Another case of Australia's affirmative sexual consent law - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15171033
For those of you who may not be aware, due to the feminist element having taken over, Australia has what are called "affirmative consent" laws concerning sex and sexual assault. Meaning the man can still be guilty of sexual assault even if the woman did not clearly say no.
The typical such case involves a reluctant woman who regretted it afterwards. The men are not entirely without blame but it is the farthest thing away from what most people typically imagine as a rape.

It looks like it has happened again, this time to rugby star Jarred Hayne.

He met a woman through the internet and met her for the first time at her house. While he was in the middle of playing her a song off his laptop, the taxi outside which had dropped him off beeped its horn, and the man had to go out to convince the taxi to keep waiting. Before that the woman had not realized there was a taxi waiting outside. That seemed to ruin the mood.

He went back inside and watched grand final football coverage on the TV in the lounge room for several minutes with the woman's mother. He then went into the woman's bedroom where he began to touch and kiss her.

The woman was not interested in sexual contact after finding out about the taxi.

The woman said "What do you think you're doing? There's no way I'm going to touch you."
The man removed her jeans, while the woman claims she said "no".
But apparently the man didn't get the message that she was saying absolutely no.

It's like the difference between a "little no" and a "big no".

Many people believe this sounds more like a case where the woman was just being reluctant.

The man was not completely without fault here, but it wasn't exactly the classic case of date rape.

In many other countries this might be somewhere in the spectrum between a just a reluctant woman and being date rape. But not in Australia.

The man does not believe he committed rape, he seems genuine about this belief.

One additional factor here, the man was a muscular built rugby player and did weigh twice as much as the woman.

During intercourse the woman began to bleed, and when that happened the man stopped and did not finish.

The woman later explained "My vagina was stinging in a throb-like sensation and I couldn't understand or fully comprehend that he had just done that to me. I sat on my bed hugging my knees and staring into nothingness."

There are many people very skeptical about the claims that what happened constituted a rape, due to the situation and facts of the case, although nobody besides those two people can know for sure exactly how much the woman did or didn't protest in that bedroom.


The man was sentenced to 5 years and 9 months, but will be eligible for release on parole in a little less than 4 years.

Apparently the man could not believe he had been found guilty and would be going to prison.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/jar ... 57phs.html


Now, it should be pointed out that the woman did technically say "no" here, but due to the background context of the situation, it may not have been interpreted, and there is good reason to believe it was not, as a serious no.

There are some intricacies with consent. A no isn't exactly always a no. A woman can subtly communicate she's going to have sex with man, and then seem to suddenly change her mind, but not be very decided about it.
In countries with affirmative consent laws, this is very dangerous territory for the man.

This might have been more like "I don't really feel like it right now, maybe some time later" and then the woman doesn't put up much psychological resistance to the man's advances and is implicitly communicating "Oh, okay, I'll let you have your way" somewhat reluctantly.

Of course, if a woman doesn't feel like she specifically said yes, wasn't the most enthusiastic about it to begin with, and there was something unanticipated that went bad during the experience that caused her to feel unpleasant (especially if it was bleeding and soreness, which is not extremely uncommon), then the woman is more likely to feel violated in a serious way. That's when the sexual assault claims begin.
#15171054
Do understand how consent legally works? Because the example you gave would be rape even within the non affirmative framework because the only defense you have for the guy is a vague implying that while she said no she still desired sex but this is quite speculative and may simply be a denial of autonomy on the part of the woman which is quite common in the projection of mens desires as authoritative over a woman's clearly stated lack of desire.
https://philpapers.org/archive/WOLPDA-3.pdf
Second, and perhaps more troublesome, the idea of provocative dress illustrates what Rae Langton describes as the denial of autonomy through the affirmation of autonomy.113 When a woman’s outfit is described as provocative, she is reduced to a depersonalized sexual object or collection of sexual body parts. In addition, a specific subjective desire is attributed to her—the desire for sexual attention from men. This attribution is not a form of respect for a woman’s autonomy. Instead, it denies her autonomy by undermining the credibility and authority of her actual desires, even if she explicitly and repeatedly denies the attributed desire. Her stated preferences, if inconsistent with the intentions and desires that men attribute to her, are dismissed as not reflecting what she “really wants”—she says “no,” but her outfit says “yes.” Thus, it is men’s interpretations of her desires and intentions that are taken as authoritative. Women’s actual spoken desires and intentions regarding men’s sexual attention are silenced.

The authority given by social and legal norms to men’s projected desires above women’s stated preferences creates an additional concern for women regarding their clothing choices and behavior. Knowing that, despite one’s intentions and clearly stated preferences regarding sexual attention from others, one could still be accused of “wanting it” or “asking for it” is highly disempowering; it means that a woman cannot control how her intentions and desires will be perceived, since her own desires and intentions are likely to be viewed as less reliable than those that are attributed to her by observers.

