What is Rape Culture?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 12:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  One thing that might improve the tenor of these discussions would be to drop the word "rape" out of the discussion (and the law) when it is an act between two children.

Actually, that is a good point.

(15-09-2014 12:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I would even go so far as to suggest dropping the term "statutory rape" from the law and replacing it with something less freighted with violent meaning.

Nonconsensual sex? I understand where you are coming from. It is an inflammatory word.

(15-09-2014 12:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Sex between a sixteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy is not rape.

I doubt there are very many thirteen year old boys who would disagree.

The problem is informed consent. Yes the age restrictions are arbitrary, and some people are extremely emotionally mature for their age. However, I am sure there are plenty of thirteen year old boys who wouldn't mind having sex with their late twenties teacher. You have to look at it from the perspective of whether they are able to consent to sex.
Personally, I would have considered myself completely able to consent to sex at the age of thirteen, but looking back on how immature I was at that age, I completely disagree with that now. Do you really think this kid was able to understand the responsibility of having sex? I don't. Especially since she got pregnant. That in my opinion means he wasn't ready. There is a big difference between wanting to do something and enjoying it, and accepting the possible consequences of sexual relationships.
I think 16-18 is actually a good place to put it. Now this is because it is the point where one can work full-time and therefore earn enough money to support any children they produce. I know minimum wage isn't living wage, and that is a separate issue, but it is the best position I can think of putting consent on.

(15-09-2014 01:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no "rape" in Canadian law. There are only types of sexual assault.

Fair enough. Laws are different in different countries. But remember not everyone you speak to lives in Canada. I live in the UK, and most people here probably live in the States.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 02:51 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There is no "rape" in Canadian law. There are only types of sexual assault.

Fair enough. Laws are different in different countries.

Yes. That was precisely my point.

(15-09-2014 02:51 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  But remember not everyone you speak to lives in Canada.

Thanks, but I'm actually quite aware of that. If they did I would not have bothered pointing it out - as a point of comparison, it stands.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Well thank you for at least offering an actual response this time. Now we can at the very least understand each other's arguments.


False. The fallacy fallacy is when you accuse someone of a fallacy and then assume you are therefore correct. It actually only applies when a fallacy actually has been committed. So actually, when one calls fallacy fallacy, they are admitting to a fallacy. Otherwise it counts as a strawman.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Indeed, the trite definition of a diffident website says one thing. Given that the term is hardly one encountered in actual study of argumentation and rhetoric, and thus has no formal meaning, I fail to see how that might be taken as authoritative...

I think it is a more meaningful one. Strawman accounts for falsely accused fallaices, while fallacy fallacy accounts for "one argument failed, therefore I am right." It just has more utility.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Even your latest attempt at justification demonstrates a lack of reading comprehension. If we accept a single source as the only acceptable usage for what is nonetheless a very colloquial term, it still does not follow that anyone about one's own arguments (if they even make any) rests on the validity of another's arguments.

It seems you have a lack of reading comprehension. I was saying that the fallacy should apply to that as it is more substantive. Of course arguments stand on their own. That is what I was trying to say. All I was saying is that a misattribution of a fallacy is not the fallacy fallacy.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Someone saying to you "no, that argument/accusation is fallacious" means nothing other than that they feel your argument or accusation is fallacious.

Unless they can take the point and explain the fallacy.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  However, I never made such a statement. I have only ever dismissed specific arguments and justifications for said arguments based on fallacies.

You've repeatedly made spurious and inapplicable accusations of fallacy.

Name one that I have not already conceded was a misattribution.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I have never said you are wrong because you have made bad arguments, rather that I have yet to accept your position based on lack of valid arguments.
If I spot a fallacy, and you can't see it, it may be because there was a lack of context, a lack of understanding of the opponent's arguments, or you actually committed one and don't want to admit it.

Or perhaps one further possibility: if you - and you alone - "spot" something, it might not be real.

Just a thought.

Yeah that was what I meant by lack of understanding. Didn't make that clear. All I mean is that yes, I can be wrong about whether a fallacy has been committed, but you may also be wrong claiming it hasn't. However, if I do shoulder my burden of proof, you need to do the same and explain why I am wrong if I am.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  How? All I mean is that "fallacy fallacy" is not a valid defence for your position. Either justify your position, or don't bother arguing.

You don't seem to understand the broader narrative here.

If you reject every comment and criticism by vapidly spouting off "NO U R FALLACY" then it becomes impossible to engage in dialogue.

Particularly if that is to be your response to even those comments pointing out that your original accusations are baseless.

