Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War On Drugs
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 99 (193047)
03-21-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
03-21-2005 10:32 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
date-rape as existing at all
I don't believe in "date rape". This notion has also been "romanticized" by women trying to be able to get on the bandwagon of having been "victimized" in some way.
Yes women on dates can and have been raped... plain raped. The current idea of "date rape" demeans those that have actually been sexually assaulted or worse.
And before you say anything I have seen plenty of it to make me sick to my stomach. The worst was being in a room of women complaining about how they were date raped and you could see them getting off on how "violated" they were like it was some game with a point system. When I interjected that their stories were not rape or even assault they asked what I could know since I was a guy... then I told my story. That shut them the hell up.
Similarly, if nearly all chance of being caught or having any difficulty with the victim is removed is combined with the free and easy and no-risk aquisition of GHB (or other rape-facilitating drugs), I do think that more rapes would occur.
I don't see how access to that drug will decrease the chance of people being caught, though I guess I see some degree of making it easier to "handle" the victim. But then my question to you would be if this were the case (free GHB) wouldn't potential victims be taking additional steps to avoid getting drugged? If anything were more normalized my expectation would be people being very careful with who and where they drank.
We may have to agree to disagree on this matter, it seems more based on how one views humanity. Neither Pessimism nor Optimism are incorrect positions, they just color some conclusions regarding future events which probably contain a bit of both.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 10:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 7:58 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 79 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 6:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 77 of 99 (193142)
03-21-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
03-21-2005 12:31 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
I don't believe in "date rape". This notion has also been "romanticized" by women trying to be able to get on the bandwagon of having been "victimized" in some way.
Yes women on dates can and have been raped... plain raped. The current idea of "date rape" demeans those that have actually been sexually assaulted or worse.
And before you say anything I have seen plenty of it to make me sick to my stomach. The worst was being in a room of women complaining about how they were date raped and you could see them getting off on how "violated" they were like it was some game with a point system. When I interjected that their stories were not rape or even assault they asked what I could know since I was a guy... then I told my story. That shut them the hell up.
OK, but I don't really think your anecdotal experiences constitute reliable data on how many people have been date raped.
I really don't care what the jackasses above said. I understand that rape is really common, that rape is really underreported, that most rapes are comitted by someone the victim knows, and most rapes are comitted in the victim's home, with no forced entry.
You don't believe in date rape? Fine, I (very nearly) don't believe in stranger rape since it is so rare.
quote:
I don't see how access to that drug will decrease the chance of people being caught,
The thing about GHB is that the drug makes you not remember anything about what happened. How are you supposed to catch your rapist when you never saw his face, or saw dozens of faces?
quote:
though I guess I see some degree of making it easier to "handle" the victim. But then my question to you would be if this were the case (free GHB) wouldn't potential victims be taking additional steps to avoid getting drugged? If anything were more normalized my expectation would be people being very careful with who and where they drank.
That is simply putting even more responsibility onto the targets of rape while at the same time removing barriers to rapists to rape people more easily.
quote:
We may have to agree to disagree on this matter, it seems more based on how one views humanity. Neither Pessimism nor Optimism are incorrect positions, they just color some conclusions regarding future events which probably contain a bit of both.
I actually agree with this very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 12:31 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 4:38 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 99 (193227)
03-22-2005 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
03-21-2005 7:58 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
OK, but I don't really think your anecdotal experiences constitute reliable data on how many people have been date raped.
That was not the only time. While anecdotal, every single encounter I have had with girls claiming "date rape" have not been rapes at all. That was just one of the most gut churning encounters.
People that have been actually raped don't need separate categories for what kind of rape or assault they underwent. Date rape was (IMO) invented by people wanting to add more victimization categories for people to fit into, and not to point out that people can be raped by those they know.
After all many murders are commited by close acquaintences as well, yet we don't talk about "date murder". This is very simply, people get raped or they don't.
I understand that rape is really common, that rape is really underreported, that most rapes are comitted by someone the victim knows, and most rapes are comitted in the victim's home, with no forced entry.
This is not a very healthy nor accurate view of the world. It is a victim-model of existence. Rape is not really common. It certainly does happen and people must protect themselves from that as well as other crimes, but it is not an everyday occurence in people's lives.
