American Women need Sexual Freedom, Instead of Victimizing Themselves

[Lilani]

What do you mean by liberated?

Oh, from the summarization? I thought that would be clear from the rest of my post...

I mean "sexually aggressive". As long as women are sexually repressed (in comparison to men) I feel there will exist problems such as those listed in my OP.

Two things. First, since you started this thread and are trying to sell a point, it doesn't reflect well on you or your credibility to give smart-ass responses to those who have questions about the subject at hand (including previously addressed ones). Such responses only make you look childish and take away any pretense of credibility.

Secondly, from what you've described, it seems you don't have a problem with how women see the situations, but rather how society has come to legitimize and accept any victimization they put on themselves. It doesn't bother you that women say they were "coerced" or "inappropriately touched" or whatever. It bothers you that the rest of society will back them up and take action against whomever violated them.

In other news, I must say I disagree with your whole statement on groping. Sure, some playful touches are alright given the right context and group of individuals. But that doesn't make it right for some guy who rides the same subway to work as me to fondle my breasts every day. If anyone, man or woman, doesn't want to be touched in certain ways they have the right to express this and take whatever action is necessary to stop and prevent it in the future.

 

[s0denone]

For the drinking bit; according to law, as I understand it in the US (I don't drink and neither does my gf, so it's not a concern for us) if you and/or your partner are impaired, you can't consent, without consent, it's rape. Also, as far as I know, anyone at any point during sex can withdraw consent, that doesn't make anything up to that point rape, but if you were to continue, it would be. I think this is a little bit rediculous, but that's just me I guess.

Yes, and that law is stupid.
The law isn't like that in Denmark, and I would say our laws are much better. That is purely subjective, however. I realise, and acknowledge the laws that in place in the United States - I just find them terribly inconvenient, and working against the cause of gender equality(in that they are victimizing women).

For the groping bit; I've seen plenty of women smack or otherwise make the man stop. The main places it becomes a problem are where the man is in a theoretical position of power over the woman (ie boss, manager, etc) or in crowded public places (ie subways and such). I've seen a waitress pour hot coffee on a guy for groping her ass. It wasn't super hot and she didn't ruin his crotch or anything, but it didn't look pleasant.

That's awesome.
It should be established, however(as you stated further down), that men are groped too. There are assholes of either gender, who will do incredibly dumb stuff because of personal issues or repressed sexuality. It has nothing to do with women being more victims in this regard, as a whole, than men, or vice versa.

Your definition of "coercion" and mine are pretty different. Where you take the self-esteem route, my definition is more along the lines of "Do this or..." and things of that nature. And I'd also make the argument that since "self" is the first word of "self-esteem" there is essentially no difference between your self-esteem being targeted and you as a person being targeted.

I see.
I already clarified my position in a number of other posts: That I think the threat of physical violence, or any other form of harm, consitutes rape. Not coercion.

And my argument isn't as much that the victim isn't being taken advantage off, because they are, but they aren't being taken advantage off for being women particularly - but for having low self-esteem.

Your definition of rape, while accurate, also doesn't cover what all constitutes rape in the US. If the person is unable (minor, handicapped, etc.) unwilling (classic rape case) or impaired (see my first point) than it is rape. Of course, the age of consent varies from state to state in the US, raning from 16 to 18 and some allowances for age differences ranging from two to three year differences.

The case of being unable is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Impaired I have already noted my opinion on, and unwilling should also long be clarified.
So what is the point here? You are reiterating that intoxicated sex equals rape. I don't think it does, it all.

I think you're looking at too narrow of an area. The issues you're looking at are really specific and would need a sweeping social reform to change. In order to fix these issues, you'd need to work from the ground up.

Very true.
It would require the American law not to allow women rights that are not equal to those of men, for better or worse. When a women is handed a right for being weaker than a man(for example being able to be raped, and man not being able to, as it requires penile penetration) then there is a problem. The women will feel like victims, because they are told that they are.

That is just a fraction of the problem though, that little point about "rape" in accordance with the law.

