Sexual violence epidemic

[doubtingt]

Semicolons denote sublists. It's actually "Forcing partner... to have sex with other people"

Ya, you're about five posts too late. We've already scorned them for their poor grammer.

Scorning people's semicolons is sexual violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Semicolons denote sublists. It's actually "Forcing partner... to have sex with other people"

Ya, you're about five posts too late. We've already scorned them for their poor grammer.

Yeah, and my edit was late too...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, you're about five posts too late. We've already scorned them for their poor grammer.

Scorning people's semicolons is sexual violence.

No it isn't. It's more comparable to giving her five orgasms that she consented to in a night after taking her out for a lobster dinner and then waking up early so you can drive her mother to the airport. It's what you're supposed to do.

Their excessive use of semi-colons is the thing that essentially anally raped everyone who was reading that page. It's a webpage, so they can format the lists however they choose and there's absolutely no excuse for them to glurge together separate items in a list using commas and semi-colons in an unreadable format. I know that we're not supposed to compare people to Hitler, but the people who wrote that page are worse than Hitler would have been if he'd raped all the Jews before sending them to the gas chamber.

 

[PyramidHead]

I 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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, you're about five posts too late. We've already scorned them for their poor grammer.

Yeah, and my edit was late too...

And I saw how neatly you re-formatted the list in your post. I did not feel in any way sexually violated when reading it that way. It would have been that simple for them as well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It turns out to be much more common than many of us thought:

Sexual violence
Examples of sexual violence include

Um...dismal, is there any place on the site that shows that 'include' is to be defined as 'every single instance of this would be an instance of?'

I mean, you have shown that you have a problem with reading for comprehension. But is it at all possible, in your view, that this list was NOT intended to make, say, every single time a woman witholds sex a form of sexual violence, but maybe to 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. If she's tired, or having a period, or just not in the mood, and NOT trying to punish me or manipulate me, she just doesn't want to have sex, i would probably not see it as sexual violence, AND see that interpretation as not contradicting the list you posted.

Your milage may differ.
It usually does.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It turns out to be much more common than many of us thought:

Um...dismal, is there any place on the site that shows that 'include' is to be defined as 'every single instance of this would be an instance of?'

I mean, you have shown that you have a problem with reading for comprehension. But is it at all possible, in your view, that this list was NOT intended to make, say, every single time a woman witholds sex a form of sexual violence, but maybe to 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. If she's tired, or having a period, or just not in the mood, and NOT trying to punish me or manipulate me, she just doesn't want to have sex, i would probably not see it as sexual violence, AND see that interpretation as not contradicting the list you posted.

Your milage may differ.
It usually does.

But that's just illustrating another problem with their list. Exactly how difficult would it have been for them to parse it out a little bit more so that the meaning was clear and they have a policy in place that can help advance the discussions about sexual violence as opposed to just making them a laughing stock? You just demonstrated how trivially easy that is.

 

[dismal]

It turns out to be much more common than many of us thought:

Um...dismal, is there any place on the site that shows that 'include' is to be defined as 'every single instance of this would be an instance of?'

I mean, you have shown that you have a problem with reading for comprehension. But is it at all possible, in your view, that this list was NOT intended to make, say, every single time a woman witholds sex a form of sexual violence, but maybe to make readers aware that sometimes, even witholding sex could be seen as a form of sexual violence?

In English we have ways of clearly saying not all instances would necessarily apply. Examples include:

- "Examples might include"
- "Examples could include"

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that's just illustrating another problem with their list. Exactly how difficult would it have been for them to parse it out a little bit more so that the meaning was clear and they have a policy in place that can help advance the discussions about sexual violence as opposed to just making them a laughing stock? You just demonstrated how trivially easy that is.

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 - - -

In English we have ways of clearly saying not all instances would necessarily apply. Examples include:

- "Examples might include"
- "Examples could include"

So, that's you agreeing that it does NOT say 'examples always include.'

 

[PyramidHead]

I guess it comes down to whatever works for them. If they are constantly being inundated with support requests from people whose partners denied them sex because of a headache, a wording change is in order. But if the only people who honestly are confused about what constitutes sexual violence in those few borderline cases are internet forum members from various parts of the world, it doesn't affect their goals.

 

[Bronzeage]

Less enlightened minds will pick out a few words and say, "See, I told you, so."

I feel like you're discounting my feelings and being critical.

Stop the violence.

You have no idea the violence of which I am capable. Your feelings got off easy.

 

[Emily Lake]

No it isn't. It's more comparable to giving her five orgasms that she consented to in a night after taking her out for a lobster dinner and then waking up early so you can drive her mother to the airport. It's what you're supposed to do.

Their excessive use of semi-colons is the thing that essentially anally raped everyone who was reading that page. It's a webpage, so they can format the lists however they choose and there's absolutely no excuse for them to glurge together separate items in a list using commas and semi-colons in an unreadable format. I know that we're not supposed to compare people to Hitler, but the people who wrote that page are worse than Hitler would have been if he'd raped all the Jews before sending them to the gas chamber.