It is underreported, even my own incident went unreported. In a way I am glad I did not so that I did not become part of the victim factory the US is running. Indeed I am somewhat disturbed when people who haven't been attacked in some way use my case for why they need to feel afraid about the world. I was attacked, and I'm not afraid of the world.
Whether most people get attacked by those they know is irrelevant to issues of rape, rather than an interesting demographical statistic. If you think watching all your friends and family is going to protect you it will not. Most attacks come where you least expect them. That's how they succeed.
You don't believe in date rape? Fine, I (very nearly) don't believe in stranger rape since it is so rare.
I'm not sure what this even means. I don't believe there is such a thing as "date rape", because you are either raped (even on a date) or you are not. The term "date rape" appears to exist only to water down the definition of rape so that more people could claim victimization. Can you explain what the difference is between rape and "date rape", and why it is so important to have the distinction?
I would not call stranger rape rare, but it is certainly less common than getting raped by those you have met or know well. What difference does that make?
The thing about GHB is that the drug makes you not remember anything about what happened. How are you supposed to catch your rapist when you never saw his face, or saw dozens of faces?
Actually it doesn't make you forget who you went out for drinks with. Neither can it remove the other evidence which usually comes with sex. If you think people may drug you, then don't let anyone ever pour or touch your drink. That would go with or without GHB.
That is simply putting even more responsibility onto the targets of rape while at the same time removing barriers to rapists to rape people more easily.
No, you have the same responsibility now as you would have then. Given that anyone could slip you GHB now anyway, you need to protect yourself the same way as if it were being handed out for free.
All I am saying is that in a climate where it was being handed out, and somehow "normalized", more people would understand to take care.
But I will agree to disagree on whether it would actually lead to anything worse.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-22-2005 04:39 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 03-21-2005 7:58 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 7:03 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 81 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 8:19 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 99 (193250)
03-22-2005 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
03-21-2005 12:31 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
I don't believe in "date rape". This notion has also been "romanticized" by women trying to be able to get on the bandwagon of having been "victimized" in some way.
That is repugnant misogynist nonsense and classic demonstration of the "blame-the-victim" defence.
quote:
Yes women on dates can and have been raped... plain raped. The current idea of "date rape" demeans those that have actually been sexually assaulted or worse.
Utter nonsense.
quote:
And before you say anything I have seen plenty of it to make me sick to my stomach. The worst was being in a room of women complaining about how they were date raped and you could see them getting off on how "violated" they were like it was some game with a point system. When I interjected that their stories were not rape or even assault they asked what I could know since I was a guy... then I told my story. That shut them the hell up.
All you're saying is that you played the "I'm so violated" card better than they did. One wonder who is the one with this issue running around in their heads? I think at this point your delusions to any comprehension or sympathy for feminism or sexual equality can be wholly discarded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 03-21-2005 12:31 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:24 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 99 (193251)
03-22-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
03-22-2005 4:38 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
That was not the only time. While anecdotal, every single encounter I have had with girls claiming "date rape" have not been rapes at all. That was just one of the most gut churning encounters.
Or, is that the spin you need to put on their accounts so you don't have to deal with the problems they raise?
quote:
People that have been actually raped don't need separate categories for what kind of rape or assault they underwent. Date rape was (IMO) invented by people wanting to add more victimization categories for people to fit into, and not to point out that people can be raped by those they know.
Your opinion on the matter is worthless. Date rape is an identifiable and extant phenomenon, whether drug-assisted or otherwise. People used to make the same kinds of objections to intramarital rape, and that is specific term to denote a category; the only consistent elements in this sorts of nonsense apologetics are that a) women are unstable, irrational, and make up stories, and b) the poor men are the real victims.
quote:
Whether most people get attacked by those they know is irrelevant to issues of rape, rather than an interesting demographical statistic. If you think watching all your friends and family is going to protect you it will not. Most attacks come where you least expect them. That's how they succeed.
Yes, they are where you least expect them - in your own home, in the company of a male friend, and so forth. This issue is directly relevant becuase it demonstrates that we are still conditioning men to demand sex as if by right - even from women with wehom they have otherwise healthy relationships. And further, it acords with the frequency with which women dioe at the hands men known to them.
quote:
I'm not sure what this even means. I don't believe there is such a thing as "date rape", because you are either raped (even on a date) or you are not. The term "date rape" appears to exist only to water down the definition of rape so that more people could claim victimization. Can you explain what the difference is between rape and "date rape", and why it is so important to have the distinction?
