What is being homophobic?

[Darken12]

That's an ignorant and insulting thing for you to say. Having a penis does not mean that a person cannot be raped, nor does it mean that one cannot experience the tragedy of one's loved ones being raped. I've devoted a good deal of energy listening to women who have been victims of assault. I've attended training sessions to learn how to support sexual assault victims. I've marched in Slutwalks. Where my genitals hang doesn't determine what I'm capable of learning.

So it goes with sexual orientation.

That's not what I said at all. I know that men get raped. But you're not a woman and you haven't been socialised as one. Society has been speaking to you differently than it has been speaking to women. It's called socialisation, and it's different for men and women. I'm not saying you can't comprehend the experience, I'm saying society tells women things that it doesn't tell you (and viceversa) and the experience of being a woman in Western society is different than the experience of being a man. That gives women information that men do not possess (and viceversa), which is why I consider it unwise to speak categorically about the experiences of the opposite gender when they possess information about themselves that I don't. It's much like speaking about a field you're not an expert in. If you're a mechanic, it's unwise to make categorical statements about physiology, for example, and if you're a doctor, it's unwise to make categorical statements about carburators.

It's okay to abstain from having an opinion, you know. You don't have to have an opinion on absolutely everything. I certainly don't.

An whether you think it's trivial or not. It does hurt to think there are people that automatically think I'm a bigoted monster or that me an the majority of my social group are a group of thugs going to beat on them. Based souly on my sexual orientation, my skin color and my gender. In the same way it hurts anyone else to be judged like that. Whether it happens to an individual a few times a year or daily, is it still acceptable?

The problem you're missing is that you think that's all we get too. If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but we don't. We don't just get judged on our sexual orientation, gender or skin colour. Marginalised people get judged and then they have to face consequences because of that judgement. That's what you're missing. I judge you and that's it. You walk away and your life's completely unchanged. People like you judge people like me and we can't adopt, marry, do hospital visits, we get hate speech and hate crimes. That's why I am not buying a single thing you're saying. I said it before and I will say it again: it's extremely easy for you to lecture me about prejudice from your comfortable position with full rights under the law and no risk of hate crimes, hate speech or the like.

Of course I focus on those who might agree with me! They're the only ones I bother to acknowledge or have a conversation with. The others aren't worth the conversation if they are irredeemable bigots which I don't think is 50% of the people. I think a lot of it is just plain ignorance. Unless you plan on killing a bunch of people, or using force to oppress them in the say way they are oppressing you now, they need to learn and come to agree with you, which many are and more people are changing everyday. You don't do that by just being angry and mean to everybody regardless of what they've personally done to you.

At the end of the day I don't care if your respectful to me. Just don't come to a conversation to spout bigotry like a woman is totally justified to fear of rape in the presence of males. Like many have said... its basically the equivalent of thinking a black guy is going to rob you if your alone on the street.

Ignoring the people who aren't willing to listen doesn't help at all. It leaves them unchecked to keep spewing their bigotry about and convincing the people willing to listen (that would have otherwise listened to you), then they build up from each other to a mob effect. I have no problems with the way you do things and I wouldn't criticise your methods. I ask you politely that you do the same.

Very, very true, and exactly why I don't let this subtle homophobia slide. Because as this thread in itself has shown, it's gone from "same-sex kissing between men disgusts me", to "homosexuality isn't natural", to "homosexuality is deviant", to "you're a heterophobe". This is what always happens. Group think. The way I've always seen it, you give a free pass to this, then you're only going to let it build and build and build until it becomes a real problem you cannot ignore. We can't do that. Time to nip it now.

I have no problem with subtle homophobia so long as it doesn't build up. I understand that the low-grade stuff isn't going to change anytime soon and trying to correct every single instance of it when there are larger problems at stake is a waste of resources. Keeping it in check to avoid a Sarkeesian-like disaster? That's another thing altogether.

 

[Darken12]

It's also different for individuals. Men are not all socialized the same. Women are not all socialized the same. Most of my childhood I was raised almost exclusively by my mother, and I went through a childhood phase where I played with baby dolls (Cabbage Patch Kids specifically). So do we just throw that experience out the window just because I have a penis?

You are completely correct, but I doubt you were ever warned about the possibility of being raped if you walked alone at night. Mugged? Killed? Sure, but I highly doubt you were warned about rape in that context. And I highly doubt that you were warned about being date-raped, or told by chauvinistic pigs that you might "have it coming" (regarding unwanted sexual advances) if you wore clothes that were too revealing or if you were known to be sexually active.

Which is a nice thing to say, but it's increasingly deviating in relevance from the comment I made that you came onto this tangent. I said that if a woman fears she will be raped simply because she is in an all-male presence, she is wrong. If a woman was socialized to believe that, then she was socialized incorrectly, in a manner I would say borders on abuse.

Really? Well, I personally completely disagree, though I cannot speak for women at all. I would personally say that given the predominance of rape culture in our society, while distrusting all men might be exaggerated, it is certainly not wholly unjustified.