Also, you mention "feminist" like a dozen times in your OP. While not all of them are foaming at the mouth, you need to keep in mind that a lot of sepcialized groups like that are extremely biased. Maybe you should look around at other things that aren't told by feminists, or at least make sure that you're not reading something by the rabid man-hating ones that we know are out there.

You are quite right.
I am aware that feminists represent the minority of women, but as I feel for, sympathise with, and support their general cause (women should be equal to men) I think most of their points are entirely validated. The points on rape(and consent in generalt), however, I find to be entirely without reason.

It then appears that the opinions of these extremists are mirrored in the law. Then we have a problem, I'd say.

 

[Vexik]

I have never found a thread so interesting and thought out on both sides as to make me read 3 pages of posts before. Kudos, all 'round.

My contribution is merely a hard-won observation: People hate accountability.

 

[Del-Toro]

To be honest, I'm not really a big fan of post sexual revolution sex ethics, they just seem to muck everything up. Call me a backward, puritan chauvanistic neo-fascist pig (oh, and don't forget to add in a few other stereotypical insults lefties use when they want to feel superior without actually making a point) if you want, but that's my opinion, deal with it. Besides, when 13 year (if OP is to be believed, although I believe that at least one escapist has challenged that) olds going at it is the norm, well, I think you've left the realm of sexual liberation and entered the realm of "too decadent to survive". Which is hilarious when you consider that while Europeans apparently fuck like rabbits their population is in net decline

 

[s0denone]

Two things. First, since you started this thread and are trying to sell a point, it doesn't reflect well on you or your credibility to give smart-ass responses to those who have questions about the subject at hand (including previously addressed ones). Such responses only make you look childish and take away any pretense of credibility.

I'm sorry you feel I have made smart-ass remarks.

Secondly, from what you've described, it seems you don't have a problem with how women see the situations, but rather how society has come to legitimize and accept any victimization they put on themselves. It doesn't bother you that women say they were "coerced" or "inappropriately touched" or whatever. It bothers you that the rest of society will back them up and take action against whomever violated them.

So you have misunderstood my point entirely too. I'll try not to offer you any smart-ass response. I guess I just failed at that... I'm sorry, but it tends to happen when people refuse to read and comprehend - not just the OP, but the few comments addressing simular questions too.

When you're writing something like "It bothers you that the rest of society will back them up and take action against whomever violated them." I'm not going to dignify it an actual response. If you feel like calling me a malechauvinist for not doing that? Go right ahead. "You're not answering the point because it is obviously true"... No, I'm not answering because I have already answered similar questions numerous times.

In other news, I must say I disagree with your whole statement on groping. Sure, some playful touches are alright given the right context and group of individuals. But that doesn't make it right for some guy who rides the same subway to work as me to fondle my breasts every day. If anyone, man or woman, doesn't want to be touched in certain ways they have the right to express this and take whatever action is necessary to stop and prevent it in the future.

Oh...? "that doesn't make it right for some guy to fondle my breasts".
I see. I'm not only advocating that women shouldn't seek protection from sexual assault/molestation - now I am actively advocating men to fondle the breasts of women?

Did you even read my entire post? Be honest.

I'm sorry you feel like I have gone about the topic in such manner, but I am deeply offended at your post here, and everything you're inferred with it. I am not in any way condoning any of this behaviour.
That's basically why I responded to your post. Sorry for singling you out like this, but I apparently need to reiterate my stand on the whole thing - even though I don't think that should be needed.

I repeat: I do not condone any kind of sexual assault.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Does this mean you agree with engaging in sexual relations while under the influence of alcohol is not "rape"? Given that you only attribute it words such as "low-brow" and "foolish", not "ill-spirited", "illegal" and "non-consensual".

What? I didn't say anything about "rape" either, love, only that such behaviour was foolish. If legality is your deflection of the argument, I'll leave you to it, I was discussing what you raised initially, social views. Though the terms you suggest all fall under consequences of behaving "foolishly".

Sexuality and sexism isn't a matter of perspective, though - else there would be no descrimination of homosexuals, transsexuals or any other kind of sexuality. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with the society as a whole, and is more dependant on empowerment of one self. That is absolute bollony.

