Feminist Guardian Journalist - Women who rape young boys shouldn't go to prison
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Underscore__
Don't assume all offenders' gender! Having a penis doesn't make you a boy! What if the offender is only a boy on weekdays but rapes someone on a weekend?
Gender? Gender? Humans are not nouns. There is only sex. Possession of a penis, attached to one's own body in the traditional place, and in working order - that is all you need to be capable of rape.
I am a Guardian reader and support most forms of feminism but that article is full of logical fallacies. Either you support that males and females are inherently different, thus endorsing gender roles or you don't. But don't pick and choose when you want the genders to be different and when you don't want them to be.
The boys that I went to school with would probably have bragged if one of them got to sleep with an attractive teacher, that's true. But the girls would also go nuts about an attractive male teacher and had those same fantasies. Bottom line is that they are children, and an adult who takes advantage of their position to pursue a relationship with one of them deserves to be punished. It's a bit insulting to suggest that a woman couldn't control her actions because she was going through a rough time with her "failing marriage".
The boys that I went to school with would probably have bragged if one of them got to sleep with an attractive teacher, that's true. But the girls would also go nuts about an attractive male teacher and had those same fantasies. Bottom line is that they are children, and an adult who takes advantage of their position to pursue a relationship with one of them deserves to be punished. It's a bit insulting to suggest that a woman couldn't control her actions because she was going through a rough time with her "failing marriage".
The article is 7 years old some changes have happened since then. Particularly in the US to include in the definition of rape a description which allows any gender to rape any gender.
It's misleading to say that the law changed to exclude female rapists in the U.K. Women have never been legally classed as rapists. When the definition changed to be the rape of any person that was to acknowledge that any gender could be raped..but the rapist is still any gender with a penis.
I've argued with CPS that women should be classed as rapists within the law. Apparently this change is not needed because there are sufficient crimes covering the act of forced penetration. But laws should reflect a need in society too and society needs to acknowledge women can rape.
I'm in no way minimising this article at all. It's disgusting. But I think it's disingenuous to ignore the similar vein which happens with teen girls. Both genders are oversexualised. Whilst girls don't have to face the almost blanket refusal that abuse could exist, the idea of it being a fantasy and the girl a Lolita is very pervasive. As long as both genders are near age of consent. The divide for believing a boy/girl are responsible and should feel lucky changes rapidly as they decrease in age. Until they reach under 13. So a 13/14 yo old boy should still feel lucky despite boys, on average experience puberty much later than girls. But 13/14yo girl is seen as more vulnerable and more likely to have been abused.
It's hard to even begin to understand the mentality of the masses with this.
It's also an oversimplification to say it is "feminists". That is not a feminist that is a woman who plays into the patriarchy. It wasn't feminists trying to shoot me down when I said (elsewhere) that a 14 yo boy was abused by female teacher. It wasn't feminists suggesting that if I had more sex I would think differently (nope my sex life has nothing to do with recognising abuse) and it wasn't feminists who sent me really offensive porn and threatened to reveal my personal info online for suggesting that a child wasn't lucky to be abused.
It's misleading to say that the law changed to exclude female rapists in the U.K. Women have never been legally classed as rapists. When the definition changed to be the rape of any person that was to acknowledge that any gender could be raped..but the rapist is still any gender with a penis.
I've argued with CPS that women should be classed as rapists within the law. Apparently this change is not needed because there are sufficient crimes covering the act of forced penetration. But laws should reflect a need in society too and society needs to acknowledge women can rape.
I'm in no way minimising this article at all. It's disgusting. But I think it's disingenuous to ignore the similar vein which happens with teen girls. Both genders are oversexualised. Whilst girls don't have to face the almost blanket refusal that abuse could exist, the idea of it being a fantasy and the girl a Lolita is very pervasive. As long as both genders are near age of consent. The divide for believing a boy/girl are responsible and should feel lucky changes rapidly as they decrease in age. Until they reach under 13. So a 13/14 yo old boy should still feel lucky despite boys, on average experience puberty much later than girls. But 13/14yo girl is seen as more vulnerable and more likely to have been abused.
It's hard to even begin to understand the mentality of the masses with this.