But I am an expert in being me. And I have never raped anyone or threatened to do so. So I am totally comfortable saying a woman in the presence of exclusively male company when that company is me or men whose behavior toward women is like mine, who feels that she will be raped, is categorically, 100% wrong. Now if a woman is in a group of men, and some of them do something indicative that they might be potential rapists- something behavioral mind, not simply existing with a penis- then her fears are more valid. But assuming all men are potential violent sex offenders is a kind of sexism and it is wrong.

This, of course, is based on the laughable idea that you can identify sex offenders or potential rapists at first sight. The uncomfortable truth is that the majority of rapists are indistinguishable from non-rapists because they have rationalised their behaviour as completely normal or justified, and therefore do not have a tendency to give themselves away. The tired old trope of the easily identifiable sexual predator only applies to a minority of cases.

So again, while perhaps exaggerated, I do not find it at all unjustified.

So it is with homosexuality. If you assume you are under any kind of threat simply because you are surrounded by (people you think are) straight men, you are wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a simple fact. Not all hetero men are a danger to homosexual men. Not all hetero men are a danger to women. If you think otherwise, it doesn't matter how you were socialized, you are wrong.

You are completely right. Not all hetero men are dangerous, but some (perhaps even most) are, and that itself justifies caution. In risk management, the action taken to avoid a given risk are taken far before the risk is anywhere near 100%. That is, we don't need all hetero men to be dangerous before we start taking cautionary measures. And in terms of consequence weighing, we have, on one side, hurting the feelings of hetero men. On the other side, we have preventing hate crimes, hate speech, gender abuse and gender violence. In risk management, the positive consequences vastly outweigh the negative ones.

Yes, yes, but when someone slurs me simply because I have a penis, I'm going to confront that lie just as vigorously as when someone slurs you just for being gay.

And taking a cautionary stance as a slur is a heartless dismissal of a very real risk that you do not have to face. By making this all about you and your hurt feelings, you are expressing a distinct lack of empathy for the marginalised people who have endured worse than that.

 

[Darken12]

All of which is irrelevant to our discussion.

It's relevant for explaining how even if your socialisation as a male was different, it still lacked certain aspects that do take place in female socialisation.

It absolutely is unjustified.

The moment you treat all men as potential rapists, you legitimize rape.

Rape is a choice to commit sexual violence. It doesn't come from your penis. Therefore the people to be wary of are not people with penises, but people who choose to commit sexual violence.

Society already normalises sexual violence! It already legitimises it! Rape culture is so deeply embedded into our society that a woman can write an erotic book about abuse and gender violence as portrayed by someone with an unholy mix of Stockholm and battered woman syndromes and it becomes a best-seller lauded as a romantic standard! By other women!

Rape culture has already been normalised and legitimised, it's not the fault of overly cautious people. Being overly cautious is the consequence of a society where rape is normalised.

Not at all. I never once made that claim, as you're well aware.

Then how else are people going to decide, in a room of strangers, if their caution is excessive or justified?

Caution, yes. Fear, no.

As you said yourself: Rubbish. You're arguing semantics.

Not just hurting, normalizing sexual violence. The moment you create the idea that all men are potential rapists, you create the idea that rape is something normal for men to do. The only way to fight rape is to get men on board with stopping it, and that means recognizing the men who don't rape for who they are- normal.

Everyone is a potential rapist. Everyone who is capable of sex is capable of rape. And with the aid of drugs, alcohol, machinery, restraints, accomplices and the like, you don't need to be physically stronger to have sex with someone against their will. The main difference is that our society has built a monolith of rape culture that tells straight men it's okay to rape women (and other men) under certain circumstances. That's why most rapists are males who identify themselves as straight (even if they rape other men in some contexts, such as prison).

I completely agree, rape is never okay, but most rapists are no different than anyone else, and do not comprehend that what they're doing is wrong. Society has given them an elaborate web of rationalisation for their actions, and even convinced their victims that what was done to them was acceptable (that's why we have so much victim-blaming when it comes to rape). Signalling rape as something abnormal does nothing to prevent rape, because rapists who rationalise their behaviour as normal will not stop doing what they're doing (because they think it's normal, and therefore cannot be abnormal, which means it cannot be rape), and they might even fool onlookers/courts into agreeing with them because of the power of "if it's normal, it cannot be rape".

By raising awareness that anybody can be a rapist and that nobody is above the suspicion of rape, we are both helping women raped by men AND men raped by men or women, and women raped by women. The cases of female-on-male, male-on-male and female-on-female rape are incredibly under-reported and dismissed precisely because of this conception that some people are not capable of rape, or that some people cannot be victims of rape.

Acknowledging the potential of all people to be rapists and rape victims allows us to focus on teaching people not to rape, recognising when rape takes place, and providing adequate support and justice for rape survivors.

Bullshit. You don't know what I've gone through to support victims of sexual violence. You're just making up stuff now to avoid admitting you spoke wrongly.

I am all for stopping sexual violence. I'm all for supporting marginalized people. And I can do it a lot more effectively when we start as a community focusing our ire on the people who commit violence, and not on the people who superficially resemble people who commit violence.

And I completely disagree. As I explained above, the focus should be on raising awareness and teaching people not to rape. Focusing on people who have already transgressed does not help in the long term. By acknowledging that everyone is a potential rapist and teaching them to self-analyse their behaviour and see if it can be construed as sexual violence or coercion, we end up providing greater long-term progress.