Its not clear you even go as far wnough as to attribute desire to the woman based on any specific fact but a vague and messy thoufht pattern that i assume conflates regret of sex often being seen as a motive for accusations of sexual assault or a defense of the llaywr for assuming that he could still have sex prior to it being initiated because things were heading in that direction but the woman was pissed and no longer wanted to have sex due to the offense about the taxi. Which would still support the woman over the man unless you think consent is more a contract than a expression of will. That it was fair for the man to assume that sex was in the cards and to persist in spite of her proteststion because he expected it from going to her house. But if you don't think consent is like w contract, which it isn't, then it's unclear what defense you're even offering for hynes which even by your story sounds like rape. You seem to vaguely reference how a no can be a playful resistance but offer nothing to support that and is seemingly contradicted by the woman having him charged with rape.

To which men do not need a specific yes or no to get a sense of a woman's continued interest and it seems he simply ignored her, because he put his own desires over that of hers and ignored her which is what a sexist does and with extreme consequences in this case.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243202016003007
“In attempting to take up the subject position of a woman,these men are necessarily drawing on knowledge they already hold. If men simply “don’t get it”—truly failing to see the harm in girl watching or other more serious acts of sexual harassment—then they should not be able to see this harm when envisioning themselves as women. What the interviews reveal is that many men—most of whom failed to see the harm of many acts that would constitute the hostile work environment form of sexual harassment—did in fact understand the harm of these acts when forced to consider the position of the targeted woman.
I suggest that the gender reversal scenario produced, in some men at least, a moment of empathy. Empathy, Schwalbe (1992) argued, requires two things. First, one must have some knowledge of the other’s situation and feelings. Second, one must be motivated to take the position of the other. What the present research sug- gests is that gender differences in interpreting sexual harassment stem not so much from men’s not getting it (a failure of the first element) but from a studied, often compulsory, lack of motivation to identify with women’s experiences.
In his analysis of masculinity and empathy, Schwalbe (1992) argued that the requirementsofmasculinitynecessitatea“narrowingofthemoralself.”Menlearn that to effectively perform masculinity and to protect a masculine identity, they must, in many instances, ignore a woman’s pain and obscure her viewpoint. Men fail to exhibit empathy with women because masculinity precludes them from taking the position of the feminine other,and men’s moral stance vis-à-viswomenis attenuated by this lack of empathy.”

[url] https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2 ... he-answer/[/url


Now there are issues with an affirmative consent model but you don’t really directly address them in tour tangent on Hynes as there is nothing to be gleened about the actual substance of the law. However the issue i see with it is 1) the law represents a focus on drawing a line between criminal behavior and legal behavior but not moral and immoeral behavior. This means that while someones personal standards od what is ideal isn’t met, this shouldn’t necessarily translate into criminal. 2) There can be consent without an affirmative yes as consent isn’t based on expression but the state of the persons will. Such that one can consent to things implicitly without having to formally state it.
https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/77939/OSJCL_V13N2_397.pdf
The only distinction that is critical for any notion of consent is to distinguish it from a request. A request is not just a permission; it is the communication of an affirmative desire for the act. Consent is just a permission. Allowing my neighbor to walk across my lawn is consent. Inviting my neighbor to my house is a request. Similarly, a man might have unbridled enthusiasm for sexual intercourse or conversely, may merely be accommodating a partner’s request. Although we may think that, as a normative matter, it would be better if all sex were of the former sort, that is not the question. The question is when the criminal law ought to step in. The answer is that the criminal law ought not to play a role in either case. Accordingly, any criminal ought to be wary of any usages that implicitly require enthusiasm, as opposed to allowance.
To this point, I have argued that if consent is derived from our autonomy, then we ought to be able to change the permissibility of the act by an act of will alone. The corollary of this argument is that an individual is not wronged, and does not experience conduct as a wrong, when willed acquiescence is present.


So I share concerns about affirmative consent in undermining autonomy with a misunderstanding of consent but the example you used is terrible.
I see what you're getting at but the very context provided characterizes the woman as changing her mind after being offended and then expressing her offense. How does that support the interpretation of still being ul for sex?

However what does come into play is what the limit is in which we consider a woman's ability to consent invalid.
[url] https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/181 ... N1_333.pdf[/quote]
a normative question as to whether in choosing sexual intercourse for themselves, they do so with the freedom the statute at hand regards as sufficient to leave the decision to them. Once one answers the latter question, one also knows what kinds of resistance they are and are not required to mount.