It's also an oversimplification to say it is "feminists". That is not a feminist that is a woman who plays into the patriarchy. It wasn't feminists trying to shoot me down when I said (elsewhere) that a 14 yo boy was abused by female teacher. It wasn't feminists suggesting that if I had more sex I would think differently (nope my sex life has nothing to do with recognising abuse) and it wasn't feminists who sent me really offensive porn and threatened to reveal my personal info online for suggesting that a child wasn't lucky to be abused.
Original post by Good bloke
Gender? Gender? Humans are not nouns. There is only sex. Possession of a penis, attached to one's own body in the traditional place, and in working order - that is all you need to be capable of rape.
I was joking. Feminists are usually the type of people to get annoyed people for 'assuming someone's gender'
Posted from TSR Mobile
there is a reference by a poster in one of the comments to the USA having changed its definition for rape so that "any gender can rape any gender". This is false.
Firstly, the definition for rape in the US is different for each state. There is no one definition that has changed to include rape of any gender. That shows a lack of understanding on the poster's part.
Secondly, the poster might be referring to an issue in 2014 where the definition for rape (as it is defined for the collection of statistics by the FBI) was changed as a result of a sexual assault carried out on a drunk female using an object and was brought about by feminist activism to address this issue in statistics. the definition used by the FBI remains sexist and still does not hold women accountable for raping men. It still revolves around women and excludes most female rapists from statistics in the USA.
The old definition and the new definition are as follows:
I do need to clarify, again, that this change only concerns itself with the statistical definition of rape in the USA not the legal definition. It only affects FBI statistics. The legal definition of rape varies by state in the USA.
Old sexist FBI definition for rape:
The “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
The new sexist FBI definition as of 2014:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The new definition concerns itself with victims of PENETRATION, BE IT ORAL PENETRATION OR VAGINAL OR ANAL…which, is rape as it affects women by men (mostly). For example, A female rapist is not going to rape a man by penetrating him (emphasis on the word penetration). For example, oral intercourse comprising a female rapist and a male victim is not going to involve the female orally penetrating the male by a sex organ. So, oral rape by a female of a male will not count as rape by that definition. I am going to spear us further examples and leave it here. I think I have made my point clear. That point being that it is a definition that focuses on rape as it is done by men and as it affects women. A woman who is going to rape a man is most likely going to envelop his penis orally or with her vagina as apposed to penetrate him.
Firstly, the definition for rape in the US is different for each state. There is no one definition that has changed to include rape of any gender. That shows a lack of understanding on the poster's part.
Secondly, the poster might be referring to an issue in 2014 where the definition for rape (as it is defined for the collection of statistics by the FBI) was changed as a result of a sexual assault carried out on a drunk female using an object and was brought about by feminist activism to address this issue in statistics. the definition used by the FBI remains sexist and still does not hold women accountable for raping men. It still revolves around women and excludes most female rapists from statistics in the USA.
The old definition and the new definition are as follows:
I do need to clarify, again, that this change only concerns itself with the statistical definition of rape in the USA not the legal definition. It only affects FBI statistics. The legal definition of rape varies by state in the USA.
Old sexist FBI definition for rape:
The “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
The new sexist FBI definition as of 2014:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The new definition concerns itself with victims of PENETRATION, BE IT ORAL PENETRATION OR VAGINAL OR ANAL…which, is rape as it affects women by men (mostly). For example, A female rapist is not going to rape a man by penetrating him (emphasis on the word penetration). For example, oral intercourse comprising a female rapist and a male victim is not going to involve the female orally penetrating the male by a sex organ. So, oral rape by a female of a male will not count as rape by that definition. I am going to spear us further examples and leave it here. I think I have made my point clear. That point being that it is a definition that focuses on rape as it is done by men and as it affects women. A woman who is going to rape a man is most likely going to envelop his penis orally or with her vagina as apposed to penetrate him.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
there is a reference by a poster in one of the comments to the USA having changed its definition for rape so that "any gender can rape any gender". This is false.
Firstly, the definition for rape in the US is different for each state. There is no one definition that has changed to include rape of any gender. That shows a lack of understanding on the poster's part.
