(War on Women) NYC: 10 hours of Harassment or Compliments?

[jmdrake]

You nor I can say %100 for sure what their intentions are. I just think it is funny how you and others can say that with absolute certainty they are going to ban non-threatening free speech on the street towards women even though a rep already came out and said otherwise. The issue you and others seem to have with my comments is because I only have my doubts about them and I think that saying they would ban non-threatening free speech is hyperbole.

I never once discounted the possibility legislation and in fact stated long prior to this early in the thread the possibility of a hidden legislative agenda.

You don't say "Current legal remedies haven't proven successful but here are some new laws being proposed" if you don't want new laws.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Ah yes. "Up yours" animated gifs are so mature.



Their advice to women being street harassed? Just walk on by and ignore the harasser. Hmmmmmm....who said that? Oh yeah. Me!

Further they did not say that proposed legislation remedies have not been successful. They said current legal remedies have not been successful. That's why new ones are being proposed. From their website:

Given the shortcomings of the law in this arena, a number of legal scholars and activists have suggested specific legal reforms that have yet to be implemented. For a thorough review of current legal concepts used against street harassment and their failures, as well as proposed remedies, see Cynthia Grant Bowman’s “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women,” published in the Harvard Law Review and available here.

Current Remedies and Their Failures

Currently, a number of legal tools exist to combat street harassment. While some of these have proved successful on occasion, none are an effective remedy in part due to factors described below. It should be noted, however, that there exists one particular area where women have been extended greater protection: common carriers (buses, trains, and other transportation forms), and hotel guest situations. Women may recover damages more readily if harassed by an employee—or even another patron—of a common carrier or hotel. More information on this follows below. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/legal/#sthash.PUqqrn0l.dpuf

Please re-read this (assuming you actually read it the first time) and explain why you have twisted their statements from "Current legal remedies have not proven successful so legal scholars are proposing new ones" to "Proposed legal remedies have not proven successful so we're focusing on a non legal approach."

You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.

 

[kahless]

You don't say "Current legal remedies haven't proven successful but here are some new laws being proposed" if you don't want new laws.

I looked at that page a few times before posting here and that is why I said early on I have my doubts. I also found this quote on another page.

Initiate Legislative Advocacy: You can create change around an issue through legislative advocacy. When you conduct legislative advocacy, your goal is to work with government officials who can publicize the mission of your organization and partner with you on upcoming projects. - See more at: http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/holla-how-to-guides/#sthash.EnPFfoCg.dpuf

It however remains unclear what kind of behavior they are proposing legislation for. As pointed out there is a big difference between cat-calling and sexual assault. But if you look on their website, sexual assault and various forms of it is mixed in with the street harassment behaviors listed.

This is why I said some pages back thinking out loud that if it they are seeking to change legislation related to sexual assault then what is specifically not covered by the laws we have now which would likely be dependent on where the incident occurs in the US.

I also see they are an international organization. How much of this legislative advocacy is intended for countries where women do not have the legal recourse we have here.

So far I see no proposal to specifically limit non-threatening speech between a man and a woman. They are leaving themselves open to interpretation which is the problem.

 

[jmdrake]

You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.

Listing them after saying "The current laws aren't good enough" is an endorsement of new laws even if it's not an endorsement of any particular new law. Really, if this was a pro life website that said "Current laws don't protect the unborn but here are some legal scholars that are proposing some new ones" I doubt very seriously that you would count that as anything other than an endorsement of new anti abortion laws. At the very least this proves the woman quoted by the Reason blogger was lying when she said her organization was against new laws.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You still have not provided any proof that Hollaback is endorsing any of the new laws being proposed by legal scholars. Simply listing them is not akin to an endorsement.

You cannot be that dense. If you just stepped off a spaceship and read that article without and prior bias, you would think they were advocating new laws. There's really no doubt that that's what they're proposing. Stop acting like you don't realize it.

