I swear, it’s the same oblivious stupidity, just expressed in a different domain, and I deal with enough inanity trying to cope with creationionism — I should probably avoid this stuff lest I suffer an overdose. But Manboobz hurts me again, and I can’t turn my eyes away. This is a real revelation about how these guys think:
[W]hen most men pass the age of 30-35, they begin to awaken from this biochemical “dream” and what do they awaken beside? What do married men look forward to the next 30-50 years of their lives? Sleeping with a living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? Looking forward to the time when the woman undergoes the process of metamorphosis, into a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?
Pussy is indeed way overrated and if younger men could get a shot of “anti-testosterone” for a few weeks, they could see through the eyes of men who are 40+; without the haze of hormones, you cannot believe how much farther you can see! It’s the difference between seeing the horizon through LA style smog and seeing the horizon from a high mountain in the Rockies.
Guys, you’re doing it wrong. I don’t think your wives are the insane ones, it’s you.
If you’re doing it right, the relationship gets stronger and the sex gets better the older you get; while I might well be willing to trade in my sputtering 50+ year old body for a 20 year old model, I would not ever want to exchange the kind of sex I get at 50+ for the kind I got at 20 (which was great, don’t get me wrong, but experience in these matters really does improve everything). People who look at their spouses as hostile occupiers are just weird, sick, and deprived individuals; I simply don’t get it.
I also like my testosterone, thank you very much. If those wackos were serious, there really is an easy fix: a do-it-yourself orchidectomy. Just think, a little knife work, and his vision will be so clear it’ll be like sitting on board the space telescope.
Despite having been given evidence. Do you put effort into being so obtuse, or is it just part of your personality?
FTFY
Gunboat Diplomat
No, nobody is doing that. Nobody excludes the problems of private property of the means of production *(even though mostly not in so many words), but your reduction is plain out wrong.
How do we know that?
Because it’s been tried.
Most of the socialist countries had quite good laws, abortion rights, were among the first to outlaw marital rape, invested into childcare and healthcare and so on.
In short, they had the basis that western feminists are still fighting for. And we all know that it wasn’t enough.
It meant that the men sat back, folded their arms and said: Well, you got equality, now make me a sammich.
Cuban law states that spouses have to share household duties, but the guys there are among the most sexist I’ve ever met.
Because it just isn’t enough.
And yes, you’re getting the “sexual object” wrong. It’s about denying people agency, as not viewing the as persons with needs and feelings and likes, but as things.
And that isn’t about shooting a glance at an attractive body part and shortly redirecting a bit of blood.
No, it isn’t.
There are lots of people who are happy with casual sex, i.e. finding somebody who is eager to spend some time with you engaging in physical contact.
Sometimes those are friends with benefits, sometimes they are strangers. It doesn’t mean that you view the other one as a means for your pleasure, but somebody you’re teaming up with for a common goal.
Objectification happens when you see that person as a wet hole to stick your peepee into or an erect object to rub against and are disinterested in how they are perceiving the matter.
Are you kidding? The fact that people have stood up against genocide was only possible because enough people thought the other group to be “no like us” enough to deny them their humanity.
I don’t disagree with you in that, as social animals, we instinctively recognize other humans as same, but that’s why such MRA propaganda is so evil: They condition men to see women not as humans=same, but as female=different, just like racist propaganda does, or like anti-semitic propaganda did in the Third Reich. You know, call Jews “vermin” often enough, long enough, loud enough and people will buy it.
*BTW, “post agriculture” is bullshit, this has been going on for much longer than the industrial revolution
Hey, Gunboat, look around you. Who are the women you’re deliberately ignoring? They’re the one’s who’ve suffered the most from our (western, I’m assuming you belong to) sexist and misogynistic culture. They’re the people who have actual first hand knowledge of how the people in their lives reacted and changed and continued to diminish them.
What should you be doing when trying to understand something like rape? Postulating endlessly while staring off into space? Or maybe you should be talking to the people who actually have some idea of how the “sexists” behave, how they hide amongst us, what rational they use and how they condition (or the thinking process) their victims to feel about themselves.
And I’m raving, so I’m going to have to stop commenting.
^^^Condescending sexist asshole. You can’t really answer Algernon’s substance, so you sexually objectify her. Coward.
You don’t need to actually use the phrase; the implication is quite clear. You don’t believe women when they’re talking about living with the results of being objectified. You must think we’re all lying, or crazy, or some combination of the two. You know, hysterical.
The difference between the way you were using the word “object” and the way the rest of us were using the word “object” was already noted and accounted for. It was explained by several people, including me, that if you don’t want to interact with a person except to have sex, that doesn’t require treating him or her as an inanimate object. It was also pointed out by Classical Cipher that even if you have a long-running relationship with a person that includes things besides sex, it’s still possible to treat him or her as an inanimate object.
