Does "Rape Culture" exist?

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you... serious?

"Let's ignore potential evidence, cause what good would it do? I mean sure, it could find serious tearing as a result of violent penetration, but maybe she wanted that. And the tox screen? Pfft, that could just show she ingested GHB or something."

1) Rape kit: And what would it show? Both parties already admit sex occurred. What's the point in proving sex occurred?

2) Tox screen: She didn't say her ability to resist was impaired.

What the cops are interested in is whether it was consensual or by force. Just because you have tests available doesn't mean you run them if there's nothing to be gained from the results.

- - - Updated - - -

It should be administrative based on her report of the event and subsequent confirmation. I see no reason for wasting money in his protests here.

You have already admitted that you think she should be able to consent and then cry rape.

 

[bigfield]

Not really. It is perfectly possible to have a meaningful discussion on most subjects so long as the different definitions of the central term are 'close enough'. The only time when you need to have an exact definition is when you're doing math or something that relies on it.

The definitions aren't close enough.

Are you joking? You have to be. I find it hard to believe that a person in possession of a brain with human level intelligence or the equivalent thereof could seriously ask such a question. What the hell do you think rape *is*? An act of submission and sexual passiveness?!

No, I'm not joking. It was a sincere question; I don't give a damn if you think it is an intelligent thing to ask.

Rape may be an act of aggression and dominance but it does not automatically mean that such behaviour follows from socialising men into a gender role that has those characteristics. After all, rape occurs in the absence of socialisation.

You're setting up a strawman argument.

You were originally trying to argue that if "no one knows..." ('no one' according to whom?) "...whether or not women being objectified/men being taught to be sexually aggressive and dominate has a correlation to the prevalence of rape, then no one can conclude that these attitudes contribute to rape." I responded to that by asking you if we should wait for proof that water's wet before believing it; I could have just as easily asked if I should wait for proof that being hit by a speeding train is lethal before stepping out of the way. Rather than try and be cute by picking apart the argument by saying what wetness is defined as the presence of water (which in fact, is not even technically true but that's irrelevant to the point), you should've addressed the question of whether or not a notion can be obvious enough for us to take action without definitive proof (the answer to that question btw, is yes).

OK I misunderstood your meaning. I don't consider the notions in question to be as obvious as you apparently do.

The question you posed instead would work as an argument, if only it wasn't in response to an argument *I* made in response to *your* suggestion that we can't conclude there's a *correlation*. My position is that we can indeed conclude that these things lead to an increased prevalance, with or without hard evidence; it is NOT the position that it is leads to an absolute increase of a 100%.

How do you know these thing lead to an increased prevalence? Are you arguing that it is obvious and doesn't need to be measured?

Don't be absurd. Nobody seriously makes that claim, you're making a caricature of people's actual positions.

www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/‎

Lists "sexually explicit jokes" as an aspect of rape culture. It's an absurd claim but it doesn't originate with me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sociologists gather data and perform data analysis. Collect and compare data collected under a particular set of conditions with data collected under slightly different, definable characteristics, one can eventually see what components actually cause particular effects.

Well... we don't have a culture on the planet that isn't a so called "rape culture". What further complicates matters is that, the more misogynistic a culture the less likely (probably) a rape victim is to report it to the police. So I'm not sure which numbers we're supposed to be comparing, in this case?

 

[Metaphor]

You are correct within about 18 years two months or so. Since the hook lasts until the foetus is viable and delivered there would some issues with the biological father visiting the child during that time.

You weren't intentionally misstating my stuff were you?

No, I was not intentionally misstating anything; it was a simple misunderstanding as I had not followed that particular subthread closely.

However, I think you'll find nearly all members on this board disagreeing with you that the biological mother ought to have the unilateral power to demand cash from the father but deny parental rights to him.

 

[dystopian]

1) Rape kit: And what would it show? Both parties already admit sex occurred. What's the point in proving sex occurred?

