproval in EACH CASE WITH EACH PARTNER. There are no exceptions. I do not accept the idea that a person who says NO at any point in a sexual encounter can be ignored.

 

[dystopian]

That is the matter of whether one says Yes or No regarding any specific sex partner. I was crystal clear on that matter, so don't imagine for one second I condone rape. I mentioned earlier that I was hesitant to post on this topic because any post that allows for debauchery of any kind is very likely to be interpreted as you have done here. Please re-read my posts, especially the highlighted portions and see that we are in substantial agreement...excepting for perhaps your interpretation of me in a personal sense. Because of your misunderstanding of me, I am through posting on this thread.

I could swear the mention of explicit permission wasn't there before. However, even assuming that it was, it is more or less overturned by what you said *next*.

What you said was, and I quote; "If the liability of the activity is clearly stated and you get drunk and you fuck with someone you didn't want to fuck, then you are engaging in foolishness if you imagine you were raped. If the girls are adequately informed that fucking will be happening at the party and they go there and get drunk and fucked, frankly, it is on them."

After saying something like that, you really can't complain that people are misrepresenting your position, it's pretty clear-cut.

In your example, consensuality clearly doesn't come into the picture at all. You say now that you do not accept the idea that a person who says no at any point in the encounter can be ignored. However, the words you said (which I quoted) are *highly suggestive* that you in fact do accept that under the right circumstances. In your example, you even account for the fact that the girl has sex "with someone they didn't want to have sex with". Are you imagining that somehow, magically, they refrained from saying no at any point even though they clearly didn't want to have sex with the person? The only way that would happen is if they were *unconscious*. Do you imagine that having sex with someone who is unconscious, even someone who came to a sex party, does NOT constitute rape? (Because I can assure you, that it does). Or are you perhaps under the mistaken assumption that if you pour a few beers in a girl she will then magically have sex with someone she actually doesn't want to have sex with at all? Alcohol takes away inhibitions, it doesn't make your wishes do a complete 180; it would take so much alcohol to have a girl decide to have sex with someone she doesn't actually want to have sex with that it would be painfully obvious to everyone around them that they can't give proper consent at that point. They'd be completely out of it.

And even if you add a bunch of qualifiers to that part of the post to bring it in line with what you've said since, it still doesn't change the fact that you're blaming the victim there. I just don't see any other way to interpret it, and I consider such an attitude; regardless of your qualifiers; to be a contributing factor to the central issue of this thread.

 

[The Paul]

Here's the sort of problematic part of what you said:

If the liability of the activity is clearly stated and you get drunk and you fuck with someone you didn't want to fuck, then you are engaging in foolishness if you imagine you were raped.

That's vague. Generally, I'm quite opposed to the idea that a little alcohol absolves you from responsibility for you actions, but that statement could be read another way: That if you get so drunk you're unable to stop someone from fucking you and someone fucks you, it's your fault for putting yourself in a position where that could happen.

Yes, technically that's not what you said. If we pay careful attention to where the subject and the object are in that sentence it's the drunk person doing the fucking.

The next sentence is the really problematic part of what you said, though, and encourages readers to read the previous one the second way:

If the girls are adequately informed that fucking will be happening at the party and they go there and get drunk and fucked, frankly, it is on them.

Now you've gone and explicitly said it: If a girl knows that fucking will be happening at a party, and she gets drunk at that party and then someone fucks her, it's on her. You didn't qualify that in any way, for instance by saying something like "unless she's passed out or doesn't feel like having sex," like one might expect you to.

You did, however, go on to specify:

If they have insufficient knowledge of the nature of the party, then it is still rape.

That qualifier doesn't help you, here. You're saying that what determines whether or not it is rape is how well the nature of the party is advertised, so by implication what determines whether or not it is rape is not whether or not everyone involved in the sex act explicitly agreed to it.

The problem is the same with rape as any crime...what did each party know and what did each party agree to beforehand. Prior knowledge does count for the guilty and the innocent alike.

...and you seem to be suggesting that by certain actions which are NOT explicitly agreeing to have sex, such as attending a certain kind of party, a woman implicitly agrees to have sex.

I mean really. I honestly can't draw any kind of distinction between claiming that a woman agreed to have sex because of the kind of party she was at and claiming that a woman agreed to have sex because of how she was dressed. Those are perfectly equivalent bullshit rape apology.

Now, complaining about what a prude dystopian is isn't gonna help you here. You said what you said and accusing others of prudishness isn't going to change it.

What might help you here is, if you didn't mean what I'm reading from those statements, you explain what you did mean.

Also, the next time you're in a rush to paint someone as some kind of demon of sexual repression if you maybe stop, take a deep breath, and consider what colors you're painting yourself with. That might help too.

 

[arkirk]

You folks would make it impossible for anybody to engage in ribaldry of any kind...without consulting your lawyer first! It baffles me why you feel you must pile on me. I am done on this one. My posts answer all your questions already. I never said merely attending a sex party means you have to have sex. You place very little stock in the notion that a person can say no and not get fucked at a sex party. You are just plain WRONG. Look up consensual in the friggin dictionary!

 

[Bronzeage]

You folks would make it impossible for anybody to engage in ribaldry of any kind...without consulting your lawyer first! It baffles me why you feel you must pile on me. I am done on this one. My posts answer all your questions already. I never said merely attending a sex party means you have to have sex. You place very little stock in the notion that a person can say no and not get fucked at a sex party. You are just plain WRONG. Look up consensual in the friggin dictionary!

We inherited the ribaldry resistance from FRDB. Our little community has never been a place where adults could banter about sex without someone turning Puritan. It's the same with other subjects, but with sex, it's obvious.