Well there is a difference between "NO U R FALLACY" and saying that someone convinced I am a troll is committing an appeal to motive fallacy, and an ad hominem.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  And again, absolutely nothing substantive.

To dismiss something of no substance (hint: that means you) does not require a particularly substantive effort on the part of anyone else.

I gave an argument, and you again didn't address it. I address all criticism and arguments. Why don't you? Are there just some things you just can't refute?

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I explained why I called projection, and then you do the whole "no you circle jerk" thing you accused me of allowing earlier.

I don't think you understood my comment. Whatever.

I did. Again, this is just sophistry. This whole "you just don't understand" is nothing more than a cop-out.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I do that all the fucking time. I always evaluate my positions, make sure I am consistently using terms, examine evidence, and always keep doubt. I am pragmatic for a reason. Maybe you should try?

And all the vaccine and climate "skeptics" in the world would say the same about themselves, too; the 9/11 truthers say they are the only ones truly examining the evidence... one's self-assessment in such matters is far from useful.

Are you even trying?

Big difference. I am first, not assuming massive conspiracies on the scale of 9/11. Vaccine and climate sceptics are most of the time not well informed on science. They are also lacking critical thinking. They don't understand a default position. They assume that if you can't prove something to them, then it is false. My thought process is completely different.
I am not saying I am the only one true examining the evidence. I just said I am doing it the best I can, along with critical thinking skills that I could of course be better, as we all could, but this should be working out what the reality is, and therefore how one changes it.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  What? This is a bit vague. Again, this whole "you just don't understand" is condescending.

You may choose to interpret comments as condescending, but that does not make them so in intent.

Or did you not know that?
(hint: that last bit was condescending - and it was a joke)

I have to admit, you are quite witty. Just saying how it comes across. If your intention was not for that to be the case, fine.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I understand my own opinions for god's sake. I reserve judgment in some areas, but if I have an opinion, I will make sure I fully understand it.

So you say.

So everyone says. The problem is there is very little one can do through text to actually prove something like that. So you can claim I don't understand, or believe something, but it really doesn't have much bearing on my arguments.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  That is actually a good point.

Well; there you go, then.

See? We can agree on stuff.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I agree that I should be presenting equal cases. But we have to accept that completely equal cases will only ever be in small sample sizes.
I was comparing it to Steubenville.

Ah. A situation which admits of very few parallels beyond the superficial. Gotcha.

The parallels that existed were the only points I needed. Sorry, but needing female football players doing the exact same thing to a guy is kind of a stretch.
But how were they only superficial? Intricate specifics of a case are meaningless. The cases were similar.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The other problem is the extraneous variables I will accept, and so all I was pointing out was how rape (or statutory rape) to minors is looked down upon when a man does it, but practically rewarded when a woman does it.

You have not even come close to substantiating that wild claim.

She was rewarded. I have only substantiated half.
However, I am not saying that women will always, or even mostly get this reaction. I am just saying that they CAN. Why is that not enough?

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I know that you don't always get accurate predictions when you extrapolate, but the main problem I was pointing out was male consent is still an issue, while female consent is hammered in every place concievable.
I may be young and inexperienced, but I will tell you, sex ed lessons consist mostly of the pics of STDs obviously...

How do you know?

Okay, they are only the ones I have experienced.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you have any direct experience with sex ed beyond that which you received yourself? Is your own experience representative of your peers in other schools in your region?

It should be. As far as I know there is a standard, and the groups that come in to to loads of different schools.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Other socio-economic conditions?

Again, they should do.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Other nations?

Since when did I ever say that I was applying to other nations?

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you see the problem with such unsubstantiated generalisation? Because this is precisely why people call you things like inexperienced or ignorant. You cannot merely assert things based only on your personal experience.

I think we have the issue of talking past each other sometimes. As for personal experience, I again live in the UK. It is probably different in other countries, like Canada. So we may both be right about our respective nations. As for my limited understanding of American politics, I cannot conclude a huge amount.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  ... but female consent is always stressed. To the extent that they point out "under the influence of alcohol" is a very vague phrase. There is never anything about whether you will consent, and your ability to choose not to have sex, or if you don't want to it is as bad as the other way around (although legally in the UK, a woman is unable to rape) so I think that should be addressed.

"Always". "Never". Rather blanket statements, it would seem to me. There are nonetheless a great many types of sexual assault which may be applicable under either English, Scots, or Northern Irish law. What is your point?

Again, I was talking from my experience. My point is that because of feminism being supported, female consent is this huge issue, while male consent is just assumed.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  As a point of comparison I reiterate that "rape" as a specific offense does not exist in the criminal code of Canada. There are only different types of sexual assault. Women are charged and convicted of them.

