rape culture/victim culture

I think I'm essentially on your side, but...I think there is a real distinction between an act of loss of control stupidity from an otherwise fine person that you know well, and an act of malicious violence from someone you know less or not at all. Of course, there is probably always the "gray area" situation, somewhere between the extremes.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-22-2005 09:01 PM

I think there's a kind of implied consent any time two adults are in an ongoing sexual relationship.For instance if some guy grabbed my wife's rear in a bar without asking, that would be sexual assault. If I do it at home without asking, it's not, unless she literally has told me not to. (Up to that point it's just a misunderstanding.)Obviously a person has a right to be free of unwanted sexual contact from anyone they choose, including a spouse. But when it comes to one's regular sexual partner the onus to make that choice clear is somewhat greater. I don't think the penalties or the interest of the police should be different; but there's obviously a need for subsequent counseling when you and your spouse come to blows, less so when its you and your neighbor, or some biker at a bar. The procedures for abuse/assault within a relationship, instead of between strangers, need to reflect that added context.

I think this is a good point. Not to try and say that law enforcement was not, and still is not, negligent in pursuing rightful claims of abuse (sexual or other) within spousal or other relationship environments... but I guess it does have to be admitted that it is tougher to understand what is going on and so how to treat something like that.Partners can do all sorts of things in the heat of the moment which generally do not occur in regular life with people one does not know. That includes good things and bad things.I also find it a bit odd that some people think a guy cannot expect free access to his wife's body for whatever he wants, but that a gal can expect free access to that guy's personal bank account for whatever she wants. That is carried through during the marriage, and into divorce as well.Is a couple just two individuals with no other expectations about their relationship other than they shouldn't have sex with other people? I think there is some built-in expectations of giving up some personal integrity/boundaries, and sexual autonomy may be part of that... though the result of not fulfilling it should be divorce, not rape.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Franky, from what I've read and experienced, most do not.

---

What have you read?

quote:

---

I feel what you call "laziness of critique" here is far from laziness. It is an all too common tactic amongst some feminist groups to use generalization, extrapolation, demonization, hyperbole, and outdated material.

---

IME thats directly the opposite of the reality: the anti-feminist brigade conatanlty do so, as in this thread, where the false generalisation that feminists are not concerned about the impact of stereotyping on men was raised.Extrapolation and hyperbole are also common in this campe, as in the argument that feminism are anti-sex, anti-beauty, or anti-men.Having offered the demonisation of "some feminist groups", can you please identify them?This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-23-2005 07:00 AM

quote:

---

Partners can do all sorts of things in the heat of the moment which generally do not occur in regular life with people one does not know. That includes good things and bad things.

---

Thats an insufficient basis for failing to prosecuate the bad things.

quote:

---

I also find it a bit odd that some people think a guy cannot expect free access to his wife's body for whatever he wants, but that a gal can expect free access to that guy's personal bank account for whatever she wants. That is carried through during the marriage, and into divorce as well.

---

Ah, so from women as self-important victim to woman as gold-digger. Any more misogynistic sterotypes you care to entertain us with?

Right, my point being it is harder to tell what they are which results in a real life tendency for law not to get involved. I am not excusing it, I am explaining it. There's a huge difference. Huh? I was not downgrading the women who were victimized. I was showing that there are also other forms of victimization including economic which is generally accepted based on gender bias.Unless you are actually arguing that it is fair that a woman has access to her partner's money, including to their partner's financial ruin, including during divorce proceedings that are no fault of the partner?To be fair this can happen in either direction (just like physical abuse) but it is more often the case of women taking men to the cleaners, including with the sanction of the courts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Unless you are actually arguing that it is fair that a woman has access to her partner's money, including to their partner's financial ruin, including during divorce proceedings that are no fault of the partner?

---

I most certainly do. Considering that for most men, being married is like having a live-in servant, I think it is entirely fair. Furthermore, as most women work discriminatory on lower pay, and as a consequence also have lower pensions, the issue of her future support is more pressing - especially if she retains custody of the kids.

quote:

---

To be fair this can happen in either direction (just like physical abuse) but it is more often the case of women taking men to the cleaners, including with the sanction of the courts.

