by Jack
Young women today do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature
Tina and I occasionally write about the young woman’s role in protecting herself from sexual predators. More specifically we often address college students, because we live in a college town where sexual assaults happen…rarely, but they do happen. Well, this is another heads up, but with a new twist. We have excerpts from a notorious feminist who gets it and finally backs us up!
Our premise can be summed up like this: If you go out dressed like a hooker, you get drunk and walk home alone late at night, you’re far more likely to become a victim of sexual assault or worse than those who behave more prudently. (We’re not blaming the victim; we’re just talking about making reasonable decisions about personal conduct.)
On the flip side, our predictable utopian liberals will lecture us that it’s a woman’s right to dress how she wants, when she wants and go where she wants without worrying that she may be raped. And if a woman is raped she had absolutely no responsibility for what happened, i.e., she has no obligation to avoid wearing her sexually provocative clothing, walking alone or staying somewhat sober. She’s under no obligation to show any discrimination on who she befriends when she’s out partying or how she behaves…none.
Camille Paglia writes, “Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women’s modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense.”
On campus protests: “The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.”
Misled: “Misled by the naïve optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.”
Chico State is typical of most colleges in California when it comes to hyping the “no means no” policy. They often wind up characterizing routine dating incidents into some kind of sexual assault and rip on the male offender like he was a cave dweller. Say for instance, if the young man’s hand slips over the girls breast. It happens, and it has for tens of thousands of years. She might slap him, saying don’t go there and it’s done. This is not a reportable event. But, with today’s radical feminist culture on campus, this might as well be a 1st degree felony in their eyes! And trying to ask a girl out from your class is viewed as sexual harassment! But, walking half naked alone is not asking for trouble? This kind of political correctness clouds reality and serves no good purpose.
For more on Camille’s article click here: ARTICLE
OMG
Maybe it is time to force castration on men and women who violently sexually assault a person. That will fix it!
Freedom is for everybody.
Hypocrisy again!
Next article why women should obey men so they do not get knocked out by men?
This is how votes are lost my friends!
Men are a minority compared to females. Is that what this is really about?
The slug strikes again…cannot seem to focus or comprehend even the simplest of concepts…more fun to bomb toss.
How many males would soak their clothes in gasoline and then walk into a burning building?
They wouldn’t, even if their expensive prized sports memorabilia, or their Harley Hog, was inside.
Why?
Because it would be incredibly stupid!
The only thing we are suggesting is that it is dangerous for young women to take chances with their lives.
I am also saying that it is stupid to give young women a false sense of security by suggesting they should be free to take stupid chances because they always get to blame the guy for what happens. That ditzy message only makes young women more vulnerable.
Good post Jack. Paglea just makes good sense.
The slug strikes again…cannot seem to focus or comprehend even the simplest of concepts…more fun to bomb toss. –
name calling again
men need to learn how to behave period. Women have equal rights and the freedom to dress how they want. If a male can not restrain himself or take no for no that is on them.
What next Tina bathing suits at the beach are a crime?
How about Freedom for all!
You bet name calling when “the shoe fits!”
There was NOTHING in Jacks article that would compel a reasonable person to deride:
You are engaging in low-life bomb tossing and I will call you on it anytime you choose to submit a comment that is so uncalled for, and frankly boorish!
I don’t disagree that men need to learn how to behave but I think young women need to learn how to better behave also.
Most young men depend on signals from women. When women send confusing signals they are not helping the situation.
Surprise! Dysfunctional girls will send confusing signals! Some will actually invite trouble because they haven’t been taught anything or because they have low self esteem…or because they get a dysfunctional thrill from teasing men.
We have been discussing college aged students (and younger). Let’s not pretend that the women are all mature, stable and well trained. Let’s not pretend that all of the men are animals or that they have been taught about how to be with women but just don’t care!
In many cases both have been drinking but only the guy is held to account? I can see this ONLY when he has purposely put a drug in her drink. Otherwise, nobody forces these women to party like Joe Walsh and John Belushi. A guy drunk out of his mind isn’t going to be any more responsible or aware than a female in like condition.
Both need help in navigating what has become a highly politicized issue…both need to be given support in making wise choices and decisions.
Thanks to campaigns that place all of the responsibility on the young men and NONE on the young women men are held accountable for every move while women are given tools to play games.
I understand the sentiment…I’ve seen the polished movie star ads…they just want to stop rapes from happening…I get it. Rape is rape and any investigation will make that determination.
But squishy rules that require a guy to justify every single inch is just asking for a hellish rash of legal tangles, IMHO, and it won’t really change anything.
Tina how about you take that little rule to the Presidential elections demand it! I say try to make a law telling women how to dress!
One person has no right to tell another how to dress.
Should the Amish rules be in place? because English are destroying their freedom of religion?
Hypocrisy You can dress how you want and others can within very small rules.
If a person rapes a person they are the problem. PERIOD.
That rule would loose an election!
Dewey: “Tina how about you take that little rule to the Presidential elections demand it!”
What rule would that be?
“One person has no right to tell another how to dress.”
Excellent! No one did.
“Should the Amish rules be in place? because English are destroying their freedom of religion?”
Huh?
“If a person rapes a person they are the problem. PERIOD.”
No kidding! No one has suggested otherwise.
“That rule would loose an election!”
Oh great…full circle! What rule Dewey?
Jack: “Tina and I occasionally write about the young woman’s role in protecting herself from sexual predators.”
And you and Tina write almost never about young men’s role in preventing sexual assault.
Do you see a problem here?
“We have excerpts from a notorious feminist who gets it and finally backs us up!”
Camille Paglia identifies as a feminist for the same reason Andrew Sullivan identifies as a conservative: for the attention. She lives to be a contrarian, and her insulting beliefs about both women AND men, which I will address in a moment, make her wearing of the label ridiculous.
“Our premise can be summed up like this: If you go out dressed like a hooker, you get drunk and walk home alone late at night, you’re far more likely to become a victim of sexual assault or worse than those who behave more prudently.”
I’m sorry, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever at all?
Or are you simply saying it because it sounds like “common sense?”
Because the fact is that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victims knows and trusts, not by strangers on the street or even someone the victim meets at a party. And the types of rapists who snatch women off the street or randomly assault women aren’t usually all that picky; it’s unlikely that the style of dress is much of a factor in increasing the likelihood of an attack.
