Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad_sl said:

To see how much our white-knight bias affects our view of this, picture a straight guy dipping his toe in the gay world. He approaches a guy, they have kind of a shitty relationship because the gay dude is a gay red-pill aficionado, some rough gay sex is involved, and later on the straight guy feels like he was abused by this asshole, and didn't like the rough sex, etc. And claims rape. What would everyone say? They'd be like, you signed up for it faggot. Defend yourself if you didn't like it. Why is our attitude different towards women?

Click to expand...

Well, the feminist answer would be that boys are taught to be assertive about sex their whole life. I'm not sure I'd argue with that, either. The difference between modern feminists and myself (And perhaps sex positive feminists) is that I believe women shouldalsobe taught like that, rather then men being shamed about it. But, on the whole? If a woman invites an abusive guy back into her bed? And she has no reason to (IE she's not financial dependent on him, she has access to support structures ex)--my sentiments are essentially the same "If you don't like it in the pooper, stop fucking going back to him".

I might be biased though as I said, my sophomore year was literally filled with someone coming over to my room to cry every few days. At first, of course, I went full white knight mode and was going to insert myself into their relationship and "talk" to her BF (Looking back...man I was so stupid when I was young). But as MONTHS went by, I realized this girl was setting herself up to be shit on in life, and the problem wasn't actually him--but the fact that she was going and buying lube and enemas and getting herself ready for him every night and yet still blaming him. It was such an infantile view of the world I didn't understand it at first, and instead of seeing it for what it was--I was actually patronizing the girl by thinking she shouldn't be able to handle it. (But I did feel bad even after my little revelation; part of the reason I sympathized with feminism in college was because I thought society was fucked if it produced women so susceptible to this kind of behavior. Then feminism started taking over religion's place in producing this same meek, victim complex and I now I just get mad at ideologies.)

Lithose_sl said:

Redpill or sex negative feminism. The rise of those two ideologies makes me wonder if we aren't really just predisposed to treat sex like its' the edge of some kind of abyss that has to be approached with an ideological predisposition to navigate you over.

Click to expand...

As if I haven't pimped his books enough all over this forum, Pinker covers why this is in Better Angels. Very briefly it has to do with our "Purity" moral sense that keeps us safe from biological contamination (don't touch the poop) but can also be misapplied to generate disgust in other areas (sex, homosexuality, etc).

I think Cad should start a new sex contract law practice. You could really get in on the ground floor of a whole new field.



There's a Chappelle clip foreverything.

Mist_sl said:

This is exactly my point. Let's say we've reached the ethical education level where the only rapes that are being committed, are being committed by sociopaths. Sociopaths are then using the legal system, and your justifications, to shield themselves from repercussions.

The dramatic fall-off in rapes is specifically WHY this argument is getting so tough. The VAST majority of men are informed to the point that they know that "no means no." What's left is a cluster of sociopaths who realize "I can get away with this because the burden of proof is so high."

Click to expand...

Sociopaths aren't using the legal system. They wield no social power except what another individual allows them to wield. The answer to this isn't to give that other individual the power of the legal system--it's to teach them how to stop allowing the sociopath to take advantage. (Caveat though: Are we talking about abusive sex that is invited again and again by a woman, when she's not in a position of fear? Or are we talking about your other example of someone threatening violence BEFORE sex, in order to change a refusal into an acceptance?)

Mist_sl said:

But "get better proof" is justification for using those sex contract apps, that you guys think are ridiculous. "Get better proof" is endorsement of "yes means yes."

Click to expand...

Again, we need to be clear on what you're defining as anti-social behavior worthy of punishment. Is it the guy who threatens women INTO sex (IE rape)? Or the guy invited over for sex, who then gets rough and the women doesn't like that but does like him (And so he takes advantage. IE not rape but anti-social behavior.)

Mist_sl said:

Sure, but what is the solution? Because I don't think it's "keep being apologists for sociopathy" either.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we've reached the point where all the direct & easy solutions have been exhausted. Any further reduction to rape, like reductions to other kinds of violence, will need to be tackled at a societal level. That is we need to reduce the risk factors in society as a whole that allow psychopaths to flourish and express their psychopathy violently.

So, things like a better healthcare system (including mental health), a reduction in ghettos and poverty, fixing the criminal justice system, etc. Unfortunately these kinds of solutions require hard work, special knowledge, are difficult, and don't get your face on TV screaming "NO MEANS NO!"

I know there is more current data but I can't find it at the moment, this is the Innocence Project founders quoting FBI numbers -

"Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

Click to expand...

There's a reason we don't just move right to hanging.

Mist_sl said:

Okay so we've agreed that there's no black and white solution.

But at some point you have to come down on some side of a grey line between protecting the rights of sociopaths vs the rights of vulnerable women. Given that we live in a democracy, which side of that divide do you think most people would come down on? Who do you think most of the people care about protecting more?

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting the argument. We want to protect the rights of all non-sociopaths from the machinations of sociopaths. That is, a sociopathic male is likely to ruin an innocent woman's life by the use of sexual force, whereas a sociopathic female might instead manipulate the justice system to use its monopoly on force to do it for her.

Granting carte blanche to one gender is a miscarriage of justice, because there are female psychopaths (although fewer).