---

And I regard describing an equitable settlement etsablished by law as "taking someone to the cleaners" to be unnecessarily emotive and vindictive. Once again, it is a common misogynist trope, an appeal to the victim status of the male.

Irony= arguing men should be able to have their money taken by women, because men get to use women, while at the same time saying men can't use women.There is either equality or there is not, There is either struggle for equality or there is not.I was noting another inequality which exists, you appear to be defending it. Ahhhh, so today laws are a measure of what is correct and equitable, rather than a measure of society's self-delusional yoke.In any case I did not say all women were like this. If you are about to argue that no women is like this (that is no woman has used her "rights" to fleece a man) then we might as well stop discussing this, we live on different planets.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Implied consent cases are always the most difficult to determine. However, rape that occurs in marriage or an on-going relationship is not typically an "out of the blue" behavior. In properly documented cases, it turns out to be a continuation or persistence of abusive, controlling behavior by whomever is doing it (I think there are plenty of women that return the favor as well, but not in the conventional sense). Hmmmm.....human versus money, yeah I see the confusion It is simply a case of you have free access as long as she/he is a willing participant (role playing aside). Come on holmes you don't have to give her acces to your damn bank account. If you think that's all she's interested in then evaluate your choice and cut him/her off.

Yes, but cops arriving on the scene cannot usually know this. Again I am not saying there cannot or should not be prosecution of rape within relationships including marriage. I was simply backing up crash's point that there is some extra leeway within relationships (his grabbing his wife's ass was pretty good) and that can create difficulties for law enforcement handling... it's never as clean cut. Actually, yes you do. And if you don't then a partner can divorce and take half (and sometimes more) of total assets.But this is getting beside the point. The fact is that partners can and have taken advantage of another's money supply and even put their partners into financial ruin. This is generally okayed by law when it is woman on man. It is expected that the man will provide, including after the marriage.Contra was right that this was developed within a sexist framework where men worked and women stayed home and took care of everything else. Oh yeah, and that included the sex, which is why men were expected to be able to get sex when they wanted it.Once one wall starts tumbling the rest needs to go with it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First Point: Yeah, I did preface my reply by saying that there is, as Crashfrog pointed out, implied consent within relationships.My statement was really meant to clarify which seemed to send a different message...probably just read it wrong.Second point: Yeah, you're right, but that's slowly changing as well. Regardless, I see where you were coming from.

quote:

---

Considering that for most men, being married is like having a live-in servant

---

Uh, "most" men?Not among many of my generation.

No, it's totally true.Crashfrog

LOL!

quote:

---

Irony= arguing men should be able to have their money taken by women, because men get to use women, while at the same time saying men can't use women.

---

Again, nonsense. The first argument is thast it is NOT "his" money, because they existed as a unit, and his obligations to that unit persist regardless. Second, it acknowledges the effort and contribution women make to the routine labour of the hoisehold, from whcih he benefits - this might be seen as "using" but need not, escpecially when it is recognised through compensation. An third, notne of this says anything about anyone using anyone - you are merely seeking a mailcious spin.

quote:

---

There is either equality or there is not, There is either struggle for equality or there is not.

---

Fine, and like any good ol' boy racist, your next argument is going to be that affirmative action is itself racist. You GET equality by making it happen - you are arguing we should NOT make it happen, and that inequality should be maintained.

quote:

---

Ahhhh, so today laws are a measure of what is correct and equitable, rather than a measure of society's self-delusional yoke.

---

Yes. The only delusional people are those stereotyping women as emotional victim-cultists and gold-diggers.

quote:

---

In any case I did not say all women were like this. If you are about to argue that no women is like this (that is no woman has used her "rights" to fleece a man) then we might as well stop discussing this, we live on different planets.

---

Irrelevant - special cases do not necessarily imnpact the general case. Even if an individual con-artist does such a thing, this would NOT be a remotely good reason for reverting to an inequitable society. Thats entirely within the remit of conventional criminal law.