So, your refusal to adjust your definitions and actually engage with the matter at hand is noted. Clearly you’re not interested in arguing in good faith.
If we see you around here again, we’ll know not to expect any honesty or compassion from you.
Ta.
Knowing the bawdy bard, there’s every possibility that he meant it deliberately ironically.
Or it’s an obscure Elisabethan pun, based on some now-extinct usage of some word pronounced like “sun” (Or son!). Shakespeare liked those.
Because, even back in Shakespeare’s time, the first thing that happens when you look at the summer sun, is the brilliance of it blinds you and you can’t see anything.
How cute. You think that if you don’t use the actual words, it means you can’t be capable of doing the things the word describe.
What a lackwit.
FIFY
Yesh, I went away last night and see that this thread has added another 150 comments. Anyway, from looking at the last 10 comments I see the discussion has not really moved on as casual sex and objectification still seem to be on the plate.
Did it really take you a few hundred comments to realize people are using the word object in a different manner than you were? Perhaps you should do more reading about this and stop discussing it until you actually learn the lingo.
As for treating people like an object in the sense everyone else means it. I do know some people who are into objectivization as a fetish. But of course, that is not how people generally want to be treated in real life, they want to feel like their partners view them as nothing but an object in the bedroom. I am pretty sure none of them actually want a partner that actually views them as nothing more than something to have sex with even when they are in a casual relationship or even having sex with a stranger.
Marxists seem to have the same attitude as people saying that now that Barack Obama has become president, all racism has magically disappeared from the US.
Where Marxists were in power, similar things happened. The East German regime proclaimed itself anti-fascist and egalitarian, thus racism and sexism did not exist, by party fiat. Never mind the problems faced by Vietnamese guest workers or those from Africa, or never mind the fact that the percentage of women in the nomenclature was always much lower than men. Just have a look at the CPSU, or even the CPCh from Mao’s times until now…
Yes, this came up in the thread with Verbose Stoic.
Obtaining someone’s consent to treat them as an object during sex play is not treating him or her as an object. Objects cannot give consent. By obtaining hir consent first, you are demonstrating that you regard hir as a person. Actual objects are incapable of giving or revoking consent. Which is why actual objectification is so closely linked to sexual assault and rape.
But, of course, us silly wimminz are just making it all up, according to Gunboat Diplomat. Probably because we’re so bourgeois. Because obviously poor women never experience objectification, harassment, or sexual assault.
Other people talked about their ages, as age was related to one of the ridiculous MRA claims, and you single me out for providing mine, as though it was a bad thing to do?
Or is your complaint that I try to figure out how each article relates to me, to understand it better?
It seems like no matter what I do, people disapprove of it.
What’s wrong with being bourgeois? Having money is awesome!
Case in point in how you objectify people and hurt them. Fuck off Shoebox.
So, in other words, its perfectly okay with you to guarantee there are lots of rapists running around free, cuz gosh golly gee whiz, you’re male and don’t have to worry about being raped. How comfy that clueless male privilege is, huh. Must be nice to be able to publically declare that guaranteeing the world is a dangerous place for women is perfectly cool with you, because [conspiracy theory + Here’s a new word I learned in school today!]
Congratulations on adding “rape-apologist” to your misogynistic douchebomb credentials, on a blog with multiple rape survivors, some of whom have been trying to penetrate your hoover-dam thick skull.
Go play on the freeway, but make sure its during rush hour.
I’m still right. You can’t come up with anything but your own sexual issues to say about it. That’s because I’m right.
*rubs it in*
Like ball torture? Because that’s hot.
@Zerple
Oh SHUT up. You’re obviously trolling.
Oh geez.
There’s feeding trolls and there’s feeding trolls.
And then there’s doing like Zerple: serving the trolls a beautiful nine-course meal with a series of fine wines, a cheese plate to clear the palate, and a rich dessert as well.
@Sally
Zerple isn’t feeding the trolls…he’s engaging in pack hunting behavior with his fellows.
But when trolls feed trolls what does one do? I mean, I think we just invented a perpetual motion machine!
Yeah, so why don’t you whine about it some more, and then continue doing the things that people have previously expressed disapproval about. That will certainly endear you to the commentariat.
Now all we need to do is find a way to convert outrage to kinetic energy.
Indeed, and note how GD’s own practice negates his supposedly preferred definitions. Obviously GD has never seen Algernon in real life, so it’s impossible that he’s objectifying her because he’s physically sexually attracted to her. No, he’s only objectifying her because it’s a handy way to put her down, in a way that’s congruent with his personal sexual issues.
QED: objectification can happen without the presence of any actual sexual attraction or intention to have sex with the person being objectified, contrary to GD’s claims.