I can; the argument is very similar to the issues aroun intramarital rape. That is, some people judge that a woman who goes out alone with a man is "asking for it", or that men have some reaonsable expectation of sex on dates. The result is forcible rape, but one often publicly condoned in the way intramarital rape used to be. It is a term that describes a real thing, not some spurious victim-status of your paranoid imaginings.
quote:
Actually it doesn't make you forget who you went out for drinks with. Neither can it remove the other evidence which usually comes with sex. If you think people may drug you, then don't let anyone ever pour or touch your drink. That would go with or without GHB.
As I understand, GHB does wipe out some temporal memory that goes back further than the drug itself. Nevertheless, it is precisely this secondary evidence which you think should be discounted becuase for some reason you don't think it was rape. Lastly, campaigns to raise awareness of drink-tampering have been going on over here for some time. Abnd yes, it would be sound advice for no womeam to ever let a man touch or handle her drink - but that again shifts all respnsibility onto women to protect themselves, creates a poisonous atmosphere, and eliminates the responsibility of the man who actually, you know, committed the rape.
Its amazing we still see such backward, recidivist nonsense in the 21st century. It's about time you abandioned the idea that all women are conspiring against men, holmes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 4:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:46 AM contracycle has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 99 (193271)
03-22-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Silent H
03-22-2005 4:38 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
That was not the only time. While anecdotal, every single encounter I have had with girls claiming "date rape" have not been rapes at all. That was just one of the most gut churning encounters.
I'm sure it was really annoying. I would have been really annoyed and disturbed too.
It still doesn't mean a damn thing holmes, and you know it.
The people who had really been date raped probably wouldn't be standing around talking about it, and do you have the ability to form the kind of relationship with every single woman you meet where they would suddenly and immediately pour out all of their rage and anguish about a real rape to you?
quote:
People that have been actually raped don't need separate categories for what kind of rape or assault they underwent.
So, spousal rape isn't allowed to be called spousal rape? Incest isn't allowed to be called incest? Stranger rape isn't allowed to be called stranger rape?
quote:
Date rape was (IMO) invented by people wanting to add more victimization categories for people to fit into, and not to point out that people can be raped by those they know.
OK, that may or may not be valid.
Or, it might have been invented by people in order to point out that rape actually can be (and most often is) perpetrated by someone the victim knows and even trusts, like someone she has dated, a boyfriend.
You don't think that, for a long time, the idea that spousal rape was silly was widespread, simply because it was a husband's right to have sex with his wife any time he wanted? You don't think that the attitude of "Well, I paid for dinner and a show, now you are going to put out" wasn't part of our culture for a long time? You don't think that the attitude of "when a woman says 'no', she really means 'maybe'" wasn't widespread in our culture?
Why not shine a light on those things, and call them something specific, to differentiate them from so-called "stranger rape", but still call those actions by their proper term; rape.
quote:
After all many murders are commited by close acquaintences as well, yet we don't talk about "date murder". This is very simply, people get raped or they don't.
But we do talk about "murder/suicides" when a man kills his partner then kills himself.
I understand that rape is really common, that rape is really underreported, that most rapes are comitted by someone the victim knows, and most rapes are comitted in the victim's home, with no forced entry.
quote:
This is not a very healthy nor accurate view of the world.
It isn't accurate?
Show me the stats.
quote:
It is a victim-model of existence.
Um, how? It is purely factual.
quote:
Rape is not really common.
So, all of the justice department stats are wrong according to you? Please, explain how they are incorrect and I should listen to holmes instead of the Justice Department.
quote:
It certainly does happen and people must protect themselves from that as well as other crimes, but it is not an everyday occurence in people's lives.
That's not true according to the Justice Department.
quote:
It is underreported, even my own incident went unreported. In a way I am glad I did not so that I did not become part of the victim factory the US is running.
...yet you were a victim. You are a survivor, too, but you were also a victim. The "US victim factory" didn't make you a victim of rape, your rapist did.
You did what was best for you and your life when you decided to not report it. I just hope that the person who did it to you was reported and prosecuted by the next person he raped.
quote:
Indeed I am somewhat disturbed when people who haven't been attacked in some way use my case for why they need to feel afraid about the world. I was attacked, and I'm not afraid of the world.