But it is. An example- When other girls put on their latex or leathers and go out for the clubs some stare and call them whores, when I do the same, I stare at others and feel pity. I'm no common tart, plying for attention, I'm a lady seeking my prey. It's a matter of perspective and empowerment of the individual... not "bologna". Not to be too boastful, but if more people had that manner of confidence, not allowing themselves to be 'victimized' as your argument initially pointed out, our planet's societies might all move forward a bit. You seem to be getting a bit heated on this. Remember, I actually agreed with you, I just felt you're stereotyping both your country and someone else's.

People in America have the possiblity to act however they please, yes. But they do so, knowing that they will suffer the social stigma of said actions.In Denmark it isn't like that. No-matter what knowledge you have of Europe. It simply is not the case.

So you're confident you speak for the entirity of your country now? If you say so, love, though I highly doubt it to be true. People I know from online conversations and leather/rubber conventions from your country have complained of the same issues you seem to think don't exist. It's a human issue, love, not a nationalist one.

To bring another example of repressed sexuality/sexuality being discriminated, in regards to America nowadays, from the perspective of a hetorosexual male:
The sexuality of men is not particularly taboo -> they will open talk about having had sex with girls, and nobody will judge them of doing so.
The sexuality of women is rather taboo, or at the least considered "bad taste" -> women may or may not talk about having had sex with guys, and will or will not be judged based upon several different factors(How often, did she know him, etc.).

I talk about sex around my girlfriends, my co-workers, and pretty much anyone I choose, love. I'm about as open about my sex life as I want to be when I choose to be and I get no overall social stigma from it. Sure some people are uptight about sex, but this is a universal human element, not an 'American' one. Maybe your view of America is a bit less informed than you think.

The homosexuality of lesbians is taboo, but men will openly admit to being turned on by it -> homosexual women may or may not be discriminated against, based on several factors but mainly on the "Are they attractive?"/"Do they look butch?" scale.
The homosexuality of gays is taboo -> homosexual men will be discriminated against.

I'll agree with you on this point entirely love, homosexual relations have difficulty in MOST countries, but again, this depends mostly upon who you choose to socialize with. My peers aren't giving two rat's arse's about my pansexuality or anyone's sexuality for that matter, but if I chose to hang out in a Presbyterian church on Sunday, it's probably going to go differently. People will be people.

You seem to be of the mindset that Denmark is some manner of superior benchmark of sexual culture that other nations might do well to replicate in toto. This is an over-simplification, love. Not everyone in Denmark is so open-minded as you seem to be. And don't get me wrong, I'd actually not mind meeting you sometime in another fashion, you do seem rather open and interesting, but at the same time, you refuse to acknowledge that other people in other nations are just as open minded, if not even moreso.

 

[kurupt87]

- i have issue with your (s0denone's) views regarding the nature of consent. For you to suggest that being intoxicated does not carry mental implications is unreasonable.

The law in England (where i'm from) states in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, that unless the person performing the act upon the other individual (so, in the circumstances implied throughout this argument, the man having sex with the drunk woman) REASONABLY BELIEVES that the consent was genuine, the act is defined as an act of rape. Therefore, if the man is having sex with a woman who is drunk to the point in which one can reasonably assume that her judgement is impaired, the man is committing rape. The onus is on the man to acknowledge that this potential sexual partner is beyond the point of being able to make rational judgements and decisions, and decide not to have sex with her for that reason.

Also, witnesses in court are not allowed to testify if they are drunk. This, of course, makes complete sense...because alcohol impairs your mental faculties. One is not allowed to drive while drunk because being drunk reduces one's hazard perception and reaction time: both COGNITIVE, not, as you suggested, physical faculties.

That law is almost useless. Who amongst us has the ability to innately know whether someone is plastered or sober?

I know people who are, seemingly, utterly gazeeboed after a single drink. They're not, obviously; they're just benefitting from the placebo affect of alcohol making you more relaxed and confident etc.