You are woefully ignorant if you think that's all the evidence a rape kit gathers. Furthermore, as with the tox screen, and as I already said, getting all the facts together in a police investigation is a good thing. If the police had your attitude in regards to the gathering of facts and evidence, the closing rate would drop dramatically.

What the cops are interested in is whether it was consensual or by force. Just because you have tests available doesn't mean you run them if there's nothing to be gained from the results.

First, *you* are clearly not capable of deciding whether or not anything can be gained from the results. Secondly, if the police did not run those tests, then that would mean they were *incompetent*. The whole point of gathering every fact and bit of evidence is that you never know if something might turn out to be relevant. A competent police force knows this, and gathers as many of the facts as they can, REGARDLESS of whether or not they think it'll make a difference.

 

[dystopian]

The definitions aren't close enough.

They most certainly are.

No, I'm not joking. It was a sincere question; I don't give a damn if you think it is an intelligent thing to ask.

I don't think it's an intelligent thing to ask. I think it is literally the most stupid fucking thing I have heard in a long time.

Rape may be an act of aggression and dominance but it does not automatically mean that such behaviour follows from socialising men into a gender role that has those characteristics.

Which is irrelevant because you asked me what the link is between two specific characteristics and an activity that by definition includes the two specific characteristics. Your current argument is also irrelevant to the point because you are once again setting up a strawman: NOBODY argued that social attitudes are the only factor in determining the prevalence of rape.

OK I misunderstood your meaning. I don't consider the notions in question to be as obvious as you apparently do.

Of course you don't; because the application of common sense would require you to actually admit you're wrong and that there ARE in fact legitimate claims as to the existence of 'rape culture'. Couldn't have that, now could we? If you've taken the position that you're invincible and can't feel pain, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you to step out of the way of that speeding train. Similarly, if you've decided that you don't like the idea that your behavior could be having an actual negative impact in terms of suffering experienced by others, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you that teaching guys to be sexually aggressive and dominant could possibly turn out results that are anything other than perfectly consensual in the spirit of co-existence! No! Far better to maintain that cognitive dissonance by setting up strawmen positions to argue against, like pretending that people are suggesting it is to blame for 100% of all rape.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be living over here in reality, where we can accept some things as being obviously true and respond accordingly without needing a series of peer-reviewed studies to make absolutely certain that it is so.

How do you know these thing lead to an increased prevalence? Are you arguing that it is obvious and doesn't need to be measured?

No, I'm arguing that yes, it's obvious these things represent a contributing factor. Finding out exactly how much would be desirable, but we're certainly not going to miraculously find it doesn't contribute *at all*.

Lists "sexually explicit jokes" as an aspect of rape culture. It's an absurd claim but it doesn't originate with me.

You're once again misrepresenting the position of others. You're trying to make it sound as if they just mean a random but harmless sexually explicit joke. I'm pretty certain that's not what they're claiming. There's sexually explicit jokes, and then there's sexually explicit jokes. Jokes are not created equal. How about guys going to a rape-victim support group, just to shout dumb jokes involving rape? Because that sort of thing happens, and that would certainly qualify.

 

[bigfield]

They most certainly are.

By some definitions of rape culture, Western cultures do not qualify. By others, they do. Some writers stipulate that a culture is one which condones rape -- that is definitely not true of Western societies -- while others only require that a society believe that rape is inevitable, much like we believe other crimes are inevitable. By the latter definition, there is probably no society which is not a rape culture, and at the same time, calling a society a rape culture because it views rape as inevitable is absurd and useless. We consider many other crimes inevitable as well but there's is no utility in labelling each of our respective societies a "culture of [name of crime]."

I don't think it's an intelligent thing to ask. I think it is literally the most stupid fucking thing I have heard in a long time.

What you think of as stupid doesn't matter in the slightest to me.

Which is irrelevant because you asked me what the link is between two specific characteristics and an activity that by definition includes the two specific characteristics.