To illustrate, recall Stella who felt forced to go along with her boyfriend's desire for sexual intercourse rather than be cursed. Did Stella really want to have sexual intercourse with her boyfriend? She did and she did not. She did not want to have sexual intercourse with her boyfriend when she was pushing his hands away from her underwear, because at that moment, she preferred physical resistance to sexual intercourse. Nor did she want it at the very moment of sexual intercourse, because she would not have gone along with him then if she had not been afraid of being cursed. Yet she also did want it at the very moment of sexual intercourse, because at that moment she preferred sexual intercourse to the alternative of being cursed. The legally-interesting question in Stella's case is not whether she actually consented to sexual intercourse in the context of feeling coerced-because, given that she decided to submit, she clearly did-but whether she prescriptivelyconsented. The answer to the latter question has nothing to do with what Stella was thinking or what she expressed herself to be thinking. It has to do with the kinds of freedom the jurisdiction at hand believes women ought to possess for purposes of their sexual integrity.
...
What matters is that she actually chooses sexual intercourse under conditions that the jurisdiction at hand regards as free of wrongful force. That is what prescriptive consent to sexual intercourse is.
This is perhaps more what you're aiming for. But it's not clear to applies on this case as simply being reluctantly pressures into sex when again it sounds more like she was offended and rejected sex clearly and he kept going. This not like a boyfriend cussing out his girlfriend for not having sex and then she reluctantly agrees and while fucked up isn't necessarily criminal. Here I don't see the reluctance other than an outright rejection. The supposed ambiguity seems to be an extremely charitable characterization of Hynes and it seems the conviction was a sound one based on what you shared.
I don't know why you chose a terrible case/example to raise criticism of affirmative consent and don't actually spend time going into detail about the law in regards to affirmative consent and it's ramifications. You more imply it's consequences than lay them out.
#15171217
The trouble is, the way the woman is describing it, I don't think we (as outside impartial observers listening to her testimony, with the assumption she is not blatantly lying) can really decide what actually went on exactly in that bedroom, or what it might have looked like from the man's perspective.

It's one thing if a woman was blatantly lying and falsely accusing a man of something he totally did not do, but in this case that's not the issue here.
The woman could be describing things from her perspective (not so much trying to lie) and the situation she describes may not be the objective truth.

It reminds me of one of the scenes in the Star Trek Next Generation episode "A Matter of Perspective", where a woman describes what events transpired (her side of the story), and Riker is absolutely sure she is lying, but Troy (who has the ability to sense what others are feeling) tells him that she is not. Riker asked how can that be, and Troy responds "You are both telling the truth as you remember it."


video here, with annoying ads, scene begins at 25:08 and ends at 28:26



https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7u67jj
#15171242
Yes and the court infers what is true based on a cross examination of the people involved and any other means in which they can determine the outlines of what happened like whether there really was a taxi driver waiting outside.

The idea of a mere he said she said and it's all subjective is a deflection which assumes the lack of means in which things can be inferred even based on their accounts. Even the woman's mother would be witness to certain facts.

The only doubt perhaps raised is not so much that she didn't experience that she was raped but that the guy had a plausible defence to assume she consented. That would require a positive argument as does her accusation. But we can infer support for her account based on expert understanding of a trauma response also where she's undergoing counselling. Which sure you can against raise doubts of it being faked but you can rely on the experience of psychologists to affirm the consistency of her symptoms with a traumatic experience and treatment.

Now what is really contended is whether he has any level of defence over whether he didn't know that she wasn't consenting.
Which doesn't look good for him as she communicates that she isn't interested and your own speculation is ain't a vague, was it a reluctant no or an actual no. Which raises questions of how one distinguishes the two and whether this is an adequate defence. The judge ruled he simply adopted the approach of a rapist in ignoring what the woman was actually expressing, a clear lack of willingness and only stopped after-market her bleed.

Now to actually take his account of events is that he asserted she no longer wanted to have sex but oral sex after offense over the taxi.
The woman told the jury Hayne tried to kiss and touch her but when she said “no” and “stop” he pushed her head into the pillow, ripped off her trousers and attacked her.

Hayne claimed he knew the woman did not want to have sex with him after she realised he had a taxi waiting outside but she agreed to him performing oral sex on her to please her. He said the woman’s injuries must have been caused when he accidentally cut her with his finger.


Now her account of what he did above is even consistent with his own understanding that she did not want to have sex. What is interesting in this defense is that somehow a woman who is so offended about the taxi she doesn't want to have sex with you is some reason still okay with getting oral sex. Does this sound even plausible to you? It of course in the most abstract is possible but the facts seem more consistent that the woman didn't want anything to do with him after the taxi issue.

However, say we do believe that his account is somehow more plausible than the woman's. That she still experienced it as rape but he wasn't aware somehow. How do we argue this? The presumption of such a miscommunication seems to make it impossible for a woman to be raped as she clearly expresses her lack of wanting sexual contact with comments like there's no way I'm going to touch you. The idea of any sexual interaction with a pissed off woman is insane on the face of it. This isn't some angry couplesmake up sex shtick.