 

[Spinozaad]

Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellan (to take but two examples) are amazing persons. I loathe the kind of person who tend to attend "Gay Pride" parades.

The former are people. Wonderfully talented, amazing people who, to me, are not defined by their sexual orientation. The hypersexualized stereotypes who dance half-naked celebrating their gayness are, in my eyes, horrible stereotypes.

Guys kissing or holding hands in public does not concern me. I might think something along the lines of: "huh, you don't see that everyday. Brave people, how wonderful that they do that!" and move on.

It's the hypersexualized stereotype of gays that "rubs me the wrong way." Not the gender they want to fondle. Does that make me homophobic? If so, well... You can go and eat a bag of dicks.

 

[Stasisesque]

Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellan (to take but two examples) are amazing persons. I loathe the kind of person who tend to attend "Gay Pride" parades.

Both of those celebrities attend gay pride parades with startling regularity.

Fabulously.

 

[karamazovnew]

snip

I almost completely agree with you. We are all capable of rape (and other things). In the right circumstances, even a mild normal person can become a monster. I also hold society responsible for this. Just look at what goes on now in India. Just think at what happened in South Africa. The ingredients of rape are sex and violence, in some cases violence holds the greater share, but in others it's pure lust. Both however fall under the lack of empathy that the attacker feels for the victim.

But, while awareness might help, sure, we don't like to go there. We don't like to imagine how it would feel like. I hate movies about rape, such as The Accused with Jody Foster, I can't watch that. I couldn't watch Thelma and Louise for Christ sake. However, the recent public uproar in India got me talking and thinking. My brain blocks any thought about that girl's boyfriend. But I can comfortably sit in that crowd crying for blood. When I heard the cries for vengeance, I became comfortable about saying the word "rape" again. Empathy for the attacker is more effective and vindicative. A good burning alive on public TV, a bit of public torture or simply a good old hanging would prevent more rapes than anything could. A mass and continual "war on rape and sexual abuse" is long overdue.

But how did we get from homophobia to this?

 

[Darken12]

Hyperbole does not become you.

Please, I strongly advise you to read up on Rape Culture [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/]. Rape is already legitimised and normalised.

Incorrect. Everyone who is capable of violence is capable of rape. Rape is not sex.

More people are capable of violence than they are capable of sex, and never is a person capable of sex but incapable of violence, unless they are unconscious, completely paralysed or comatose. In which case, sex with them is rape.

The only difference between sex and rape is consent. The moment someone is no longer consenting (or never consented in the first place) and they are subjected to sex, that is rape.

Then they need to be taught that what they're doing is wrong. That will not be achieved by laying accusations at men just because they are men. When you spread blame to people who have done nothing wrong, then you take responsibility for wrong-doing away from the people who did it.

People are not going to listen to what you might teach them if they think that what they're doing isn't rape, or that they're incapable of rape. First, they need to acknowledge the fact that they are potential rapists and rape victims before they can understand that what you're trying to teach them is also aimed at them.

And your post is a perfect example. You've already jumped to blaming all of society for rape, so now real rapists aren't responsible for their choices- they were brought up in a society that allowed them to rape.

I also sustain that everyone is capable of murder. Does that mean that every murderer aren't responsible for their choices because they were brought up in a society that allowed them to murder? Hell no. People who break the law must be punished, whether they are rapists or murderers.

Nothing will ever prevent all rapes. Not even a hysterical fear that one is in danger simply because one is around men. But one's quality of life is a lot better when one holds people accountable for their actions as opposed to living in constant fear of anyone who superficially resembles them.

Oh, so we should stop trying, then. My god, you're right! Why are we wasting so much money on the court system and law enforcement when we're never going to stop crime! Why take any precautionary measure if it's never going to be 100% effective?

As you said it yourself: Rubbish. Just because we are never going to be able to stop all of the rapes doesn't mean we can't do our best to minimise them.

Let me tell you a story: My mother when she was a teen was very nearly caught up in a race riot in her town. To hear her telling, she was seconds away from being dragged out of her car and beaten. For a very long time as a result of this experience, she had an irrational fear of black men. It negatively affected her life and the lives of people around her. If she was driving and saw a black man try to cross the street 4 blocks ahead, she would often panic, shout, "What is he doing?" and slow down, almost slamming on the brakes. As teens, she did everything in her power to keep us away from driving on "the street where black people live", especially at night. She seems to have gotten better, but it may be that the only thing that made the difference was years of being around black in-laws or friends of family members. But for a long time she was ruled by her fear and unhappy because of it.

Now, according to your logic, since we haven't grown up with her experience, we're wrong to say that her fear of black men was incorrect. And yet, it should be obvious that not every black man is violent, so we should be able to say that her fear is irrational, even grounded in a little racism.

While I understand your point, I am not sufficiently informed in race issues to be able to comment on this. While I would consider her fear irrational, I would do so because she was fearing violence from marginalised people, while her skin colour made her part of the privileged majority. Their power over her as a race is extremely reduced, and I would wonder if she would have felt the same if she had been a man and the majority of the race-rioters had been women. I wager that the incident that left such an impression on her had a gender component too, and despite what she chose to fixate on, it was probably far more dangerous to her than the race component.