I'm not afraid of the world, either. Show me why I shouldn't believe the Justice Department statistics.
quote:
Whether most people get attacked by those they know is irrelevant to issues of rape, rather than an interesting demographical statistic. If you think watching all your friends and family is going to protect you it will not. Most attacks come where you least expect them. That's how they succeed.
I thought you wanted me to not be afraid of the world and now you are talking about "the attacks will come from where you least expect them."
>
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-22-2005 08:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 4:38 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 9:25 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 99 (193274)
03-22-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by contracycle
03-22-2005 6:50 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
That is repugnant misogynist nonsense and classic demonstration of the "blame-the-victim" defence.
Wrong. It is a conclusion based on my experiences of people using the term "date rape" to extend the boundaries of rape to include nonviolent and noncoercive situations.
How the hell can I be blaming the victim when I am stating that people can be raped on dates and in marriages and that it is important to make sure we do not dilute the definition of rape to make the term "rape" meaningless?
Utter nonsense.
Try to come up with an argument please. My position is that there is a clear idea of what rape is. Thus if a person is raped on a date then they are raped and there is no need to add "date" to it.
In practice, what we have are women using the "date" clause to wrangle themselves into the "rape" category. That does dilute the image of rape and so demeans those who have actually been through violent or coerced sexual experiences.
This does not argue that all women are doing so, nor that no women can be raped on dates.
All you're saying is that you played the "I'm so violated" card better than they did.
In a way this is almost true. Of course you arre ignoring the much more important point of what I did and why I did it. I did not play this "violation card" because I wanted to be one up on them.
What had happened was I got so sick of their tales which were wholly NOT rape or coercion in any sense that I said that what they were talking about was not rape. Then THEY said to me that MEN could not know about RAPE because MEN CANNOT BE RAPED.
You see this is part of the demeaning that I was talking about. Men can be and are raped, as well as sexually violated. They could not imagine this, as part of their little play world was woman as perpetual victim (the more victimized the more important) and men as perpetual victimizers.
I did not start by playing the card in their game. I didn't want to take part in it at all. Only after they insulted me directly by claiming men could not be violated, did I then give them a clear cut example. They were shamed based both on their ignorance of who can be raped, and the fact that someone who had been listening and then criticizing them actually had a forced sexual encounter.
If you think this was not a legitimate tactic, then you can have that opinion. But factually, I was not playing their game nor did I benefit from it (in the sense of how they were benefiting from it).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 6:50 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 8:39 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 85 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 8:54 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 99 (193278)
03-22-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
03-22-2005 8:24 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
In practice, what we have are women using the "date" clause to wrangle themselves into the "rape" category. That does dilute the image of rape and so demeans those who have actually been through violent or coerced sexual experiences.
This does not argue that all women are doing so, nor that no women can be raped on dates.
But holmes, the fact that you know some women who have said this isn't an argument. It is just anecdotal evidence from your personal experience.
I have never, ever, even once heard any woman talking about being date raped in the way you describe. Does that mean that I now get to claim that what you describe never, ever happens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:24 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 99 (193280)
03-22-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by contracycle
03-22-2005 7:03 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I can; the argument is very similar to the issues aroun intramarital rape. That is, some people judge that a woman who goes out alone with a man is "asking for it", or that men have some reaonsable expectation of sex on dates. The result is forcible rape, but one often publicly condoned in the way intramarital rape used to be. It is a term that describes a real thing, not some spurious victim-status of your paranoid imaginings.
This did not create a valid argument for coining the term "date rape" at all. I don't agree that going on a date, or getting married, entitles anyone to sex. And it is valid to be concerned when sex is forced upon another in those situations. From sexual assault to rape, yessiree we can find examples and people to prosecute for those crimes.
Now why on earth did the nomenclature have to change in order to protect people on dates and in marriages? That is what you need to argue.
Given that you just called my honesty into question, I'm giving you only one chance to get your next post right. Don't deal with strawmen.
Abnd yes, it would be sound advice for no womeam to ever let a man touch or handle her drink - but that again shifts all respnsibility onto women to protect themselves, creates a poisonous atmosphere, and eliminates the responsibility of the man who actually, you know, committed the rape.
Wait a second. How does this address what I said at all? You agree with exactly what I said and then turn around and act as if you add something that I don't agree with.