I see. Reviewing what I wrote, I was not as clear as I should have been. I was asking what the causal link was, not merely what those things had in common with rape.

ETA: And note that I and the source I cited refer to the socialisation of those characteristics. I did not merely asks for the link between dominance and sexual aggression and rape, but the link between the socialisation of those characteristics and rape. Humans are not a blank slate who can be taught any characteristics. Men are not dominant and aggressive because of the social construct of "manhood" -- such traits are evident in other species as well.

Your current argument is also irrelevant to the point because you are once again setting up a strawman: NOBODY argued that social attitudes are the only factor in determining the prevalence of rape.

I am aware of that: I am questioning whether they are a significant factor at all.

Of course you don't; because the application of common sense would require you to actually admit you're wrong and that there ARE in fact legitimate claims as to the existence of 'rape culture'. Couldn't have that, now could we?

I'm not interested in your mind-reading attempts. If you are just looking to antagonise then just don't bother responding to me.

If you've taken the position that you're invincible and can't feel pain, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you to step out of the way of that speeding train. Similarly, if you've decided that you don't like the idea that your behavior could be having an actual negative impact in terms of suffering experienced by others, then no amount of common sense is going to convince you that teaching guys to be sexually aggressive and dominant could possibly turn out results that are anything other than perfectly consensual in the spirit of co-existence! No! Far better to maintain that cognitive dissonance by setting up strawmen positions to argue against, like pretending that people are suggesting it is to blame for 100% of all rape.

Now you are mischaracterising my position.

I did not say that there is no possibility that such socialisation could result in rapes. I am taking the agnostic position until I see some evidence that the socialisation of sexual aggressiveness and dominance is a cause of rape. It is plausible that teaching men to fill that gender role does not result in rape, as after all, most men do not rape, and gender is not purely -- or perhaps even mostly -- socialised.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will be living over here in reality, where we can accept some things as being obviously true and respond accordingly without needing a series of peer-reviewed studies to make absolutely certain that it is so.

That's a false dichotomy and that is not my position. Just because I don't accept it as obviously true does not mean my standard of evidence rises to "series of peer-reviewed studies".

No, I'm arguing that yes, it's obvious these things represent a contributing factor. Finding out exactly how much would be desirable, but we're certainly not going to miraculously find it doesn't contribute *at all*.

Those things could be a major factor, a minor factor, or a insignificant factor. To be able to make that distinction would be desirable because it would actually make it possible to make meaningful changes to the way boys are socialised.

You're once again misrepresenting the position of others. You're trying to make it sound as if they just mean a random but harmless sexually explicit joke. I'm pretty certain that's not what they're claiming. There's sexually explicit jokes, and then there's sexually explicit jokes. Jokes are not created equal. How about guys going to a rape-victim support group, just to shout dumb jokes involving rape? Because that sort of thing happens, and that would certainly qualify.

If that was what they meant (shouting jokes at support groups) then that's what it would say. You accuse me of misrepresenting someone's position and then you make up your own version instead. Why should I accept your interpretation?

 

[dystopian]

By some definitions of rape culture, Western cultures do not qualify.

You mean by your definition?

By others, they do. Some writers stipulate that a culture is one which condones rape -- that is definitely not true of Western societies --

Nonsense; any society in which you routinely hear people saying shit like 'it's their own fault for dressing slutty' is a society which to a disturbing degree *does* condone rape. There are multiple degrees to which a society can condone rape... it's not a fucking binary state.

Now you are mischaracterising my position.

The only way your original arguments make sense is if this was indeed the position you had taken. If it wasn't, then why on earth would you respond to my statements the way you did? Why would you possibly set up a strawman position where you argue against someone implying that this sort of socialization automatically and inevitably leads to rape?

I did not say that there is no possibility that such socialisation could result in rapes. I am taking the agnostic position until I see some evidence that the socialisation of sexual aggressiveness and dominance is a cause of rape. It is plausible that teaching men to fill that gender role does not result in rape, as after all, most men do not rape, and gender is not purely -- or perhaps even mostly -- socialised.