 

[pessimist]

No it doesn't, that's the whole point. I'm not sure all the reasons why, I think it may be due to several issues including body contact and fluid exchange from kissing, but I think one of the main reasons is the hormonal displacement from the fluid exchange during sex.. you see, when you have sex your sexual organs (male and female) actually soak up a lot of the juices and those juices contain hormones from the opposite sex. So does mucus from the mouth, I believe to a lesser extent. I notice a BJ usually calms me down for about a week or two, sex for 3-5 weeks and masturbating does almost nothing if it's been a long time since I've had sex. I've gotten done with a sesh before and had to go right back into one right after - with sex I have the same ability to ejaculate just as much as when I'm masturbating, but it is optional - I can take it but can also leave it if there is a good reason to.

Now, the only confusing part is the fact that having sex with a condom seems to fall somewhere in between getting a BJ and having sex without a condom, though I am pretty sure most every time I've had sex with a condom I've ALSO had a BJ without a condom so I guess that would help explain why, but even sex with a condom seems to help, there are probably some fluids that get soaked up at the base or something.

A fleshlight feels almost as good as the real thing, except the body contact and the constant self lubrication, but literally does almost nothing in terms of longterm satisfaction.

I think I'll probably need a testosterone shot and a high sex drive to be able comprehend all that.

Wait a minute, you yourself just said a 'sex crazed maniac' would choose prostitution (the latter) over rape (the former) - which I agree with - and that would reduce rape, right? In fact studies have shown most rapists prefer consensual sex over rape. I think a lot of guys who rape are doing it for the sexual satisfaction, I think a minority are doing it for other reasons. I never said rape would go away completely, I just said the instances of rape would be reduced if prostitution were legalized. You say that the sex crazed maniac would choose prostitution, then you say prostitution would have zero impact on rape, I don't get that at all?

Wait! What? They are both ILLEGAL. Why on earth wouldn't a rapist just hire a prostitute and risk being slapped on the wrist and being known as the town John, rather than destroying a life and risk going to prison if it's purely about sex?

We are on totally different pages here. I simply don't understand that at all. Rapists will rape whether they can legally hire a hooker or not.

Getting laid FOR YOU is not hard at all because women can tell when guys are desperate for sex and those are precisely the guys they do not find attractive.

Then there are guys who have social anxiety and are shy, they have a hard time getting laid too.. and if they have a strong sex drive then it just amplifies the entire problem due to the fact that they are desperate for sex.

it's NOT easy for me, because I don't have casual sex. However, I do know a few women who I can CONFIDENTLY state would have sex with me if I called them up to hangout. I don't dig chicks like that though, and that isn't my thing. I also have social anxiety

Unless you're creepy, hideously ugly, or have some wretched odor coming off your body- I don't see why one can't "get laid". That seems to be a hugely popular thing (that's all folks seem to want to talk about), and casual sex seems to be whats in vogue.

 

[jmdrake]

I looked at that page a few times before posting here and that is why I said early on I have my doubts. I also found this quote on another page.



It however remains unclear what kind of behavior they are proposing legislation for. As pointed out there is a big difference between cat-calling and sexual assault. But if you look on their website, sexual assault and various forms of it is mixed in with the street harassment behaviors listed.

This is why I said some pages back thinking out loud that if it they are seeking to change legislation related to sexual assault then what is specifically not covered by the laws we have now which would likely be dependent on where the incident occurs in the US.

I also see they are an international organization. How much of this legislative advocacy is intended for countries where women do not have the legal recourse we have here.

So far I see no proposal to specifically limit non-threatening speech between a man and a woman. They are leaving themselves open to interpretation which is the problem.

More from their legal analysis page.


The law has historically failed to take seriously numerous issues affecting women’s lives, and street harassment is no exception. Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely.