You are right that the responsibility will come back on PEOPLE (women are not the only one's getting slipped drugs) to protect themselves. It does create a bad atmosphere when people feel they are not safe and have to protect themselves, but even without GHB being handed out for free, they will still have to do this... right?
Until all raping is stopped, this is exactly what will go on and have to be defended against, right? The question is if GHB was being handed out, whether there would be an increase in such rapes in general, as well as if people would have to protect themselves more. My answer is that I don't think they would increase, but regardless people would have to protect themselves just the same.
Deal with what I actually say.
Its amazing we still see such backward, recidivist nonsense in the 21st century. It's about time you abandioned the idea that all women are conspiring against men, holmes.
I'm not saying that women are conspiring against men. I said there are PEOPLE who are interested in fostering a victim culture. This involves growing the boundaries of what is victimization and what is not. Further there are PEOPLE who take advantage of new terminology in order to take part in the victim culture. That is a societal problem that goes beyond just rape cases.
In this specific topic "date rape" is a such a dilution and SOME WOMEN I KNEW took advantage of the dilution in order to become victims and so gain status. In fact ALL WOMEN I KNOW WHO CLAIMED DATE RAPE were in fact nothing close to a violent nor coerced situation. This does not show that all women, or most women do such a thing, only that it is being done.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 7:03 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:05 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 89 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 9:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 99 (193282)
03-22-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
03-22-2005 8:24 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
Wrong. It is a conclusion based on my experiences of people using the term "date rape" to extend the boundaries of rape to include nonviolent and noncoercive situations.
No, it was exactly right. I'll say it again just so we are clear: that is repugnant misogynist nonsense and a classic demonstration of the "blame-the-victim" defence. This is exactly THE classic demonstration of bigotry.
Even if I took the most charitable possible view of your claim, your generalisation of it beyond your immediate acquaintances, and claims as to "why it was invented", are noxious, spurious and misogynist.
quote:
Try to come up with an argument please.
I do not at all feel obliged to construct a serious argument to confront this claptrap. Your paranoia is not sufficiently challenging to the facts to require serious rebuttal, and merely demosntrate your own ignorance.
quote:
What had happened was I got so sick of their tales which were wholly NOT rape or coercion in any sense that I said that what they were talking about was not rape. Then THEY said to me that MEN could not know about RAPE because MEN CANNOT BE RAPED.
Oh, it wasn't rape becuase it was date rape, huh? Just like its not if she doesn't try to claw his eyes out, or had a weapon and didn't kill? Baloney.
The issue of male rape is rather tangential to this IMO. Either way, it is wholly invalid for you to go from one conversation with a few individuals to a generalsiation applied to all women who have ever made such a claim. That is indeed resorting to sterotyping and collective responsibility, and I consider it utterly vile.
But at this point your assumptions that women conduct this sort of manipulation routinely has now been aired on several threads, and I frankly don't consider your report of what they had to say reliable. It seems to me more likely that you heard what you wanted to hear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:24 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 9:33 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 99 (193287)
03-22-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Silent H
03-22-2005 8:46 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
This did not create a valid argument for coining the term "date rape" at all.
Wrong, it most certainly did. It explains that it is merely a decrsiptive term of something that actually happens, and not a conspiracy by an evil sisterhood.
quote:
Now why on earth did the nomenclature have to change in order to protect people on dates and in marriages? That is what you need to argue.
You are confusing your feelings with those of others. It is because many men DO think they are entitled to sex in marriage, or after paying for a date.
quote:
Wait a second. How does this address what I said at all? You agree with exactly what I said and then turn around and act as if you add something that I don't agree with.
You don;t agree with what I said precisely becuase what you said was that it was WOMENS responsibility. Therefore men can continue to believe that they are entiteld to sex, and thats no a problem for men to deal with, its a problem for women to deal with. Again, that haqs been a constant feature of your arguments in regards womens rights: "don't involve me, sort it out for yourself".
quote:
Until all raping is stopped, this is exactly what will go on and have to be defended against, right?
Your argument is that rape should not be stopped, that women should just deal with it. After all, if she was careless with her drink, thinking she was in the company of friends, then that would be her fault, right? Like wearing a mini-skirt is also her fault. Classic blame-the-victim, again and again.
quote:
I said there are PEOPLE who are interested in fostering a victim culture.