Secondly, the poster might be referring to an issue in 2014 where the definition for rape (as it is defined for the collection of statistics by the FBI) as a result of a sexual assault carried out on a drunk female with an object and was brought about by feminist activism to address this issue in statistics. the definition used by the FBI remains sexist and still does not hold women accountable for raping men. It still revolves around women and excludes most female rapists from statistics in the USA.
The old definition and the new definition are as follows:
I do need to clarify, again, that this change only concerns itself with the statistical definition of rape in the USA not the legal definition. It only affects FBI statistics. The legal definition of rape varies by state in the USA.
Old sexist FBI definition for rape:
The “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
The new sexist FBI definition as of 2014:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The new definition concerns itself with victims of PENETRATION, BE IT ORAL PENETRATION OR VAGINAL OR ANAL…which, is rape as it affects women by men (mostly). For example, A female rapist is not going to rape a man by penetrating him (emphasis on the word penetration). Oral intercourse comprising a female rapist and a male victim is not going to involve the female orally penetrating the male by a sex organ. So, oral rape by a female of a male will not count as rape by that definition. I am going to spear us further detail/examples and leave it here. I think I have made my point clear. That point being that it is a definition that focuses on rape as it is done by men and as it affects women. A woman who is going to rape a man is most likely going to envelop his penis orally or with her vagina as apposed to penetrate him.
Firstly, the definition for rape in the US is different for each state. There is no one definition that has changed to include rape of any gender. That shows a lack of understanding on the poster's part.
Secondly, the poster might be referring to an issue in 2014 where the definition for rape (as it is defined for the collection of statistics by the FBI) as a result of a sexual assault carried out on a drunk female with an object and was brought about by feminist activism to address this issue in statistics. the definition used by the FBI remains sexist and still does not hold women accountable for raping men. It still revolves around women and excludes most female rapists from statistics in the USA.
The old definition and the new definition are as follows:
I do need to clarify, again, that this change only concerns itself with the statistical definition of rape in the USA not the legal definition. It only affects FBI statistics. The legal definition of rape varies by state in the USA.
Old sexist FBI definition for rape:
The “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
The new sexist FBI definition as of 2014:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The new definition concerns itself with victims of PENETRATION, BE IT ORAL PENETRATION OR VAGINAL OR ANAL…which, is rape as it affects women by men (mostly). For example, A female rapist is not going to rape a man by penetrating him (emphasis on the word penetration). Oral intercourse comprising a female rapist and a male victim is not going to involve the female orally penetrating the male by a sex organ. So, oral rape by a female of a male will not count as rape by that definition. I am going to spear us further detail/examples and leave it here. I think I have made my point clear. That point being that it is a definition that focuses on rape as it is done by men and as it affects women. A woman who is going to rape a man is most likely going to envelop his penis orally or with her vagina as apposed to penetrate him.
The definition of the crime involves active penetration, not being penetrated.
Original post by WBZ144
am a Guardian reader and support most forms of feminism but that article is full of logical fallacies. Either you support that males and females are inherently different, thus endorsing gender roles or you don't. But don't pick and choose when you want the genders to be different and when you don't want them to be.
The boys that I went to school with would probably have bragged if one of them got to sleep with an attractive teacher, that's true. But the girls would also go nuts about an attractive male teacher and had those same fantasies. Bottom line is that they are children, and an adult who takes advantage of their position to pursue a relationship with one of them deserves to be punished. It's a bit insulting to suggest that a woman couldn't control her actions because she was going through a rough time with her "failing marriage".
The boys that I went to school with would probably have bragged if one of them got to sleep with an attractive teacher, that's true. But the girls would also go nuts about an attractive male teacher and had those same fantasies. Bottom line is that they are children, and an adult who takes advantage of their position to pursue a relationship with one of them deserves to be punished. It's a bit insulting to suggest that a woman couldn't control her actions because she was going through a rough time with her "failing marriage".
An intelligent interesting comment.
Side note: You will find double standards and contradiction in most everything involving feminism.
(edited 7 years ago)
Right because a woman can't hold an object and penetrate with an object - which the new definition actually allows for.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. It's the establishment and, more often than not, men who are denying the forced to penetrate as a rape but it's still a sexual offence. If you weren't so blinded by anti-feminism, you would see that feminism has very little to do with these attitudes about how men can't be raped by a woman. It's a mix of many different things; first and foremost a lack of basic biological and anotomical knowledge. That an erection does not equal consent. That men are not always aroused and ready to have sex whenever.