Judges, legislators, and other decision-makers—mostly male—have generally understood street harassment as a trivial occurrence and thus not within the proper scope of the law.
.........
Street Harassment as Trivial

There exist very few reported street harassment cases in which convictions have been upheld. As a dissenting judge in one of these rare examples indicated, it seems to be the pervasiveness of street harassment that contributes to its neglect by the law. Referring to the fact that women are frequently assaulted with catcalls and sexual suggestions, he asserted that a mere indecent request was insufficient to violate the anti-harassment statute in question. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 363 A.2d 803, 804-05 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). He also felt it would be unwise to criminalize such behavior because: “(1) the state runs the risk of criminalizing generally accepted behavior, leaving the actor without reasonable notice that his conduct is criminal; (2) such incidents are too frequent for a justice system to handle them efficiently; (3) courts cannot be expected to arbitrate what are frequently personal disputes by use of the criminal process.” Duncan at 804-05. Since street harassment is so widespread and generally regarded as trivial, this judge feels that there is no reason to do anything about it legally.

The same attitudes that permit and foster street harassment in the first place thus also permeate the legal system, creating a serious impediment to the successful use of any existing remedies against street harassment. Take for example the civil remedy of “intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is defined as “extreme and outrageous conduct [that] intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another,”Restatement (Second) of Torts. Street harassment as experienced by countless women clearly fits this definition, yet there are few reported cases in which this remedy has been successfully used in a street harassment context. Much of the difficulty lies in establishing street harassment constitutes “extreme and outrageous conduct.” After all, if street harassment was generally regarded as “extreme and outrageous,” it wouldn’t present such an omnipresent problem.

Now, here's what everybody, including you and Rothbardian Girl, should be able to agree on. One of the main goals of this group is to change the culture so that catcalling is taken seriously. And what would be a benefit to that according to them? Well judges would be more willing to convict a man off of a "mere indecent request." So the libertarian "We don't want new laws" front that was portrayed to the blogger from Reason.com is not what they say on their website. Now one might be willing to accept that all they want to criminalize is some guy saying to a woman "You're cute. Would you like to have sex?" The problem is that the "evidence" that they present of the need for "change" isn't some guy asking for sex. It's guys saying "Good evening" and "you look like a thousand dollars." They are the ones that conflate the issues and I believe they've done that on purpose. Without conflating the innocent greetings with the guy walking beside the woman for 5 minutes, they basically have no evidence at all. Frankly I don't think the guy asking for sex should be criminalized. I agree with the judge that they excoriate that a "mere indecent request" should not be in itself enough to warrant some kind of criminal or civil penalty. Of course that didn't stop you from suggesting that guys like me wouldn't want there to be laws against some man grabbing a woman's butt. Remember this stupid comment you made?

You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.

I wonder why it is your willing to give this website every possible benefit of the doubt such that it can openly say the current laws aren't good enough, link to legislation proposed by "legal scholars", and you just take their "word for it" because they tell Reason "Oh we don't want new laws" but somehow you think I agree with women getting sexually assaulted? Some kind of Stockholm syndrome going on? Only assume the worst about pro liberty men and assume the best about liberal feminists? You know what. I hope these laws get passed. In fact I hope they go so freaking far that anything the "queen bee" in the OP video tagged as harassment get's criminalized. Then I hope you get some dust in your eye, accidentally wink at someone you don't know (cause it sounds like you are too indoctrinated to actually flirt with a woman you don't know) and you get brought up on street harassment charges. In fact, screw it all. May Rand lose and the economy implode and the FEMA camps kick up into high gear and elections be banned and the surveillance state kicks it up a notch. Let everything that some of us have been fighting against for years just come steamrolling through because somehow this will make some feminist somewhere feel more comfortable walking down the street. Because the idea that there are people in the world that want to restrict freedom is just some "right wing conspiracy". It doesn't matter if they actually say it right out on their website. No no. As long as they can find some gullible fool "journalist" to listen to their spin, the spin must be the truth! This all reminds me of a movie.

 

[Danke]

However, I do know a few women who I can CONFIDENTLY state would have sex with me if I called them up to hangout. I don't dig chicks like that though, and that isn't my thing.

PM sent.

 

[pessimist]

PM sent.

call me, maybe?

 

[pessimist]

they only like girly men, are you up for the challenge?

 

[dannno]

Wait! What? They are both ILLEGAL. Why on earth wouldn't a rapist just hire a prostitute and risk being slapped on the wrist and being known as the town John, rather than destroying a life and risk going to prison if it's purely about sex?

