|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purity Culture is Rape Culture
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
which is the title of this blog post on "The Phoenix and the Olive Branch"
Now for the question, following this quote:
quote:
This is precisely why it’s dangerous to argue that women ought to dress modestly to avoid male temptation. Doing so perpetuates the lie than men can be tempted beyond their ability to resist, and frames their acts of violence and depravity as inevitable results of forces beyond their control. Doing so creates an environment in which rapists can operate.
Why must it be assumed that men are incapable of being responsible for their own actions?
Surely, always blaming someone else for the wrongs one commits marks one out as an immature, irresponsible person, not as someone suitable to be a leader of a community or to be the head of a family, one who is owed submission by the other members of that group/family.
ETA that, at least, I can attempt to be responsible enough to correct my spelling!
[ 05. January 2013, 23:58: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Hi,
This is neither headship nor ordination of women, so not one of ours. I'll move it to Purgatory.
cheers
Louise
Dead Horses host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ah bugger, I see headship was worked into it at the bottom. Could someone send the thread back to Dead Horses?
Thanks!
L
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
it’s dangerous to argue that women ought to dress modestly to avoid male temptation. Doing so perpetuates the lie than men can be tempted beyond their ability to resist, and frames their acts of violence and depravity as inevitable results of forces beyond their control.
Why must it be assumed that men are incapable of being responsible for their own actions?
Modesty is important, but for reasons wholly unrelated to preventing rape. Seems to me most rape victims are modestly dressed.
I like your pointing out if males are so incapable of self control, they are incapable of running a business or family. (Used to be women were labeled unreasonably emotional and therefore incapable of responsible positions. But a lot of times "logic" used to limit women is not similarly applied to men.)
Actually I was reared on beliefs that were belittling to males in similar ways, like "never beat a man at a game, he'll feel shamed to lose to a woman." USA 1950s. We aren't that far from those cultural values.
I used to hear plenty of sermons (in my conservative Christian days) that basically said if a man sins (in any way) a woman caused him to do it. Well, actually, there was a lot of preaching that anything a woman does is wrong -- I once had a full page list, like take care of your appearance you are vain, but fail to do so and you are slovenly.
I'll bet if you look into any claim that how women dress causes rape, you find a generalized "women are wrong no matter what they do." I.e. the claim isn't really about dress, it's about the existence of women.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I certainly agree that men have to take responsibility for their actions, but isn't it true that circumstances can affect how likely we are to succomb to temptation in general? If that is the case then it is up to men to avoid situations where they are likely to encounter temptation, and indeed to seek psychological and/or spiritual counselling to deal with those urges. That said, to claim that circumstance has no effect on behaviour is a bit disingenuous.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
See, I'm just not all that convinced that decent men *are* all that tempted to commit rape. Tempted to have consensual sex in situations which are ill-advised, sure - extra marital affairs and such. But rape? Are good, considerate, non-predatory men really fighting back the urge to force unwilling women into sex?
I've always believed that there are three types of men when it comes to rape.
1 - Decent guys who will not rape anyone, no matter what the circumstances, because they understand it's wrong. Hopefully this is the vast majority.
2 - Predatory thugs who will inevitably commit sexual assault on someone regardless of the cultural context they're in.
3 - Men who are easily swayed by such factors as "What have I been taught about the worth of women?" "Will I get away with this?" "Will my friends think less of me if I back out of this assault?" "If she's unconscious, it doesn't count, right?" and so on.
Group 2 will only be stopped when they are caught and locked up. Group 1 doesn't need to be stopped because they just wouldn't do it anyway. Group 3 are the group that needs to be targeted by rape prevention efforts.
The idea that a scantily clad woman can move a man from group 1 to group 2 simply by existing and dressing in a particular way is obvious bullshit. But it is also part of the array of cultural ideas that contributes to letting group 3 off the hook for their actions. I'd also put "purity culture" in this category. It suggests not only that men are unable to control themselves when confronted with a bit of bare skin, but - perhaps more importantly - sets an arbitrary distinction between "our women" (who follow the "modest" dress code) and "other women" (who don't and are easily set apart as "fair game" for assault).