Of course, if you have figures showing that women who dress in a way you consider provocative are at a higher risk of rape, you could always provide them. But as of now it seems that this argument is an ad rectum, which is Latin for pulled out of your butt.
There’s also the problem that “dressing like a hooker” is a pretty subjective judgment and varies from person to person, not to mention from culture to culture. Who exactly is the arbiter of sluttiness that women are supposed to listen to? What substantial difference exists between you telling women to stop dressing like hookers, and certain Islamic cultures which tell women they need to cover their faces lest they invite temptation? Heck, it wasn’t long before you were born that showing one’s ankles was enough to get a woman branded a harlot. Policing women’s choices in what they wear and slut-shaming them for those choices isn’t exactly new, Jack. And you think you’ve stumbled on the solution to preventing sexual assault?
“And if a woman is raped she had absolutely no responsibility for what happened, i.e., she has no obligation to avoid wearing her sexually provocative clothing, walking alone or staying somewhat sober. She’s under no obligation to show any discrimination on who she befriends when she’s out partying or how she behaves…none.”
Obviously women should take precautions; no one is arguing against that. But wouldn’t it be better to live in a culture where the fear of sexual assault wasn’t so rampant? Of course there will always be random psychos, but again, most rapes aren’t committed by random psychos; they’re committed by people the victim trusts. Are there that many men who are simply broken and evil? Or is there something in the culture telling men that we are entitled to women’s bodies, to the point where even good men can be corrupted?
When the most popular radio show host in America can go on the air and tell boys that “no doesn’t always mean no,” and that they should keep trying to have sex with a woman who has already verbally rejected them, and that radio host can be defended by sane, good-hearted adult women who claim to be concerned about sexual assault, then I think it’s pretty clear there is a cultural problem at work.
Paglia writes, “The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.”
This statement is blatantly misandrist, and far more insulting to men than anything said by most mainstream feminists. It assumes that “all men” are by nature potential rapists, and the focus on teaching men how to prevent rape and sexual assault is an attempt to “fundamentally alter” us. That is bullshit, and like most of gender essentialism, it is both misandrist and misogynist. It lets men off the hook for being overly aggressive with and feeling entitled to women by implying that we just can’t help ourselves; we’re made this way! What, we’re supposed to see a too-drunk-to-stand girl at a party and not rape her? It expects too much! And it goes without saying why this is offensive to women: now all the responsibility for preventing rape is on her. Because it has always been women’s responsibility to keep men’s “savage nature” in check, just as it has always been women’s responsibility to keep the “fragility of civilization” intact.
Men’s sluttiness is natural, so natural that we don’t even call it sluttiness, but manliness. Women’s sluttiness is an affront to the social order and will lead to the decline of civilization. I’ve read this book before; there were countless versions of it in the Middle Ages, all of them warning of how women’s wanton ways would lead to mankind’s fall, just as it did in the Garden of Eden, and telling women that it was their responsibility not to lead men into temptation (we men are just so fragile that way, even though we’re also stronger and better!). It’s the oldest argument in the book, and anyone who thinks we’ve moved past it obviously hasn’t visited Post Scripts in a while. Or earth, for that matter.
“They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic.”
Again, the notion that a psychotic is going to be deterred if a woman puts on a sensible jacket over her tube top is so dumb it doesn’t even merit a response.
Jack: “Chico State is typical of most colleges in California when it comes to hyping the “no means no” policy.”
Where did this sudden hostility toward “no means no” come from? How can it be justified on any moral basis? Did I fall asleep and wake up in Bizarro World, or has the pendulum swung so far that “no means no” is now controversial, and something requiring an actual debate in society? How can a rule so basic be the subject of debate? What part of “no means no” strikes you as so unfair and irrational, Jack?
“They often wind up characterizing routine dating incidents into some kind of sexual assault and rip on the male offender like he was a cave dweller. Say for instance, if the young man’s hand slips over the girls breast. It happens, and it has for tens of thousands of years. She might slap him, saying don’t go there and it’s done. This is not a reportable event.”
Huh? If it’s done intentionally, and in a context where there would be no reason for a rational person to believe that this is what the woman wanted, then of course it’s a reportable event. How can any gentleman think otherwise?
In what way does excusing men for sexually harassing women live up to any reasonable standards of decency or ethics? How can it be called conservative or Christian unless one is using the absolute least charitable definitions of those words?
“And trying to ask a girl out from your class is viewed as sexual harassment!”
Example, please? I agree that that would be ridiculous…if it happened.
Chris don’t take it too literal.
Don’t take what too literal? I have no idea what your comment is supposed to mean. Is this not a serious subject? Should we not make sure we are expressing our ideas clearly so that we can come to meaningful solutions to the problem of sexual assault? You made a lot of claims in your article–did you not believe them when you made them? Defend your points, man.
Chris this is a current events blog. We discuss things in the news of interest. We don’t cover everything. But I ask you, isn’t the subject of rape about men already for the most part? And why in God’s name would you consider advice that could help young women stay safe as hostile?
Or are you just afraid that young girls will stop dressing provocatively in public and ruin the atmosphere?
“I’m sorry, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever at all?”
“I’m sorry”, we’re looking at weighing options and making the wiser choices. Do you deny the common sense in that? Do people avoid driving in certain neighborhoods, leaving their keys in the car…geez we are warned against riding a bike without a helmet but we can’t tell a young women she might be safer if she didn’t, “go out dressed like a hooker…get drunk and walk home alone late at night?”
Absolutely amazing.
“if you have figures showing that women who dress in a way you consider provocative are at a higher risk of rape…”
There’s a possibility that a girl dressed like a nun could get raped…just because images of girls dressed and posing and acting in sexually provocative ways are everywhere we look. The culture screams be provocative, be sexual, be asexual exhibitionist or be left out and to young men, this is what has to be on your arm or you ain’t worth $#!*.
We are piddling around with silly step by step rules when what we need is some solid grounding!
“But wouldn’t it be better to live in a culture where the fear of sexual assault wasn’t so rampant?
You can’t see that that IS the page on which we stand?
“Who exactly is the arbiter of sluttiness that women are supposed to listen to?”
If I advised a woman I would have respect for her decision making ability and simply ask her if she thought the way she was dressing might attract unwanted attention and then follow the coversation from there. People know.