Fair enough. Again, I think this is to do with the different locations.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I have met loads of people who don't think a man can be raped by a woman, and I have to bloody stress it and think of a horrific situation to make it even possible for a guy not to want to. However, you say a woman may not want sex, and they accept it that second.

"I have met loads of people" is just a shade more compelling than "my holy book says". The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Fair enough. I don't really have statistics, but I am just acting as an observer of the culture that I live in.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If they are in the UK as you are, then they are actually correct - a woman cannot rape a man by the legal definition of "rape" in that jurisdiction. So what? I would be extraordinarily surprised if all of these purported people also didn't think a woman could sexually assault a man.

There is a level of "if you don't like it you're gay or something"

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (I am already extraordinarily surprised that this is apparently a topic you have raised with "loads of people" you have met)

Who said I brought it up? Most of the opinions I got were from a camping trip, in which a large group of my mother's friends and their families were all talking. They have no concept of taboo subjects.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Are you telling me you have never met a person like this?

Uh oh - are you sure that's not an argument from personal incredulity?

Surprise and personal incredulity are two different things.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  Okay, this seems to be an is-ought fallacy at this point.

Not at all.

But do go on. I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  You are pointing out a consent law and then saying therefore it is justified.

Now I'm very curious. I never said anything was "justified"; I emphasised merely the legal particulars of the case you chose to raise (without, evidently, a very thorough understanding of it).

(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I think laws should be shaped by morality rather than the other way around.

Whose morality?

I remind you that in this very post you are attempting to argue that consensual sex between teenagers is directly comparable to sexual assault, because it is nominally statutory rape under the law either way.

Actually no. I don't think that a thirteen year old has the capacity to consent to sex. Remember, there is more responsibility than the action. Pregnancy, for example. That is why my position is at the very least, the age one can enter a full-time job. It isn't perfect, but at the very least allows a reasonable position on consent.
I was not justifying it because it was a law, but because it shouldn't be considered consensual.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I am only arguing that this case, although legal, was abhorrent, while you are then justifying it with laws. I don't think laws are compelling.

The ruling was that the father was liable for child support because he was a consensual participant in conception. The very same court acknowledged that the particulars satisfied the definition of statutory rape in the letter of the law, but since that was not relevant to the case it did not affect the ruling.
(that's how courts work)

But again, this is the problem with consent. A thirteen year old is unlikely to have a full understanding of the nuances of sex and it's consequences. They should not be considered to be able to give consent at that young an age.
Is that a fair justification?

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The precedent you have claimed is that a parent would be liable for child support even given unconsensual participation. On what basis do you draw this ridiculous conclusion? Has that ever happened?

I am saying, that even though it was considered consent by the court, it shouldn't have been. Again, superficial consent is different to informed consent.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 01:12 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  I really hope I am just not understanding this point, but that's what I took from it.
I will accept that I can't extrapolate with this data. But I was, again, pointing out that if you can extrapolate Steubenville, then this also can, and it extrapolates to a much more sinister position than the former.

Please elaborate on Steubenville, and what you think can be "extrapolated" from it.

CNN takes bribes.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Please elaborate on this case, and what you think can be "extrapolated" from it.

Some technicalities need to be changed in US law regarding consent.

(15-09-2014 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And then remember that what you personally think has, in and of itself, literally zero bearing on the legal systems of US states.

And I never said anything to the contrary of that. I was pointing out, that by the same logic given by proponents of "rape culture" worse can be said for men. I was just arguing that there is the potential for a woman to have nonconsensual sex (in terms of informed consent) with a man or... boy... and have money given to them for it.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 02:51 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The problem is informed consent. Yes the age restrictions are arbitrary, and some people are extremely emotionally mature for their age. However, I am sure there are plenty of thirteen year old boys who wouldn't mind having sex with their late twenties teacher. You have to look at it from the perspective of whether they are able to consent to sex.

When I was 13 I had the hots for my Latin teacher. I'm sorry to this day that nothing happened. Weeping

Quote:Personally, I would have considered myself completely able to consent to sex at the age of thirteen, but looking back on how immature I was at that age, I completely disagree with that now. Do you really think this kid was able to understand the responsibility of having sex? I don't. Especially since she got pregnant. That in my opinion means he wasn't ready. There is a big difference between wanting to do something and enjoying it, and accepting the possible consequences of sexual relationships.
I think 16-18 is actually a good place to put it. Now this is because it is the point where one can work full-time and therefore earn enough money to support any children they produce. I know minimum wage isn't living wage, and that is a separate issue, but it is the best position I can think of putting consent on.

