Two new types of 'Anti-rape' personal product.

[Wiploc]

Those pants should be designed for men, not women.

I'm confused. Do women get the public key or the private key?

 

[Metaphor]

Only a few short years ago, during the years between where rape meant 'sex without consent' but before it became 'sex without continual and enthusiastic verbal consent which can be retroactively withdrawn', I remember a satirical video showing a couple about to hook up and a lawyer showing up to get them to sign the necessary consent papers.

The world sometimes seems surreal to me. Things that were literally satirical hyperbole a few years ago are actual reality. The idea that a consent app would be meaningful in any way is a non-starter. You could simply say your consent was given at the time but you felt threatened, which you can already say.

Also, have a look at what intersectional feminists think of any anti-rape protection other than the impossibly braindead suggestion of 'teach men not to rape'. A few years ago, a bunch of (misogynistic, obviously) men invented a nail polish that changed colour if it was dipped in a drink that contained a 'roofie'. The gals at feministing went into rabid apoplexy at the idea.

 

[Toni]

Those pants should be designed for men, not women.

I'm confused. Do women get the public key or the private key?

Both.

 

[Toni]

Only a few short years ago, during the years between where rape meant 'sex without consent' but before it became 'sex without continual and enthusiastic verbal consent which can be retroactively withdrawn', I remember a satirical video showing a couple about to hook up and a lawyer showing up to get them to sign the necessary consent papers.

The world sometimes seems surreal to me. Things that were literally satirical hyperbole a few years ago are actual reality. The idea that a consent app would be meaningful in any way is a non-starter. You could simply say your consent was given at the time but you felt threatened, which you can already say.

Also, have a look at what intersectional feminists think of any anti-rape protection other than the impossibly braindead suggestion of 'teach men not to rape'. A few years ago, a bunch of (misogynistic, obviously) men invented a nail polish that changed colour if it was dipped in a drink that contained a 'roofie'. The gals at feministing went into rabid apoplexy at the idea.

The thing is, I really do not advocate for violence. Which is why I personally believe that it is better to teach men not to rape than to shoot them in the face if they attempt to rape anyone.

Most men manage to go through their whole lives without raping anybody. I don’t see why it is so impossible for them to teach the bad eggs how to behave. Seems much better than women shooting would be rapists in the face.

But then, I don’t think of men as brain dead or so impossibly infantile or animalistic that they are unable to deal with their emotions and urges responsibly. Weird that you seem to.

 

[Metaphor]

Which is why I personally believe that it is better to teach men not to rape than to shoot them in the face if they attempt to rape anyone.

I would prefer to teach people not to steal, so my password on every account is password123 and I have no locks on my doors.

Most men manage to go through their whole lives without raping anybody. I don’t see why it is so impossible for them to teach the bad eggs how to behave. Seems much better than women shooting would be rapists in the face.

Because the ones who don't rape anybody don't need to be taught it, and the ones who do are not going to be convinced not to rape because nobody tells sexist jokes.

Or, if you prefer: men are already taught not to rape, but it doesn't take in some men. Just as we live in a society that is taught not to murder, but some people go ahead and do it anyway.

But then, I don’t think of men as brain dead or so impossibly infantile or animalistic that they are unable to deal with their emotions and urges responsibly. Weird that you seem to.

No, Toni, you're confused. You're the one who thinks anyone in a particular category is as good as anyone else in that category, because diversity.

But I know you're not confused. You are attempting to put words in my mouth. I didn't say 'men' couldn't control themselves. I think rapists can't control themselves.

I know you think I said the former, but please try to understand not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men.

Next.

 

[Toni]

I would prefer to teach people not to steal, so my password on every account is password123 and I have no locks on my doors.



Because the ones who don't rape anybody don't need to be taught it, and the ones who do are not going to be convinced not to rape because nobody tells sexist jokes.

Or, if you prefer: men are already taught not to rape, but it doesn't take in some men. Just as we live in a society that is taught not to murder, but some people go ahead and do it anyway.

But then, I don’t think of men as brain dead or so impossibly infantile or animalistic that they are unable to deal with their emotions and urges responsibly. Weird that you seem to.

No, Toni, you're confused. You're the one who thinks anyone in a particular category is as good as anyone else in that category, because diversity.

But I know you're not confused. You are attempting to put words in my mouth. I didn't say 'men' couldn't control themselves. I think rapists can't control themselves.

I know you think I said the former, but please try to understand not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men.

Next.