” it wasn’t long before you were born that showing one’s ankles was enough..”
And there’s a point at which had we taken the advice of our elders more seriously you might not be living in a garbage dump today.
Standards are set for a reason. People don’t always meet them. Occasionally we see someone who manages to exceed them. Most us us fall somewhere short but at least the standard is there.
In the seventies “anything goes” became the new standard. That is the base you stand on today. Problems like rape, drug use, women with children that have multiple absent fathers…these problems are huge now. They weren’t huge when our society held to a higher standard…they were RARE.
Now for some reason you can’t see the wisdom in what we are saying. But I ask you…where do the young go from here? How will your kids push the envelope? What might they do to test you? What will they do to challenge your fuddy duddy factor? There’s not much left in the shock box. Are you ready for the surprise, the sadness, the shock, the sense of loss that might come when your child embraces something “wilder” than “dressing like a hooker and walking the streets alone drunk out of her mind”?
“Obviously women should take precautions; no one is arguing against that.”
For someone who isn’t arguing the point you sure are sounding like a contrarian!
“Or is there something in the culture telling men that we are entitled to women’s bodies, to the point where even good men can be corrupted?”
Duh! We have been attempting to tell you what in the culture brought us to this point but you don’t want to hear it! You think you know better than we who lived through the transition, who witnessed the changes, who can see the missteps in hindsight.
“It assumes that “all men” are by nature potential rapists…”
No. She acknowledges the biological differences. We’ve been teaching girls that boys experience relationship in the same way that girls do. It’s total bunk! And in our quest to change the basic nature of men (make them more like women…sensitive) we have done nothing but confuse them and create walls of separation. There are a lot of men living alone because for decades all problems in relationship were considered his fault.
“…and the focus on teaching men how to prevent rape and sexual assault is an attempt to “fundamentally alter” us”
That’s exactly backward. It tells the truth about the difference in order to teach men how to behave given the difference.
I look to the day when we celebrate men as they are and women as they are and civil standars that support healthy relationship.
“Because it has always been women’s responsibility to keep men’s “savage nature” in check, just as it has always been women’s responsibility to keep the “fragility of civilization” intact.”
No one is suggesting that…at least not in that way…but the drama was somewhat entertaining. Is the concept that both men and women should be responsible too hard to imagine? Good, now try to set aside what you believe to be true for just a second (You don;t have to abandon it) and consider:
Women are the force that tames men’s savage nature. We don’t do it by being sluts.
“…and telling women that it was their responsibility not to lead men into temptation (we men are just so fragile that way, even though we’re also stronger and better!).
So you think women should be told to go ahead and lead men, entice them, give them permission right up to the last step and then pull the rug out from under him and while your at it turn him in for not getting that last permesso?
You idiot! Do you think all women are sweet and innocent! Well, of course you would…you are a man and men are the true romantics. My bad. At least try to imagine a dysfunctional young woman.
We have rape laws. People know what rape is. Women should do all in their power to avoid being vulnerable to rape. Men should be taught rape is dishonorable, wrong, and a crime and to respect all women.
This is why to me Bill Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky was so deplorable. She wasn’t that much older than Chelsea and he didn’t have any business doing what he did with her. As a father figure he should have been fatherly rather than acting like an old lech. But he obviously doesn’t respect women…he is a womanizer. (And the feminists love him.) Upside down! Evil good.
Most often, whether they acknowledge it or not, women are looking for relationship and permanency. Most women are not wired for casual sex. Our culture has them convinced that to get the guy and to be popular or to be a savvy, with it, feminist they have to act like they are. It’s complete crap.
“…the notion that a psychotic is going to be deterred if a woman puts on a sensible jacket over her tube top is so dumb”
The new California (where else) law that started this conversation is not about psycho’s!
It is about new standards on campus. The new rule shelves “no means no”. Now men are expected to get permission…a verbal yes…for every step in the process when making out…making a pass…holding hands. (I mean how will a man ever keep up with such a list?) Men are not wired for lists…women are. Men need a simple clear road map. Women need to learn to be clear. Too often they are afraid to hurt a guys feelings so they try to be nice about “no”. Mixed signals for a guy.
“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. … Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.
The law’s defenders, such as feminist writer Amanda Hess, dismiss as hyperbole claims that it would turn people into unwitting rapists every time they have sex without obtaining an explicit “yes” (or, better yet, a notarized signature) from their partner. Hess points out that consent can include nonverbal cues such as body language…
Isn’t that what Rush said?
But seriously…can you imagine the arguments in accused rape cases?
Where have you been?
“In what way does excusing men for sexually harassing women”
NOBODY has suggested that. What is wrong with you?
I’ll let Jack take a shot. He’s a guy and will probably cut through the drama and get right to the point. Clear…with no goofy explanations…like a man, God bless them!
Thank you Tina, there is nothing I could say that you have not already said. I concur with your every word. If Chris actually reads the article I linked and also reads every word of what you so eloquently and intelligently just wrote, he should have nothing left to say, unless he’s searching for an argument at any cost. -Jack
Remember the dad who wore “Daisy Duke” shorts to get his daughter to dress more modestly? What a great dad, who was willing to put his own pride aside for his daughter.
Who wears short shorts? One dad did, to teach his daughter a lesson:
“How did one Utah dad teach his teenage daughter a lesson about dressing more modestly?
Here’s the long and short of it — very short of it.
Fed up with his daughter constantly wearing Daisy Duke-style micro-shorts, Scott Mackintosh took a pair of scissors to his jeans and cut them crotch-high, so that a pocket peeked from beneath. He then donned a “Best. Dad. Ever.” T-shirt and wore the outfit during a family night out on the town.
“I was absolutely going for shock value and a little bit of embarrassment,” he told NBC’s Mike Taibbi.”
http://www.today.com/parents/who-wears-short-shorts-one-dad-did-teach-his-daughter-8C11144327
Tina: “Women are the force that tames men’s savage nature.”
Thank you for laying bare your utterly medieval view of men and women.
I don’t need any “taming,” and it is no woman’s job to tame me or any other man. This view is incredibly insulting to both men and women. And it needs to go.
Tina: “How many males would soak their clothes in gasoline and then walk into a burning building?”