We are on totally different pages here. I simply don't understand that at all. Rapists will rape whether they can legally hire a hooker or not.

There are a ton of reasons why a rapist might choose to rape a girl rather than get an illegal prostitute as opposed to getting a legal prostitute. One of them is the fact that yes, both are illegal. Make one of them legal (hint: not rape, prostitution) and you take down a few obstacles right there. Accessibility and desirability are two other main drivers, and then there is the fact that I don't think most rapes are pre-meditated but actually happen at the spur of the moment making accessibility an even bigger driver.

As far as accessibility, I live in a pretty big town and I've never seen a female prostitute - or at least I've never been aware of the presence of a female prostitute. Trust me, even I'm pretty baffled at that. I have, however, seen a few transvestite prostitutes. I'm pretty sure most of the prostitutes here are transvestites, and that is obviously something most men would want to avoid.

Craigslist has prostitutes, but some of them are police stings so it is very risky. So accessibility is a big concern. Illegal prostitutes have a very high rate of STIs.

Then there is the fact that I don't think most guys PLAN to rape women - men don't plan to rape their dates, they plan to have consensual sex with them. When they both get drunk and are messing around and she says 'no' he may decide to do it anyway. Not because he wants to rape, but because he wants to have sex. Remember, most rapists PREFER consensual sex to rape, that is your answer right there, that's really all you need to know. So that's called date rape, it's pretty common, most girls are raped by guys they know. Or if a girl gets too drunk and passes out the guy she is with may decide to do it. He may be impaired at the time as well.

So my point was, if prostitution was more accessible (legal) and clean (legal) and you could keep a clean record (legal), guys who were about to rape their date might just decide to go with the legal, accessible option. They can go into a clean place, find a girl who is just as hot and pay for it rather than rape. They can do it that night or the next day. Pretty simple. It's not that simple if prostitution is illegal.

 

[pessimist]

There are a ton of reasons why a rapist might choose to rape a girl rather than get an illegal prostitute as opposed to getting a legal prostitute. One of them is the fact that yes, both are illegal. Make one of them legal and you take down a few obstacles right there. Accessibility and desirability are two other main drivers, and then there is the fact that I don't think most rapes are pre-meditated but actually happen at the spur of the moment.

As far as accessibility, I live in a pretty big town and I've never seen a female prostitute - or at least I've never been aware of the presence of a female prostitute. Trust me, even I'm pretty baffled at that. I have, however, seen a few transvestite prostitutes. I'm pretty sure most of the prostitutes here are transvestites, and that is obviously something most men would want to avoid.

Craigslist has prostitutes, but some of them are police stings so it is very risky. So accessibility is a big concern. Illegal prostitutes have a very high rate of STIs.

Then there is the fact that I don't think most guys PLAN to rape women - men don't plan to rape their dates, they plan to have consensual sex with them. When they both get drunk and are messing around and she says 'no' he may decide to do it anyway. That's called date rape, it's pretty common, most girls are raped by guys they know. Or if a girl gets too drunk and passes out the guy she is with may decide to do it. He may be impaired at the time as well.

So my point was, if prostitution was more accessible (legal) and clean (legal) and you could keep a clean record (legal), guys who were about to rape their date might just decide to go with the legal option.

I'm not buying it. It takes a certain type of person to rape. Whether it's having sex with an unconscious body at a party, drugging a woman at a bar, raping a stepdaughter, or jumping out of the bushes and raping a jogger in a park at gunpoint- it doesn't matter.

I do agree that there are instances where the guy just gets out of control- they are heavily into it, she decides she has had enough, and he continues until she submits. Those aren't planned- I agree.

But I am not buying most date rapes are unplanned. Many of those assholes intend on getting laid no matter what. Some of them even drug their victims, or try to get them drunk. Think college frat bro supplying alcohol to a bunch of underage high school kids.

 

[dannno]

I'm not buying it. It takes a certain type of person to rape. Whether it's having sex with an unconscious body at a party, drugging a woman at a bar, raping a stepdaughter, or jumping out of the bushes and raping a jogger in a park at gunpoint- it doesn't matter.