To sum up: Algernon is right.
I’m not outraged. GD played his hand, he’s full of shit. Style over substance all the way. And that is all one needs to know. He’s a pathetic little shit who is trying to make the thread about something else. Look at what the thread is about, look at the discussion. He’s lying. His bullshit is just that. He knows damned well what people are talking about. This is an excuse for him to gurgle about his post-feminist values in order to shut these bitches over here up.
He can go fuck himself. But I’m not angry with that, because honestly, one can look over the thread and read it in order to see that when you suspect some one is a disingenuous shitbag you can easily draw them out a little to confirm it.
Now he gets to tell us women what we really need to think, because he knows.
But he doesn’t. He’s a worthless little pimple full of nothing but pus.
And that, that doesn’t leave me outraged. It leaves me elated. I love reality.
I’ve found a speed bag or punching bag attached to a rig that converts the kinetic energy delivered to it into torque to spin a magnetic wheel is a plausible method.
@Algernon
Frankly, I find what GBD does to be the goal of feeding the trolls. MM did it, Zerple insists on doing it, blah blah blah. The mask breaks.
@Ing – I like the punching bag idea. And you’re right about feeding trolls.
@Algernon – I find it rather outrageous. But I feel you. When MM posted that awfulness about me and my hypothetical lover, I wasn’t angry, but rather sickened and triumphant at the same time. Just like with the “Hot Chicks of Wall Street” episode, the more you poke their mask, the more they reveal the monster underneath. Time after time, it is revealed that people who express sexist opinions aren’t “just joking” or “trying to get a rise out of you”–they are sincerely hostile to women in general. Which is why challenging casual, minor instances of sexism is totally worth it.
Interesting. I’ve always thought it was just narcissism. They want to talk about themselves – cuz they’re totes interesting, and then pout and get mad when no one else wants to talk about them too. We’re missing out, you see, and they just want to share their vital insights and opinions with the plebs.
Time to break out the gumby-quotes for Gunboat Dickplomat, methinks.
Illuminata,
I get that to a fair extent as well. Why else flounce, return, leave, announce your intention to carry on, etc.
@Illuminata
Active deception and misrepresentation requires mental energy. When challenged or stressed you put pressure on those reserves and the social mechanisms designed to hide someone’s true nature is depleted.
but in another sense you are right. I’ve found, which sort of surprised me a bit since it actually seems to point towards a validated TV Trope, that part of hate is a compulsion to talk.
Or in this case, the bourgeoisie.
@Illuminata
It’s like road rage
So did I, but over all these threads since Elevator Inc(ident), these folks always, always flashover into misogyny when pushed. Some fast, some slow. I can only remember one counterexample in all this time. There’s got to be a correlation between narcissism and misogyny, even if it’s only from culture being permissive of narcissism in men.
@Pteryxx
If the people weren’t narcissisticly arrogant they would be open to the idea that they are wrong and would re-act when they hit the Brick Wall of Facts(tm) on any situation.
It’s the same flawed reasoning as you see on the WLC thread.
pelamun
Please don’t use the word “Marxist” as if it were a uniform group.
The problem you described arose indeed from taking Marx as a bible, as dogma to follow.
Marx claimed indeed that our being dictates our consciousness (how could it be different, everything is based in the material world), but then people thought that all they had to do was to change the material basis and the rest would follow.
Needless to say that this rather simplistic approach failed. It’s hard to get centuries of cultural indoctrination out of people, especially out of people who think that they are already the good guys(tm).
There IS a link between narcissism and misogyny–there’s at least one study that shows that men who score high on the former also score high on the latter. I’m looking for it right now…
Dr. Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self-Love, a book about narcissistic personality disorder, seems to be quite convinced that there is a strong link between narcissism and misogyny. He says that most male narcissists are misogynists. I don’t think this should be read as saying that most misogynists are narcissists necessarily.
In any case, I can’t seem to find the article I remember.
Oh boy does the narcissist ever.
I would guess though, that narcissists, who happen to be male would find misogyny useful as a cultural construct.
I increasingly get the impression that when male supremacists talk about the supposed ‘evils’ of feminism, they have a mental image of what a feminist is that looks something like this.
It certainly fits in with the hyperbolic demonization that seems to be their trademark…
——————————————————————-
Gunboat Diplomat @ 475;
It would be easier if rapists were all monsters, but it just isn’t true. All too many rapists genuinely do not see themselves as rapists because society has constructed sexuality in such a way that they have an avenue to tell themselves that what they are doing doesn’t conform to the stereotypical ‘violent stranger rape’ that is the definition if rape most comfortable for (and useful too) the patriarchy.