And what eveidence is there for that, other than you find it more comforting than dealing with the facts? What people, where, name names.
quote:
In this specific topic "date rape" is a such a dilution and SOME WOMEN I KNEW took advantage of the dilution in order to become victims and so gain status.
Except that it is NOT a dilution and your interpretation of what they had to say, given this assumption of yours, is highly suspect. So suspect I think it is outright misogyny.
quote:
In fact ALL WOMEN I KNOW WHO CLAIMED DATE RAPE were in fact nothing close to a violent nor coerced situation.
So what. Again, this demonstrates a remarkable naivite about rape and how it happens - it seems to assume that only the violent home-invader or mugger conducts rape. Thats is entirely not so, and one of the things that this very term is intended to denote. But instead of hearing what is actually said, you choose to filter this through some paranoid conspiracy about dishonest women and the "victim culture" of which you appear so enamoured. It seems to me that YOU are revelling in your "victim" status here, the poor white male so aggreived in this "politically correct" world.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-22-2005 09:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 9:39 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 99 (193298)
03-22-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by nator
03-22-2005 8:19 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I'm also going to answer your post #82 in this reply...
The people who had really been date raped probably wouldn't be standing around talking about it, and do you have the ability to form the kind of relationship with every single woman you meet where they would suddenly and immediately pour out all of their rage and anguish about a real rape to you?
Instead of simply defending the term "date rape", step back and actually look at what I said and the problem it presents.
You are absolutely correct that those who have been raped would unlikely be talking about it as these girls had. That is exactly what I was saying.
The point is that with the loosened terminology now in use, it allows people like these girls to do exactly what they are doing. Not only is it insulting to people who have actually been violated, but it fosters a culture of victimization.
The only valid question here is what is the difference between "date rape" and "rape" and if there is no difference between the two with the exception that one occurs during a date, why it is useful to have it. I think you are well aware (even if you have not experienced discussing this directly in front of you) that "date rape" has come to include situations not overtly coercive or violent. Am I right or wrong on this?
So, spousal rape isn't allowed to be called spousal rape? Incest isn't allowed to be called incest? Stranger rape isn't allowed to be called stranger rape?
I would argue no. These are all offshoots of a branch of feminism which has embraced the new victim culture. There is rape, plain and simple, and the environmental flavor of the rape should not create some new phrase.
What does it benefit anyone to have these new terms?
My one exception might be incest. That actually has more than one meaning. Incest itself may be forced and may not be, as it is a description of familial connection within a sex act. It may also be a crime in and of itself, regardless of other factors. Thus incestuous rape could very well be a separate valid phrase.
Or, it might have been invented by people in order to point out that rape actually can be (and most often is) perpetrated by someone the victim knows and even trusts, like someone she has dated, a boyfriend.
Whether the original intent was this or not, how it has come to be used is not in this manner. It lends itself to abuse.
I would also argue (if I was arguing with the person that coined the term originally) that doing so is not of any value to making people aware of the reality that people get raped by those they know. Releasing studies showing this would allow people to figure that out better than coining a term which itself is not realistic. As it is, these "date rapes" are not always on dates are they? If just rape causes some sort of confusion, why wouldn't date rape?
You don't think that, for a long time, the idea that spousal rape was silly was widespread, simply because it was a husband's right to have sex with his wife any time he wanted? You don't think that the attitude of "Well, I paid for dinner and a show, now you are going to put out" wasn't part of our culture for a long time? You don't think that the attitude of "when a woman says 'no', she really means 'maybe'" wasn't widespread in our culture?
I am not sure exactly how widespread any of these phenomona were, or are today. Not that I am doubting any stat you want to bring out on it, or that it is important. I am just saying I don't know exact figures.
In any case, I don't see how diluting the term rape helped any of these events from not happening.
Why not shine a light on those things, and call them something specific, to differentiate them from so-called "stranger rape"
Because it is inaccurate and will have a diluting effect. Why not simply shine light on the subject by addressing them head on with stats and arguments about the nature of rape itself?
But we do talk about "murder/suicides" when a man kills his partner then kills himself.
Yes and this is similar to why incestuous rape might be a valid term. However dating (as much as it might feel like suicide) does not make killing the person you are dating into "date murder".
So, all of the justice department stats are wrong according to you? Please, explain how they are incorrect and I should listen to holmes instead of the Justice Department.