This is not an attitude of women who seek to objectify men and keep them lower than themselves (at least not for majority of women). This is an attitude of men who think arousal is a sign of masculinity and often heterosexuality. Women can believe this too it's a very pervasive myth. Easily debunked with proper sex Ed.
Then there is an extension of the always aroused idea. That men then have to **** women (invariably) because they can't control themselves. Which serves nicely to justify the rape of women whilst at the same time shame and emasculate men who have been raped/sexually assaulted by a woman. The concept of saying no to an attractive woman is alien to some people. It happens across both genders (I've personally been subject to comments about that) but men and boys experience this nearly every time. If a man can imagine himself wanting to sleep with the abuser/rapist then there must be something wrong with the man who doesn't want to. All a bunch of BS
Throw in a sense of entitlement and screwed up ideas of empowerment and you get people who believe they can just go up and grab what they want. At some point sexual empowerment lost its way. Apparently getting what you want and need became grab like asshat men do and consent isn't sexy. It's taking a REALLY long time to undo that damage. Never mind the sense of entitlement towards someone else's body. That being courteous is not just to be a good human being but something which requires payment of sex.
I find it a bit repulsive that for someone who says they want equality for all and better treatment of all..that they would use one of the most ostracised and disadvantaged groups in society to project and try to promote their personal agenda against feminism. Against a small branch of feminism which, like all extremist groups, bears very little resemblance to the larger group and their beliefs.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. It's the establishment and, more often than not, men who are denying the forced to penetrate as a rape but it's still a sexual offence. If you weren't so blinded by anti-feminism, you would see that feminism has very little to do with these attitudes about how men can't be raped by a woman. It's a mix of many different things; first and foremost a lack of basic biological and anotomical knowledge. That an erection does not equal consent. That men are not always aroused and ready to have sex whenever.
This is not an attitude of women who seek to objectify men and keep them lower than themselves (at least not for majority of women). This is an attitude of men who think arousal is a sign of masculinity and often heterosexuality. Women can believe this too it's a very pervasive myth. Easily debunked with proper sex Ed.
Then there is an extension of the always aroused idea. That men then have to **** women (invariably) because they can't control themselves. Which serves nicely to justify the rape of women whilst at the same time shame and emasculate men who have been raped/sexually assaulted by a woman. The concept of saying no to an attractive woman is alien to some people. It happens across both genders (I've personally been subject to comments about that) but men and boys experience this nearly every time. If a man can imagine himself wanting to sleep with the abuser/rapist then there must be something wrong with the man who doesn't want to. All a bunch of BS
Throw in a sense of entitlement and screwed up ideas of empowerment and you get people who believe they can just go up and grab what they want. At some point sexual empowerment lost its way. Apparently getting what you want and need became grab like asshat men do and consent isn't sexy. It's taking a REALLY long time to undo that damage. Never mind the sense of entitlement towards someone else's body. That being courteous is not just to be a good human being but something which requires payment of sex.
I find it a bit repulsive that for someone who says they want equality for all and better treatment of all..that they would use one of the most ostracised and disadvantaged groups in society to project and try to promote their personal agenda against feminism. Against a small branch of feminism which, like all extremist groups, bears very little resemblance to the larger group and their beliefs.
Original post by ~Tara~
Right because a woman can't hold an object and penetrate with an object - which the new definition actually allows for.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. It's the establishment and, more often than not, men who are denying the forced to penetrate as a rape but it's still a sexual offence. If you weren't so blinded by anti-feminism, you would see that feminism has very little to do with these attitudes about how men can't be raped by a woman. It's a mix of many different things; first and foremost a lack of basic biological and anotomical knowledge. That an erection does not equal consent. That men are not always aroused and ready to have sex whenever.
This is not an attitude of women who seek to objectify men and keep them lower than themselves (at least not for majority of women). This is an attitude of men who think arousal is a sign of masculinity and often heterosexuality. Women can believe this too it's a very pervasive myth. Easily debunked with proper sex Ed.