Not at all. When you support a woman feeling that she may be raped simply because she's around other men, you're demonizing men and not doing a damn thing to educate about the possibility that women might rape as well. You're feeding irrational fear of the-tribe-that-is-not-like-you.

On the contrary. By acknowledging that everybody can rape (that is, all men and all women), you are shining a light on women-as-rapists and educating men (and women) that they aren't above rape. Saying "rape is what other people do" only helps the compartmentalisation and rationalisation that rapists build in their minds to justify that what they did wasn't rape. It's far better if a man steps back, thinking "hey, maybe what I'm doing is rape" and seeks a reaffirmation of consent from his partner, than if he goes "what I'm doing can't possibly be rape! Rapists are sick in the head and I'm perfectly fine and normal!" and end up actually raping someone.

Rubbish. I went through very effective anti-rape education when I was an undergrad. We learned exactly what rape was, and exactly what behavior wasn't acceptable, and not once did anyone feel the need to demonize men as a whole.

Nobody is demonising men. The more men continue to take "you are capable of rape" as an insult/demonisation, the more they are compartmentalising rape and the more blind they are to their own actions.

A good burning alive on public TV, a bit of public torture or simply a good old hanging would prevent more rapes than anything could. A mass and continual "war on rape and sexual abuse" is long overdue.

Just like the death penalty hasn't been proven to be a deterrent for murder, I highly doubt torture and murder would be a deterrent for rape. The best way to avoid rape is to tell people that they are capable of raping, and then teach them not to rape.

EDIT: Also, I am morally opposed to the concept of using a crime to punish a crime. Torture, rape and murder are crimes. Just because those actions are condoned by the government doesn't make them any less of a crime.

But how did we get from homophobia to this?

I had the gall to say that women and LGBT people were justified in expecting violence (sexual or otherwise) from straight men.

 

[karamazovnew]

Just like the death penalty hasn't been proven to be a deterrent for murder, I highly doubt torture and murder would be a deterrent for rape. The best way to avoid rape is to tell people that they are capable of raping, and then teach them not to rape.

EDIT: Also, I am morally opposed to the concept of using a crime to punish a crime. Torture, rape and murder are crimes. Just because those actions are condoned by the government doesn't make them any less of a crime.

I know, I was kidding, although a bit it was wishful thinking. I've always been a bit too passionate about this subject (a huge death penalty supporter, but opposed to torture for any means and in any form, bullet to the head ftw). In my country the punishment for rape is very small. What's worse, proxenetism (pimping) has a nasty taste here, as a lot of your girls are kidnapped and sent to foreign markets. Since I know somebody who went through this, I'm pretty pissed about it. If you think rape by itself is bad... Entire networks have been caught but the jail sentence for those involved was simply disgustingly small. I for one hold the belief that big punishments work better than putting a rapist or pimp in jail for a few years and then releasing him. The percentage of crimes after jail is over 90% here. Clearly the system doesn't work and the prison terms should be increased. That's why the events in India gave me a guilty pleasure. Those 5 men must be the most hated people alive (for a while). You are right that rape has been normalized. So it's nice too see people remembering how horrible of a crime rape is.

As for your discussion with Katatori, let me just say that I usually take my girlfriend home, not because I fear for her wallet. If I find myself alone on the street with 3 girls, they fear me more than I do them. You guys might not demonize men, but I sure as hell do.

 

[Darken12]

The fact that rape is a crime that does get punished pretty well defeats that little claim. Not that I don't think we could do a whole lot better as a society to punish rape. But it's hardly "normal" or "legitimate".

Western culture idolises violence. It normalises and legitimises it. It is seen as socially acceptable for men to engage in physical violence between each other for an enormous variety of circumstances. Up until very recently, violence against women and children was seen as socially acceptable "if they did something to deserve it." In some areas, this rationale still holds true. Likewise, as your example below demonstrates, rape is still instilled as socially acceptable not because they accept rape, but because they do not realise that it is rape.

Just because something is punished by law doesn't mean it's not legitimised or normalised.

Citation needed. I for one, am extremely capable of sex. I'm not sure I'm capable of violence, at least not aggressive violence. I empathize too much with people and feel too bad about causing discomfort or inconvenience.

You don't really get my point. You assume I'm talking about the way the media portrays violence (sexual or otherwise), as the work of a sadist who understands that they are causing pain, that it is wrong, and that they enjoy it or at least don't care. Real Life does not work like that. In the cases of non-sexual violence, most examples of it are either seen as entirely justifiable (self-defence, pre-emptive strikes, righteous retribution) or stem from an overpowering emotion (fear, anger, hatred, etc). In the case of sexual violence, most of the time rapists do not acknowledge their actions as rape. There are even many cases where not even the victims realise that what has happened to them has been rape. A lot of people do not realise that sex without consent is rape, and that consent must not be given under coercion or threat.

Under the right combination of circumstances, I assure you that we are all capable of violence, sexual or otherwise. It's up to us to realise when such a combination has led us to believe that sexual violence is okay, and stop ourselves in time.