So, wait a minute: in this metaphor, a woman wearing clothing you deem slutty is equivalent to setting one’s clothes on fire, while walking into a burning building is supposed to represent…going to a party where men are present?
And you say feminists have a negative impression of men?
“Most young men depend on signals from women. When women send confusing signals they are not helping the situation.”
…Which is exactly why most feminist anti-assault campaigns focus on making things abundantly clear: No means no, and yes means yes. There is no ambiguity there. These statements are not confusing.
If you want less confusion, why on earth wouldn’t you support the push to ensure people are giving and paying attention to clear verbal consent? How can you support and defend Limbaugh’s suggestion that no doesn’t always mean no, and men should look for hints that a woman really wants it and continue trying even after they have been verbally rejected? Doesn’t that just make things more confusing?
“Let’s not pretend that the women are all mature, stable and well trained.”
No one has done that. The fact that young women are so vulnerable is why we are having this conversation in the first place.
“Let’s not pretend that all of the men are animals”
Again, the only people doing that are people like Paglia and yourself who argue that men have a “savage nature” that women need to “tame.” Most mainstream feminists don’t talk this way. It’s demeaning to both women and men. Feminists operate under the assumption that men are rational human beings capable of empathy with women, and capable of understanding the difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex acts. That is not an unfair expectation, and the real misandrists are those who pretend that it is.
“or that they have been taught about how to be with women but just don’t care!”
Again, feminists aren’t doing that. The entire purpose of these education campaigns is because feminists believe men have NOT been taught much about consent.
“In many cases both have been drinking but only the guy is held to account?”
Which cases?
“Thanks to campaigns that place all of the responsibility on the young men and NONE on the young women”
From what I’ve seen the responsibility is placed on the perpetrator, not the victim. That’s where it belongs. You may have a point if you are referring to situations with female perpetrators and male victims. It’s true that feminists don’t focus as much attention on these situations as the other way around, but I have found feminists are usually much more likely to be sympathetic toward male rape victims than the mainstream society, which typically denies that female-on-male rape is even a thing, and only talks about male-on-male rape in the context of prison rape jokes (which are oh so funny, except not at all).
“men are held accountable for every move while women are given tools to play games.”
You seem to be conflating “sexually assaulting someone” with “playing games.” Why? How are those two things equal?
“But squishy rules that require a guy to justify every single inch is just asking for a hellish rash of legal tangles, IMHO, and it won’t really change anything.”
What is so wrong with encouraging people to get clear, verbal consent? Do conservatives think this will somehow ruin the mood? Typically communication enhances the experience, especially for the woman. I just don’t get this bizarre need to dismiss the importance of communication and clear consent. Since when are conservatives so concerned with young college students’ rights to have as much drunken casual sex as they want without ever having to “justify” it ? Why is that so important that clear guidelines about consent are such an intrusion? It doesn’t make any sense.
Tina: “But I ask you, isn’t the subject of rape about men already for the most part?”
No. Look up the coverage of the Steubenville verdict. Female rape victims are routinely slut-shamed and victim-blamed in our society. When a wealthy man is robbed, no one asks what he was wearing. No one says he shouldn’t have flaunted his wealth so much if he didn’t want to tempt the robber. Reporters don’t bemoan how the robber’s life is now ruined because of one simple mistake.
“And why in God’s name would you consider advice that could help young women stay safe as hostile?”
It’s the tone that is hostile. You say you are trying to help women, but your idea of helping them is telling them to stop dressing like sluts. And this is the conservative strategy for everything: You believe you can help poor people by telling them to stop being so lazy and get a job. You believe you can help black people by telling them to stop being stupid and voting Democratic. And you wonder why this backhanded advice hasn’t been working.
“Or are you just afraid that young girls will stop dressing provocatively in public and ruin the atmosphere?”
Come on. We are talking about the right to make choices without fearing that you will be sexually assaulted for them. I can walk down the street with my shirt off and not have to worry about any kind of judgment whatsoever at all. A woman walks down the street exposing far less skin and she has to worry that if she gets raped, people will say she was at fault? That’s an injustice.
Me: “I’m sorry, do you have any evidence of this whatsoever at all?”
Tina: ““I’m sorry”, we’re looking at weighing options and making the wiser choices…Absolutely amazing.”
A simple “no” would have sufficed. Yes, everyone takes common sense precautions. But there are also times when people take precautions that are actually unwarranted. My aunt won’t drive to certain parts of Fresno because she mistakenly thinks they are crime-ridden, when actually she is no more likely to get mugged in those spots than anywhere else. It’s important to know the difference between a real danger and an alarmist one.
Unless you can show evidence that women who dress provocatively are more likely to be the victims of rape, then telling women they should dress less provocatively to avoid rape is alarmist. It may sound like common sense wisdom, but lots of advice which sounded like common sense to people at one time or another ended up having no real connection with the problem they were told it would avoid.
I agree that getting overly impaired at a party with strangers, or walking home alone at night, are dangerous moves, and likely make one more susceptible to rape, sexual assault and other attacks. But I haven’t seen any evidence that dressing provocatively adds to that.
“If I advised a woman I would have respect for her decision making ability and simply ask her if she thought the way she was dressing might attract unwanted attention and then follow the coversation from there. People know.”
“I know it when I see it” is not a convincing argument.
“And there’s a point at which had we taken the advice of our elders more seriously you might not be living in a garbage dump today.”
Are you actually saying we were better off when women showing their ankles wasn’t tolerated?
“Duh! We have been attempting to tell you what in the culture brought us to this point but you don’t want to hear it! You think you know better than we who lived through the transition, who witnessed the changes, who can see the missteps in hindsight.”
You realize you and Jack are not the sole survivors of your generation? I listen to others who lived through the same time, and I find their arguments more convincing.
“We’ve been teaching girls that boys experience relationship in the same way that girls do.”
We have? When? Who?
“And in our quest to change the basic nature of men (make them more like women…sensitive)”
Oh brother. Men are perfectly capable of being sensitive. This is not changing their “basic nature,” and it’s offensive to me as a man that you think it is.
“There are a lot of men living alone because for decades all problems in relationship were considered his fault.”
Feminists do not teach that all problems in a relationship are the man’s fault.
“Is the concept that both men and women should be responsible too hard to imagine?”
No. Both men and women are responsible for making sure they don’t rape people.