The problem is that there is no one age. There are plenty of 16, 17, 18+ year olds who are sadly uninformed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(10-06-2014 07:59 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Maybe it's a really stupid question to ask but maybe somebody can help me understand what "rape culture" is and how it is determined to exist and what determines when it doesn't exist.

I've seen the term thrown around lately a lot especially in blogs from the Huffington Post

Think India. 2 rapes per 100,000 people. Yet those are only the ones that are reported. The real number is much more startling, around 1 in every 8 men have statistically raped in parts of India. A rape culture is espoused here, where rape happens but is treated as unimportant. However, it depends on the definition of rape that you're using. If you're boyfriend's in you for longer that you want, did he rape you and should he get executed? Ya know. When is a rape a rape rape. So, that's what all of the hullabaloo is about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 02:51 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The problem is informed consent. Yes the age restrictions are arbitrary, and some people are extremely emotionally mature for their age. However, I am sure there are plenty of thirteen year old boys who wouldn't mind having sex with their late twenties teacher. You have to look at it from the perspective of whether they are able to consent to sex.

When I was 13 I had the hots for my Latin teacher. I'm sorry to this day that nothing happened. Weeping

Quote:Personally, I would have considered myself completely able to consent to sex at the age of thirteen, but looking back on how immature I was at that age, I completely disagree with that now. Do you really think this kid was able to understand the responsibility of having sex? I don't. Especially since she got pregnant. That in my opinion means he wasn't ready. There is a big difference between wanting to do something and enjoying it, and accepting the possible consequences of sexual relationships.
I think 16-18 is actually a good place to put it. Now this is because it is the point where one can work full-time and therefore earn enough money to support any children they produce. I know minimum wage isn't living wage, and that is a separate issue, but it is the best position I can think of putting consent on.

The problem is that there is no one age. There are plenty of 16, 17, 18+ year olds who are sadly uninformed.

Oh of course, but there really has to be a standard for the sake of utility. There are probably loads of thirteen year olds that could give informed consent, but does that mean we should allow all thirteen year olds the right to consent? I don't think so. Considering this kid got her pregnant, he wasn't ready to consent at that point.
But we can't really go around and quiz every child about sex and give them a consent card when they get enough questions correct.
Again, this is why a consent age at the same as which you can work full-time is as low as it should be. Therefore anyone who does get someone pregnant or gets pregnant can support the child, if they then allow the child to be born.

If somebody points out a fallacy, and you call fallacy fallacy, that doesn't mean you are right. That just means you committed the very fallacy you accused your opponent of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(15-09-2014 04:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2014 02:51 PM)spinosauruskin Wrote:  The problem is informed consent. Yes the age restrictions are arbitrary, and some people are extremely emotionally mature for their age. However, I am sure there are plenty of thirteen year old boys who wouldn't mind having sex with their late twenties teacher. You have to look at it from the perspective of whether they are able to consent to sex.

When I was 13 I had the hots for my Latin teacher. I'm sorry to this day that nothing happened. Weeping

Quote:Personally, I would have considered myself completely able to consent to sex at the age of thirteen, but looking back on how immature I was at that age, I completely disagree with that now. Do you really think this kid was able to understand the responsibility of having sex? I don't. Especially since she got pregnant. That in my opinion means he wasn't ready. There is a big difference between wanting to do something and enjoying it, and accepting the possible consequences of sexual relationships.
I think 16-18 is actually a good place to put it. Now this is because it is the point where one can work full-time and therefore earn enough money to support any children they produce. I know minimum wage isn't living wage, and that is a separate issue, but it is the best position I can think of putting consent on.

The problem is that there is no one age. There are plenty of 16, 17, 18+ year olds who are sadly uninformed.

It seems I am the only one who's French teacher was an ugly hag. In the younger grades she was an ancient woman missing teeth, and in Middle School the teacher was a 40+ mom.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
I never really understood the whole rape culture thing. One thing that we might be better off is making rape porn illegal. I know that cannot be helping any of the problem. Sure, it's not a cause directly, but I am pretty sure it helps add some fuel to the fire for the whole problem itself.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: What is Rape Culture?
(21-09-2014 05:38 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I never really understood the whole rape culture thing. One thing that we might be better off is making rape porn illegal. I know that cannot be helping any of the problem. Sure, it's not a cause directly, but I am pretty sure it helps add some fuel to the fire for the whole problem itself.

I disagree. I think that if raptophiliacs can get their desires out through porn and consensual roleplay then that is a good thing.

Not to mention that I believe in freedom.



Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: