American Women need Sexual Freedom, Instead of Victimizing Themselves

[BrainWalker]

Man, this is a serious hot-button topic, and I really wish I had enough time today to address it thoroughly. I will say that it is fascinating to see another culture's take on the incredibly poweful social and biological force that is sex. Having been to Denmark, it's a bit easier for me to see where the s0denone is coming from. I would have to agree that the overall sexually repressive atmosphere we inherited from our Puritan ancestors is certainly a problem for American society, and if we'd all just stop being so disgusted by our bodies already it would help out a lot. But I don't think that alone would be enough to "fix" the "problems" noted in the OP. I'm not sure it's actually possible, though. That shit is systemic. It's hard-coded into the DNA of our society.

Man I wish I had some time for some good old-fashioned counter-point arguments.

I think women are wonderful creatures.

There were a few points in the OP that I felt were exaggerated, but this is actually the only thing that I personally thought even approached offensiveness. Men and women are essentially the same creature, just with certain physical attributes expressed differently. And also different social identities, but that's more aobut gender than sex. Anyway, a statement like that kind of goes against the whole "equality" rhetoric that pervades the rest of the OP.

This is just semantics, though. Artists have been calling women wonderful/mysterious/[insert adjective here] creatures for centuries.

 

[Exterminas]

A very well-written post with a lot of truth in it.
It reminds me of the fact that most american horror movies or other adult oriented flics (read non-porn) are a boob-free-zone despite multiple decapitations. House of Wax comes to mind. The whole world has seen Paris Hilton gettin nailed in that god-awful private porn but you can't show her breats in a movie that depicts a guys skin being peeled off?

American culture seems to have the trope going that sex is something bad. Combined with that post I have the feeling american sexuality remained in the fifties.

 

[s0denone]

About 100% of all guys become flaccid after drinking too much. That's why a man that's too drunk can't be taken advantage off in the same way as an over-intoxicated woman can be (unless the perpetrator is homosexual. And guess what, that happens quite a lot, that men press charges against other men for having raped them after they drank too much).

As you have already been noted, unwanted sexual attention doesn't require any form of penetration.

How about something like "You won't get out of this room unless you give me a blowjob"? Or "I'll beat you up so bad you won't be able to stand up unless you have sex with me"? Perhaps something along the lines of alcohol mixed with veiled threats and constant nagging until the girl gives in. Some of it has to do with self-esteem, but most types of coercion into sex is simply about the perpetrator using his social status, physical strentgh or similar advantage to get the victim to do as the perpetrator wants.

You see, "threatening", I think, counts as "rape".
Am I using "coercion" wrong? I'm sorry if I am.
I was working from a strictly non-violent, verbal definition.

You should note that I am not arguing the reprehensibleness of these actions, I am merely saying it shouldn't constitute "rape" in any form.

Your solution is basically like suggesting that planting a few trees might save the rainforest from de-forestation. Women doesn't feel like victims of rape because they can't have sex like they want to (and recent studies here in Sweden has shown that teenage guys has just as hard a time with casual sex as teenage girls do, so this is hardly a social stigma), but because they have been violated sexually. The number of girls "faking" rape to get out of an awkward social position is very low compared to the number of girls that are actually raped.

I'm not talking about anyone "faking" anything. I very sincerely believe that these women feel raped, which is what I think is the problem.

And my point is that we feel like victims because we are victims, not out of some sort of misguided self-pity about not being able to fuck around unhindered. A violation is a violation is a violation, no matter how much or how little I fuck around otherwise. When someone forces you into having sex with them, that's a rape no matter how sexually liberated or promiscuous I usually am.

That is completely beside the point.
I am arguing some quite specific cases of "rape"/sexual assault as defined by United States law. I am not talking about the more conventional "You forced yourself unto me" definition.

A violation is certainly a violation. I am not saying any of the examples are good, great, or anything short of extremely morally reprehensible. I am not saying that women are not victims in this, I am not saying that men are innocent (or vice versa), I am merely saying I think it is very over-blown. In fact, I think a lot of it is entirely out of proportion. This, I think, is due to social stigma in the U.S.

And you know, maybe Denmark and Sweden is a bit different on the casual sex part!
In fact as recent as last week, it turned out that 1 in 4 (ONE IN FOUR!!) students in the 9th grade in the northern part of Zealand had contacted one or more forms of STD.

I'm not a rape victim, but I agree with this post.

The OP shows a remarkable lack of sympathy toward rape victims, instead crying about how 'innocent' men are instead victimised by women who cry rape or who are drunk. The solution that women ought to stop victimising themselves is laughable - a lot of women do not report any sexual molestation as it is, because they're scared of views like this. Do some research that doesn't include anaecdata from your average college campus, then come back. :/

What?
Scared of what kind of view?
You, like others, have misunderstood my viewpoint entirely.

Did I ever call any of the acts perpetrated "innocent"? Did I every say the women were to blame!?
NO!
Does the OP even concern itself with that question?
NO!

You know, I still have two of my biology textbooks from GCSE, and I just went over to check them and they both read as "kills braincells."

...brb suing my science teacher. >:[

Ask yourself this:
Is driving under the influence of alcohol prohibited because of:
a) There is a chance you may have sex with someone you would otherwise not have sex with.
or
b) There is a chance you are unable to brake, steer or otherwise drive the car properly, thus being a danger to those around you?

I think the prevalent consequence of sex being taboo is that missteps are kept silent rather than taken before the courts on a false claim of lack of consent at the time. Though it did of course happen - in Denmark - a while back when that girl who sold herself for a bus ticket pressed rape charges against 3 immigrant boys, who were only cleared when she admitted making it up on hidden camera.

That takes a level of fucked-up well beyond the vast majority of Danish women though, and I doubt any significant portion of "American women" either think that lying about being raped is the way to go with morning after regrets.

Ah. I didn't know that example of the girl. I am not talking about anyone "faking" it, though, or anything falsely targeting others because they want to cheat the system.
I am targeting(in the first example) women who genuinely believe they are raped, when they engage in sexual relations with someone, while being intoxicated.
These women genuinely feel raped, which is the problem I'm trying to highlight.

So while this could be a legal problem - for the men they sleep with - it's hardly all that widespread. A fringe argument perhaps, but the main argument for liberalization should be the freedom and enjoyment (some) women would derive from it, not that it gets men in trouble.

A fringe argument? Possibly.
Arguing mainly so that men do not "get in trouble"? Certainly not.

I am trying to understand the feminist mindset(which, in turn, is in some regards backed by the law) - and trying to offer a view that this mindset is hurtful to the notion that women are equal, rather than helpful.

Man, this is a serious hot-button topic, and I really wish I had enough time today to address it thoroughly. I will say that it is fascinating to see another culture's take on the incredibly poweful social and biological force that is sex. Having been to Denmark, it's a bit easier for me to see where the s0denone is coming from. I would have to agree that the overall sexually repressive atmosphere we inherited from our Puritan ancestors is certainly a problem for American society, and if we'd all just stop being so disgusted by our bodies already it would help out a lot. But I don't think that alone would be enough to "fix" the "problems" noted in the OP. I'm not sure it's actually possible, though. That shit is systemic. It's hard-coded into the DNA of our society.

Man I wish I had some time for some good old-fashioned counter-point arguments.

Given that our(The Danish) society is different, however, surely you can agree it can change?

There were a few points in the OP that I felt were exaggerated, but this is actually the only thing that I personally thought even approached offensiveness. Men and women are essentially the same creature, just with certain physical attributes expressed differently. And also different social identities, but that's more aobut gender than sex. Anyway, a statement like that kind of goes against the whole "equality" rhetoric that pervades the rest of the OP.

This is just semantics, though. Artists have been calling women wonderful/mysterious/[insert adjective here] creatures for centuries.

In hindsight that comment maybe seems a little out of place... But you hit it right in the head in your closing statement there.

It was meant as nothing but a compliment. Not to insinuate any form of difference between men and women - except, you know, that I find them more aesthetically appealing. The use of "creature" instead of "human beings" in completely coincidental.

 

[ChocoFace]

that's it, i'm moving to Denmark.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Well, youl did make some good points, however I feel you have over-simplified many notions and maybe pressed stereotypes a bit too much. Many people in general regardless of their birthplace are very open sexually, and would agree with the majority of your statements, as do I, however many would not.

Being VERY active in multiple fetish communities, I've a more open and varied appetite in this arena, as do many of my associates. But this is not to say that we all would share the same notions of openness as you expressed as being for most Yerpers. Many of my friends from the Nederlands and Germany don't see sex as being so very casual, or something to laud aggressively. Perhaps in a strictly bedroom sense, yes, but they don't run townies on the prowl quite so often. Also, many would strongly disagree with your definitions and views on "molestation" and "groping", some having been victimized. Although sex is generally speaking less taboo in some European cultures and countries, this isn't necesarily better. I've heard more than a few people, male, female, TG or otherwise, blame this very concept on their difficulties in finding sexual identity and placing what they feel is an appropriate sense of value on intimacy and defining both love and what characteristics they truly want in a life-mate, if they desire one at all.

I've many friends from Europe who claim my attitude towards sex is very European, due to my openness regarding taboo and fetishist activity, prostitution and adult entertainment, but when it comes to more monogamous loving and singular relationships, I'm all for them, preferred, actually.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'm not talking about anyone "faking" anything. I very sincerely believe that these women feel raped, which is what I think is the problem.

So basically, you want to tell some women that what they feel and what they percieve as their subjective truth is wrong? I'm sorry, but how does that even make sense? Let me put it like this: If I say that I don't like the color of a wallpaper, you only look silly if you go up and tell me that "That's the problem, that you think the wallpaper is ugly but it isn't!".

Sure, there's a line where you can legally establish that I wasn't raped, but if that line is crossed and I feel raped (ie. I've been forced into involountary sexual actions) then I have been raped.

But hey, the the problem isn't that you are faking this stance. The problem is that your stance is wrong, not because of any actual proof but because I think so.

 

[Gardenia]

Thank you for saying what needed to be said, good Dane. I agree completely.

 

[s0denone]

Well, youl did make some good points, however I feel you have over-simplified many notions and maybe pressed stereotypes a bit too much. Many people in general regardless of their birthplace are very open sexually, and would agree with the majority of your statements, as do I, however many would not.

Most certainly.
I think an attitude negative towards allowing women to becoming sexually aggressive(as defined in the OP), is very hurtful to the progess of gender equality.

Being VERY active in multiple fetish communities, I've a more open and varied appetite in this arena, as do many of my associates. But this is not to say that we all would share the same notions of openness as you expressed as being for most Yerpers. Many of my friends from the Nederlands and Germany don't see sex as being so very casual, or something to laud aggressively. Perhaps in a strictly bedroom sense, yes, but they don't run townies on the prowl quite so often. Also, many would strongly disagree with your definitions and views on "molestation" and "groping", some having been victimized. Although sex is generally speaking less taboo in some European cultures and countries, this isn't necesarily better. I've heard more than a few people, male, female, TG or otherwise, blame this very concept on their difficulties in finding sexual identity and placing what they feel is an appropriate sense of value on intimacy and defining both love and what characteristics they truly want in a life-mate, if they desire one at all.

Exactly.
But those people in Germany and the Nederlands have the possibility to be however promiscous they want to be, and sleep with however many people they want - in whatever way they desire.
What I'm saying that such isn't the case in the U.S.
A woman wants casual sex? She is branded a slut.
A man wants casual sex? High-fives all-round.

Is that simplying the issue? Certainly.
Does it, however, illustrate the problem? Yes.

EDIT:
More relevant example:
A woman had sex on a night out(while heavily intoxicated)? Wow, someone took advantage of her.
A man had sex on a night out(while heavily intoxicated)? Wow, he scored. Awesome!

I've many friends from Europe who claim my attitude towards sex is very European, due to my openness regarding taboo and fetishist activity, prostitution and adult entertainment, but when it comes to more monogamous loving and singular relationships, I'm all for them, preferred, actually.

That's awesome.
How is that relevant, however?
I am not saying that women(or men) should not engage in monogamous relationship. Nor am I saying that being "sexually aggressive" requires you to sleep with tons of people.

So basically, you want to tell some women that what they feel and what they percieve as their subjective truth is wrong? I'm sorry, but how does that even make sense? Let me put it like this: If I say that I don't like the color of a wallpaper, you only look silly if you go up and tell me that "That's the problem, that you think the wallpaper is ugly but it isn't!"

No, that is not the same at all.
This isn't some sort of philosophical "your truth may be wrong, because I have this other idea" stuff either.

I am saying women only feel raped in the circumstance mentioned in my first example, because of social stigma. Because they are taught/told to feel like victims.

Sure, there's a line where you can legally establish that I wasn't raped, but if that line is crossed and I feel raped (ie. I've been forced into involountary sexual actions) then I have been raped.

By Danish law, you wouldn't have been.(if going by "under the influence of alcohol" example)
"We have a different law". Yes you do - and I think that law is hurtful to gender equality.

Before women are no longer victimized, and are just as sexually aggressive(as defined in the OP) as men, they are not truly equal.