I have made this point before on another thread, but it bears repeating that marital rape is a clear, recent example of fully socially normalised and legally mandated rape in our society. Until relatively recently it was not illegal in the UK since the standard position was that marriage constituted a ‘standing consent’, and that a married woman had ‘conjugal obligations’ to her spouse such that she could not withold sex. I doubt very much that the men who exploited the law of the era to compel their wives to render this ‘marital tribute’ saw themselves as rapists. This is not because they were psychopaths, but because the society in which they lived did not view this behaviour as morally wrong at all, still less equivalent to ‘True Rape'(TM) as it was defined by the culture of the time, and as many male supremacists would still define it if they could.
@ 480;
The self-same person who might run into a burning building to save an individual who falls into their definition of personhood may be casually cruel and abusive to another person who they see as ‘subhuman’. Being a misogynist or a homophobe or a racist doesn’t mean that you are incapable of empathy in all circumstances, it means that you have chosen to define personhood in such a way as to exlude certain groups of people from the status of ‘human being’ in your eyes for whatever reason; be it personal, cultural or an expression of standing social constructions of personhood in your society. Once you have done this, then you do not believe that it is necessary to treat with that type of person as if they are human.
As other posters have noted above, you seem to be using the term ‘sexual objectification’ to mean that your are primarily relating to a given individual in a sexual manner whilst still respecting their humanity. You are focussing on the sexual component. The other people here, however, are using the far more common formulation of the phrase, where the focus is on the objectification component, and the intent of sexual objectification is to render the other person down into an object that exists solely for your gratification – an object whose consent is irrelevant. In the common usage, objectification of a person is necessarily dehumanizing, and dehumanizing someone is a well recognised means by which a psychologically normal person can horrifically abuse another human being without realising that this act is wrong.
Thus the formulation; objectification -> dehumanization -> bigotry and expressions of such including rape and abuse, holds up perfectly well once you abandon your curious definition of what is meant by ‘objectification’.
The point that objectification leads directly to terrible abuse has been made by many commenters who have directly experienced such abuse. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM’s terrible experiences as related @ 447 show the direct correlation between sexual objectifcation and violent abuse and rape.
—————————————————————–
Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM @ 447;
I am so sorry to hear that you went through such a terribly abusive relationship. I cannot find the words to express the depth of my revulsion and contempt for the inadequate excuse for a human being who did that to you.
Algernon:
If my experience with a narcissist is anything to go by, yes, they do find it useful. And comfortable.
Lets try that link again
So true. I’ve definitely had a brush with what a panel of experts would likely agree could be called a psychopath. It would almost be fortunate if all rape was committed by people like this though. It would also be nice if people didn’t protect them and their behavior by normalizing it. Both things would definitely be nice.
All right, you half-witted, obtuse piece of shit. Now you’ve pissed me off.
I’m only going to say this once. Try and fucking listen this time.
This is not a game for us.
This is not fucking wordplay. This is not an academic question. This is lying awake at night sobbing because you can’t remember what it felt like to be a real person. This is being afraid of people because you know that eventually someone somewhere will see through you and realize you’re nothing but a shell, and then they’ll do the same thing he did. This is living months in terror that somehow he will come back, and everything you’ve tried to become will be obliterated in the face of the reality that “you” don’t even exist. This is life or fucking death. Don’t you fucking dare bring your insipid semantic quibbles and pompous pseudointellectualism back here to insult and denigrate the people who have actually lived through what you’re saying doesn’t happen. You festering pile of fetid dog shit.
@Phalacrocorax #493
Yes I still object to the statement for a number of reasons. First I think its difficult to dissociate person from object in the dehumanising sense it seems to be meant here and it is by no means as widespread or as permanent as claimed. Don’t get me wrong – misogyny is EVERYWHERE and constantly rears its ugly head especially in all male company. It is not consistent however and waxes and wanes with the individual depending on whats going on in their life, the world and how much people are fought with.
Secondly even if you do “objectify” (god thats such a rubbish term) in the sexual sense that is not necessarily oppressive to the “object” as long as the principle of effective consent is not violated.
Third the epitome of misogyny is hatred of women, not using them purely for sexual gratification without caring about their feelings. Now these two are mutually exclusive on a logical basis unless you assume that hatred is a necessary part of sexual gratification. With some psychopaths it is sure. And as an effective consent based fantasy people its pretty common but thats irrelevant. This lead on to:
Fourth it posits the whole issue of sexual enjoyment in negative moralistic terms. The Roman Catholic church would have no problem at all with this statement. Seriously, no problem at all, I know because thats the kind of crap they teach today. They like to swap “misogyny” with “sin” or “disrespect for women” but there completely agree with this analysis and sentiment.