I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive - I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics. I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals. Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived. So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics.

But I am not buying most date rapes are unplanned. Many of those asshole intend on getting laid no matter what. Some of them even drug their victims, or try to get them drunk. Think college frat bro supplying alcohol to a bunch of underage high school kids.

It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk. In fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one.

The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.

 

[kahless]

Remember this stupid comment you made?

I can't remember now but I thought that quote of mine you posted was because it should not be so bizarrely foreign for you to understand that the behavior is sometimes threatening and scares the crap out of women. There was nothing really that controversial in my comments and if you have no issue with the behavior then I was thinking along the lines you probably do not have problem with ass grabbing.

The inflection there was intended to keep that a light comment but if it did not come across fairly to you it was not my intention to offend.

I wonder why it is your willing to give this website every possible benefit of the doubt such that it can openly say the current laws aren't good enough, link to legislation proposed by "legal scholars", and you just take their "word for it" because they tell Reason "Oh we don't want new laws" but somehow you think I agree with women getting sexually assaulted? Some kind of Stockholm syndrome going on? Only assume the worst about pro liberty men and assume the best about liberal feminists? You know what. I hope these laws get passed. In fact I hope they go so freaking far that anything the "queen bee" in the OP video tagged as harassment get's criminalized. Then I hope you get some dust in your eye, accidentally wink at someone you don't know (cause it sounds like you are too indoctrinated to actually flirt with a woman you don't know) and you get brought up on street harassment charges. In fact, screw it all. May Rand lose and the economy implode and the FEMA camps kick up into high gear and elections be banned and the surveillance state kicks it up a notch. Let everything that some of us have been fighting against for years just come steamrolling through because somehow this will make some feminist somewhere feel more comfortable walking down the street. Because the idea that there are people in the world that want to restrict freedom is just some "right wing conspiracy". It doesn't matter if they actually say it right out on their website. No no. As long as they can find some gullible fool "journalist" to listen to their spin, the spin must be the truth! This all reminds me of a movie.

You may or may not be proven to be right at some point but you can't be definitively sure because see what I wrote above http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Compliments&p=5691248&viewfull=1#post5691248

Don't I wish there was some Stockholm syndrome with these women and they want to take advantage of me. :o

 

[jmdrake]

I can't remember now but I thought that quote of mine you posted was because it should not be so bizarrely foreign for you to understand that the behavior is sometimes threatening and scares the crap out of women. There was nothing really that controversial in my comments and if you have no issue with the behavior then I was thinking along the lines you probably do not have problem with ass grabbing.

Here is the conversation.

Why do we keep conflating actual physical harassment with cat-calling? They are two very different things, and the distinction needs to be made clear. The video doesn't discuss physical harassment because the people who made it are after the cat-callers, the non-violent ones. Here we are just buying the idea that cat-calling is somehow the same thing as being groped/assaulted on the street. It's not and it needs to stop.

I watched her interviews and read several articles which she says she was groped the month prior to this video. You seem to have this old fashioned view of cat-calling and maybe a West Virginia view of cat-calling -- some guys whistling from a far and throwing in some compliments which most women do not fear nor give a damn about. This is not West Virginia, this is NYC where it takes on a whole new meaning. Women being followed and harassed is a bit different.

If she was groped, she should have filed charges for being groped. And most of the guys in the video that this drama queen was complaining about were just whistling from a far or throwing out compliments or even saying "Good evening"! That's right. Saying "good evening" is something this silly woman wants laws passed against! And as for the guy following her, what kind of law would you draft against that? If a man walks beside a woman for more than 30 seconds charge him with a crime?

You say that now but I suspect if the video showed women getting their butts pinched or grabbed or were groped, you and a couple others here would probably be posting saying it is only a natural mating dance and that the woman are Progressive bitches for filing charges.

So let's seek. PaulConventionWV complains about you conflating physical assault with cat calling, you say the women said in another interview that she was groped, I said if she was groped she should have filed charges, you said that meant I was okay with women being groped. And your tirade makes sense because....?