Then there is an extension of the always aroused idea. That men then have to **** women (invariably) because they can't control themselves. Which serves nicely to justify the rape of women whilst at the same time shame and emasculate men who have been raped/sexually assaulted by a woman. The concept of saying no to an attractive woman is alien to some people. It happens across both genders (I've personally been subject to comments about that) but men and boys experience this nearly every time. If a man can imagine himself wanting to sleep with the abuser/rapist then there must be something wrong with the man who doesn't want to. All a bunch of BS
Throw in a sense of entitlement and screwed up ideas of empowerment and you get people who believe they can just go up and grab what they want. At some point sexual empowerment lost its way. Apparently getting what you want and need became grab like asshat men do and consent isn't sexy. It's taking a REALLY long time to undo that damage. Never mind the sense of entitlement towards someone else's body. That being courteous is not just to be a good human being but something which requires payment of sex.
I find it a bit repulsive that for someone who says they want equality for all and better treatment of all..that they would use one of the most ostracised and disadvantaged groups in society to project and try to promote their personal agenda against feminism. Against a small branch of feminism which, like all extremist groups, bears very little resemblance to the larger group and their beliefs.
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. It's the establishment and, more often than not, men who are denying the forced to penetrate as a rape but it's still a sexual offence. If you weren't so blinded by anti-feminism, you would see that feminism has very little to do with these attitudes about how men can't be raped by a woman. It's a mix of many different things; first and foremost a lack of basic biological and anotomical knowledge. That an erection does not equal consent. That men are not always aroused and ready to have sex whenever.
This is not an attitude of women who seek to objectify men and keep them lower than themselves (at least not for majority of women). This is an attitude of men who think arousal is a sign of masculinity and often heterosexuality. Women can believe this too it's a very pervasive myth. Easily debunked with proper sex Ed.
Then there is an extension of the always aroused idea. That men then have to **** women (invariably) because they can't control themselves. Which serves nicely to justify the rape of women whilst at the same time shame and emasculate men who have been raped/sexually assaulted by a woman. The concept of saying no to an attractive woman is alien to some people. It happens across both genders (I've personally been subject to comments about that) but men and boys experience this nearly every time. If a man can imagine himself wanting to sleep with the abuser/rapist then there must be something wrong with the man who doesn't want to. All a bunch of BS
Throw in a sense of entitlement and screwed up ideas of empowerment and you get people who believe they can just go up and grab what they want. At some point sexual empowerment lost its way. Apparently getting what you want and need became grab like asshat men do and consent isn't sexy. It's taking a REALLY long time to undo that damage. Never mind the sense of entitlement towards someone else's body. That being courteous is not just to be a good human being but something which requires payment of sex.
I find it a bit repulsive that for someone who says they want equality for all and better treatment of all..that they would use one of the most ostracised and disadvantaged groups in society to project and try to promote their personal agenda against feminism. Against a small branch of feminism which, like all extremist groups, bears very little resemblance to the larger group and their beliefs.
You always seem to struggle comprehending what is being said and i'm not sure why. This is why i didnt directly reply to your comment. Its a total waste of time engaging you in any debate. I did, however, want to address one of your points for others who might actually believe what you wrote.
You claimed that rape laws had been changed in the USA recently such that ""any gender can rape any gender""
That is an outright lie. Well, actually, I know its not a lie since I very much doubt you know the truth. You are just uninformed and close minded.
Firstly, each state has its own rape laws in the USA. Secondly and most importantly, all states in the USA still define rape as that which is done by men against women or other men. As in, contrary to what you claimed WOMEN STILL CANNOT BE CHRAGED WITH RAPE IN THE USA. For example Missouri's rape law is as follows:
"566.030 - Rape in the first degree: Sexual intercourse (penetration of a vagina by a penis, even if slight or without emission) with a person who's incapacitated, incapable of consent, or by force (includes date rape drugs)"
Original post by ~Tara~
Right because a woman can't hold an object and penetrate with an object - which the new definition actually allows for.
Nobody said anything like that. In fact i went out of my way in the comment above to emphasise the fact that the definition excluded MOST and not all female rapists as it revolved around penetration.