Now I’m not saying everything the catholic church does is completely morally wrong but if you’re seeing a convergence with their opinions on sex it might be time to re examine the issue. Generally this has always been a problem with the anglo-saxon feminist movement, it has been shot through with a certain brand of religious moralism and reactionary conservative bourgeois nationalism.
Too pretty Gregory.
How little things change.
You have a facile understanding of these words.
We don’t care if a liar and bullshitter like you objects or not. Your dishonesty is a proven commodity. We only care that you haven’t shut the fuck up. Why don’t you? Or are you such a MRA you can’t be told what to do?
Seriously, that’s creepy and inappropriate. Go away.
This is a thread for discussion of a serious issue that is important for people’s lives, not an opportunity for you to indulge your sexual predilections or get a kick out of trolling for lulz. This isn’t a game. The issue we’re discussing is the importance of treating women – half of the world’s human population – as human beings, rather than objects. You might find that a trivial question, but, strangely enough, the rest of us don’t.
@Classical Cipher #549
And how dare you lump me together with people who say rape doesn’t happen, sexual abuse doesn’t happen, misogyny is the fault of “wimmin”, sexual oppression is “just an illusion”.
All of that is bullshit, I’m arguing about the cause and the mechanisms not the terrible terrible consequences and NEVER would I blame the victims or belittle asault, sexual assualt , rape and all the rest.
So save your ire for the people who deserve it.
@ Nerd of Redhead #553
Thats right I’m a closet MRA, despite all evidence to the contrary. You’ve found me out. Well done. My hobbies include hating freedom and seeking to destroy your way of life. On weekends I steal candy from children while twirling my moustache whilst laughing maniacally.
Bullshit. A cold contemptuous disregard for women’s feelings is still misogyny. Not all hate comes in the form of blind rage. Treating another person as something less than human, as a thing that exists for your convenience rather than as an end in hirself, is the epitome of hate.
Also bullshit, and a ludicrous strawman. As far as I can see, no one here has expressed any disapproval of sexual enjoyment, or of adventurous sexual practices. I’m all for plenty of things of which the Catholic Church disapproves (gay and lesbian sex, masturbation, sex before marriage, and so on).
What I am trying to point out (and I don’t necessarily speak for anyone else) is that sex, like all other human interactions, should be based on mutual respect. Whatever kind of sexual relationship you have, whatever mutual boundaries you establish and whatever kind of sex (vanilla or weird) you enjoy, you have an obligation to respect the other person, to treat hir as a human being and to care about hir wellbeing and emotions. This isn’t just restricted to sex. You have the same responsibility of respect and concern towards every other human being you interact with in your daily life, in any capacity; be it your best friend, your aunt, your hairdresser, the person at Starbucks from whom you buy your coffee, and so on. This doesn’t mean you should treat all these people exactly the same way. But you should avoid being an asshole to any of them.
It’s not about “sin”. “Sin” is an infraction of a transcendent moral code supposedly prescribed by a deity; it rests on the idea that some things are just inherently morally bad and impure in themselves, irrespective of their consequences. That’s bullshit. In a rational worldview, we should measure the moral worth of any action according to the actual effects it has on other human beings. (And on non-human animals and the natural environment, but that’s a side point.) And on this view, it is wrong to treat other humans as objects to use and abuse for your own purposes as you see fit.
That’s gibberish. Objects don’t consent. That’s the whole point. If you’re getting consent, you are treating the partner as a person, not just an object.
Look dude, you’re the one who selectively uses a word when it conveniences you. You can’t wriggle the fuck out of this. You are saying it is ok to pretend a person is not a human so you can use them for what you want. No wiggle room, you stinking pustule. You are not even worthy of contempt.
You’re a liar and bullshit artist. You’ve been called on it. Multiple times.
Walton:
Oh, but Walton, it was a joke! Seriously, it was soooo funny, that’s why there was a little smiley, it’s a *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* between men! :eyeroll:
Seriously, that line of fetid shit lobbed at Algernon is a perfect example of how GD operates in life, regardless of his attempts to come across as a human being. “Oh, look at the humourless wimmins, poor things. I’ll just talk to the men, they’ll get me, after all, it’s not possible that another man doesn’t share my viewpoint.”
That’s a prime marker of a sociopathic personality. One who sees others as objects to be used, either for pleasure or to obtain a goal. Empty monsters.
Great. Finally. Something I can really chew on.
Asserts facts not in evidence, in contradiction of evidence already offered.
Meaningless blather, transparent attempt to deflect accusations of misogyny. Too late.
Not a rubbish term; you only think so because you refuse to grapple with its actual meaning.
Objectification necessarily assumes that consent is irrelevant. It’s inherent in the meaning of the word “objectification,” whose meaning, as already noted, you refuse to actually deal with.