[ 06. January 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OK, how about looking at "Biblical Marriage" as an indicator of the way the men in power think?
Every instance leads to "the woman must submit sexually to the man". It would appear that the men in power were all either too weak to ASK their partner for sexual activity, or they were too enraged to behave civilly.
I have to add that, in most older cultures, the men knew they were expendable, as sword-fodder or as accident-waiting-to-happen characters. The women knew they were essential to the continuance of the tribe/group (this is still true in, for instance, Mayan Guatemala). But the men could, were supposed to, go adventuring. So they had to spread their seed before they were gone. And that meant demanding their occasion to do some seed-spreading.
It also meant that the men knew they were not really needed, hence the insecurity.
The recent case on the bus in India demonstrates that - there are too many men in almost all societies who do not see themselves as necessary or even a part of their society.
Which contributes to the rage.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
See, I'm just not all that convinced that decent men *are* all that tempted to commit rape.
Hear, hear!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But, then, maybe DECENT men don't enforce the Puity Culture.
Decent men probably treat women as real people.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Every instance leads to "the woman must submit sexually to the man". It would appear that the men in power were all either too weak to ASK their partner for sexual activity, or they were too enraged to behave civilly.
That probably isn't about sex at all - it is about power and domination of another person. But, then, that is often the case with rape.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I don't think there's anything at all wrong with purity. But it makes no sense to expect it of one sex but not the other; that's just a recipe for conflict. And which religion teaches that rape is a virtuous act for a man to commit??
Maybe we should look more closely at encouraging men who can't control themselves to consider the suggestion in Matthew 5:29. If you can't look at a woman without contemplating rape then the problem should be yours, not hers.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But, then, maybe DECENT men don't enforce the Puity Culture.
Decent men probably treat women as real people.
Well that's probably also true. But my post was a direct response to arethosemyfeet and the suggestion that rape is what happens when men "succumb to temptation." Consensual sex often happens when men (and indeed women) "succumb to temptation" but rape is a different entity entirely.
A rather clumsy analogy might be that if someone comes along and puts an enormous slice of free cake on my desk I'll probably eat it even though it's unhealthy and I'm not hungry. But I can pass a cafe where people are eating all manner of delicious cakes and not feel remotely tempted to punch one of the customers and steal their cake. Regardless of how hungry I am, how delicious the cake looks, how beautifully it's presented, how much they appear to be enjoying it... it's just not something I do. And I'm someone who really really loves cake.
I want cake now.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The problem is that, in Muslim preaching, in much, if not most, Christian preaching, in Jewish preaching,... the idea of "purity" is pushed by the church/mosque/synagogue. The preaching and writings that support this are done by males, since there are so few women in authority (and those that are, are contested by those males)
And IT IS ALWAYS THE WOMAN'S FAULT, ever since Eve. A woman can be killed, in many Muslim cultures, for being "impure" or for sullying the family honour by being thought to be impure. Jewish culture was the same, judging by the Woman at the Well.
And the man was NEVER at fault. How many areas had arrangements for the girl/woman to "go visit her aunt" or some other euphemism, so the baby could be put up for adoption and the girl could do something somewhere that wouldn't reflect back on the family - even in safe, "Christian" Canada or US. (I know of one building, now repurposed, which was run for just this reason by the Baptists until quite recently, less than 20 km away from where I sit)
But the man could hide or even be accepted, while the woman had to go.
We are trying to undo an entire history of mistreatment of women, admittedly, so it will take a while. The start is to get all the men to acknowledge that they aren't just freelance semen distributors.
Plus we have to get a handle on the rage issues that dominate so many men.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Still not asking for it.
Brilliant.
We need this to happen a lot to remind people. In fact, better that she was completely naked.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Actually, no. If she were completely naked, then all the prissies would be distracted by "seeing something awful".