I also know people who appear to be stone cold sober and retain the ability to articulate in a sober manner even after heavy drinking. Talking to them the next day reveals that they have absolutely no recollection of the conversation at all, or indeed an hour or two's worth of the night preceeding and following it.

How drunk people get is different for every single person, as is their behaviour while drunk.

Also, judgement is impaired by alcohol as soon as it enters the bloodstream. Of course, the more is absorbed the more judgement is impaired.

Finally, as some other posters have pointed out; being drunk is not an excuse to shirk responsibility for your actions. Is the drink driver not responsible for his/her crash? Is a drunken attacker not responsible for the injuries he/she inflicts? Are a group of drunken people not jointly held accountable for vandalism they jointly commit?

I've been taken advantage of while drunk, twice in fact, by relatively sober girls (friends attest to this). Waking up in the morning next to some wrong'un I vaguely recall from the night before; do I weep and cry rape? No. I learn from my mistakes (yes it took it happening twice to get in) and decide not to get so stupidly drunk again; certain special events excluded of course. I also laughed at myself for my naivety and congratulate myself for now having a funny story to tell, one which is also brought out by my oh-so-hilarious friends during meet and greet sessions of drinking "I have never".

 

[Vexik]

Juliet was 13. Y'know, as in Romeo and Juliet? While I personally don't condone younger sex (the age of consent around here is 17 or 18 - I haven't needed to know for quite a while), mid-teen sex is a biological norm, and has been / still is a societal norm in many places. In some places it remains a norm without being a legal one.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

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.

You seem to be only viewing this from one perspective. You're seeing the woman as the victim. It is completely possible for a woman to come on to a man while drunk, is the man automatically responsible when if he's also intoxicated and ends up sleeping with her? Sure, if you have sex with a drunk girl who isn't willing I would definitely consider it rape. But if both parties are willing at the time then I would say that it's just a mistake on both of their parts. Besides if you tend to have indiscriminate sex while drunk I'd seriously consider watching your sobrietry levels.

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.

Sure chances are the man was a manipulative asshole, but there's still the fact that the woman willingly chose to give in. It shouldn't warrant legal action unless the guy did something illegal to make her do it, such as threatening to hurt her.

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?

It seems to me like he might be using sexually aggressive incorrectly. I think more what he means is sexually equal or confident. If they seem themselves as equals in relationships they would be less likely to give in to pressure. I might be wrong, but that's the impression I got.

 

[Danish rage]

Well, apart from generalizing about Danish men and women having oodles of casual sex (to the point where I almost feel that your are slandering me (being a Danish guy myself)) you have some excellent points. The first step towards not being victimized is to stop playing the victim.

well we kind of do, don´t we?

Other than, you´re both right.

 

[s0denone]

What? I didn't say anything about "rape" either, love, only that such behaviour was foolish. If legality is your deflection of the argument, I'll leave you to it, I was discussing what you raised initially, social views. Though the terms you suggest all fall under consequences of behaving "foolishly".

I agree. It is indeed foolish to become drunk to the point of not knowing what one is doing. It is also illegal, though, mind you, in America.

But it is. An example- When other girls put on their latex or leathers and go out for the clubs some stare and call them whores, when I do the same, I stare at others and feel pity. I'm no common tart, plying for attention, I'm a lady seeking my prey. It's a matter of perspective and empowerment of the individual... not "bologna". Not to be too boastful, but if more people had that manner of confidence, not allowing themselves to be 'victimized' as your argument initially pointed out, our planet's societies might all move forward a bit. You seem to be getting a bit heated on this. Remember, I actually agreed with you, I just felt you're stereotyping both your country and someone else's.

There will always be people discriminating. There will always be those who are ignorant and bigoted.
I am talking about having social, not to mention legal, implications for things in America that are not considered illegal or even immoral in other countries(such as Denmark).

I apologise for becoming a bit "heated". I have indeed, but that is simply due to the excessive amounts of post of people (purposefully or not) misinterpreting what I am saying.

So you're confident you speak for the entirity of your country now? If you say so, love, though I highly doubt it to be true. People I know from online conversations and leather/rubber conventions from your country have complained of the same issues you seem to think don't exist. It's a human issue, love, not a nationalist one.