Citation needed, especially when a basic component of education programs I've seen has been telling people which specific acts are rape.

Heh, in college I was taught that getting a woman intoxicated to the point that she couldn't give clear consent to sex was considered rape in my state. I then moved to another country, where not only was this not considered rape, but it was considered an acceptable way to date. Even by women. And one night, a woman in this country essentially tried to pick me up in this manner. Basically, she was getting herself more and more drunk and "vulnerable" in order to get me to take her home and have a wild night with her, and at first I didn't even pick up on it because I was still thinking in the mode of my state. Eventually she got herself drunk to the point of complete incoherence waiting on me to "take advantage of her" and by the time I realized what was happening I just couldn't behave according to her cultural norms. So instead of taking an attractive woman who was aggressively after me home and shagging her rotten in the manner socially approved by the society I was in, I took her to a safe net cafe where she could sleep in security for the night and went home confident that I had done the right thing.

The law has repeatedly failed [http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail--rape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html] to punish men for rape. This place [http://weretelling.tumblr.com/] is full of testimonies of rape victims, many of which were victim-blamed, slut-shamed, disbelieved and ignored by the authorities. This testimonial [http://www.racialicious.com/2008/12/21/original-essay-the-not-rape-epidemic/] does a great job at driving the point home: most rapists don't understand they're raping. For every "traditional" rape as it is portrayed by the media (a woman dragged kicking and screaming to a dark place by a stranger holding a weapon), there are uncountable cases of coerced consent, taking advantage of pre-teen/teen girls, date-rape, gray rape and any type of sex with dubious consent that doesn't fall under the "proper" definition of rape.

So you see, if you're going to tell me that education programs can't work, then I'm going to need you to provide some evidence. Because clearly in one case, they did.

I never said they can't work, I'm saying they're not enough.

If you simultaneously argued that society normalized and legitimized murder, then yes it would.

I simultaneously argue that society normalises and legitimises murder, though I admit not to the same extent as rape or non-fatal violence. Every time someone says about a murder "They had it coming", that's legitimising murder. Every time a majority of people say that, that's normalising murder. While we have been taking great strides in acknowledging the value of human life and minimising the legitimisation and normalisation of murder, rape and non-fatal violence are nowhere near close.

Oh good you're resorting to NRA logic.

Straw man strike one.

What??? That was sarcasm! My point is that saying "that won't stop all rapes" is a meaningless assertion. Nothing will stop all of the rapes! That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best anyway.

I'm going to need you to provide evidence that a woman fearing that she might be raped simply because she's in the exclusive company of men actually reduces rape, let alone "minimizes" it.

From here [http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/] (and the other links above), I should have successfully conveyed that any man can rape because society tells him that sexually aggressive behaviours are encouraged and simultaneously places the onus of avoiding rape squarely onto the woman. This news article [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-31/teens-thought-sex-asssault-funny/57488766/1?csp=obinsite&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner] illustrates my point:

"After Dietrich initially complained about the plea deal the two teens received, Paul Richwalsky, chief prosecutor in the juvenile court division of the county attorney's office, told her "get over it and see a therapist. ... The jail was for 'real' rapists, murderers and robbers," according to an affidavit released Thursday." (Emphasis mine)

"Perhaps it is not so much she is trying to intentionally mislead and deceive this court, but rather the delusional assertions made in her affidavit are merely the byproduct of what she would like to believe happened and not what in actuality took place," Richwalsky said in his affidavit.

From here [http://mymilkspilt.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/who-hears-you-when-you-speak-about-rape/]:

"And when what we hear time and time again is some version of apologism or some perpetuation of a rape myth like sluts can't be raped or women always cry rape or nice men aren't rapists then all we do is make the noise of rape culture louder and the voices of victims and survivors ever more silent."

This is what happens when you consider someone above rape [http://www.businessinsider.com/cheerleader-loses-lawsuit-2011-5]. A sportsman gets off on a misdemeanour, so he's obviously not a rapist! Ergo, any anger or repulsion the victim may have against him is wholly unjustified! (This is sarcasm too, in case it's not clear)

The government tells you that some types of rape are not serious [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13440222]. Therefore, anyone who commits those types of rapes are not serious rapists.

"Speaking to BBC Radio 5 live on Wednesday, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke appeared to draw a distinction between date rape and "serious rape, with violence and an unwilling woman". Put to him that "rape is rape", he said: "No, it is not."

""There is a real mythology about rape - that it's extremely rare and the perpetrators are crazed strangers who strike on a dark night. People don't want to accept that ordinary men can rape."

Victim blaming is still rampant [http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/07/22/british-judges-free-child-rapists-say-12-year-old-girls-wanted-sex/].

"But this is not a new argument. In case after case, rapists are let off the hook with apologies and excuses: The girls were dressed provocatively, the women were drinking, women lie about rape, there was ?sex in the air.? In law, it seems, no one ever ?means? to rape?it?s always an accident, or the fault of the woman."

As I said before, very few people want to accept that what they did was rape. We are not going to change anything if we keep assuming that there are sectors of the population who can't rape.