Neither men nor women should be responsible for making sure they don’t get raped.
That’s an equal standard.
“So you think women should be told to go ahead and lead men, entice them, give them permission right up to the last step and then pull the rug out from under him and while your at it turn him in for not getting that last permesso?”
Were you an MRA in another life time, Tina? This sentence reads like it was written by a man who has had terrible experiences with women. Why all the resentment? Absolutely no one has encouraged women to lead men on. What on earth does that have to do with the subject of sexual assault? Certainly you’re not implying that a woman who behaves this way, however dishonest and irresponsible she’s acting, deserves to get raped for it?
“You idiot! Do you think all women are sweet and innocent!”
Of course not. That has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
“Well, of course you would…you are a man and men are the true romantics.”
Hasn’t anyone ever taught you that every time you make a hasty generalization fallacy, all Angels become bad drivers? 😉
“My bad. At least try to imagine a dysfunctional young woman.”
I don’t have to imagine one, I dated one for three years. :p Never did I think that was an excuse to violate her consent.
“This is why to me Bill Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky was so deplorable.”
Agreed. I think you’ll find feminists’ opinion of Bill is more mixed then you think. Feminists mostly liked his POLICIES, not him personally.
“Most women are not wired for casual sex. Our culture has them convinced that to get the guy and to be popular or to be a savvy, with it, feminist they have to act like they are. It’s complete crap.”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Feminists don’t argue that women should be anything other than what they already are. If they like casual sex, they should go for it. If not, that’s fine too.
“The new California (where else) law that started this conversation is not about psycho’s!”
It was Paglia that brought up “psychotics,” not me.
“It is about new standards on campus. The new rule shelves “no means no”. Now men are expected to get permission…a verbal yes…for every step in the process when making out…making a pass…holding hands. (I mean how will a man ever keep up with such a list?) Men are not wired for lists…women are. Men need a simple clear road map.”
A verbal “yes” is a simple clear road map! It’s certainly more clear than relying on nonverbal cues.
“Women need to learn to be clear. Too often they are afraid to hurt a guys feelings so they try to be nice about “no”. Mixed signals for a guy.”
Agreed, but you might want to think about why women tend to prioritize men’s feelings over their own.
“Hess points out that consent can include nonverbal cues such as body language…
Isn’t that what Rush said?”
No, Rush said to rely on body language even AFTER a woman has given a verbal no. That’s very different.
More later.
Chris: “Thank you for laying bare your utterly medieval view of men and women.”
Oh grow up! You are an infant, whose not even married, what the he77 do you know?
“I don’t need any “taming,” and it is no woman’s job to tame me ”
LOL! Your early years in marriage are going to be a scream!
If you had any real world experience that wasn’t taught in a feminist class or read in a book, you’d know that what I said places women in a position of power…power that springs from her nature and the exquisite balance of the male female relationship. It isn’t power OVER you twit any more than male dominance, in balance, is power over. Both in fact are “in service” kinds of power.
People who know who they are, people who are centered, don’t feel the need to compete and and aren’t stuck in male/female power dramas. They are free to celebrate unique differences and serve one another. (You won’t know love until you surrender to this, by the way)
“If you want less confusion, why on earth wouldn’t you support the push to ensure people are giving and paying attention to clear verbal consent?”
I am in favor of people being responsible and clear.
These rules will not do that because they are unreasonable and ridiculous. What couple, or pair who meet at a party, is going to take the time and effort to get or grant agreement at every move and advance?
And when an accusation comes, imagine the accusations, but you said this and then I did that and then…good grief! These rules will make the challenge to determine whether clear signals were sent and received more difficult than they already are.
I’m tired Chris and this conversation is getting repetitive. You made one remark that puts everything you have to say in context: “I don’t have to imagine one, I dated one for three years. :p Never did I think that was an excuse to violate her consent.”
You cannot think outside yourself? Why is this about what you would do?
It’s very difficult to communicate with someone who cannot get outside himself to look at the issue. It’s also difficult to communicate with someone who makes such wild assumptions about who I am. All of this time that we’ve been talking and you are dead wrong about me on just about every issue. Your wrong about my intentions and my positions and you express anger toward me that is misplaced and off base.
One other quick thing. Maybe the feminists you know personally only like Bills policies but the feminists/Democrats who were verbal and in the news completely gave him a pass and celebrated his behavior.
You have a nice night Chris.
Bill Wittle, Steve Green and Scott Ott discuss the law on PJTV posted to You Tube, “Drunken, Sloppy Sex: Does ‘Yes’ Mean ‘Yes’ or Just More Rape Panels?”
Tina: “People who know who they are, people who are centered, don’t feel the need to compete and and aren’t stuck in male/female power dramas.”
They also don’t tend to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people.
“(You won’t know love until you surrender to this, by the way)”
What would make you think this is an appropriate thing to tell someone you’ve never met? “You’ll never know love until you accept my gender politics?” I would never say something like this to you. I happen to be very much in love right now, thank you very much.
“You made one remark that puts everything you have to say in context: “I don’t have to imagine one, I dated one for three years. :p Never did I think that was an excuse to violate her consent.”
You cannot think outside yourself? Why is this about what you would do?”
What? That response does not at all follow from what I said. You were talking as if I couldn’t possibly imagine women behaving badly (based on the strawman that feminists believe all women are perfect and men are always at fault). I was trying to light-heartedly explain that I am well aware that there are dysfunctional women out there, and still you jump down my throat?
Anyway, my point was that a woman behaving in the way you’ve described has nothing to do with the topic of sexual assault. Believing that a woman who is intentionally being a tease or treating men badly doesn’t deserve to be raped does not mean I support such women’s behavior. My standard is equal: men shouldn’t behave this way either, but if they do, rape and sexual assault are not logical consequences of such behavior.
Your fears about false accusations are unwarranted. False accusations of rape and sexual assault are very rare, and outnumbered by incidents which are never reported. That is because women have many disincentives from reporting rape.