So what is really your argument? That he didn't know? The judge calls bullshit and I think with good reason. It seems insane that if we accept certain facts about the night, that he didn't know but rather he simply ignored the woman entirely. Which is what is entailed in sexual abuse, a disregard for the woman. This isn't a revoked consent during sex which was given and then communicated its worse than that. There doesn't seem to be a leg to stand on for Hynes.

Unless we're going to simply indemnify with the position of a rapist who denies their own culpability because what, they claim they didn't know. The case is hardly a sympathetic one as far as I can make of it.

And I think there is much to interrogate in the notion that woman are so complex about whether they're consenting or not.
It's a bit like how people who sexually harass women are claimed to be flirting but it clear that the distinction between a bad flirt and harasser has to do with the way in which they clearly concern themselves with the reaction of the woman I.e. Empathize. To which men have the capacity to do but choose not to and thus downplay any attention to the discomfort and pain they cause a woman which is no defense but the characterization of those who abuse women. It would condemn themmkre than defend them.
#15171306
Julian658 wrote:The women that come up with these ideas hate men and quite often end up alone as they grow old with no family. Natural selection will not favor 3rd wave feminists as they will not reproduce.

It's a mistake to think that feminists are hateful of men rather than what some men do.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/5173/pwq2009.pdf
The idea I think is that your average person who isnt a feminist may be more likely for resentment towards the opposite sex as they tend towards a kind of segregationaist sense between the sexes based in differences in division of labor which are essentialized as being the nature between the sexes. It causes some friction and othering compared to the sense that what divides one isn’t necessarily sex as much as more direct things like values, personality and how someone treats you. Not arbitrarily avoiding things for fear of coming to close as to lose ones gendered distinction.

Basically consider this analogy:

Hynes is piss, but don’t mistake talking about piss means they think everyone is. Otherwise you take very personally something which you are distinct from.

In regards to affirmative consent is seems a desire for a quick fix to a larger problem than bow the law is written in many cases. Cultural issues.
#15171312
Wellsy wrote:It's a mistake to think that feminists are hateful of men rather than what some men do.


Look at blue collar strong women. They know how to handle nasty men and move on. They do not embrace the victimhood narrative that is so common these days.

The idea I think is that your average person who isnt a feminist may be more likely for resentment towards the opposite sex as they tend towards a kind of segregationaist sense between the sexes based in differences in division of labor which are essentialized as being the nature between the sexes. It causes some friction and othering compared to the sense that what divides one isn’t necessarily sex as much as more direct things like values, personality and how someone treats you. Not arbitrarily avoiding things for fear of coming to close as to lose ones gendered distinction.


Most men love and respect women. I don't know men that hate women, but I suppose they exist. Like most issues the problem is magnified beyond absurdity. My favorite one is how come there are few women among the top 20 CEOs in the world. Guess what? The chances of being a top 20 CEO is the same for average men and women. However, this is how feminists provide examples of oppression. As for sex, most men still like to be the guy who takes care of the damsel in distress. That does not mean they do not like strong women. ON a personal note I prefer women that are feminine, not feminists. A woman that acts like a woman, what a concept!


In regards to affirmative consent is seems a desire for a quick fix to a larger problem than bow the law is written in many cases. Cultural issues.

I say let's go back to the Victorian era. That will fix the problem.
#15171317
@Julian658

I guess you did not get the joke.

——————————

It seems that this discussion has become about feminists.

This was done by saying that women who do not like rape are feminists and that they hate men.

If all it takes to be a feminist is to not like rape, then mist if us are feminists and supposedly hate men.
#15171318
Ganeshas Rat wrote:It's a mistake some feminists do.

The case in the OP post though is definitely the case of an asshole and rapist.

That I agree with but as a broad tendency it has died out with 2nd wave feminists who explained sexism as originating in mens nature and thus behaviorally independent of social organization.

Julian658 wrote:Look at blue collar strong women. They know how to handle nasty men and move on. They do not embrace the victimhood narrative that is so common these days.


Most men love and respect women. I don't know men that hate women, but I suppose they exist. Like most issues the problem is magnified beyond absurdity. My favorite one is how come there are few women among the top 20 CEOs in the world. Guess what? The chances of being a top 20 CEO is the same for average men and women. However, this is how feminists provide examples of oppression. As for sex, most men still like to be the guy who takes care of the damsel in distress. That does not mean they do not like strong women. ON a personal note I prefer women that are feminine, not feminists. A woman that acts like a woman, what a concept!


I say let's go back to the Victorian era. That will fix the problem.