And I'm going write this for a third time since it flew over your head the first two times i wrote it in my previous comment. There was a change to a definition of rape in the USA but this change had NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE LAWS. please, take your time reading this. If you don't understand what I am trying to say here, please find yourself a friend who understands this language to translate this for you. This change in the definition of rape in the USA, happened in 2014 and only concerns itself with the statistical definition of rape in the USA not the legal definition. It only affects FBI statistics. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RAPE LAWS. Furthermore, it concerns itself only with penetration or rape as it is usually done by men.
God, give me strength.
(edited 7 years ago)
THIS is why feminism isn't about equality any more. feminists want DIFFERENT treatment, not EQUAL treatment, for women. **** them. how the hell can ANYBODY suggest that the definition of feminism is still equality between the genders?!
You don't want to argue with me because I have common sense and I'm pointing out how reductionist your argument is.
As usual you're cherry picking your paragraphs. You yourself wrote that the definition of rape included by object. Which would mean a woman could be charged with rape.
Myself and others have already discussed the need to include forcible penetration but also that these offences aren't ignored. It is still sexual assault. They would still be a sex offender. I've already stated that I've tried to argue this point with the CPS. That's not changing any time soon.
You don't need to argue with me. The point of my last comment was that I actually agree there are huge gaps in support and in the justice for male victims of sexual abuse and rape. I'm in the fortunate position of being able to try and make changes to improve that. So I have literally no idea why you're arguing with me on something we've both agreed needs to change. Except of course the fact that you don't care what any one of us says unless it strokes your ego and conforms with your ideas about evil feminists.
If it's not obvious I consider myself a feminist and I work hard to promote equal and fair treatment for both sexes. It's about more than the stuff you like or write on social media. It's actionable change. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be in a position of arguing for legislation changes but we can choose to stop moaning about who hasn't helped a discriminated group and actually do something productive to help that group. Do you do anything to help change the situation?
As usual you're cherry picking your paragraphs. You yourself wrote that the definition of rape included by object. Which would mean a woman could be charged with rape.
Myself and others have already discussed the need to include forcible penetration but also that these offences aren't ignored. It is still sexual assault. They would still be a sex offender. I've already stated that I've tried to argue this point with the CPS. That's not changing any time soon.
You don't need to argue with me. The point of my last comment was that I actually agree there are huge gaps in support and in the justice for male victims of sexual abuse and rape. I'm in the fortunate position of being able to try and make changes to improve that. So I have literally no idea why you're arguing with me on something we've both agreed needs to change. Except of course the fact that you don't care what any one of us says unless it strokes your ego and conforms with your ideas about evil feminists.
If it's not obvious I consider myself a feminist and I work hard to promote equal and fair treatment for both sexes. It's about more than the stuff you like or write on social media. It's actionable change. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be in a position of arguing for legislation changes but we can choose to stop moaning about who hasn't helped a discriminated group and actually do something productive to help that group. Do you do anything to help change the situation?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ~Tara~
Right because a woman can't hold an object and penetrate with an object - which the new definition actually allows for.
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean? If you're trying to drag assault by penetration into the argument don't waste your time, a woman should be liable for the same sentence as a man for forcing another person to have 'traditional' sex.
Original post by ~Tara~
I really don't see what you're trying to get at. It's the establishment and, more often than not, men who are denying the forced to penetrate as a rape but it's still a sexual offence. If you weren't so blinded by anti-feminism, you would see that feminism has very little to do with these attitudes about how men can't be raped by a woman. It's a mix of many different things; first and foremost a lack of basic biological and anotomical knowledge. That an erection does not equal consent. That men are not always aroused and ready to have sex whenever.
Yes 'forced to penetrate' is offence but nowhere near as serious. Who thinks that having an erection means a man wants to have sex? We don't live in1850. Everyone in the legislature and courts would be aware that an erection doesn't mean consent.
Original post by ~Tara~
This is not an attitude of women who seek to objectify men and keep them lower than themselves (at least not for majority of women). This is an attitude of men who think arousal is a sign of masculinity and often heterosexuality. Women can believe this too it's a very pervasive myth. Easily debunked with proper sex Ed.
Who thinks arousal is a sign of heterosexuality? First off you make it sound as though people think homosexuals don't get aroused. Secondly, all men will have seen plenty of women they wouldn't want to sleep with, anyone worth listening to can understand a man wanting to say no.