The inflection there was intended to keep that a light comment but if it did not come across fairly to you it was not my intention to offend.

I thought your whole campaign was to make people take verbal street harassment more seriously. So you do that by turning actual sexual assault into a joke?

You may or may not be proven to be right at some point but you can't be definitively sure because see what I wrote above http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Compliments&p=5691248&viewfull=1#post5691248

Don't I wish there was some Stockholm syndrome with these women and they want to take advantage of me. :o

They'd probably make you just watch and then prosecute you for leering.

 

[pessimist]

I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive

I'm someone that tries to look at things from multiple perspectives and attempts to see situations from another POV. I just cannot seem to put myself in the mind of a rapist.

Anyway, the motive is self-gratification. Simple as that. Whether you're doing it violently or otherwise, you're still getting your jollies off by RAPING- whether its purely out of sexual desire or some psychological complex should be irrelevant. It's all self-gratification at the expense of a human life.

I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics.

I don't get this either. I find it sad and frightening that people need a freaking moral code not to rape.

I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals

Huge difference between the two.

. Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived. So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics.

Well, one would hope that the further we're removed from the jungle the more 'humane' society will become. I have yet to see widespread evidence of that, though.

It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk.

Well yeah! Duh! I just meant that sex is on the mind before the potential date rapist enters the party or bar or club.

n fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one.

The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.

I have no interest in talking about feminism. I am talking about rape. I don't need a campaign or some feminist to tell me that rape is wrong. I haven't been brainwashed. I just have an emotional, visceral reaction to it for some reason. I find it worse than murder in most cases. I don't know why.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm someone that tries to look at things from multiple perspectives and attempts to see situations from another POV. I just cannot seem to put myself in the mind of a rapist.

Anyway, the motive is self-gratification. Simple as that. Whether you're doing it violently or otherwise, you're still getting your jollies off by RAPING- whether its purely out of sexual desire or some psychological complex should be irrelevant. It's all self-gratification at the expense of a human life.



I don't get this either. I find it sad and frightening that people need a freaking moral code not to rape.



Huge difference between the two.




Well, one would hope that the further we're removed from the jungle the more 'humane' society will become. I have yet to see widespread evidence of that, though.



Well yeah! Duh! I just meant that sex is on the mind before the potential date rapist enters the party or bar or club.



I have no interest in talking about feminism. I am talking about rape. I don't need a campaign or some feminist to tell me that rape is wrong. I haven't been brainwashed. I just have an emotional, visceral reaction to it for some reason. I find it worse than murder in most cases. I don't know why.

Worse than murder? That I cannot understand. I may be a man, but I'm pretty sure a woman would rather be raped and alive than just murdered. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, either. If the alternative to rape is death, I think most people, regardless of gender, would prefer being the victim of rape over murder.

 

[pessimist]

Worse than murder? That I cannot understand. I may be a man, but I'm pretty sure a woman would rather be raped and alive than just murdered. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, either. If the alternative to rape is death, I think most people, regardless of gender, would prefer being the victim of rape over murder.

I am not saying it is rational. I said I can't explain it- it is some weird feeling. Death to me is the end. Rape is a life long scar one has to carry.

I'm someone that cannot tolerate seeing ANY violence against children or animals or witness any kind suffering of them. My nervous system goes haywire. However, I can watch someone get hacked to death with a machete in a movie with indifference. I have selective empathy and sympathy or something. *shrug*

So for me to try to logically explain why I find rape worse (in many cases) to murder- I will be unable to do so.

EDIT: Poorly worded on my part. Just wanted to say I am not pro-murder.

 

[kahless]

Here is the conversation.

Wow you got really butt hurt over that ass grabbing comment of mine.

You chose to read those posts as a tirade or take offense but like I said no offense was intended. At one point I have a few posts after that where I tried to add a little levity since I figured I may have ruffled a few feathers unintentionally.

He chose to believe I was saying all cat-calling = sexual assault but I never said that. Regardless that has ZERO to do with the point I was trying to make with him. I was trying to make the point along the same lines that Johnhowe kept reluctantly coming back to the thread to make with him.