You are the one who said that it was a brain dead idea to try to teach men not to rape.

I think that's weird.

Can you clarify for me whether you think it is a good idea for women to carry loaded guns with them in case a man tries to rape them? Personally, I think that's a terrible idea but you don't seem to think that men are teachable.

 

[Metaphor]

You are the one who said that it was a brain dead idea to try to teach men not to rape.

Men are already taught that. People are also taught not to steal and not to assault others. And yet we still lock up valuables and we still have strategies for getting away from danger, because guess what. People assault, steal, and rape, despite what they've been taught.

Can you clarify for me whether you think it is a good idea for women to carry loaded guns with them in case a man tries to rape them? Personally, I think that's a terrible idea but you don't seem to think that men are teachable.

Toni, in what universe does positing 'you can't educate rapists out of rape' equate to 'women should carry loaded guns'?

Also, desist. DESIST WITH YOUR STRAWMEN.

Men are teachable. Rapists are not. Not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men.

 

[ruby sparks]

What I think is, it's not a pair of binary options. We should do everything possible and reasonable to educate men generally and to make those who are perpetrators responsible (and treat them as such) and not the victim, and all that (in other words reverse the 'traditional' tendencies to victim blame) and we should encourage and allow, and possibly even advise, potential victims to take whatever reasonable measures and precautions they would want to and that would help. Both are good, imo. The problem has been the emphasis on victim blaming, not the existence of countermeasures and precautions.

I am not necessarily referring to any one of the products here.

 

[Rhea]

You are the one who said that it was a brain dead idea to try to teach men not to rape.

Men are already taught that.

Are they?
When are they taught the definition of rape?
When are thhey taught how to recognize consent?
When are they taught that girls who sleep with one guy are not open season for the others?
When are they taught that what women wear is never “Asking for it”?
When are they taught that rape kits will always be tested?
When are the cops taught to not demean and antagonize the rape victims?
When are men taught that gaining confidence over a child or student or niece or nephew or subordinate will not be hushed up by parishioners or HR departments or parents or aunts because being raped is more embarassing that holding the man accountable -so he certaibly doesn’t learn that not raping is the issue, he learns that telling is the issue.
When are people taught that women who dance sexy or are drunk or wear short skirts or go to frat parties are not exempt from the right to consent?

Are men REALLY taught to not rape?

 

[ruby sparks]

Here are some interesting ideas. The creator is an artist and they are sculptures, not actual products or intended to be. As with some of the above items (some of which were also 'ideas' or prototypes) the potentially interesting aspects are the ideas and the issues involved, not the practicalities or the efficacy. The added feature for these (below) is that they are also meant to be objects of some sort of elegance and beauty:

 

[ruby sparks]

You are the one who said that it was a brain dead idea to try to teach men not to rape.

Men are already taught that.

Are they?
When are they taught the definition of rape?
When are thhey taught how to recognize consent?
When are they taught that girls who sleep with one guy are not open season for the others?
When are they taught that what women wear is never “Asking for it”?
When are they taught that rape kits will always be tested?
When are the cops taught to not demean and antagonize the rape victims?
When are men taught that gaining confidence over a child or student or niece or nephew or subordinate will not be hushed up by parishioners or HR departments or parents or aunts because being raped is more embarassing that holding the man accountable -so he certaibly doesn’t learn that not raping is the issue, he learns that telling is the issue.
When are people taught that women who dance sexy or are drunk or wear short skirts or go to frat parties are not exempt from the right to consent?

Are men REALLY taught to not rape?

By and large, men, generalising, are either formally taught or informed about those things, or learn them informally. So again, it's not a simple binary men are taught versus men are not taught. What we could say is that (a) there has not been enough 'teaching' and (b) the amount is increasing, thankfully, in recent years. In any case, despite the benefits, not all men will respond to teaching. There will still be rapists. But we can hope that more teaching makes a positive contribution.

 

[Rhea]

By and large, men, generalising, are either formally taught or informed about those things, or learn them informally.

Are they taught informally by the same system that taught them women can’t get pregnant on their first intercourse? Or by the same formal system where they learned that snapping girls’ bras is not a big deal?

 

[ruby sparks]

By and large, men, generalising, are either formally taught or informed about those things, or learn them informally.

Are they taught informally by the same system that taught them women can’t get pregnant on their first intercourse? Or by the same formal system where they learned that snapping girls’ bras is not a big deal?

