But it does solve the problem of them anally raping their readers. Sure, it's still copping a feel as they pass us in the hallway and that is wrong, but it's a far more minor level of wrong.
I am a victim of about 3.5 billion counts of sexual violence. Who knew?
That is ... creepy, considering that "People under 14 years of age made up over a quarter of the world population (26.3%)" ( Demographics_of_the_world).
I am a victim of about 3.5 billion counts of sexual violence. Who knew?
3.5 billion is not an unreasonable number when one considers how many times the same person can say "not in your dreams." Some sort of algorithm would be needed.
^^ well saidI think it's okay to highlight a group of things that are potentially problematic regarding sex, but the boundaries of credibility are stretched a bit when they are all lumped into the same category of "sexual violence" without qualifiers. Returning to the 2 or 3 offending entries, I think they could have been phrased more like 'demeaning or shaming comments about a partner's sexual performance' and 'using sex as a form of bribery or withholding it as a form of blackmail' to emphasize that it doesn't cover the usual ebb and flow seen in healthy relationships. Sexual shaming is actually quite harmful for some people, even more so than some of the other obvious things on that list. It can be manipulative and damaging in the long-term, just like the more extreme cases of bartering with sex... something that isn't really conveyed by the way it is written on the site.
Yes, they could have posted it more clearly. They could have repeated 'used to manipulate or harm' from other definitions. But i think that in the context of the entire page, that comes across.
Dismal, of course, is taking this one list out of that context in order to see what he wants to see.
- - - Updated - - -
So, that's you agreeing that it does NOT say 'examples always include.'In English we have ways of clearly saying not all instances would necessarily apply. Examples include:
- "Examples might include"
- "Examples could include"
make readers aware that sometimes, even witholding sex could be seen as a form of sexual violence?
If my wife turns down sex because she wants me to buy her a new car, that's manipulation, sure. Using sex as a weapon.
Discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex I believe is meant to mean they say no, but you go ahead anyway.It turns out to be much more common than many of us thought:
Sexual violence
Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways; withholding sex and affection; always demanding sex; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts, to participate in uncomfortable sex or sex after an episode of violence, to have sex with other people; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex.
http://hr.umich.edu/stopabuse/resources/definitions.html
Most of the married men in America are now victims.
Discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex I believe is meant to mean they say no, but you go ahead anyway.
Only in the sense that Biblical Creationism "could be seen" as a valid scientific theory. IOW, it could only be seen as such by utterly irrational people seeking to misrepresent objective reality for political purposes. It is not only not always violence, it is never violence.
If my wife turns down sex because she wants me to buy her a new car, that's manipulation, sure. Using sex as a weapon.
No, it is not using a weapon. Manipulation is not using a weapon. In fact, calling it use of a weapon is itself a form emotional and rhetorical manipulation, thus by your definition, you just engaged in an act violence.
That kind of abuse / "poetic license" is standard in political and religious discourse (and maybe literary fiction), but has no place in academic discussion about the objective realities of human interaction or counseling people about criminal actions (which actually using weapons and real violence against a person always is).
Only in the sense that Biblical Creationism "could be seen" as a valid scientific theory. IOW, it could only be seen as such by utterly irrational people seeking to misrepresent objective reality for political purposes. It is not only not always violence, it is never violence.
No, it is not using a weapon. Manipulation is not using a weapon. In fact, calling it use of a weapon is itself a form emotional and rhetorical manipulation, thus by your definition, you just engaged in an act violence.
That kind of abuse / "poetic license" is standard in political and religious discourse (and maybe literary fiction), but has no place in academic discussion about the objective realities of human interaction or counseling people about criminal actions (which actually using weapons and real violence against a person always is).
Out of curiosity, where does one go to become an expert on the objective realities of human interactions? You seem to have attended a seminar or something that I missed.