You’re shifting the discussion from feminists as man haters to an issue of victimhood which itself is a kind of stupid political characterization which entails little discussion in the legitimacy of issues but reduces focus to a subjective experience independent of objective facts. One experiences themselves as a victim but no point of connecting to both institutional or personal experiences of sexism.

How often are you ending up in that discussion about CEO’s? As that sounds like some liberal shit that is indeed irrelevant to the lives of the majority of women.in which case your distaste in that example is the liberal variant of feminism which is largely already exhausted itself as a movement and is irrelevant as women largely have achieved formal equality in law.

The victorian era in which such problems of sexism were prevalent but not yet challenged by a womens movement? So basically a return to greater economic dependence on the part of women. Thats not a solution to anything but a call to double down on the means of voicing a challenge to things. Basically an illusion of peace acquired by suppression rather than a resolution of systematic problems that face women generally.

Because while not al women are sexually assaulted throughout their life times, the practice of harassment and sexual violence is a racket in which other men also position themselves as benevolent protectors of women on encroachment of their individual autonomy.
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptual-understandings-and-prevalence-sexual-harassment-and-street-harassm
However, all of these forms of sexual harassment are interconnected, regardless of intent or the way they are experienced by the recipient, as "the remarks serve multiple functions of social control" (Kissling, 1991, p. 455). Kissling denoted this harassment as a form of "sexual terrorism", which serves to remind women of their status as sexual objects, and "of their vulnerability to these and other violations" (p. 455). It is here that the interconnections between sexual harassment and more severe forms of sexual violence are most apparent. Firstly, sexual harassment functions as a reminder to women of the threat or possibility of something "more serious" occurring, therefore rendering women as sexually vulnerable (Crouch, 2009; Kissling, 1991; Laniya, 2005; Macmillan et al., 2000; Tuerkheimer, 1997). Secondly, both sexual harassment and sexual violence remove women's sexual and bodily autonomy (MacKinnon, 1979), curtail women's behaviour, and are used to threaten, intimidate, and harm women.

Image

Protecting women from harm in itself isn’t wrong but it can serve as the impetus to infatnalize women with paternalistic restrictions on them which they may or may not already impose on themselves under the belief that they’ll avoid being targeted or be less at risk. So women don’t go out at night because there is the felt risk of one of the ‘piss’ kinda blokes targetting them.
Other men can sometimes serve as a great boundary in defensing women from other men but can also be a source of arbitrary control and even the source of violence themselves. A lot of violence doesn’t occur from strangers on the street necessarily but in ones own home sadly.
#15171342
There are many people very skeptical about the claims that what happened constituted a rape, due to the situation and facts of the case, although nobody besides those two people can know for sure exactly how much the woman did or didn't protest in that bedroom.


Probably he was wrongly convicted. The victim was open to having sex with Hayne, exchanging flirty messages with him on Instagram. She also agreed to have a form of sex even after she found out that there was a taxi waiting outside because she wanted to have a relationship with him. His charge should be reduced to assault or battery, if she was injured in the process as he accidentally cut her with his finger.

Hayne had paid a taxi driver $550 to take him home to Sydney after a two-day buck’s party for rugby league player Kevin Naiqama in Newcastle when he decided to pop in to the woman’s nearby home.

He had never met her but believed she had promised him sex after they had been exchanging flirty messages on Instagram and Snapchat.

The victim admitted she had been open to having sex with Hayne but was hoping for a future with the former Parramatta Eels star, not a fling.

https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-league ... -c-2772746
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 07 May 2021 22:03, edited 1 time in total.
#15171344
ThirdTerm wrote:Probably he was wrongly convicted. The victim was open to having sex with Hayne, exchanging flirty messages with him on Instagram. She also agreed to have a form of sex even after she found out that there was a taxi waiting outside. His charge should be reduced to assault or battery.

The bolded is Hyne's defense.
Hayne claimed he knew the woman did not want to have sex with him after she realised he had a taxi waiting outside, but she agreed to him performing oral sex on her to please her.

Which is contradicted by the other assertions such as her expressed disinterest after the realization of the taxi. The strange part then is somehow being pissed off to to want sec anymore but still oral sex. The defense was weak in this unlikely scenario.

All the prior flirting and such no wy detracts from the change in willingness after the taxi. The expressed interest is in fact consistent with the account that she changed her mind. Unless on somehow takes an earlier state as somehow contractual and supresceding ones later disinterest, it doesn't provide a defense.
#15171355
Wellsy wrote:
You’re shifting the discussion from feminists as man haters to an issue of victimhood which itself is a kind of stupid political characterization which entails little discussion in the legitimacy of issues but reduces focus to a subjective experience independent of objective facts. One experiences themselves as a victim but no point of connecting to both institutional or personal experiences of sexism.