I could point out that, in Canada, it is legal for a woman to appear in public topless, just as it is for a man. (Generally impractical in our climate most of the time, of course!) So it is illegal to see breasts as a primarily sexual object. A defence based on that alone should fail.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I am thinking of some guys I (briefly) dated.
"When a woman says no she means maybe, if she says maybe she means yes."
If a man really believes that, he can mishear "yes" when she says variations of no that don't sound absolute to him. Do some men genuinely believed it? Are some men culturally mistaught what "no" means on a woman's lips? That's a question, I don't know the answer.
There have been ads "no means no" as if that is not an obvious statement and some need to be taught it! I have read articles, more often in the past before the "no means no" campaign, in which the man expressed surprise to hear himself accused of rape because words and behaviors she intended to convey "no" he understood to be playful consent.
Cultural teachings matter. Do some whole cultures (or the male sub-set) teach that women don't say what they really mean and want?
Rape is an act of violence.
But is there a category between mutual consent and rape, a category of miscommunication, he really does believe she's just teasingly playfully consenting when she says "no" especially if it's worded in the gentle language women sometimes use among presumed friends like "please don't"?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... Cultural teachings matter. Do some whole cultures (or the male sub-set) teach that women don't say what they really mean and want? ...
Er, yes. Can't imagine how anyone could miss it. Hollywood movies, romance fiction, popular music, advertising, and endless sick "jokes" of the format "no means ...". Everything women say has to be translated, we're such mysterious creatures.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If a man really believes that, he can mishear "yes" when she says variations of no that don't sound absolute to him. Do some men genuinely believed it?
Apparently some do. If you browse the profiles of OK Cupid, for example, you can find plenty of men who say that women are obliged to have sex in return for a date, that maybe means yes, that women are obliged to shave their legs, and many other such things. Many of these men describe themselves as "nice guys," for what that's worth. There was a tumblr for a while that brought attention to these profiles, but the tumblr appears to be offline now. But maybe it will be back.
quote:
But is there a category between mutual consent and rape, a category of miscommunication, he really does believe she's just teasingly playfully consenting when she says "no" especially if it's worded in the gentle language women sometimes use among presumed friends like "please don't"?
Of course miscommunication happens. But imagine a different crime. Say I'm in a jewelry store, looking at expensive jewelry. I decide that I want one of the bracelets. I say so to the clerk, and he says, "That's a one-of-a-kind piece, but I can let you have it..." and another customer walks up and interrupts him. Has he just told me that I can have that bracelet? That it's mine, and I don't have to pay for it? I decide that, since I really want the bracelet, that he must have meant that. So I pick it up, put it on, and walk out of the store.
Did I just commit a crime? Or was it just a misunderstanding?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@Liopleurdon @Josephine
If the cake/bracelet were sentient and could voice an opinion on wether it wanted to be bought/eaten then would your analogy still stand or would it fall to pieces?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
In my (admittedly rather clumsy) analogy, the cake is the sex (or, I suppose, the enjoyment of the person's body), rather than the person himself/herself. I may very well be tempted to eat cake that is freely offered to me, but there is no cake in existence that is so delicious that I will take it by force against the will of its rightful owner. So it's not so much that the analogy crumbles as it's a different analogy.
I wouldn't want to come up with an analogy in which cake is a person for the obvious reason that - as you point out - a cake isn't sentient. There are some analogies which I think are inherently offensive, and actually one of these is directly related to purity culture. The version I've heard was about Muslim women covering up, but it could equally apply to any purity related culture. It goes something like:
Non-Muslim man: so why do you insist that Muslim women cover themselves up?
Muslim man takes two sweets, unwraps one of them and chucks them both onto the dusty floor. "Which one would you rather eat now?"
Non-Muslim man: The one that was wrapped up.
Muslim man: and that is why Muslim women cover themselves.