Original post by ~Tara~
Then there is an extension of the always aroused idea. That men then have to **** women (invariably) because they can't control themselves. Which serves nicely to justify the rape of women whilst at the same time shame and emasculate men who have been raped/sexually assaulted by a woman. The concept of saying no to an attractive woman is alien to some people. It happens across both genders (I've personally been subject to comments about that) but men and boys experience this nearly every time. If a man can imagine himself wanting to sleep with the abuser/rapist then there must be something wrong with the man who doesn't want to. All a bunch of BS
What's really BS is what you're saying, you're applying attitudes from a century ago to modern people.
Original post by ~Tara~
Throw in a sense of entitlement and screwed up ideas of empowerment and you get people who believe they can just go up and grab what they want. At some point sexual empowerment lost its way. Apparently getting what you want and need became grab like asshat men do and consent isn't sexy. It's taking a REALLY long time to undo that damage. Never mind the sense of entitlement towards someone else's body. That being courteous is not just to be a good human being but something which requires payment of sex.
You've made so many claims about societal attitudes that are ridiculously outdated and if true about the general population, wouldn't be true of people in parliament.
Original post by ~Tara~
I find it a bit repulsive that for someone who says they want equality for all and better treatment of all..that they would use one of the most ostracised and disadvantaged groups in society to project and try to promote their personal agenda against feminism. Against a small branch of feminism which, like all extremist groups, bears very little resemblance to the larger group and their beliefs.
This is this constant counterargument from feminists but I'm yet to see anything to make me believe feminists truly want equality. It seems moaning about the patriarchy and white privilege is just too much fun. If feminism was truly about quality perhaps feminists would be concerned with more than trying to erode the human rights of accused rapists when it comes to sexual offences.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
Given that rape is defined as illegal penetration with a penis, can you please explain how girls manage it?
Okay technically it's not rape but it is still sexual assault personally I think it is just as bad.
Original post by Underscore__
Not really sure what this is supposed to mean? If you're trying to drag assault by penetration into the argument don't waste your time, a woman should be liable for the same sentence as a man for forcing another person to have 'traditional' sex.
Yes 'forced to penetrate' is offence but nowhere near as serious. Who thinks that having an erection means a man wants to have sex? We don't live in1850. Everyone in the legislature and courts would be aware that an erection doesn't mean consent.
Who thinks arousal is a sign of heterosexuality? First off you make it sound as though people think homosexuals don't get aroused. Secondly, all men will have seen plenty of women they wouldn't want to sleep with, anyone worth listening to can understand a man wanting to say no.
What's really BS is what you're saying, you're applying attitudes from a century ago to modern people.
You've made so many claims about societal attitudes that are ridiculously outdated and if true about the general population, wouldn't be true of people in parliament.
This is this constant counterargument from feminists but I'm yet to see anything to make me believe feminists truly want equality. It seems moaning about the patriarchy and white privilege is just too much fun. If feminism was truly about quality perhaps feminists would be concerned with more than trying to erode the human rights of accused rapists when it comes to sexual offences.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yes 'forced to penetrate' is offence but nowhere near as serious. Who thinks that having an erection means a man wants to have sex? We don't live in1850. Everyone in the legislature and courts would be aware that an erection doesn't mean consent.
Who thinks arousal is a sign of heterosexuality? First off you make it sound as though people think homosexuals don't get aroused. Secondly, all men will have seen plenty of women they wouldn't want to sleep with, anyone worth listening to can understand a man wanting to say no.
What's really BS is what you're saying, you're applying attitudes from a century ago to modern people.
You've made so many claims about societal attitudes that are ridiculously outdated and if true about the general population, wouldn't be true of people in parliament.
This is this constant counterargument from feminists but I'm yet to see anything to make me believe feminists truly want equality. It seems moaning about the patriarchy and white privilege is just too much fun. If feminism was truly about quality perhaps feminists would be concerned with more than trying to erode the human rights of accused rapists when it comes to sexual offences.
Posted from TSR Mobile
you defined rape to be by penis or object therefore they are already on par with each other 🙄 See the problem with just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is that you twist yourself in knots and then end up contradicting yourself
I don't know where you live but those myths are plenty common. I'd love for them to be outdated and not have to routinely challenge them. To not have the vitriol of (usually men) aimed at men when I dare to argue that men DO have control over themselves and aren't ready for sex 24/7. Maybe I should move where you live if the people there are so much more progressive.