As stated, of course Denmark isn't perfect. Of course there will always be people who are against some idea or notion.

My claim is that women can be as sexually aggressive in Denmark as they want, though, and not be judged by society as a whole.

You mention leather and latex. I wasn't really talking about bondage, fetish, S/M, BDSM or any other term you wish to apply. I was talking about women in general being sexually aggressive.

If you are being shouted at for wearing leather, you aren't being shouted at for wanted to go find some guy to take home... You are shouted at for wearing leather.
I'm unsure if I am able to convey my thoughts properly on this... Can you catch my drift?

In America my guess is that a woman clad in leather obviously looking for a man to take home could be shouted at. She could be discriminated in many ways. Some of those would be because she wore leather. Others would be because she was so sexually aggressive.
The former would certainly happen in Denmark. The latter wouldn't.

Does that make sense?

I talk about sex around my girlfriends, my co-workers, and pretty much anyone I choose, love. I'm about as open about my sex life as I want to be when I choose to be and I get no overall social stigma from it. Sure some people are uptight about sex, but this is a universal human element, not an 'American' one. Maybe your view of America is a bit less informed than you think.

I'm sure my view has been distorted/skewed by the feminist blogs I have read. That is why I sincerely hoped someone like you would offer up their points for the discussion.

I'm not sure it is a universal human element, however. I'm sure you will find that Scandinavia, especially Denmark, is very "sexually liberated". Sure, you don't buy your grandmother sextoys for her 80th birthday, but you are allowed to talk about subject (from an early age) that are very taboo in America.

There is still discrimination of homosexuals and lesbians, sure - but the country functions on left-wing principles(biggest public sector in the world), and is in general very open and non-conservative.

I'll agree with you on this point entirely love, homosexual relations have difficulty in MOST countries, but again, this depends mostly upon who you choose to socialize with. My peers aren't giving two rat's arse's about my pansexuality or anyone's sexuality for that matter, but if I chose to hang out in a Presbyterian church on Sunday, it's probably going to go differently. People will be people.

Of course it depends on who you socialize with.
Hang out at Westboro Baptist Church? I expect you to be wholeheartedly discriminated. Hang out in San Francisco? I would expect another story.

While I have come to realise that opposers of sexually aggressive women(or in favour of victimizing women) could very well just be a very small minority... Such is still the law. The law needs changing then, why aren't you people demonstrating??

You seem to be of the mindset that Denmark is some manner of superior benchmark of sexual culture that other nations might do well to replicate in toto. This is an over-simplification, love. Not everyone in Denmark is so open-minded as you seem to be. And don't get me wrong, I'd actually not mind meeting you sometime in another fashion, you do seem rather open and interesting, but at the same time, you refuse to acknowledge that other people in other nations are just as open minded, if not even moreso.

I have no doubts there are people in America more open-minded than me.
I have no doubts either, that there are some people in Denmark who will oppose and discriminate any sexuality. Hell, I could probably find you some who oppose heterosexuality.

What I am arguing, however, is that Denmark do not have laws in place that by their very nature victimize women. I say it is because Denmark is more sexually liberated, and that women are accepted as being as much "on the prowl" as men.

 

[SultanP]

Well, apart from generalizing about Danish men and women having oodles of casual sex (to the point where I almost feel that your are slandering me (being a Danish guy myself)) you have some excellent points. The first step towards not being victimized is to stop playing the victim.

well we kind of do, don´t we?

Other than, you´re both right.

I guess as a people, we do, but as a person, I don't, and I'd prefer not to be lumped in with the people who do. Not that there's anything wrong with that lifestyle, but it isn't one that I subscribe to, and I am getting tired of generalizations that put me somewhere I don't belong.

 

[s0denone]

I guess as a people, we do, but as a person, I don't, and I'd prefer not to be lumped in with the people who do. Not that there's anything wrong with that lifestyle, but it isn't one that I subscribe to, and I am getting tired of generalizations that put me somewhere I don't belong.

Well I lumped you into a category known as "Denmark". In that "Danish people, as a whole, have more casual sex than those from America".