Haha. No, that’s a straw man. Hatred is not a NECESSARY part of sexual gratification for ALL people. For some people, though, it is, and those are the narcissistic misogynists who get sexual gratification by using women as sexual objects who exist solely to fulfill their needs.
Nope, not just psychopaths. Again, you are deliberately ignoring the actual meaning of the word “objectification,” otherwise you wouldn’t bother including that tangent about consent-based objectification play.
Actually, it posits the whole issue of sexual enjoyment in terms of enthusiastic consent and communication. Two things which are precluded if one party is treating his sexual partner as an object. This straw man was particularly idiotic.
I don’t keep up with the Catholic church’s dogma on sexual matters. I highly doubt that the Church’s ideas about sin are congruent with feminist formations of objectification and enthusiastic consent. But even so, if it is true, then I must conclude that, like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, the Catholic church is correct in saying that it is wrong to treat your sexual partner as an object. If even the Catholic church is ahead of you in terms of sexual mores, the perhaps it’s time for you to re-examine your ideas. This was a transparent attempt to assign guilt by association. The more you write, the more the weakness of your ideas is revealed.
So many buzzwords, so little meaning. Too bad you can’t recognize a sex-positive feminist when one is speaking directly to you. No wonder you have such fucked-up attitudes about sex.
Algernon @ 551;
Good point. The hatred reserved for the Suffragettes and their supposed gall in daring to demand the political rights of actual people seems to be closely mirrored in the attitudes of modern male supremacists. And of course, many male supremacists love to denigrate what they think of as the lack of ‘femininity’ of feminists since only bitter, angry ‘hags’ (and their lick-spittle male catspaws like your’s truly) adopt feminism. ‘Doable’ wimminz don’t feel the need, apparently…
But it occurs to me that this isn’t universal. The morphology of male supremacists is broader than that, and for some the very (admittedly slightly odd) ‘prettiness’* of the image plays into their attitude that all women exist to worship their mighty member, and feminists simply need to be ‘broken’ (you know, like a wild horse) so that they can fulfill this manifest destiny.
I even met one jerk at university who claimed that he enjoyed the ‘challenge’ of a feminist ‘conquest’. His logic was that; “they all want it really, they just can’t admit it to themselves”.
When I expressed revulsion at his misogynist attitude he seemed to be unsure whether I was just one of those male feminist ‘gender traitors’ or if it was all somekind of ruse by which I was merely pretending to be a feminist in order to ‘get into the pants’ of female feminists. The idea that a man could adopt feminism out of principle and a respect for the personhood of women was utterly incomprehensible to him.
* If you like horns, batlike wings and faux-medieval armour plate, that is.
Sally:
The more I read, the more GD is reminding me of Casual Guy / nunbeliever. Especially the insistence on using psychopath.
What evidence to the contrary? You mean when you claimed to be a pro-choice protester, as if that should erase the misogynist content of everything else you’ve written? You are saying that it’s okay to treat a person as an inanimate object, particularly when you want to sex them. That’s a misogynist position. You are a misogynist and a liar. You’re hardly closeted.
Good point. Sort of like the absence of lesbians in many people’s minds.
I, by the way, have to admit the horns are kind of awesome.
*checks* Oh, I’d forgotten they were supposedly different people. (I get ‘nyms muddled in my head.) From the quirks of the writing style, I’m pretty certain they’re one and the same.
Actually, PZ revealed that Casual Guy and nunbeliever were one and the same.
No, I meant GunboatDiplomat and Casual Guy. It’s pretty obvious that they’re the same person, IMO.
Pffft, I knew he seemed familiar, but that would just be sad. I’m kind of almost hoping it isn’t true.
But none of them will ever be the troll that bwoke my widdle heart.
Oh, yes. Well, there is the similarity of writing styles, combined with the previous history of morphing. Quite plausible, yes. Casual Guy more of a whiner, though. From what I recall.
Walton:
I don’t know that they are, however, much of what is being written sounds damn near identical to the crap CG wrote, here and on sciblogs.
GD has been around for quite a while, although never a prolific commenter.
What?
You’re still missing the point.
Gunboat Diplomat
By now you have become a fully fledged troll and an idiot.
You refuse to accept the definition of “objectification” given to you as it is used in the current context and then claim that it ain’t necessarily if people see other people only as means for their sexual gratification, and you say that in the face of people who survived such abuse.
Get lost.
Sadly I’m not duplicitous enough to have pseudonyms nor competent enough. As i only post form two computers, one with a static IP address it should be easy enough to figure out. Or so I hear but I’m a bit of a luddite.
@Zerple #517
Apparently thats why I became a marxist in the first place – I was just jealous of rich people and wanted all their stuff for myself. So I’ve been told.
Um, dude. “Gunboat Diplomat” is a pseudonym. The phrase you’re looking for is “sock puppets”.