Wow. The sheer volume of offensive content shoehorned into a mere paragraph is quite impressive. This is noteworthy and deserves accolades. Well done, sir!

 

[Emily Lake]

I 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.

I agree... but at this point we're bickering about the semantics employed, rather than the intent of the material. I think the combination of content and context is clear enough to allow one to understand the point.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it comes down to whatever works for them. If they are constantly being inundated with support requests from people whose partners denied them sex because of a headache, a wording change is in order. But if the only people who honestly are confused about what constitutes sexual violence in those few borderline cases are internet forum members from various parts of the world, it doesn't affect their goals.

Yes, exactly.

ETA: I work with a lot of people for whom English is not their primary language. For me, personally, I find that a focus on whether or not the content can be understood is far more important than whether or not the grammar is accurate, or whether the word choice is ideal. The first order of business should always be understanding at the 90th percentile. The remainder - grammar, word choice, sentence structure, etc. - is only of interest for publication or circulation.

 

[doubtingt]

I agree... but at this point we're bickering about the semantics employed, rather than the intent of the material. I think the combination of content and context is clear enough to allow one to understand the point.

Semantics conveys meaning and meaning conveys intent. What is clear is that their intent is to make the category of "sexual violence" as vaguely broad and inclusive as possible in order inflate the prevalence of their cause to draw more social and political attention to it. Some of those things are never sexual violence any more than drinking a soda is. Sure, when combined with punching someone in the face, they are violence but then so is everything.

For me, personally, I find that a focus on whether or not the content can be understood is far more important than whether or not the grammar is accurate, or whether the word choice is ideal. The first order of business should always be understanding at the 90th percentile. The remainder - grammar, word choice, sentence structure, etc. - is only of interest for publication or circulation.

First, this is published and is being circulated. Second, it isn't just grammar, it is the utterly false and absurd notion that things that are nothing more than rude and uncaring are acts of violence. The fact that most people in the public are not as ignorant or ideologically biased as the authors of the website and would discount those acts as being violence doesn't excuse the falseness of the claims they are clearly intending to make. Its just like efforts to equate intoxication during sex with rape. Most reasonable people think that is absurd and reject it, but that doesn't mean that the people who claim it are any less reckless and unreasonable in their efforts to define rape that way.

 

[Derec]

withholding sex and affection

I am a victim of about 3.5 billion counts of sexual violence. Who knew?

 

[Jokodo]

withholding sex and affection

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).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that some of these are relationship issues, not by any stretch of the imagination are they sexual violence. If they're all prohibited:

You can't attempt to work out a sexual problem in the relationship.

Furthermore, some of them bring up worse problems.

Can't withhold sex and affection? So you're supposed to have sex with the person that you're furious with??

Can't criticize them sexually? So you can't attempt to solve any sexual problem? If she uses her teeth during a BJ all you can do is break up with her? (Any other course of action is either criticizing them sexually or uncomfortable sex.)

It's not hard to imagine situations where withholding sex or criticizing somebody sexually would be abusive, and those are likely the situations intended to be covered by that list, not the ones on the other end of the spectrum. It's not a legal document, just a website that needs to be edited for clarity.

Then they should say that such situations may be an issue, not that they are an issue.

One should not err on the side of calling the innocent guilty but that's exactly what the feminists have been doing to run up the numbers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I 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.

Put this way I don't have a problem with it. I find the original list too broad, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Um...dismal, is there any place on the site that shows that 'include' is to be defined as 'every single instance of this would be an instance of?'

I mean, you have shown that you have a problem with reading for comprehension. But is it at all possible, in your view, that this list was NOT intended to make, say, every single time a woman witholds sex a form of sexual violence, but maybe to 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. If she's tired, or having a period, or just not in the mood, and NOT trying to punish me or manipulate me, she just doesn't want to have sex, i would probably not see it as sexual violence, AND see that interpretation as not contradicting the list you posted.

Your milage may differ.
It usually does.

But that's just illustrating another problem with their list. Exactly how difficult would it have been for them to parse it out a little bit more so that the meaning was clear and they have a policy in place that can help advance the discussions about sexual violence as opposed to just making them a laughing stock? You just demonstrated how trivially easy that is.

While the reformatted list is clearer it doesn't address the problems. Look at PyramidHead's post to see how to actually fix it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ETA: I work with a lot of people for whom English is not their primary language. For me, personally, I find that a focus on whether or not the content can be understood is far more important than whether or not the grammar is accurate, or whether the word choice is ideal. The first order of business should always be understanding at the 90th percentile. The remainder - grammar, word choice, sentence structure, etc. - is only of interest for publication or circulation.

Good point. I can easily see the original being incomprehensible to those with limited English.

 

[Bronzeage]

withholding sex and affection

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.