Atheism +

[Autumnlicious]

But there is nothing endemic in "safe word" that defines safety. So why not the quotes?

[thesummerqueen]

I don't fucking know, Moros.

[TaraJo]

Seriously?!? I'm surprised at the number of people who think male rape is impossible. You guys are part of the problem without even realising you are part of the problem (and I don't mean that personally DeistPaladin, it's a general comment).

Men can get erections even when they are not turned on. The penis is a very sensitive organ; even when in distress you can get an erection with it. Not knowing that part of male rape is perhaps forgivable, since apparently it's not a well known fact (even amongst men).

What is not really forgivable is the assumption that rape = vaginal sex. If a man rapes a women anally or orally, it's still rape! Same applies for women raping men. If a woman abuses a man anally against his will, it is still rape. It doesn't matter if she is sticking a finger in it, or a strap-on, it's rape.

On a men's rights site once, there was testimony of a deeply religious Christian guy who was plied with alcohol at a party by two women, who then proceeded to have sex with him despite him protesting. Some men are strong; others are weaker and unable to fight off people, or simply block out uncomfortable actions.

Yeah, I've heard men's groups use a simple phrase for that: An erection isn't consent. Very apt if you ask me.

However, feminism redefines and expands rape somewhat and I can understand some of it. Non-consent also includes someone being intoxicated to the point that they can't consent or people who are being coerced with money or something else (I know someone who was told by a roommate "sleep with me or I'm kicking you out of the apartment." There was nowhere else for her to go, so she slept with the guy because she didn't want to be homeless). I can understand stuff like that being defined as rape, although I also think it's important to specify when you're referring to rape like that.

And, the thing is, if you're expanding the definition of rape like that, the number of men who are raped goes way up. There are people who get men drunk just to have sex with them. Me, back 'before,' I was in a relationship with my ex and I wanted things to work out so I could be with the kids. When she demanded sex, I had to consent, not so much because I wanted to, but because I wanted to keep the peace between us.

And, yet, men don't get to talk about their rapes in feminist circles that are supposed to be about gender equality. It's infuriating how they do that: claim to be for equality, but practice no equality themselves.

Domestic abuse is another issue where guys are pretty much ignored. I mean, look at this and tell me if you see a hell of a double standard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

A study was done on it and I can provide a link later, but it shows some pretty horrible results for guys. Men are abused almost as much as women, but there's no outreach for them, social services to help them escape violence, and even the police don't want to help (sometimes, police take it a step further; a guy is being abused, he calls the police and he's the one taken to jail for it). He can't touch his wife/girlfriend or he's automatically at fault. That gets to be more of a problem when he attempts to defend himself or when she blocks a door that he wants to escape the situation from. Grab her arm to stop her from hitting him, he's at fault. Getting her out of the way so he can escape, he's at fault. And, ironically, this attitude is probably contributing to women getting hit, too. After all, if a guy is backed into a corner and he can't see any way out of a difficult situation, he's likely to react violently.

But it's probably going to be ignored. It's the illogical trap they put for anyone who sees men's issues as far as sex discrimination: If society makes something more difficult for women, it's misogyny. If society makes things easier for women, it's misogyny because it's condescending and saying women can't do something.

EDIT-Found the study. Good read.
http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet...mmetry.pdf

[thesummerqueen]

I made the point on Facebook today that my favorite conundrum is this: that a woman complains that she is told to "suck it up" if someone gropes or harasses her. And then a guy complains if a woman does the same thing to him and guess what? He's told "suck it up - isn't that what all guys wish they had?" So it's okay to tell guys that, but it's emotionally abusive to do it to women. Well do you want equal treatment? Then stop acting like a shithead and assuming a man wants you as much as you don't want him.

The thing that gets me is that parents teach their children the dumbest things. "Tell an adult if someone touches you in the wrong place". But usually they make that "someone" out to be a man. What about when you're an adult? How about teaching people who to go to when you don't feel like your superior would support you? How about teaching your kids responsible drinking habits and about date-rape drugs so they will always understand what "consent" means? Stop teaching them that the random stranger who strikes up a conversation with you could be a rapist - it's much more likely it'll be the guy/girl who gained your trust so they have opportunity. (That's the same for pedophiles too, btw - much more likely to be someone who tested the waters and gained that kid's trust first.)

Of course, if I admonish people that maybe they shouldn't act like retards, they say I'm victim blaming. Not at all - anyone who does anything without your consent should be punished. You, on the other hand, are your first line of defense. Don't trust others to do it just because "they should know better".

Which is why I hate this "guys, be aware!" No, fuckers, not everyone has the same values and customs. Here's what we need to follow: don't touch someone without permission first, and no matter what, unless a safe-word was explicitly established first, no - at any point - means no. End of story.

But there are criminals who will do what they want regardless, and they are the bad apples that DON'T spoil the whole barrel. I wish people had the ability to see the shades of gray between all those lines.

[Red Celt]

Non-consent also includes someone being intoxicated to the point that they can't consent

Unrelated to the rest of your post, but intoxication is done by choice... which means that decisions made after becoming intoxicated cannot so readily be dismissed as being outside of the realms of the intoxicated person's responsibility.

As I said, it's unrelated to what you're saying, but from a moral perspective (which is what interests me), the choice to consume alcohol has to be considered when apportioning blame.

[The Grand Nudger]

A tricky legal thought exercise.

Two absolutely smashed college students wake up in the morning and it's apparent that some seriously raunchy shit has gone down. Neither can remember a fucking minute of it. The male/female makes an accusation of rape. What to do?
male/male
female/female

[Red Celt]

A tricky legal thought exercise.

Two absolutely smashed college students wake up in the morning and it's apparent that some seriously raunchy shit has gone down. Neither can remember a fucking minute of it. The male/female makes an accusation of rape. What to do?

Not tricky. They were both drunk. You can't complain about a lack of consent if you can't remember consent being given/denied.

[The Grand Nudger]

So quick to use intoxication as a deciding factor in whether or not justice can be pursued?

[Red Celt]

So quick to use intoxication as a deciding factor in whether or not justice can be pursued?

In the scenario you provided? Yes. Rape is sex done without consent. If both parties are unable to remember whether consent was given, you can't argue that rape occurred. Unless you invent a time-machine to find out.

[thesummerqueen]

Hence the reason I argue we need to teach safer drinking practices and the ramifications of getting smashed.