--oh right now feminists picking on accused rapists. So we won't actually address the fact that you'll step on any disadvantaged group just to further your agenda? No much harder to try and turn that back on itself.
You clearly have no interest in helping the people you stand on so I'm going to divert my energies to people who actually want to help victims of female abusers.
She is probably right.
But it's still sexual abuse of a minor by an adult in a position of guardian.
She probably thinks that isn't the case because the idea is a minor cannot consent and if he or she did they were "coerced", and she is saying the bragging shows there was no coercion. As I said, probably right, but the law is the law and for a good reason. Least not because even if the boy really wanted it, it will have lasting effects.
But it's still sexual abuse of a minor by an adult in a position of guardian.
She probably thinks that isn't the case because the idea is a minor cannot consent and if he or she did they were "coerced", and she is saying the bragging shows there was no coercion. As I said, probably right, but the law is the law and for a good reason. Least not because even if the boy really wanted it, it will have lasting effects.
Original post by ~Tara~
you defined rape to be by penis or object therefore they are already on par with each other 🙄 See the problem with just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is that you twist yourself in knots and then end up contradicting yourself
Where have defined rape and assault by penetration as being on par?
Original post by ~Tara~
I don't know where you live but those myths are plenty common. I'd love for them to be outdated and not have to routinely challenge them. To not have the vitriol of (usually men) aimed at men when I dare to argue that men DO have control over themselves and aren't ready for sex 24/7. Maybe I should move where you live if the people there are so much more progressive.
So it's fine for you to stereotype men based on your experiences but extreme feminist views aren't representative of feminists in general? Makes perfect sense. Besides when it comes to law making the average man you're speaking to is irrelevant.
Original post by ~Tara~
--oh right now feminists picking on accused rapists. So we won't actually address the fact that you'll step on any disadvantaged group just to further your agenda? No much harder to try and turn that back on itself.
Well you calling it 'picking on' I call it trying to erode their human rights. I'm not stepping on anyone, I'm simply responding to what I've read.
Original post by ~Tara~
You clearly have no interest in helping the people you stand on so I'm going to divert my energies to people who actually want to help victims of female abusers.
Who am I 'standing on'? I read your comment, saw how ridiculous it was and responded.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Apologies that was me confusing your identity with another poster.
I haven't stereotyped men at all. I simply stated that the majority of the time the crudest and worst responses were from men. That's not a stereotype at all. A stereotype would be to generalise that hate to all men, but I didn't. As for the rest of what I said in that quote, it's all fact. Men can stop themselves from having sex, they aren't animals without a brain or free will. And they aren't aroused all day every day. Thinking about sex, finding someone attractive etc is different to being up, rest and willing for sex.
I haven't stereotyped men at all. I simply stated that the majority of the time the crudest and worst responses were from men. That's not a stereotype at all. A stereotype would be to generalise that hate to all men, but I didn't. As for the rest of what I said in that quote, it's all fact. Men can stop themselves from having sex, they aren't animals without a brain or free will. And they aren't aroused all day every day. Thinking about sex, finding someone attractive etc is different to being up, rest and willing for sex.
Original post by Dodgypirate
Oh yeah, the infamous "No True Feminist" fallacy.
how is it a fallacy? Are right wingers making up argumental fallacies to suit themselves now?
Original post by Good bloke
Given that rape is defined as illegal penetration with a penis, can you please explain how girls manage it?
Statutory rape. Google it.
How about you educate yourself before trying to act all smart on the internet.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Jaguar (JLR) Degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Social work degree apprenticeshipLast reply 1 minute ago
Mphil In Planning, Growth and Regeneration 2024 - CambridgeLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entryLast reply 3 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadPosted 4 minutes ago
University of Hull - Looking for a replacement £139.50 a week, 4 bedroom en suitPosted 5 minutes ago
How to write an email for applying directly to the school for the 6th formLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Microsoft apprenticeship 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 9 minutes ago
Do NOT attend if you're planning to do accountancy/financeLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official Imperial College London Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