There are so many things wrong with this I barely know where to start.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But is there a category between mutual consent and rape, a category of miscommunication, he really does believe she's just teasingly playfully consenting when she says "no" especially if it's worded in the gentle language women sometimes use among presumed friends like "please don't"?
A phrase you'll now often hear in feminist circles, rather than "no means no" is "only yes means yes". This is about suggesting to men that if a woman really wants to have sex with you, she'll make it pretty clear that that's the case. Women are often taught to be nice, to be diplomatic and not hurt feelings. The effect of fear can also cause women to avoid asserting themselves. So a response such as freezing, lying there inert or even just saying "no" once and then shutting up when he ignores it *should* suggest that there's something badly wrong. But for guys who think that everything's fine unless they get a clear resounding "No" these responses are okay. There are two sides to this situation, of course, and the other is the cultural bullshit that leads to women thinking that they should be demure and coy and passive in the bedroom, which can lead to guys wondering whether they're really keen, unsure or terrified. Not good.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The parallel to the "Purity" culture of the evangelical US is the "honour" culture of India and the Mid-East. So "After the Rape, I Was Wounded, My Honour Wasn't" is apposite here.
The whole argument is about the privileged status of men, particularly rapists - the assumption that women are "asking" for it, and that women don't actually have the right to say "NO". Why?
Presumably because men are so much more important or human or something that they deserve sex and submission in all circumstances.
Yes, Mousethief, there are decent men around, but they are defined in opposition to the guys who take sex where they find or manufacture the opportunity. Even our supposedly-mature Western culture privileges men - look at any beer ad or listen to most jokes.
"Take my wife...please" goes back quite a long way.
Any suggestion that men might demean themselves just to get attention would be met with total outrage, but it is assumed to be the normal status for women.
And any college crowd will take advantage of that with a woman who is fool enough to go with the flow, just as the frat parties of the '20s did. Herds behave worse than individuals do, even on buses in India.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The parallel to the "Purity" culture of the evangelical US is the "honour" culture of India and the Mid-East. So "After the Rape, I Was Wounded, My Honour Wasn't" is apposite here.
The whole argument is about the privileged status of men, particularly rapists - the assumption that women are "asking" for it, and that women don't actually have the right to say "NO". Why?
Presumably because men are so much more important or human or something that they deserve sex and submission in all circumstances.
Yes, Mousethief, there are decent men around, but they are defined in opposition to the guys who take sex where they find or manufacture the opportunity. Even our supposedly-mature Western culture privileges men - look at any beer ad or listen to most jokes.
"Take my wife...please" goes back quite a long way.
Any suggestion that men might demean themselves just to get attention would be met with total outrage, but it is assumed to be the normal status for women.
And any college crowd will take advantage of that with a woman who is fool enough to go with the flow, just as the frat parties of the '20s did. Herds behave worse than individuals do, even on buses in India.
I agree with a lot of that, and I see it as part of patriarchy's fightback against female emancipation, but your point about ads made me sit up, as in the UK at any rate, there are quite a number of TV ads where the male is shown as a bumbling idiot, and the woman turns her face to camera, in a sort of 'look what an idiot I'm with' expression.
I'm not really sure what this is about, but it seems to be a current today in popular or populist culture. I was trying to think of comedies where it also occurs, but I will have to pause and rewind, in order to do that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
In my (admittedly rather clumsy) analogy, the cake is the sex (or, I suppose, the enjoyment of the person's body), rather than the person himself/herself.
Likewise for the analogy I used.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
In my (admittedly rather clumsy) analogy, the cake is the sex (or, I suppose, the enjoyment of the person's body), rather than the person himself/herself.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. It's like saying "I didn't sexually assault her, just her body".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
In my (admittedly rather clumsy) analogy, the cake is the sex (or, I suppose, the enjoyment of the person's body), rather than the person himself/herself.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. It's like saying "I didn't sexually assault her, just her body".
Well, acknowledging the flaws in the analogy would tend to strengthen Liopleurodon's point rather than otherwise. If someone under great temptation won't steal a cake - which entails only mild indirect harm - they're certainly not going to commit an act that causes significant direct harm.