Hmm. I should have said “probably” in 576. I supposed it’s possible you just have some real asshole parents.
Gunboat Diplomat said:
GBD, your refusal to understand how “sex object” is used in this context is astonishing. Let’s try again:
“To view women as
nothing more than sex objectssubhumans who are there for your enjoyment is the very epitome of misogyny”Does it make it any more clear for you?
Just like you, the RCC would choose to focus on the “sex” aspect, while ignoring the problems of treating a person as less than human. Many traditionalist religious men aren’t against treating women as property (i. e., less than human, i. e. objects).
GD:
Unless your parents named you “Gunboat Diplomat”, you are using a psuedonym, you fucking lackwit.
Oh, and pardon the fuck out of me if I don’t believe you, what with you being a narcissistic sociopath. Then again, CG/nunbeliever is a narcissistic sociopath too, so no wonder you sound almost word for word the same.
You might be right Phalacrocorax, its very difficult for me to conceptually transform a human “sex object” into a “subhuman”
I’ll have to work on the sociopathic side of my nature ;)
Yet according to some posters I’M the one who’s fucked up….
However you’re dead wrong about the RCC, they don’t focus on sex at all directly in their teachings, they bore you to tears with talk about love, commitment, repsect, and they drop the sex issue periodically as a both a titillation and shame mechanism.
In that way its completely different to 50 or 100 years ago where sex was much more unavailable and they could go on and on about how evil and disgusting the whole thing was, winding the class up knowing there was no way to expend that energy except in ways they could control. They don’t dare do that now.
(as you can see if you read joyces Portrait of the Artist as a Young man for example)
Yawn, GD still here? What a waste of electrons.
I have to say this is an incredibly hostile forum for anyone who disagrees with a particular brand of anglo saxon bourgeois feminism. Thats not meant as an insult but as a general description.
I mean I can understand this in live political debates where passions runs high and you’re denouncing the organisers of the meeting for their reformism (Have i said too much?). And I can understand it when you’re talking to a bunch of uneducated reactionaries.
I was politically active on the left in western europe for many years. I’ve held meetings, given presentations, engaged in debates and count many academics and intellectuals and scientists among my personal friends.
Now that doesn’t necessarily mean a damn thing. However some of those closest to me are western euroepan feminists and we talk about these sorts of issues – and sometimes disagree, sometimes not – now and again.
Never once have I been so insulted as here. Ok its the internet. And ok so it IS turning me on (maybe thats why my freinds dont do it). But it is kind of surprising on a blog whcih is generally so progressive and thoughtful
I guess in a sense “l’horde” is a blunt instrument, great at whacking specific reactionaries but not so good at pedagogic education. Thats ok, PZ’s great at that.
Yes, well you also claim that your use of object is consistent with a consent context and so no one else in this conversation would use object in your manner. Are you denying that people can treat other people as less than human? If not, does it not bother you that you are coming across like you are making that claim?
Gunboat Diplomat said:
GBD, upthread you said you had understood that everybody else was using “object” as “counterposed to ‘person’ “. Remember that?
Then, I asked you to evaluate a statement in which “sex object” was used. You were unable to read that phrase using the very definition of “sex object” you had just given us. Remember that, too?
Now, I replace “sex object” with “subhuman” and you pretend not to understand what’s going on. Either you don’t understand that I was using “subhuman” as “counterposed to “person” ” or you’re just bullshitting me.
I hope you’re giving a break to your troll side. I’m done feeding you.
I only talk about myself when it’s relevant.
Zerple:
It hasn’t been relevant a single time you’ve yakked about yourself, which you do in every fucking post. Shut the fuck up, douchetwit.
‘snicker’
It is almost like you are implying that PZ should disown this place.
Here is a bit of news for you, PZ likes that this is a rough and tough place. He makes sure that our fangs are sharp and our pelts are sniny.
Gunboat Diplmoat @582
Don’t worry, this Marxist Feminst who’s been lurking for the entire thread thinks you’re an idiot, too.
Your avowed failure to grasp terminology that is 101 level for discussion of sexism and misogyny, even after said terms were repeatedly explained to you in incredibly simplistic language is laughable at best, and disingenuous and decietful at worst.
@ Dhorvath
Why would it bother me if people cherry pick my statements? I specifically said its possible several times, only its difficult for us a species, we are predisposed to the contrary.
Of course no one bothers to argue about whether we are or we aren’t predisposed. THAT bothers me because its a huge issue in science and I expected posters on this blog to be interested in that rather than leaping to conclusions about someones treasonous views.
Especially considering I don’t know so much about that myself other than a few books so hoped to get some good arguments, lessons and pointers for further reading.
All I got was pedantry, nitpicking and ill-informed insults.
Really, BAD horde – BAD!