 

[s0denone]

If Denmark is so open about it, then I'd like to move there and open a contraceptives store of some sort. Do you guys have jimmy-cap vending machines?

Haha yeah - I doubt you would have much success with a store strictly for contraceptives. Those are sold all over the place anyway

 

[esperandote]

Great post and great posts that refute the OP. Damn, I can't make my mind on this.

There's no way of saying how drunk you should be to call it non-consensual, but there's a very clear line where it is non-consensual, after the person passes out. Making an analogy, like in abortion (though that isn't the subject nor I will discuss that), it will be for ever debatable when the fetus is a person but there will be always a very clear line when it is murder, after birth.

 

[Unspeakable]

I am saying women only feel raped in the circumstance mentioned in my first example, because of social stigma. Because they are taught/told to feel like victims.

So you're saying women should feel empowered and better about themselves when they're raped? What?

 

[moretimethansense]

I am saying women only feel raped in the circumstance mentioned in my first example, because of social stigma. Because they are taught/told to feel like victims.

So you're saying women should feel empowered and better about themselves when they're raped? What?

Oh ffs he's saying that getting drunk then having sex isn't rape, but women are taught to think it is.

 

[s0denone]

I am saying women only feel raped in the circumstance mentioned in my first example, because of social stigma. Because they are taught/told to feel like victims.

So you're saying women should feel empowered and better about themselves when they're raped? What?

How is that what I'm saying?
I was working with the first example (being intoxicated and having sex) in regards to consent. American law differs significantly from Danish law here, given that women can now press "rape" charges on men having sex with them when they are intoxicated.

They file these charges because they genuinely feel raped... And I state the reason for this being that they are taught to feel weak, taught to act and feel(sexually) as potential victims, rather than equals.

Great post and great posts that refute the OP. Damn, I can't make my mind on this.

There's no way of saying how drunk you should be to call it non-consensual, but there's a very clear line where it is non-consensual, after the person passes out. Making an analogy, like in abortion (though that isn't the subject nor I will discuss that), it will be for ever debatable when the fetus is a person but there will be always a very clear line when it is murder, after birth.

I'm not talking about people passing out.
The example is where both are intoxicated, although one part significantly less than the other.
or
Where one part is intoxicated and the other is not.

In both cases, the one most intoxicated is conscious (although, as stated, intoxicated) and gives their verbal consent.

You may feel conflicted, but how will just justify pressing rape charges on someone having sex with someone else, just because the other part is more drunk than the first?

What about when both parties are extremely drunk? Are they raping each-other? Could they both file rape charges?

Ultimately becoming drunk and doing stupid shit is a choice you make yourself.
Does "stupid shit" sometimes include sleeping with people you would otherwise not have slept with? Yes!
Does that mean that said people raped you? No!
Does that mean, however, that maybe you should drink less in the future, if you seek to avoid such occurances? Certainly!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Okay, then. Let us look at what you're saying:
A woman can get extremely drunk(to the point of her not knowing what she is doing or saying), and then give her consent while drunk(which then isn't valid) - and when she wakes up with an enormous hangover, she can press charges on the man who had sex with her, who she would otherwise not have slept with because she was irrespensible and got very drunk?

No, she can press charges on him because he choose to have sex with her when she couldn't give consent. Which is rape. Which is a crime.

It is not a crime for a woman to get drunk. If you are arguing that people shouldn't impair themselves that way, that's a seperate issue, unrelated to a man who decides to have sex with a woman who can't give consent. You are blaming the victim.

It seems extremely morally dubious.
I am not arguing the morality of the action, but the mindset of the victim. The victim wasn't "raped", the victim was taken advantage off, because said victim had low self-esteem.

There is a vast difference for me, there.

So, you are saying that women should be immune to such influence? That's fine as far as it goes, except you are blaming the victim, again. The perpetrator chose to take advantage of the victim, and so therefore they are at fault.

I merely offered thoughts on why it is such a "problem". As stated, in the whole bunch of text you quoted, I think it is because woman victimze themselves, that they feel like victims. If they stopped thinking they were potential victims, but instead saw themselves as equal in every way, especially a sexual way, they wouldn't be bothered by these things as much as they are.

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. You cannot blame women for feeling like victims, or potential victims, when they are. Which is also blaming the victim.

[How I am telling anyone to do anything? Please highlight with quotes.
I agree entirely that women are mens equals - in fact I started this thread in an effort to make it even more so, and that so being in the "sexually aggressive" department.