It makes absolutely zero sense to take 'the agnostic' position here. It is no different than taking the agnostic position that the speeding train might or might not kill you unless you step out of the way; it makes no sense. No, it does not follow that because most men do not rape and that gender is not purely socialized that therefore teaching men to be aggressive does not result in rape. If that were true, then it would similarly follow that because most people who smoke don't develop cancer, that therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer when in fact it *does*. Furthermore, in this situation, taking the 'agnostic' position is functionally the *exact same* as taking the 'atheist' position; there is absolutely no contradiction in tacitly accepting the likelihood that it *is* a contributing factor; and acting accordingly to try and help solve the problem; while at the same time not making hard and absolute statements about it.

Those things could be a major factor, a minor factor, or a insignificant factor. To be able to make that distinction would be desirable because it would actually make it possible to make meaningful changes to the way boys are socialised.

You can actually make meaningful changes regardless of whether or not it is a major or a minor factor. And if it turns out to be an insignificant factor? Surely you're not going to try and convince us that teaching kids to not be overly aggressive and dominant will be a wasted effort regardless of whether or not doing so has any meaningful effect on rape stats? Don't be absurd.

If that was what they meant (shouting jokes at support groups) then that's what it would say.

Why on earth would that be on a BULLET LIST? It's assumed that people have the intelligence to recognize that it's about context, and that therefore they don't have to waste a paragraph of space on trying to explain it to you.

 

[bigfield]

Nonsense; any society in which you routinely hear people saying shit like 'it's their own fault for dressing slutty' is a society which to a disturbing degree *does* condone rape.

I certainly don't hear people saying that routinely.

The only way your original arguments make sense is if this was indeed the position you had taken. If it wasn't, then why on earth would you respond to my statements the way you did? Why would you possibly set up a strawman position where you argue against someone implying that this sort of socialization automatically and inevitably leads to rape?

Because I did not set up that straw man.

You can actually make meaningful changes regardless of whether or not it is a major or a minor factor. And if it turns out to be an insignificant factor? Surely you're not going to try and convince us that teaching kids to not be overly aggressive and dominant will be a wasted effort regardless of whether or not doing so has any meaningful effect on rape stats? Don't be absurd.

That depends entirely on what you mean by "overly aggressive and dominant". Is any level of sexual aggressiveness and dominance in men a bad thing? Is the typical man too aggressive and dominant or is it merely the men on the upper end of the bell-curve who are dangerous?

YWhy on earth would that be on a BULLET LIST? It's assumed that people have the intelligence to recognize that it's about context, and that therefore they don't have to waste a paragraph of space on trying to explain it to you.

Something like "harassing rape support groups" would belong on a bullet list. In fact if it is widespread behaviour then it would be an important thing to put on such a list.

 

[Toni]

Well... we don't have a culture on the planet that isn't a so called "rape culture". What further complicates matters is that, the more misogynistic a culture the less likely (probably) a rape victim is to report it to the police. So I'm not sure which numbers we're supposed to be comparing, in this case?

I don't think and wasn't intending to imply that misogyny is something which is directly quantifiable. I don't know if it is or is not or how one would go about measuring such a thing. However, some things are: literacy rates, education rates, employment stats, age at which persons of each gender are married, etc. Social structures can be described and contrasted against one another. If a society or segment is arranged with strong maternal ties vs strong paternal ties; multigenerational family groups living together vs 'nuclear family' structure as predominate. Even such things as relative rates of holding drivers' licenses. Family size. Access to family planning. Access to transportation, and so forth.