So unwarranted fear of marginalized people is irrational, while unwarranted fear of majority is perfectly rational?

If it's unwarranted, it's irrational. We disagree on whether the fear is unwarranted or not. I sustain that such fear IS warranted.

Then you'd be making up shit in order to support your ideology, which is pretty poor considering you just admitted that you don't know enough about the story. But since you asked, my mother has never demonstrated any particular fear about being only in the company of men.

Which I acknowledged by saying "regardless of whether what she fixated on". It's highly possible that she focused on the race of her assailants and not on their gender. But you're right, I don't know all the facts.

Strawman argument strike two.

If you aren't arguing that "rape is what other people do", then you agree with me when I say every person (including every man) is capable of rape, and therefore caution is against strangers, regardless of their character, is warranted.

That's exactly what accusing all men of being potential rapists is. That's exactly what saying that a woman alone in the company of men is rational when she fears she might be raped does.

No, it's not. If we do not acknowledge that all men are capable of rape, we are doing a profound disservice to rape victims and rape survivors, by engaging in rape denialism. Saying "this man is not capable of rape" immediately voids the victim's accusation when that man rapes her. After all, if he's incapable of rape, he clearly didn't rape her. This goes both ways too, by saying that women are incapable of rape, we are silencing any man or woman who was ever raped by a woman.

It's funny how now that you've been called on your claims, you keep trying to claim this raises awareness of the potential of women to rape as well. But you never argued that it's legitimate for a woman surrounded by other women to fear she might be raped.

Face it, you're trying to demonize straight, white men. I suspect for being the-tribe-that-is-not-you.

I started referring to male-on-female rape because it's by far the most common [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender]. I didn't comment on the other forms of rape by gender because they are not as statistically significant. I proceeded to acknowledge them when they were brought up to avoid engaging in rape denialism, but I have to acknowledge that, statistically, the most common form of rape is male-on-female.

This is another source of rape statistics [http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/].

I know, I was kidding, although a bit it was wishful thinking. I've always been a bit too passionate about this subject (a huge death penalty supporter, but opposed to torture for any means and in any form, bullet to the head ftw). In my country the punishment for rape is very small. What's worse, proxenetism (pimping) has a nasty taste here, as a lot of your girls are kidnapped and sent to foreign markets. Since I know somebody who went through this, I'm pretty pissed about it. If you think rape by itself is bad... Entire networks have been caught but the jail sentence for those involved was simply disgustingly small. I for one hold the belief that big punishments work better than putting a rapist or pimp in jail for a few years and then releasing him. The percentage of crimes after jail is over 90% here. Clearly the system doesn't work and the prison terms should be increased. That's why the events in India gave me a guilty pleasure. Those 5 men must be the most hated people alive (for a while). You are right that rape has been normalized. So it's nice too see people remembering how horrible of a crime rape is.

I completely agree that rape sentences ought to be the severest (and are sorely lacking in several countries), but the idea of a person having the authority to legally murder does not sit well with me at all.

As for your discussion with Katatori, let me just say that I usually take my girlfriend home, not because I fear for her wallet. If I find myself alone on the street with 3 girls, they fear me more than I do them. You guys might not demonize men, but I sure as hell do.

Demonising men leads nowhere, though. As the gender with greater socioeconomical and political power, such a demonisation is likely to end up either seeing a massive backlash or an eventual acceptance, much in the way the current "all men are horndogs" myth is considered factual truth. Not to mention the fact that you end up with complete erasure of male victims of female rapists.

The message that we should send shouldn't be "all men are rapists", but "everyone is capable of rape and it's up to each individual person to avoid raping people".

 

[SeanSeanston]

*Looks up*

Oh... God... it's turned into one of those, has it?

^_^

"Rape culture"... oh God, that one again...

It's one of these alright...

I should probably stay out of it entirely...

God knows what phrases will be shat out as though they constituted a reasoned argument.

Not just hurting, normalizing sexual violence. The moment you create the idea that all men are potential rapists, you create the idea that rape is something normal for men to do. The only way to fight rape is to get men on board with stopping it, and that means recognizing the men who don't rape for who they are- normal.

Hmmm... I think you've a great point there.

I had the gall to say that women and LGBT people were justified in expecting violence (sexual or otherwise) from straight men.

Oh Christ... one of these things where gay men are basically discounted as being men at all... that's another thing with this stuff... inconvenient cases like men who aren't attracted to women at all must be dealt with in some way and the result is the clumsy situation where they're more or less lumped in with women for **** knows what reason.

*Sigh*

Good luck Katatori-kun. I think you'll need it... and a lot more than that too ;D

 

[SeanSeanston]

Demonising men leads nowhere, though. As the gender with greater socioeconomical and political power, such a demonisation is likely to end up either seeing a massive backlash or an eventual acceptance, much in the way the current "all men are horndogs" myth is considered factual truth. Not to mention the fact that you end up with complete erasure of male victims of female rapists.

Indeed... and I suppose at the end of the day...

what would really help this situation...

...maybe even solve all of our problems...

...would be if we could all just have a little respect for each other, eh?


Sorry, couldn't resist. Or maybe I just didn't want to? ^_^

Maybe the soothing tones and positive message will calm this discussion down a bit?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Angry words!