Rules like the ones we are discussing might have helped a friend of mine. Maybe if she had known her rights, she would not have frozen with fear when the man she was kissing in her dorm room suddenly decided it was OK to immediately pull her panties down and start penetrating her. Maybe when she went to the health center to find out why she couldn’t stop bleeding after, the doctor wouldn’t have asked her, “How could it have been nonconsensual if you let him into your room?” Maybe her friends wouldn’t have said she must have really wanted it, because she never said “no.” And maybe if the guy–who was not a monster on the street or a stranger at a party, but a very depressed person we both once called a friend–had a better understanding of the concept of consent, he would have realized that he got the signals mixed up, and that the girl lying completely still, stone-faced, waiting for him to finish, was in pain, both emotionally and physically, and that he needed to stop.
This happens more often then you might think.
Rules like this are designed to help people in these situations. I think they’re worth it.
Chris: “They also don’t tend to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people.”
What “sweeping generalization” do you imagine I’ve made?
“What would make you think this is an appropriate thing to tell someone you’ve never met?”
Really, Chris? Do you think it’s more personal or offensive than some of the things you’ve said to me?
“You’ll never know love until you accept my gender politics?”
Is that what you thought it was? Politics? I thought I was expressing an opinion, based on personal experience, that could apply to anyone with some adaptation.
I’ve told you on two occasions you are not to believe a thing I say.
I cannot do anything about your interpretations of what I say or the fact that you thought it was political.
“I would never say something like this to you.”
It wasn’t meant to be unkind, sorry you took it that way.
It was an attempt to get you to stretch your mind a bit.
“I happen to be very much in love right now, thank you very much.”
Glad to hear it…woo hoo!
“You were talking as if I couldn’t possibly imagine women behaving badly…”
Only because no matter what I said, you refused to acknowledge that women could use this to cover for their own mistakes, to get even or to punish. Why will you not acknowledge that girls have a lot of power and they don;t always use it wisely.?
And I agree with Wittle on the video posted in comment #17…if an actual rape has taken place a girl should just go to the police. If it isn’t clear enough in her mind to go to the police maybe it’s because she had something to do with what happened.
“I was trying to light-heartedly explain that I am well aware that there are dysfunctional women out there, and still you jump down my throat?”
Jump down your throat? That’s about all you do anymore around here…jump down throats…make snide remarks…act superior…talk down to people. You’ll forgive me if I couldn’t tell you were being “light hearted.”
“My standard is equal: men shouldn’t behave this way either, but if they do, rape and sexual assault are not logical consequences of such behavior.”
Very good, but the standard in question is the requirement of getting verbal permission/agreement for every single move. Do you honestly think that will be accomplished much less enforced?
I think it will be like a lot of busy work regulations that don’t do a thing to prevent accidents but do take up hours of unproductive time for which business has to “pony up.”
“Believing that a woman who is intentionally being a tease or treating men badly doesn’t deserve to be raped…”
Nobody said she did…nobody. The point you are missing is the accusal process when she, feeling dumb about her behavior decides the best way to defend her reputation or honor is to claim she was raped based on his not getting permission for every move. How does he defend himself?
“Rules like the ones we are discussing might have helped a friend of mine. Maybe if she had known her rights…”
Excuse me Chris but “no means no” has been around since the nineties…it didn’t help, obviously. In fact the same liberal thinking that came up with that phrase has now given birth to this one, “yes means yes.” This is the same bunch of liberals who also thought it was funny that Billy boy got a Lewinski in the Oval office, and giddily offered up their own services. It’s the same thinking that put’s a Lena Dunham, a woman who was apparently date raped in college, in sexually explicit situations, as comedy, and doesn;t see the conflicting message. Who do they think watches these programs? And we wonder why young women have their heads up their butts. The left also deride anyone on the right that suggests we should have higher standards in media and our own personal lives.
Liberals send conflicting messages and give rotten advice!
Liberals decided in the seventies that dorm rooms could be co-ed without repercussions…how stupid is that? Young men and women with little experience and sudden freedom were shoved into coed dorms with raging hormones and we really thought nothing bad would happen? The excuse was that at 18 they were now adults and would “know” how to protect themselves…after all we gave them sex classes in school. Well guess what? They aren’t adult at that age; they only think they are and they get themselves into all sorts of dangerous situations.
Changing conditions on college campuses will take a lot more than this silly ad campaign movement that requires kids to do something they will not do but can use against young men who aren’t any older or more prepared for adult responsibility than the girls are.
I agree girls should be advised about keeping themselves safe. I think self-defense classes situational awareness training, and a heavy dose of real world advice from maybe a cop would be a wise alternate to these silly rules.
You shared about your friend before and I recall she not only invited him into her room but she was also dressed in pajamas or nightgown. It might have seemed completely okay to her but it was also not very smart. Young women are seeking male attention, especially if they had an emotionally absent (or worse) father. They need to be taught how to channel that need positively…these rules won’t do that.
They won’t work because they don’t address underlying problems and they don’t address the atmosphere we throw our kids into when we send them out into the world.
Tina: “What “sweeping generalization” do you imagine I’ve made?”
I don’t “imagine” you’ve made any. It is a fact that you made a sweeping generalization when you said:
“Women are the force that tames men’s savage nature.”
That is literally the definition of a sweeping generalization.
“Really, Chris? Do you think it’s more personal or offensive than some of the things you’ve said to me?”
Yes.
“Is that what you thought it was? Politics? I thought I was expressing an opinion, based on personal experience, that could apply to anyone with some adaptation.”
It wasn’t that you thought it could apply to anyone. It’s that you think it applies to everyone. That’s the problem; you are stuck in this mindset of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” If you don’t understand why that’s political, I can’t help you.
“Only because no matter what I said, you refused to acknowledge that women could use this to cover for their own mistakes, to get even or to punish.”
It COULD happen. But again, false rape reports are extremely rare, and pale in comparison to rapes which are never reported. This is a proven fact.
“And I agree with Wittle on the video posted in comment #17…if an actual rape has taken place a girl should just go to the police. If it isn’t clear enough in her mind to go to the police maybe it’s because she had something to do with what happened.”
Ugh. Disgustingly naive, especially after you’ve already been informed of the many disincentives women have from coming forward. Of course you agree with it.
“You’ll forgive me if I couldn’t tell you were being “light hearted.”
I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out was a dead giveaway; it wasn’t exactly subtle.
“Very good, but the standard in question is the requirement of getting verbal permission/agreement for every single move. Do you honestly think that will be accomplished much less enforced?”
That is NOT the standard in question; that is the strawman argument you made up about the standard in question.
The California bill actually says this:
““Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. … Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.”