OK, that would be the ideal world. But, in this era embracing the role of the noble victim is seen as very empowering and used as a unifying factor. It is often used to form a coalition of individuals that see themselves as oppressed. However, I will admit not all feminists play the victim card. Women have a more difficulties than men . They were saddled with endless pregnancies throughout world history. Being pregnant on regular basis was a huge problem that was not solved until the birth control pill in 1960. The pill liberated woman and the gains are enormous. In any event I like the blue collar feminists to a much greater extent than highly educated cerebral feminist. IMO, the former has greater strength.

How often are you ending up in that discussion about CEO’s? As that sounds like some liberal shit that is indeed irrelevant to the lives of the majority of women.in which case your distaste in that example is the liberal variant of feminism which is largely already exhausted itself as a movement and is irrelevant as women largely have achieved formal equality in law.


Women have legitimate demands such as discrimination based on sex, affordable childcare, equal pay for equal work and that the federal government fund abortions for women who could not afford the procedure. I know no one that opposes this. My concerns are related to pulling out statistics that have nothing to do with discrimination and concluding women must be oppressed because they are not represented 50/50.

The victorian era in which such problems of sexism were prevalent but not yet challenged by a womens movement? So basically a return to greater economic dependence on the part of women. Thats not a solution to anything but a call to double down on the means of voicing a challenge to things. Basically an illusion of peace acquired by suppression rather than a resolution of systematic problems that face women generally.


I agree, but I was referring to the way men courted women. Up to the 1950s a teenager male had to go steady with a girl just to be able to have some sexual experimentation. The women were in charge of the dating game and the men had to play the game. With the 1960s revolution women were told their sexuality was equal to the sex8laity of men and suddenly men did not have to put up any effort to get sex. And now we are full circle into a consent law. It seems women want to go back to a more conservative era.

Because while not al women are sexually assaulted throughout their life times, the practice of harassment and sexual violence is a racket in which other men also position themselves as benevolent protectors of women on encroachment of their individual autonomy.


Yep, the modern women gets offended if a man holds the door for her. They don't know men often hold the door for other men.

Protecting women from harm in itself isn’t wrong but it can serve as the impetus to infatnalize women with paternalistic restrictions on them which they may or may not already impose on themselves under the belief that they’ll avoid being targeted or be less at risk. So women don’t go out at night because there is the felt risk of one of the ‘piss’ kinda blokes targetting them.
Other men can sometimes serve as a great boundary in defensing women from other men but can also be a source of arbitrary control and even the source of violence themselves. A lot of violence doesn’t occur from strangers on the street necessarily but in ones own home sadly.


That is a fair statement. However, I believe the infantilization of black people by the elite whites is much more severe. Robin D'Angelo wrote a book with the idea that white people are fragile and yet she herself prescribes extremely condescending advice regarding the treatment of black people. Yes, too much empathy and help can be seen as condescending. I once again prefer how blue collar women deal with the issue. They are not mortally wounded as they put a man in his place.


Sadly the violence is related to our evolutionary past. Human males are larger, stronger, more aggressive, and full of testosterone whereas the female is smaller, not as strong, and less aggressive. That is a biological prescription for abuse and patriarchy. Thankfully, it was balanced with chivalry. It took forever, for MAN to control the aggression and to realize women deserve better.

You do not believe in biology, but sexual dimorphism is real and evolution dictated that the male was larger and stronger. BTW, men are larger because they had to battle other men for the privilege of passing DNA to the next generation. In spiders world sexual dimorphism can be different and the female is much larger than the male. In the spider world we have a matriarchy.
#15171361
Julian658 wrote:OK, that would be the ideal world. But, in this era embracing the role of the noble victim is seen as very empowering and used as a unifying factor. It is often used to form a coalition of individuals that see themselves as oppressed. However, I will admit not all feminists play the victim card. Women have a more difficulties than men . They were saddled with endless pregnancies throughout world history. Being pregnant on regular basis was a huge problem that was not solved until the birth control pill in 1960. The pill liberated woman and the gains are enormous. In any event I like the blue collar feminists to a much greater extent than highly educated cerebral feminist. IMO, the former has greater strength.

A shared circumstance or predicament is definitely a precondition for people rallying around a particular cause.
However, the sort of victim mentality also serves quite well a dismissal and political propaganda to delegitimize claims on nothing. Basically, it is useful for some to oppose such challenges as mere fantasy/fiction. There are those that will use the narrative of someone being victimized for nefarious ends most certainly, but generally this reflects media bullshit than real people.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.3637&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The contemporary construction of victimhood involved redescribing victims of
oppression (or any abuse of power) and their experiences, whether individually or in
groups, in dismissive or negative ways. According to this reasoning, these groups were
disaffected whingers, who pleaded victimhood as a justification for underachievement
and failure to accept individual responsibility. Another supposed incentive to cling to
victim status was the opportunity it afforded to claim innocence and moral superiority in
the face of hostile social forces against which individuals were powerless to act without
the intervention of protective bureaucratic measures. Though intended to redress
inequalities, it was claimed that this protective relationship merely locked its
beneficiaries into a state of perpetual victimhood on which the provision of these
compensatory measures relied (Richardson 1991; Kersten 1991; Hollander 1994, 60).