The point I was making was along the lines of that the behavior is sometimes scary to women and how it sometimes leads to sexual assault or women have the fear it may lead to sexual assault. (they never know sometimes which way it is going to go, so no harm done if they want to have a campaign for civility). That really should not be all that hard for you to understand nor is saying that controversial.

I even have several posts saying I believe cat calling != sexual assault. However that site includes sexual assault as part of street harassment - cat-calling. So sexual assault related to cat-calling is fair game in this discussion, quite relevant and should not have been so shocking to you or him that I brought that into the thread like others here did.

They'd probably make you just watch and then prosecute you for leering.

AHHH, LOL

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I agree it takes a certain kind of person to rape, I think it takes a different kind of person to rape at gunpoint or knife point than a drunk girl at a party or whatever but both are certainly very bad... but it also requires motive - I know I have the motive or desire to have sex with girls who have turned me down and if I had no morals or ethics I very well could be a rapist quite possibly, I think pretty much any guy with a strong sex drive could be a rapist if they lack morals or ethics. I don't think it is much different than somebody who steals. Fortunately I have a lot of empathy for others and I could never do that. In fact, rape was extremely common back in the day, it was almost really part of life. I'm glad that's no longer the case, but that is how humans lived. So it is the combination of motive and bad morals and ethics.




It's more complicated than that... guys generally don't get girls drunk so they pass out so they can rape them.. Women are more likely to want to have sex when they are drunk, THAT is why they get them drunk. In fact, that's a big complaint I have about this whole anti-rape campaigns out there - they don't take into account that women actually get drunk and not only consent but may initiate sex with a guy (which I'm sure you've seen before) and then forget the whole thing the next day. Some girls actually get drunk on purpose so they can hook up with guys and not remember. I've personally known girls who do this. I think they should have the right to do it, and I think guys should have the right to be with them. The problem is you can't always distinguish those girls from the second type: In other cases, other girls may regret what they did and have no idea whether they consented or not, even though they may very well have initiated the sexual activity.. So they may decide, weeks later, that they were raped when, well, maybe they were, but it's very possible that they weren't raped and they actually initiated the sexual activity. Guys who are less attractive are more likely to be victimized by these type of incidents because the girl will generally feel more guilty about having sex with an unattractive guy than an attractive one.

The irony is that feminists generally like the idea that women aren't held to double standards and don't need to feel guilty about making their own sexual choices, but then when society causes a woman to feel guilty for having sex, those emotions can turn an innocent guy into a convicted rapist.

I know exactly what you're talking about, dannno. I hate to say it, but I really think there's a gray area in the law. Alcohol messes everything up when it comes to consent because it oftentimes makes clear consent nearly impossible. Then, we have the issue of the woman sitting in her apartment the next morning trying to decide if she was raped last night.

I may get flamed for this, but in cases like that, I'm going to stick with 'innocent until proven guilty' and say that the man should not be blamed. I'm not going to try to tell women what to do, but if I was really, truly raped, I'm pretty sure it would consume my every thought. There would be no doubt in my mind. The thought of consent would be out of the question. If you have to sit in your apartment and debate about whether you consented or not, then I can't call that rape. It's not worth ruining a man's life over it if you literally can't remember if you consented because the very fact that you had the presence of mind to sit and think about it in those terms proves that it didn't traumatize you to the point of being scared to go out anymore.

It is pretty well-known that women have the power to ruin a man's life with this one claim. A little acting and he may go to prison for the rest of his life. I'm not saying that a lot of women do that, but it can be done, and I can only hope and ask that women don't abuse the power they have in those situations. In fact, because of this, it is advisable for both men and women to avoid sex while drunk. Women, if you think it's something you'll regret, don't do it. Just because you can go out there and "see what happens" doesn't mean you should. If the idea of non-consensual sex doesn't scare you enough to avoid putting yourself in a situation where it could happen, then it's best to avoid it altogether and not potentially expose yourself to the predicament where a man's life hangs in the balance.

If you're not sure about what you want, then a college frat party is probably the worst possible place to try to hook up.