Actually, why don't you open a thread on this as we are getting well off topic here and this will generate more. I can tell you this, if the Justice Department has any stats which show that rape is "really common" I would love to see that.
Yes, please show me the definitions they have for "really common" and the stats to show how we fall into that.
I was using, and I though this was pretty clear, a definition based on practical usage of that term. It is easy to equivocate and I think you are. That rape is really common makes it sound as if it is an everyday event, or at least really common, to one's life. That may be true in some areas of the world and maybe for a few unlucky individuals, but that is definitely not the case for most people.
That is what I tried to bring out. It is NOT common in everyday life.
..yet you were a victim. You are a survivor, too, but you were also a victim. The "US victim factory" didn't make you a victim of rape, your rapist did.
This is exactly the kind of crap I am talking about. I was a victim and now I am a survivor. Puh-lease. This IS what the US victim factory is doing to people.
I was victimized by another person. In that moment I was a victim, just as I have been in countless other situations of violence/coercion/or maltreatment. I did not become a victim forevermore. It was an event.
Only this was sexual so it must have been more important than the time I was robbed of money, or forced into labor against my will, or other situations we teach usually teach people that they have to move beyond and NOT consider themselves victims.
I also "survived", by which I went through a short rough period of adjustment, as I have after other traumatic incidents, and then moved on with life. That does not make me a "survivor".
These names are in the past and pointless as identifiers for who I am, and should be beyond teh reach of people to use for their own political agendas. Unfortunately I have continued to be a "victim" and "survivor" and part of a statistic to argue for laws and positions I do not agree with at all and certainly have no relevance to what I learned from my experience.
I thought you wanted me to not be afraid of the world and now you are talking about "the attacks will come from where you least expect them."
Yes you should not be afraid of the world AND attacks will come from where you least expect them. The problem is thinking they are inconsistent messages. The first is about an attitude regarding the world, the second is about the nature of preparedness for problems that can arise in the world.
A person can be terrified constantly and yet ill prepared, or quite open and happy yet well prepared. One does not have to be afraid in order to be cautious or take measures to protect onesself. At least that is what I got out of martial arts.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 8:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 03-22-2005 10:22 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 99 (193303)
03-22-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by contracycle
03-22-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I do not at all feel obliged to construct a serious argument
Yes, this is what I was getting from your post. I'll treat it with the respect it deserves.
Oh, it wasn't rape becuase it was date rape, huh? Just like its not if she doesn't try to claw his eyes out, or had a weapon and didn't kill? Baloney.
What is rape and what is date rape? Oh yeah, you don't feel the need to define anything or actually construct a serious argument. That's nice.
Either way, it is wholly invalid for you to go from one conversation with a few individuals to a generalsiation applied to all women who have ever made such a claim.
That's not what I did, and it is utterly vile of you to suggest so.
But at this point your assumptions that women conduct this sort of manipulation routinely has now been aired on several threads, and I frankly don't consider your report of what they had to say reliable. It seems to me more likely that you heard what you wanted to hear.
Ahhhhhh, the sweet sound of irony.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 8:54 AM contracycle has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 99 (193305)
03-22-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Silent H
03-22-2005 8:46 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
Now why on earth did the nomenclature have to change in order to protect people on dates and in marriages?
So a woman could finally be taken seriously when she went to the police and told them that she was fooling around with a guy on a date but then he raped her.
Women used to be laughed at in these situations.
Are you seriously suggesting that the scenario above is not significantly different from a rape in which a woman walking home from the bus station is dragged into the bushes and raped by a stranger?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 8:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2005 9:46 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 90 of 99 (193307)
03-22-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by contracycle
03-22-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Your argument is that rape should not be stopped, that women should just deal with it. After all, if she was careless with her drink, thinking she was in the company of friends, then that would be her fault, right? Like wearing a mini-skirt is also her fault. Classic blame-the-victim, again and again.
+
Again, this demonstrates a remarkable naivite about rape and how it happens - it seems to assume that only the violent home-invader or mugger conducts rape. Thats is entirely not so, and one of the things that this very term is intended to denote. But instead of hearing what is actually said, you choose to filter this through some paranoid conspiracy about dishonest women and the "victim culture" of which you appear so enamoured
What??????
Come back when you decide to chuck the strawman angle, these two things are as close to my position as this planet is to the next galaxy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by contracycle, posted 03-22-2005 9:05 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024