Angry words!

I can't remember the last time I saw two people who were more or less 100% politically aligned argue so bitterly over the semantics of argument. You guys should be natural allies. You should buying each other drinks, and patting each others backs while discussing your shared values, each reinforcing the other's convictions.

We need an internet version of the "we will get along" shirt.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The moment you create the idea that all men are potential rapists, you create the idea that rape is something normal for men to do. The only way to fight rape is to get men on board with stopping it, and that means recognizing the men who don't rape for who they are- normal.

Actually a pretty good point!

Didn't think you had it in you.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Homophobia is simply the fear of dislike of homosexuality, or homosexual people.

I personally think that everyone is, in one way or another and to various extents, discriminative of everyone. Whether that be racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc...we've got it inside us. At least subconsciously. The furthest we can go is try and to be aware of that and make sure it doesn't become so conscious.

I'd say I'm fine with gay people. But even I feel a bit awkward sometimes when I see two gay guys kissing on TV. There's nothing wrong with it, but for some reason, it can make me feel a bit uncomfortable. Maybe it's because I'm not used to it. The same thing can even happen occassionally with lesbians in a non-porn context, or if they're not attractive. It's funny how our brains work like that.

 

[Darken12]

You really need to stop talking in sweeping generalizations. While there are definitely some cultural misconceptions about rape, it's incorrect to say that violence is normalized or legitimized.

I cannot explain it better than the links I cited on rape culture. If you don't see it after reading that, there's nothing I can say that will change that. I still stand by my previous statements.

No, that's pretty much exactly what it means. If it's punished, that means it both is not normal, nor is it legitimate behavior.

People still do it. A significant amount of people still do it, whether they see punishment for their actions or not. While punishment may have a deterrent effect, not all normalised or legitimised actions in society stop being that way after a punishment is set for them. We have had punishments for theft that have ranged from fines to corporal punishment, and theft has never stopped being a very common and widespread action that most people consider justified under a great variety of circumstances (Robin Hood, stealing from the corrupt rich, stealing to feed one's family while in poverty, stealing to avoid a harsher fate, as rebellion against authority, as revenge, for 'cool points', etc.). All these things are theft, and therefore punishable, but the public at large still considers them justified under a vast amount of circumstances.

Now I'm not saying that proves I'm not capable of rape. All I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that I am, and you have repeatedly refused to provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim that all people are capable of rape.

I am not providing evidence to support my claims because I have no idea how to provide evidence for something that is self-demonstrable and based on logical reasoning alone. I am not speaking from an empirical basis on this one, I'm not saying "statistics show that..." or "studies have discovered...", I am saying that anyone who is physically capable of sex is physically capable of rape, because all it takes for sex to become rape is for the sexual partner to remove/never give consent. If you have never continued sex or performed sex on a partner who has withdrawn their consent, has never given it, or was in a state where they were incapable of giving it, then congratulations, you have never raped. But that doesn't mean that you couldn't rape. The only way you could never rape would be if you were physically incapable of sex, because even someone who was physically capable of sex but too physically weak/paralysed/etc of forcing themselves on someone could easily use chemicals or hire people to physically force someone else to have sex with them.

I am not speaking on moral terms here, I am speaking on purely and exclusively physical terms. When I say "everyone who is capable of sex is capable of rape" I don't mean morally. I mean physically. People can go their whole lives without raping someone, yes, but that doesn't make them incapable of rape, just like a person who has never seen the ocean is not incapable of physically touching the ocean, or someone who has never tasted ice cream is not incapable of eating ice cream. Just because you don't do something your entire life doesn't mean you are incapable of doing it.

Yes, which is why we agree on the need for education. What we don't agree on is your need to demonize people straight men, which you have repeatedly failed to justify.

Because that's not what I'm trying to do. You got defensive from an assertion I made and you have been out to defend the honour of all the poor, poor straight men who are always besieged by all the feminists and LGBT people. I get that all the time. I get it, you guys hate to be lumped with the hate crime committing assholes and those who are abusive and violent towards women, I get it. But the more you act defensively and shut down anything you dislike, the more we are going to keep thinking you are all dicks. Being defensive and not willing to recognise any form of criticism is not doing wonders for your point about how it's US who are demonising straight men.

You have failed to provide a citation. You were asked to defend your claim that education programs that don't demonize straight men can't work, especially in light of evidence that in one case they did. That means your evidence should you know, pertain to education programs.

I never said they can't work! I even quoted those exact words last post and clearly stated that I never said that!

You said: "People are not going to listen to what you might teach them if they think that what they're doing isn't rape,"

Clearly, there are programs where people do listen. You don't have to insult men in order to make them listen.

/facepalm. Wow, just wow. You are literally not even listening. You are just determined to take what I'm saying as an insult without even bothering to try and meet me halfway. You are just completely out to be offended.

Then your argument is nonsense and I'd ask you to stop wasting my time and confine your argument to the real world.

You do realise I can just say the same thing, right?

Perhaps you should review. This exchange began in reference to you saying, "Signalling rape as something abnormal does nothing to prevent rape." In other words, you're the one who was dismissing a claim because you don't believe it will stop rapes.