I don't understand the questions. I think you are saying that enough men are not sufficiently educated about such things. And I could agree with that. There should be more education (including of boys) about such things. And to the extent that such education would help, it would likely help. But at the same time it's not as if it's not already being quite widely practiced. And often, there are sanctions too. Schools for example are obliged to have anti-harassment policies and sex education. Rapists know they may face legal proceedings.

 

[Metaphor]

You are the one who said that it was a brain dead idea to try to teach men not to rape.

Men are already taught that.

Are they?
When are they taught the definition of rape?
When are thhey taught how to recognize consent?
When are they taught that girls who sleep with one guy are not open season for the others?
When are they taught that what women wear is never “Asking for it”?
When are they taught that rape kits will always be tested?
When are the cops taught to not demean and antagonize the rape victims?
When are men taught that gaining confidence over a child or student or niece or nephew or subordinate will not be hushed up by parishioners or HR departments or parents or aunts because being raped is more embarassing that holding the man accountable -so he certaibly doesn’t learn that not raping is the issue, he learns that telling is the issue.
When are people taught that women who dance sexy or are drunk or wear short skirts or go to frat parties are not exempt from the right to consent?

Are men REALLY taught to not rape?

The sexist definition of rape, where only men are capable of rape, but any woman who forces a man to penetrate her can only be charged with sexual assault?
Men, along with women, are taught to recognise (not just sexual) consent their entire lives, starting with parents telling an older sibiling 'don't hit your brother, you can see he doesn't like it.'
Cops are not taught to demean and antagonise rape victims, unless the victim is male. Indeed, training is now so feminist that cops are taught not even to ask about the same details twice, because if you don't ask twice you can't get an inconsistent story.

Also, it beggars belief that you think people need to be taught that someone dancing sexy does not need to give her consent. Nobody thinks that. Literally nobody, including rapists. Rapists know they should have consent, they just don't care.

But okay, we live in a rape culture and all rapists will just stop raping if we teach them that rape is wrong, when apparently we've been teaching them rape is A-Okay.

 

[ruby sparks]

As regards for instance the lockable pants, if someone were to lock or secure their personal possessions (think of a lockable wallet or purse for example, or clothes with a secure pouch or pocket in them) most people would consider that reasonable (because there are criminals out there who will do bad things) but when it comes to locking your 'personal sexual possessions' (your bodily ones) other issues come in, simply because of the 'traditional' (and to some extent ongoing) extra (key word) degree of victim-blaming that is associated with sexual assaults, harassment and rape, more even than accompanies other assaults on the body (ie setting aside 'secondary' valuables such as money).

 

[ruby sparks]

But okay, we live in a rape culture....

I would say that we, most of us here, still, even today after much progress, live in a culture/society where rape, sexual assault and harassment is/are informally (and sometimes formally) tolerated to too great an extent. This is what some people at least mean when they say 'rape culture', though of course the concept can also be overstated, and that overstatement is what can sometimes be problematical in discussions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The second one isn't a bad idea but has obvious issues that will stop it from catching on.

No, it's awful. Because legally a woman can retract consent at any time during sex. It doesn't really matter that she gave consent earlier. That'll prove nothing in court. No, matter if you have a valid contract. It'll give the person false confident that all is cool.

The only way a man can be safe from being accused of rape is to not have sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

No, it's awful. Because legally a woman can retract consent at any time during sex. It doesn't really matter that she gave consent earlier. That'll prove nothing in court. No, matter if you have a valid contract. It'll give the person false confident that all is cool.

Realistically, it would probably at least make some difference to the way many cases would proceed, even if it were not proof.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, it's awful. Because legally a woman can retract consent at any time during sex. It doesn't really matter that she gave consent earlier. That'll prove nothing in court. No, matter if you have a valid contract. It'll give the person false confident that all is cool.

Realistically, it would probably at least make some difference to the way many cases would proceed, even if it were not proof.

If anything it'll make it seem more rapey since it'll seem like it was signed under duress. Why would the guy insist on her signing it if he wasn't planning on raping her? The whole thing is dumb as hell.

 

[Metaphor]

The second one isn't a bad idea but has obvious issues that will stop it from catching on.

No, it's awful. Because legally a woman can retract consent at any time during sex. It doesn't really matter that she gave consent earlier. That'll prove nothing in court. No, matter if you have a valid contract. It'll give the person false confident that all is cool.

The only way a man can be safe from being accused of rape is to not have sex.

No, not even then. Sometimes false rape claims emerge from consensual intercourse, but sometimes there was no intercourse to begin with.