Such measures were not needed except in the most extreme of cases because the ‘merit
principle’ would always operate to recognise individual effort; therefore victim status
could always potentially be overcome. In the same vein, the effects of racist or sexist
attitudes could be rebuffed at the level of the individual because the assumed absence of
entrenched structural oppression (especially patriarchy) meant such offences did not carry
the particular toxicity that was claimed to exist by their targets. Accounts of the
subjective hurt of the victims of discrimination were ridiculed as part of a ‘“hurt feeling”
movement’ (Klatt 2003, 44). Throughout this victim-blaming discourse, ‘victimhood’
emerges as a state of mind and collective identity that has nothing to do with actually
being a victim, since the existence of structural disadvantage is denied.

The delegitimisation of victim claims relied on a long-standing cultural
construction of the victim that required complete innocence and proven incapacity to
avoid victimisation, either because resistance was impossible or because all resources of
agency have been exhausted. Since it is difficult to prove the negative, claims to victim
status are often distrusted. ‘Victimhood’ is a role, a ‘mantle’ that is consciously taken on,
a cult whose followers assume an undifferentiated perspective that legitimises and breeds
passivity, and denies the possibility of any agency that might transcend victim status on
the one hand, or be construed as a mitigating the moral capital of innocent helplessness
on the other. This disproportionate emphasis on victims’ interests was also frequently
decried as ‘victimology’, a ‘faddish, pseudo-scientific [folly]’ that constituted one of the
‘principles and mechanisms of PC’ (Klatt 2003, 44). The real victims were supposedly
those forced to adhere to speech and conduct codes, those whose professional
advancement was threatened by affirmative action which was represented as always a
violation of the merit principle (D’Souza 1992a, 21; Kramer 1992, 321), and those (male)
academics ‘hounded out’ of their jobs in the wake of sexual harassment charges
(Robinson 2001, 31, 33). These victims were by definition not engaging in either
victimhood or victimology; they were instead themselves victimised by the ‘truncheon’
of victimhood (D’Souza 1992, 243). Feminists were cast as being amongst the worst
offenders. In a section of Tenured Radicals entitled ‘The Feminist Assault’, Roger
Kimball picks out radical feminism as being in the vanguard of the maligned
liberalisation of higher education, ‘the single biggest challenge to the canon as
traditionally conceived’ (1990, 15).

I emphasize this only to point out that the credibility of a victim mentality presuposes an assessment of whether someone is indeed a victim, this is often not pursued. So it has become a rhetorical point.


Women have legitimate demands such as discrimination based on sex, affordable childcare, equal pay for equal work and that the federal government fund abortions for women who could not afford the procedure. I know no one that opposes this. My concerns are related to pulling out statistics that have nothing to do with discrimination and concluding women must be oppressed because they are not represented 50/50.

Must be where you live, plenty of people do oppose such things when actually pressed beyond the abstract verbal I support X, Y, and Z.
However, I agree, one cannot determine discrimination strictly on an outcome, further analysis is necessary.


I agree, but I was referring to the way men courted women. Up to the 1950s a teenager male had to go steady with a girl just to be able to have some sexual experimentation. The women were in charge of the dating game and the men had to play the game. With the 1960s revolution women were told their sexuality was equal to the sex8laity of men and suddenly men did not have to put up any effort to get sex. And now we are full circle into a consent law. It seems women want to go back to a more conservative era.

My understanding of the sexual revolution in Australia was that this change had to do with both the introduction of the pill, and economics and cultural values in flux. Basically, because you risked getting pregnant, you were more careful in who you slept with, to court a woman one often needed to show good prospects in purchasing a home which was viable at the time in the west. So you find a lot of people marrying young and moving out because that is really the means to sex. Of course people weren;t abiding by that, but there was such a tendency.
I would say that there is a mixture of people who are a lot more liberal sexually and many who are still very restrained. In fact I think women learned quickly they lost a buffer against men by claiming rik of pregnancy now men can pressure women to use contraceptives while they may not always be pressured to wear a condom. Even as improved the pill still fucks hormonally with women, it's no small thing playing with hormones.


Yep, the modern women gets offended if a man holds the door for her. They don't know men often hold the door for other men.

Some perhaps but I imagine more often as a caricature than common experience as its generally polite to hold the door for any in a casual way, although perhaps not an exaggerated wow look what I'm doing for you wy.