I have provided plenty of examples where people have actively got away with rape because they didn't fit the popular conception of a rapist as an obviously dangerous and abnormal person! Rapes continue to go unreported because victims have little to no faith in the justice system, law enforcement or hospitals! Victims have been blamed for their own rapes or have had the whole thing brushed aside as a misunderstanding or excusable event. Signalling rape as abnormal doesn't make it more likely for the obviously dangerous person to be punished, since they would be punished anyway, and it actively hampers the effort of punishing rapists who aren't obviously dangerous or abnormal.

Plenty of men go through their lives never once raping anyone. Rape is abnormal.

And one in four (or one in six) women are raped within their lifetimes. One in ten men, too. Stop putting your own "I feel so insulted!" hurt feelings over the very real trauma a shockingly high amount of people have gone through. If you've never raped anyone and have been taking measures to avoid doing so, congratulate yourself and move on. Don't silence people who try to raise awareness of rape because you feel insulted. That is incredibly petty and we both know it.

Yeah, that doesn't have a damn thing to say with what I asked you to provide evidence for. You can't just throw a paper at me every time I ask you to back up your claim, your paper needs to actually be about the claim.

Prove that fearing all men stops rapes.

What more evidence do you need? How many more stories of "this man raped me and didn't get sentenced because either my rape or my rapist didn't fit the popular notion of how rapes and rapists are supposed to be like" do you need?

Then you're wrong.

As I mentioned before, I can say the exact same thing to you.

And yet you were comfortable making something up in order to force them to fit your ideology.

Making what up?? All I did was conjecture, since that's the only thing I can do when I'm getting a second hand account of an event. Conjecturing isn't the same as making shit up. And not only did I acknowledge I was conjecturing, but I was willing to drop it because all I had was conjecturing.

So drop it.

Incorrect.

For someone who cries about lack of evidence, you are awfully fond of just saying "you're wrong" and "incorrect' all the time as if that actually counted for anything.

First, you're trying to argue that women are justified in fearing they might be raped simply by being in the company of men, under an argument that all men are capable of rape- an argument you've yet to provide a shred of evidence for.

Listen. I argue that, theoretically and abstractly, everyone should be wary (I don't recommend fearing, but I do not frown on it either) rape from everybody, be they strangers of family members, because everybody is capable of rape and everybody can be a rape victim. Practically, or empirically, statistics show that the most common type of rape is male-on-female. So while I agree that saying "women should be wary of men" is technically incorrect, it reflects practical realities well enough.

Second, you're trying to argue that assumptions about a man's capability to rape cannot be used as a defense against a credible accusation. In contrast to your first position, this is a sane and rational position. But you don't have to demonize men collectively in order to argue that investigators, prosecutors, and judges should do their jobs correctly.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. You seem to assume that a person's capability of rape can be in question. It shouldn't. Nobody should be considered above the suspicion of rape, ever. That's how rapists get away with their crimes.

And with that, you revealed your bias. The straight men that go through their lives never once raping, never once harming a single person on God's earth, you feel comfortable pretending don't exist. But when it comes to women who don't fit your demonize straight men ideology, suddenly proportions matter.

And you're misconstruing my statements (repeatedly) so that you can have a windmill to joust against.

I'm not saying that every man is a rapist. I am not saying that every man who is capable of rape is a rapist. Those are the only statements where you could say that I am pretending that men who don't rape don't exist. What I am saying is that even if you don't rape anybody in your life, even if you are fervently anti-rape, that doesn't make you incapable of rape, because nobody is above the suspicion of rape. In fact, I go as far as to say that no person should be above the suspicion of any crime or act, unless it is proven they were physically incapable of committing them.

As for the bit about statistics, don't be petty. Women can be rapists too, but cracking down on them while remaining silent about the rest (who make up the vast majority of rapists) is just ludicrous. While it was insensitive of me to have had the oversight of omitting women as rapists, don't use that as a cheap shot to keep on making martyrs out of the poor straight men. Accusing anybody who says anything negative about straight men of demonising them strays awfully close to the type of self-fulfilling prophecy you see all the time whenever a feminist or an LGBT person makes a criticism of gamer/geek culture and an outpour of violent hatred comes out, in the vein of "We're not misogynistic you fucking *****! Go back to the kitchen and STFU!" or "We're not homophobic you fucking ******/dyke! You're disgusting and unnatural, so shut up, we're perfectly egalitarian!"

Oh Christ... one of these things where gay men are basically discounted as being men at all... that's another thing with this stuff... inconvenient cases like men who aren't attracted to women at all must be dealt with in some way and the result is the clumsy situation where they're more or less lumped in with women for **** knows what reason.

I have absolutely no idea what this means or is trying to say.

I can't remember the last time I saw two people who were more or less 100% politically aligned argue so bitterly over the semantics of argument. You guys should be natural allies. You should buying each other drinks, and patting each others backs while discussing your shared values, each reinforcing the other's convictions.

We need an internet version of the "we will get along" shirt.

He thinks I'm a biased asshole who is on a crusade against straight men. I think he's being petty and self-centred for putting his hurt feelings over a legitimate matter. We're not gonna get along.