Nowhere in there does it say anything about “verbal permission/agreement for every single move.” You just made that up. Nonverbal consent will be taken into account.
“The point you are missing is the accusal process when she, feeling dumb about her behavior decides the best way to defend her reputation or honor is to claim she was raped based on his not getting permission for every move.”
Again, those situations are very rare. Worrying more about false rape accusations than actual rapes is simply not rational.
Cost. Benefit. Analysis. Ever heard of it?
“How does he defend himself?”
The same way he does now in he said/she said cases?
“It’s the same thinking that put’s a Lena Dunham, a woman who was apparently date raped in college, in sexually explicit situations, as comedy, and doesn;t see the conflicting message.”
There is no conflicting message there, unless you are incapable of distinguishing between consensual sexual activity and nonconsensual sexual activity.
Are you actually implying that women who are victims of rape have a special obligation to be modest afterward? Because that’s disgusting.
“Changing conditions on college campuses will take a lot more than this silly ad campaign movement that requires kids to do something they will not do”
You actually think getting affirmative consent (notice it does not have to be verbal) is an unreasonable expectation to hold young people too? Wow. That is actually shocking.
Do you have sons, Tina? I can’t imagine you thinking it unreasonable to expect them to get affirmative consent from a woman instead of just assuming they have the go-ahead.
Getting affirmative consent is literally the LOWEST POSSIBLE STANDARD we can hold men and women to when it comes to sex. And somehow this is controversial?
“I agree girls should be advised about keeping themselves safe. I think self-defense classes situational awareness training, and a heavy dose of real world advice from maybe a cop would be a wise alternate to these silly rules.”
Again, your alternative puts ALL the responsibility for preventing rape on the potential victim, not the potential perpetrator. That is wrong.
“You shared about your friend before and I recall she not only invited him into her room but she was also dressed in pajamas or nightgown.”
And your point f***ing is?
“It might have seemed completely okay to her but it was also not very smart.”
No, it wasn’t. It also wasn’t very smart for the guy to assume this was an open invitation to sex. Or to think that when she was lying completely still and disassociated, she really wanted him to keep going, when she was clearly in physical and emotional pain. Why do you not have anything to say about him? Why is ALL of your judgment reserved for the victim?
“They won’t work because they don’t address underlying problems”
Wrong. The underlying problem IS the lack of understanding of what consent is.
These rules address that problem.
Perhaps if they had been in place in your generation, you would have a better understanding of consent. Because you sure as hell don’t understand it now.
The problem is not the way women dress. The problem is a culture which teaches men that they are entitled to exert control over women’s bodies.
“You can walk down the street in a burqa; you can walk down the street in a bikini; it doesn’t matter. You’re still gonna get harassed.”
http://www.themarysue.com/the-daily-show-catcalling-segment-2/
Chris: “That is literally the definition of a sweeping generalization.”
Or it is a simple truth you are unwilling to accept.
“It wasn’t that you thought it could apply to anyone. It’s that you think it applies to everyone.”
Lord, you’re an uptight hard a$$!
“you are stuck in this mindset of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” If you don’t understand why that’s political, I can’t help you>
Sorry Chris you couldn’t “help me” if you tried even if I wanted you too, which I can;t imagine. You are immature, lacking in much experience, and a victim of the politics of gender…a politic that tells everyone what they MUST think.
“…false rape reports are extremely rare, and pale in comparison to rapes which are never reported.”
So you think the best way to fix that is to give women a tool they can use more often. what’s the goal, evening the score?
“Disgustingly naive, especially after you’ve already been informed of the many disincentives women have from coming forward.”
I know all about it. I was a young person when the subject first came up and was made an broad (Excuse the pun) issue. It’s been fifty years and not much has changed even though feminists have controlled the narrative and more single mothers raise our male children. In fact, there are more young men that have been raised on the streets or without adequate training since this all began. No means no didn’t do squat…now they want to try this one…talk about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result! Rape, especially date rape, was less prevalent when men raised boys to be gentlemen and society in general had higher standards of morality.
“I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out was a dead giveaway; it wasn’t exactly subtle.”
The only emoticon I posted was a wink with a smile; see how your bigotry and prejudice colors your perceptions and understanding?
“Nowhere in there does it say anything about “verbal permission/agreement for every single move.” You just made that up. Nonverbal consent will be taken into account.”
I didn’t make it up! People with law degrees have the same take about what this law will mean in practical AND legal terms. Imagine you are accused (falsely) of rape. You had better hope your attorney will be asking the accuser what she did and said every single step of the way…and you had better be prepared for the questions HER attorney will be asking you.
The sentiment is wonderful for catchy ad campaigns featuring Hollywood stars as a teaching tool. The law is a nightmare in the real world and the court. We already have adequate rape law. This just makes the risk for innocent men greater as lady justice peaks under the blindfold and winks at the ladies.
“The same way he does now in he said/she said cases?”
So you’re saying a new law was unnecessary; we already had adequate laws, and I agree.
“There is no conflicting message there, unless you are incapable of distinguishing between consensual sexual activity and nonconsensual sexual activity.”
Of course her message is mixed and presents the age old dilemma that men face, particularly with women who like playing the sex game for attention and then when some nut case insinuates more than she expects she’s surprised and becomes the dumb blonde who can’t figure it out.
Are you actually implying that women who are victims of rape have a special obligation to be modest afterward? Because that’s disgusting.”
Man you are not only a hard a$$ but an idiot to boot. The only think I am suggesting is that women DO HAVE an obligation as women to comport themselves in such a way as to avoid, as much as is reasonably possible, being raped. I’ll borrow a phrase from one of yours, “Don’t do stupid stuff” and I’ll add to it be clear in your signals. She also has an obligation to raise the next generation both boys and girls; her example DOES make a difference.
“You actually think getting affirmative consent (notice it does not have to be verbal) is an unreasonable expectation to hold young people too?”
I actually think it’s been so for decades even before radical feminist started playing word games. Rape is an act of defiance about the rules.
I suspect this is being used to promote political theater in the “war on women.” You’re playing your part beautifully.
” And somehow this is controversial? ”
The necessity for passing the law is controversial; the absurdity of the law when imagined to its logical end use is controversial. The likelihood of it’s making any real difference is debatable. No one is arguing that sex shouldn’t be consensual…that would be absurd.