Do you actually have a point other than "let's make other posters look like sex offenders"?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do you actually have a point other than "let's make other posters look like sex offenders"?
Absolutely. My point is that making a distinction between a person and her body is incredibly unhelpful, even (especially?) as a clarification. I don't think they can be separated in any meaningful way.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. It's like saying "I didn't sexually assault her, just her body".
No it's not, because I'm acknowledging that if you were to steal cake from someone, you'd be doing harm to the person, not the cake, and the person is what is important here. Given that I'm pretty sure we probably agree on this, I'm not sure what the hair splitting is about.
ETA: OK we cross posted. I didn't say that the cake was the person's body either. I said that it represents sex, or perhaps the pleasure thereof. The cake is absolutely not the person, OR the person's body - I agree that's a silly distinction to make.
[ 08. January 2013, 14:21: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
ETA: I didn't say that the cake was the person's body either. I said that it represents sex, or perhaps the pleasure thereof. The cake is absolutely not the person, OR the person's body - I agree that's a silly distinction to make.
Yes, I think you are talking about the "I want sex, I want the enjoyment of sex" and being solely aware of the "I want", seeing a potential way to satisfy that desire for the momentary pleasure of sex, NOT seeing a person, a human being, only a satisfaction of the "I want."
I'm newly filling out forms on OK Cupid. Some of the questions indicate some people have very different attitude than I do about sex. "Do you expect sex on the first date"? Huh? Are we talking a general principle applied to random people we haven't met yet? If I invite a neighbor who is on OK Cupid to join me at the coffee shop, is than an invitation to sex? I guess in some minds yes, sex is what matters, "do I get any," not the person.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Yes, the idea that anyone is entitled to sex under some circumstances is a scary one.
Even when people meet up with the understanding that that's why they're getting together in the first case there must be awkward moments when you meet up and just don't have any attraction.
[ 08. January 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I am thinking of some guys I (briefly) dated.
"When a woman says no she means maybe, if she says maybe she means yes."
If a man really believes that, he can mishear "yes" when she says variations of no that don't sound absolute to him.
...
But is there a category between mutual consent and rape, a category of miscommunication, he really does believe she's just teasingly playfully consenting when she says "no" especially if it's worded in the gentle language women sometimes use among presumed friends like "please don't"?
This is an extremely messy rabbit hole that revolves round cultural and social mores, and the clash of ask and guess culture. In a lot of societies, women are not supposed to openly want sex even when they do because actively going out and wanting sex makes you a slut (or worse). In a few subcultures no one is meant to openly want sex.
Which means that there is a lot of social pressure on the woman to say no even when the answer is yes. Just look at the words to "Baby it's cold outside" and bear in mind that song was not meant to be creepy in the slightest (although it now reads as incredibly creepy unless you have someone like Cerys Matthews putting an entire butcher's shop worth of ham in the "mouse" part).
So indeed there are subcultures where "No" isn't necessarily no and "Maybe" very definitely does mean yes. This normally works in those subcultures - everyone understand that the meaning of the conversation isn't the literal meaning of the words. But all hell breaks loose when people in one of these subcultures run into a more honest one.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Jane Austen's 'Persuasion' has a brilliant demonstration of the inability of the female to indicate to the male, yes, I want you, which was the mores of the time, as the heroine (Anne Eliot) has to indicate precisely this to the hero, whilst not doing it explicitly. Of course, Austen also extracts her usual irony and amusement from a scene like this. 'Emma' is also interesting, as here the heroine is not even aware that she fancies the hero like mad, and has to go through a series of projections of her erotic desires onto other characters, leading to disastrous match-making, before she is led to the realization of her own desires. You have to admire Austen's ability to play with the opposition between social rules and erotic desire, in which the female's desires are covert and indeed, frowned on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Soap-opera 'Emmerdale' is running a story whereby village psychopath/womaniser Cain Dingle has won over a vivacious, (now widowed), farmer's wife.