That is a fair statement. However, I believe the infantilization of black people by the elite whites is much more severe. Robin D'Angelo wrote a book with the idea that white people are fragile and yet she herself prescribes extremely condescending advice regarding the treatment of black people. Yes, too much empathy and help can be seen as condescending. I once again prefer how blue collar women deal with the issue. They are not mortally wounded as they put a man in his place.

The infantalization, id say comes from the moderterates who are often stating they're for certain changes but are always keen to step in the way when they feel kike it's not within their acceptable a prior bounds. MLK loathes the white moderate more than the open racist for example as its the supposed support yet telling them to forever wait till another day for freedom. Same with slavery, liberals are gradulists, they don't like radical change and denounce the very revolutionaries which made the greatest liberal nations and principles the world over. But yes, a lot of middle to upper class educated folks are pretty condescending.
It is the case that those closest to the problems are closest to the solutions and those farthest are in abstract games.


Sadly the violence is related to our evolutionary past. Human males are larger, stronger, more aggressive, and full of testosterone whereas the female is smaller, not as strong, and less aggressive. That is a biological prescription for abuse and patriarchy. Thankfully, it was balanced with chivalry. It took forever, for MAN to control the aggression and to realize women deserve better.

You do not believe in biology, but sexual dimorphism is real and evolution dictated that the male was larger and stronger. BTW, men are larger because they had to battle other men for the privilege of passing DNA to the next generation. In spiders world sexual dimorphism can be different and the female is much larger than the male. In the spider world we have a matriarchy.

I don't deny sexual dimorphism but I temper the over emphasis of it in crude explanations, a biological basis for things is not sufficient explanation for say a particular behavior. It contributes but does not cause or determine particular things.
Sexual dimorphism in humans for example is clear enough but less extreme than in tournament species but more so than the bonding species. There are differences but they aren't as extreme as they could be.
The application of the animal kingdom natural selection upon humans needs to be a more direct link than analogs so as not to reduce humans to a different animal.

Chivalry in its origins is a myth, it was bards who romaniticized knights who in fact raped women.
In reality, most medieval knights were anything but pure, and “marriages,” as in pagan cultures, lasted only as long as convenient. If you read medieval history carefully, you will find that European feudal society, especially under the influence of the Albigensians in the 11th to 13th centuries, was barbarian and chaotic, rife with murder, massacre, and cruelty. Knights, if they were anything, were nothing more than thugs and rapists who preyed upon any defenseless persons they came across. The knightly sexual ideal was to seduce a married woman, and, if she refused, to rape her. The literature of this “age of chivalry” essentially idealized adultery.


I imagine testosterone is a partial explanatory factor in how a lot of men taper off in violence and aggression as they age. However, testosterone is insufficient to explain violence which often has a clear social logic around enforcing certain norms, rules, exchanges, and so on. People aren't terrible random like a Joker from Batman, even if they attack someone at random it may be mugging someone for a clear end.

And men' violence against women is also based in social organization rather than pure physical strength, it is the institutional power that overwhelms women while on the individual basis yes a man could overpower a woman it's not the basis of patrirarchial power.
#15171362
Puffer Fish wrote:"What do you think you're doing? There's no way I'm going to touch you."


This sounds like an affirmative no to me. :lol: What jackass of a dude would not take that as a clear no. seriously.

Wellsy wrote:Protecting women from harm in itself isn’t wrong but it can serve as the impetus to infatnalize women with paternalistic restrictions on them which they may or may not already impose on themselves under the belief that they’ll avoid being targeted or be less at risk. So women don’t go out at night because there is the felt risk of one of the ‘piss’ kinda blokes targetting them.


Men always want to be heroes. To their friends, to their family, to whoever. I think that's where some of this comes from.
#15171406
Wellsy wrote:Yes and the court infers what is true based on a cross examination of the people involved and any other means in which they can determine the outlines of what happened like whether there really was a taxi driver waiting outside.

They're basically just automatically believing the woman's version of the story.

There is not really any other evidence here.

Like I explained, the woman might not be trying to lie, but is telling the story from her perspective.

She could pass a lie detector test and say the same thing under the truth serum, and it is still theoretically possible that the man could be innocent of rape.

If you watched that video, you could see how the same words could be interpreted very differently.

If the man and woman both say they remember words being said, that doesn't exactly mean it was those exact words which were said. That is what they remember the meaning of the words to have been. The words they are remembering might be very similar to what was said, but not exactly the same, and those differences could be in certain crucial ways.
CRT

I don't need to provide you with a binary respons[…]

https://img.gazeta.ru/files3/187/1082[…]

RIP John McAfee....

@colliric I think McAfee did his very best to fo[…]

Sure. After all, we are just discussing vague fee[…]