You have decided that women should be more sexually aggressive, instead of the way that women are choosing to be now.

Also "sexually aggressive"? You really think that's a good thing?

The trouble is, you've been reading feminist blogs. The majority of those are insane, and most of them just want to show how much they hate men without saying that they really just hate men.

Indeed - but when there are laws in place that make, for instance, a woman pressing charges for a man having sex with her on a night out viable... Then there must be some sort of general consesus, right?
I realise that feminists are extremist in this regard, but some of their points obviously carries legal weight.

You claim to view women as equal, but are opposed to feminism, that being the movement to security women's equality?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will not ignore anything you say because you are a woman. I'm even more sorry that I appear to come off as some sort of malechauvinist. I would be offended at the notion, if not for the fact that you appear to misunderstood my position entirely.

I never said I was a woman, I just happen to take an interest in the inequalities forced upon half the population. As such, I'm not going to understand the problem's facing women as well as women do.

But, on the other hand, it does allow me to understand something about male privilege. I totally understand that you do not see yourself as a chauvinist. You're right, the notion is offensive, but that doesn't make it untrue. You've been brought up in a culture that, covertly or overtly has encouraged you to think yourself superior to women. You will, of course, automatically wish to deny this. But to a greater or lesser extent, almost every male has been conditioned to view women as inferior. Even if you aren't going to agree with me, please, please, please entertain the thought before dismissing it.

I'm hardly immune, I get called up on things alot more than I'd like, but I'd like to think I've gotten better. I understand your position because I've seen it lots of times myself, and I used to share it. It took me longer than I'd like to stop wanting to tell all the women why they were wrong and I knew better, that they were making a fuss over nothing, or that they should just learn to put up with it and stop whinging.

If you really want, as a male, to understand the problems of women, you really need to stop talking and start listening. I'd reccomend:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/

As a good place to start. It can be very jarring at first, but it's worth sticking with. I'd very much recommend reading ALOT before replying to anything though, they don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

OP, I think I see the problem...

You found a few blogs written by the unpleasant kind of feminist who really just wants attention (like most bloggers). They were never actually raped but they wish they had been, in a way, because it would get them more attention. So they exaggerate sexual experiences that they regretted to make it appear as though they had been raped.

Yes, I've seen this before a couple times too.

The thing is, it's very rare; nowhere near common enough to base these kinds of generalizations off. And it has nothing to do with sexual repression, it's all about seeking attention. Sexual issues, especially rape, get more attention than just about everything else.

And yes, real rape has nothing to do with this kind of issue. Actual rape is terrible no matter what way you look at it.

Edit: You seem to be using "sexually aggressive" wrong. It means taking the initiative sexually, going out and seeking people to have sex with and then propositioning them. A lot of people don't want to do that, not because they're sexually repressed but because it's not in their personality. You're looking for "sexually liberated," not "sexually aggressive."

 

[muisje33]

good point really, (@OP)
i spose some do make themselves victim, more than they are, but i think money drives a lot of them...

 

[Blitzwarp]

I am saying women only feel raped in the circumstance mentioned in my first example, because of social stigma. Because they are taught/told to feel like victims.

So you're saying women should feel empowered and better about themselves when they're raped? What?

How is that what I'm saying?
I was working with the first example (being intoxicated and having sex) in regards to consent. American law differs significantly from Danish law here, given that women can now press "rape" charges on men having sex with them when they are intoxicated.

They file these charges because they genuinely feel raped... And I state the reason for this being that they are taught to feel weak, taught to act and feel(sexually) as potential victims, rather than equals.

Or...because...and I'm sorry if I'm coming too far out of left-field here for you to handle...they were raped. Yes, there are going to be women who 'cry rape', and IMO these women deserve to serve jail-time for undermining thousands of other women who have been genuinely molested, but the fact remains that if a woman is so drunk she doesn't really know where she is and a stone cold sober man knows this and takes advantage of it, that is rape. Because that stone cold sober man will know that the women is drunk, that she isn't thinking properly, that she's probably going to say yes or not have it in her to fight back. When both parties are plastered it's an extremely different scenario, and needs to be examined more thoroughly.

Oh, and before anybody goes "well women shouldn't put themselves in that situation har har aren't I clever" - no. Women ought to be able to go to a bar for a good time out and not worry that they're going to be attacked or taken advantage of. It's not the drunk who should have to make the rational decision in any situation like this, it's the sober. (That goes for male/female rape, female/male rape, male/male rape or female/female rape. Any goddamn situation.)