I've heard it said that every woman is liable to fall for a bad man once . Not that the so-called bad man we're talking about here is a rapist.
I think rapists are essentially weak individuals whose desire for women is translated inwardly as rage. I too don't believe the amount of bare flesh on show has anything to do with it.
As much as I don't like such logic, maybe it's true that all males are potential rapists, just as all human beings are potential murders . It still involves crossing a line though.
We still don't know why a minority of men choose to cross the line, while the the majority thankfully do not.
Cultural influences can make some men cross lines more readily . The permissive society could be one cultural influence . But historically when men are in wars they are more likely to commit atrocities including rape.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
In wartime, rape has traditionally been part of conquering, even if it is only a short-term conquest before the enemy regroups. Wars are designed to get rid of as many men as possible, so the surviving men plant their seed as symbols of "winning" and leaving behind memmentoes.
The rapes occur in a moment of gang activity, where all the other men are doing it, too.
We are now developing a culture where gangs of men encourage each other to do some dirty deeds, as occurred in Steubenville, Ohio, and as I'm pretty sure has happened in other sports contexts. The "big guys" are supposed to have their way, and the hangers-on do the jackal role, getting what they can in the hope of being seen as part of the group.
Trouble is, this is now well publicised, since everyone puts it all on Facebook or other video/photo site, so we're seeing a lot of copycat activity that might not have happened before.
And rape is no longer something that men can do and say no more, leaving the girl to suffer. Now we're* publicising and accepting the activity.
And we* still brand the women as sluts, while the men get applause.
* "We" as a collective of our societies, not necessarily as individuals, who do make their choices. But our societies are getting out of control in some ways.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Sometimes last year a writer for one of Canada's tabloids responded to Slutwalk with a revealing analogy about wearing white mittens in deer season. What it revealed was an attitude that "some women are prey" in the thinking of this idiot and likely far too many others.
It suggests variations on the class 2 of males above. All of them just a syllabus of misogynistic errors, alas.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Sorry, class 3 not 2. I'll suggest those are the ones most into "headship" btw.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think rapists are essentially weak individuals whose desire for women is translated inwardly as rage.
is not much different from this
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I certainly agree that men have to take responsibility for their actions, but isn't it true that circumstances can affect how likely we are to succomb to temptation in general?
and both are wrong. It is not about desire gone out of control, but control itself.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but your point about ads made me sit up, as in the UK at any rate, there are quite a number of TV ads where the male is shown as a bumbling idiot, and the woman turns her face to camera, in a sort of 'look what an idiot I'm with' expression.
I'm not really sure what this is about,
It is not about empowering women. Men have always laughed at the bloke who was run about by his woman.
To answer the OP: Yes, purity culture is rape culture. Especially as the man in not held to the same standards. When they start stoning bastards who cannot keep their penises to themselves, when men are shamed for being having extra-marital sex, perhaps "purity culture" will mean something beyond men controlling women.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I find it hard to believe there isn't some 'desire' involved in rape , but then I'm just trying to put my own head on a rapist's shoulders.
They do say it's all about control and nothing else.
I'm trying compare it with the desire to fight in a war, then wondering if I'm capable of plunging a bayonet in someone's chest.
OK I'd be trained to do it, I be motivated to do it . But when it actually came to the crunch would I , in that instant, still actually have the desire to kill a fellow human ?
Maybe this is what makes the vast majority of men psychologically incapable of rape under normal circumstances.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I heard last night, possibly on the BBC World Service, that some Indian politicians are complaining about the protests about the bus murder on the grounds that when women are raped it's due to what they were wearing, where they were, etc, etc.
Pity they don't look at their own culture - in the Mahabharat, when Draupadi is about to be stripped so that the bad guy can have his evil way, Krishna makes her sari endless so that the worst cannot happen. So the writers of the Mahabharat knew that man's behaviour of that sort was wrong. (Mind you, she was in traditional dress.)
[ 21. January 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