“your alternative puts ALL the responsibility for preventing rape on the potential victim”
I haven’t suggested an alternative.
I think our rape law was adequate. I think women could use practical advice on how to better keep themselves safe. I think both makes and females should have higher standards of behavior for their own safety but also for their futures. Too many of them are wasting the most productive years of their lives acting like idiots.
Yes means yes will not PREVENT rape any more than no means no did. Any young woman who believes she’s safer because this law has been enacted is kidding herself.
“And your point f***ing is? ”
You know what my point is and you reluctantly agreed with me at the time that this wasn’t a smart thing to do. It doesn’t make her guilty just not very good at lowering her risk.
” It also wasn’t very smart for the guy to assume this was an open invitation to sex. Or to think that when she was lying completely still and disassociated, she really wanted him to keep going, when she was clearly in physical and emotional pain.”
I don’t know what actually happened in that room…nor do you frankly. We know she was treated quite roughly, from your description. I’ve already agreed the guy was wrong and deserved to be prosecuted. But if no didn’t work with him, and I’m assuming she said no, then I can’t imagine how a consent law would have changed anything. Men don’t stop to consider in the middle of something like this. The problem with him is impossible to know without knowing more about him.
“Why is ALL of your judgment reserved for the victim?”
Advising women on how to be safe is judging them? You do paint your prejudices into my remarks!
“The underlying problem IS the lack of understanding of what consent is”
No you moron, the underlying problem is that they have not been taught. Society sends all the wrong messages, sex education focuses on condoms more than values, parents are promiscuous and divorcing, or simply not bothering to marry, and kids are raising themselves! And every time a conservative mentions anything about changing those conditions we are laughed at, called names, argued with and,if prominent enough, targeted for destruction.
“Perhaps if they had been in place in your generation, you would have a better understanding of consent.”
There you go again! Geez Chris you are pathetic! Always the smarmy, superior teacher! In fact you don’t know much and I’d like to give you a break because of it but it’s impossible to do because you just keep thinking, wrongly, that I was born yesterday.
The problem isn’t that we didn’t understand consent. The problem is that all of the structure for maintaining the value of consent was dismantled and thrown away.
“The problem is a culture which teaches men that they are entitled to exert control over women’s bodies.”
You might want to look into what made the culture that way. I don’t know anyone who would teach that “men are entitled to exert control over women’s bodies.” It certainly isn’t a conservative backed premise or condition.
Some of it is a natural product of the naive thinking that lowering standards wouldn’t affect future generations…HA! What a surprise, it did!
I couldn’t play the video but come, come Chris, cat calls do not a rapist make! Now who’s making sweeping generalizations?
Me: “That is literally the definition of a sweeping generalization.”
Tina: “Or it is a simple truth you are unwilling to accept.”
Tina, every single bigot in human history has viewed their sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people as “simple truths” that others just couldn’t accept. Why do you think you are so special?
Me: “…false rape reports are extremely rare, and pale in comparison to rapes which are never reported.”
Tina: “So you think the best way to fix that is to give women a tool they can use more often. what’s the goal, evening the score?”
I believe these policies regarding consent are tools for women to not get raped. You are the one assuming that women are just going to use them to make fake rape accusations. That reveals more about your disrespectful view of your own gender than anything else.
Me: “I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out was a dead giveaway; it wasn’t exactly subtle.”
“The only emoticon I posted was a wink with a smile; see how your bigotry and prejudice colors your perceptions and understanding?”
I was clearly referring to the emoticon I posted, not one you posted. See how your bigotry and prejudice colors your reading comprehension?
“We already have adequate rape law.”
LOL!
“So you’re saying a new law was unnecessary; we already had adequate laws, and I agree.”
No, that is not what I am saying. The new law makes it more clear what the responsibilities are before initiating sex with someone.
How can a conservative Christian be against the idea of people thinking more carefully before having sex?! Is it just because this law has liberal feminist cooties?
“Of course her message is mixed and presents the age old dilemma that men face, particularly with women who like playing the sex game for attention and then when some nut case insinuates more than she expects she’s surprised and becomes the dumb blonde who can’t figure it out.”
What the #### are you even talking about right now? How does this have anything to do with Lena Dunham being naked on TV?
This is just so bizarrely personal and resentful; what woman hurt you like this, Tina?
“Man you are not only a hard a$$ but an idiot to boot. The only think I am suggesting is that women DO HAVE an obligation as women to comport themselves in such a way as to avoid, as much as is reasonably possible, being raped.”
…Yeah, that’s frigging awful, Tina, especially since you don’t say anything about men comporting themselves in such a way as to avoid raping women.
“I suspect this is being used to promote political theater in the “war on women.” You’re playing your part beautifully.”
Absolutely not as well as you are; you have done nothing but insult women, call them slutty, imply that they bear the primary responsibility to prevent their own rapes, say that it is women’s job to “tame men’s savage natures” (gross), and claim (baselessly) that they will use consent laws to falsely accuse men of rape.
And you blame me for people thinking conservatives are hostile to women?
The reason people think conservatives are hostile to women is because you are hostile to women. Stop being hostile to women, and your problem is solved. It’s that easy!
“But if no didn’t work with him, and I’m assuming she said no,”
Why would you assume that when I’ve already told you, in this thread and others, that she did not say no?
Why can’t you read people’s comments clearly before responding to them?
“Men don’t stop to consider in the middle of something like this.”
Your assumptions toward men are just as bigoted and awful as your assumptions toward women. Your comments are misandrist, Tina. Of course men have the capacity to “stop to consider” the feelings of the woman they are putting their penis in. It is monstrous and man-hating to suggest that they lack that capacity. If some men do not always exercise that ability, it is perhaps because people like you make excuses for them.
“No you moron, the underlying problem is that they have not been taught.”
…They have not been taught what consent is. That’s exactly what I just said.
“Society sends all the wrong messages, sex education focuses on condoms more than values,”
I’ve said before that sex education needs to focus more on consent.
“I couldn’t play the video but come, come Chris, cat calls do not a rapist make! Now who’s making sweeping generalizations?”
I never said that cat calls make someone a rapist–that is a straw man argument. But both cat calls and rape are a result of a culture which tells men that they are entitled to women’s bodies.
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/09/30/young-women-sexual-assault/#comment-46263