I'm not attributing any scale of which is more or less woman friendly or male friendly. Just suggesting aspects of society which can be easily quantified.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think and wasn't intending to imply that misogyny is something which is directly quantifiable. I don't know if it is or is not or how one would go about measuring such a thing. However, some things are: literacy rates, education rates, employment stats, age at which persons of each gender are married, etc. Social structures can be described and contrasted against one another. If a society or segment is arranged with strong maternal ties vs strong paternal ties; multigenerational family groups living together vs 'nuclear family' structure as predominate. Even such things as relative rates of holding drivers' licenses. Family size. Access to family planning. Access to transportation, and so forth.

I'm not attributing any scale of which is more or less woman friendly or male friendly. Just suggesting aspects of society which can be easily quantified.

I agree that all of the above are metrics for gender progressiveness. But whether they're signifiers for rape-culture is dodgy at best. I think the rape culture theory can at best be an arm-chair hypothesis. I don't think it's possible to back it up in any way. I also don't think that is any argument against rape culture being true.

Gender equality is a complex (in the mathematical sense) issue. Fixing an issue in one corner can lead to unforseen consequences in another.

 

[fromderinside]

However, I think you'll find nearly all members on this board disagreeing with you that the biological mother ought to have the unilateral power to demand cash from the father but deny parental rights to him.

That may be since I don't hold that the biological unilateral power nor deny parental rights. My view is only she can petition for support and only she can petition to deny access until the child is born or a contract exists. I'm recommending a bearer preferred, biased, structure for legal options in the consequence of sex. That's just a bit from where the law now stands on rights of mother with respect to children when contract is dissolved under contest.

 

[fromderinside]

You have already admitted that you think she should be able to consent and then cry rape.

Yes. Its not an admission. Its a principled position base on roles presumed in society. A sales great sales pitch is nice and it might get me into the car. But, I have the right to cool down and reject the deal for several days after the deal is made, even while the car is in my possession. Should women have less? The permission, agreement, to fuck carries with it the risk that a pregnancy might result, a life changing condition. If the guy's a fraud or if he coerced or even if all he wanted was unprotected sex, he's got to carry the load.

 

[fromderinside]

Since there are laws biased against the future life of women as the only bearers of foetuses as the result of any 'consent', ie

1. they are subject to contest of their denial of permission even after the act,
2. they risk humiliation in court for attempting to get the arse who she accused of raping them,
3. they have little civil recourse when the asshole backs out of his pledge of support if she does get pregnant,
4. we are living in a demonstrable male dominated society,​

there is no question western societies are rape cultures.

Things are worse if one sees how things go if there is a divorce.

For example does anyone deny a divorced successful man is a catch or that a successful divorced woman is often seen as a whore? Or does anyone disagree that a divorced woman with children is often considered damaged goods?

If one has any doubt one should review the Hannity week on spring break. What grabbed me most were the agreement with the guy who said they wouldn't let their daughters go, but, they would pay for their sons to go and enjoy themselves.

All this is rape culture 101.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. Its not an admission. Its a principled position base on roles presumed in society. A sales great sales pitch is nice and it might get me into the car. But, I have the right to cool down and reject the deal for several days after the deal is made, even while the car is in my possession. Should women have less? The permission, agreement, to fuck carries with it the risk that a pregnancy might result, a life changing condition. If the guy's a fraud or if he coerced or even if all he wanted was unprotected sex, he's got to carry the load.

Consent cannot be withdrawn after the fact.

In particular, your analogy fails because allowing a 'cooling down' period after the signing of a contract does not prevent parties being restored substantially to their pre-contract state, and nor does it mean one party becomes a criminal when the other party withdraws from the contract.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. Its not an admission. Its a principled position base on roles presumed in society. A sales great sales pitch is nice and it might get me into the car. But, I have the right to cool down and reject the deal for several days after the deal is made, even while the car is in my possession. Should women have less? The permission, agreement, to fuck carries with it the risk that a pregnancy might result, a life changing condition. If the guy's a fraud or if he coerced or even if all he wanted was unprotected sex, he's got to carry the load.

There's a difference between responsibility for pregnancy and rape.