I did not mean any person in particular, and I'm sure there is someone extremely promiscous making up for everyone not regularly partaking in such.

I'm sorry if it caused any kind of offense, but surely you must agree with the notion that "Danes have lots of casual sex"? Even if you do not do so yourself.

 

[xdom125x]

I'm not exactly sure how you thought this wouldn't be offensive, but I'll assume you're not simply trolling. All these points are commonly brought up by rape apologists and those claiming women would be liberated if they had the sole option of choosing whatever they happened to think those women should be like, and as such have been refuted by better people than me all across the net, but I'll share my thoughts.

It has actually become so ridiculous(to me) that women can now legitimately press "rape" charges on men who "take advantage of them" while they are intoxicated - regardless of whether or not they gave their consent... As they were intoxicated. The mind boggles.

A person who is intoxicated is not able to give consent, because intoxication impairs mental faculties. That should be really obvious. You're not allowed to drive while intoxicated, you'd get fired if you turned up to work drunk, you'd be in serious trouble if called as a witness in a court and turned up drunk. The same logic applies.

If a person cannot give consent, then having sex with them is sex without consent.

I never quite understood this whole "a person cannot consent if they are intoxicated, while intoxication isn't an excuse for commiting crimes" logic I often see. I mean if I hypothetically hurt someone (in a non-specific way) while I was drunk, should I be held responsible for it( I mean I was mentally impaired at the time in this completely fictional situation)?

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

The issue I have with your fist point (that is, the idea of it, not your argument about it), is that if a drunk person having sex is rape, then that means being drunk entails you not being able to make your own descions or consent.

Therfore, anything you do while you are drunk is not up to you.

DUI is then not a crime if you got drunk then got in your car, you were drunk, you couldn't help it, after all!

/huge hole in legal system.

Now then, I find it horrible that it's perfectly fine if a woman slaps a guy on the butt or something like that and then he'd just be "lucky", but if it's the other way around then the guy would be "sexxualy harrassing" the woman.

EDIT: so your saying in denmark that's not the case for my last point?

*must visit denmark*

 

[SultanP]

I guess as a people, we do, but as a person, I don't, and I'd prefer not to be lumped in with the people who do. Not that there's anything wrong with that lifestyle, but it isn't one that I subscribe to, and I am getting tired of generalizations that put me somewhere I don't belong.

Well I lumped you into a category known as "Denmark". In that "Danish people, as a whole, have more casual sex than those from America".

I did not mean any person in particular, and I'm sure there is someone extremely promiscous making up for everyone not regularly partaking in such.

I'm sorry if it caused any kind of offense, but surely you must agree with the notion that "Danes have lots of casual sex"? Even if you do not do such yourself.

No offense, I'm sure I'm making it seem like I'm taking it worse than I am. And yeah, I do notice people having quite a bit of sex.
There was something about the wording that just made it seem like you were saying all Danish men and women are like that. But that's pure silliness on my part.

 

[SultanP]

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.

To be honest, having listened to a lot of radio shows from the fifties in the last year, I get the impression that sex has become more of a taboo in America now, than it was back then.

 

[kurupt87]

A drunk person can not legally consent to non emergency surgery, sign a contract of any kind, or get married. So why do you think they should be allowed to consent to sex? In all those other cases the law recognizes they are unable to give consent, it therefore only follows that they are unable to consent to sex as well.

Those things have long lasting results. Sex does not.

Sex, in this case, is a one off action. If you say you can't have sex then what can you do? It logically follows that if you can't decide to have sex you can't decide to do anything, ergo doing anything while drunk is illegal (Edit: or the perpetrator of whatever action can't be held responsible for said action, whatever it may be).

It comes down to responsibility for ones actions and the shirking of it. People hate responsibility and try to wriggle out of it whenever they can, like a child who's done wrong and then hides somewhere.

As I said previously I've slept with women I wouldn't have if I'd been sober. I have friends, both male and female, who have done the same thing. Do you know what the decision we've all independently come to is? If we don't want it to happen again don't get so stupidly drunk.