PZ:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2011/08/01/pharyngula-standards-practices/
He scolds us? Well! Damn! He sure put us in our deserved place.
Consider me properly chastised.
Thank you, Caine.
@inane Janine #588:
He does like you and I can see why. He doesn’t quite indulge in your practices though. He’s Robespierre and you’re the Committee of Public Safety ;)
That is a big compliment from a marxist.
Heh, I just popped by to note that “as clear as is the summer sun” uses clear in its meaning of “obvious”, not as “transparent”. And looky here, there’s very peculiar new species of misogynist about.
Or should I say, curiously retro species. It’s a Ye Olde Pre-feminist Socialist; the type that inspired the 1960s/70s women’s movement by their refusal to accept women as equal comrades. Make the tea and sandwiches, type the minutes, lie back and think of the revolution. It’s like the whole socialist feminist movement passed him by. (Hint: there’s a lot of us. We have seen your type before.)
Perhaps he’s been in a coma since the 1960s.
From my admittedly amateurish understanding of cognitive neurobiology and social sciences, it’s both difficult and easy. The thing that makes it difficult is if the person in question is part of your in-group. The thing that makes it easy is if the person in question is part of a hostile out-group. Basic human tribalism.
The thing YOU have been refusing to deal with is that MRA misogynist rhetoric conditions men to view women as part of a hostile out-group. So it becomes quite easy for them to dehumanize women. The fact that so many women here have experienced being objectified and dehumanized personally should tell you, if nothing else, that it’s not as unusual as you think. But then, that would require tamping down your Marxist ego for a second, shutting the fuck up, and listening to women–something a misogynist narcissist like you clearly has a problem doing.
1 in 6 women in America will experience rape, sexual assault, or an attempt at one of those during her lifetime. Probably the number is higher.
1 in 3 American men say that they might rape someone if they thought they were sure to get away with it.
12% of American men admit to raping or attempting to rape someone, so long as you don’t use the word “rape.”
How is that possible if it’s so difficult and unusual to dehumanize women?
That was a rhetorical question, by the way. The point is that you’re empirically wrong in your assumption that it’s difficult for the majority of men to objectify and dehumanize women.
@geeksgirlsrule #589
Sorry comrade but you’re not much of a marxist if you think bourgeouis and proletarian ideologies are compatible. Its called the popular front and its been the graveyard of revolution for 163 years.
From his spotty reading comprehension I’d say maybe a part of him is still there.
Strawman.
Haters gonna hate.
Now, Janine, you know very well you aren’t properly chastised until Madame Patricia gets ahold of you.
Trollin’ trollin’ trollin’
Keep those mousies scrollin’
Alethea:
:snortle:
Yes, he has been, and that explains the smell emanating from him: no one has changed his pee-soaked bedclothes in all those years, poor old boy.
I think it’s pretty disrespectful to poor women and women of color to imply that objectification, dehumanization, and the harassment and sexual violence cause by those attitudes are the exclusive concern of “bourgeois” feminists.
And yet you keep saying things that deny problems seen by the rest of the commenters here. Your insistence on psychopathy for instance. We don’t like a lot of the same things that happen in society, but terminology like that is tailored to othering problems, it distances individuals from the harm that they can cause inadvertently. So while we may agree on problems, we are drastically at odds in how we talk about them. So far I have seen no indication that you even care about that effect save to say you think it farcical. You are knee deep in people who think your language is hurtful and you wonder why they go no further than criticizing your words?
You will find that the commenters here don’t much care if a given social trait reflects an innate predisposition, a cultural construct, or somewhere in between. What we care about is whether that trait can be affected through changes in language, behaviour, and ideas. Yes, humans have innate characteristics, some not so pleasing, but we can also be aware of these things and seek to address those things which we see as faults.
So far the impression I have had of you is that you want to tell us that we are wrong.
He’s not a godbot, he’s a marxbot.
Funny how some fools like to compare a bunch of internet commentators to various organized killers throughout history. We have been jack booted thugs and members of the Red Army. Really funny when this comes from a fool who uses a deadly form of negotiation as a moniker.
Assclam.
If you don’t think Marxism (or other forms of socialism) and feminism are compatible, or that feminism is a “bourgeois ideology”, I suggest reading Catherine Mackinnon’s Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory, to start with. I’m getting the impression that you have a rather shallow understanding of Marxist theory, and none at all of feminist theory.
(I have no axe to grind on this question, since I am neither a Marxist nor any other kind of socialist. But you keep yammering on about Marxism, yet your understanding of Marxist thought seems to be stuck sometime in the early twentieth century.)
Drop the race shit too. You’re not talking about culture when you say “anglo saxon” which is an annoying euphemism anyway when you are not talking about actual anglo-saxons. The fact that W.A.S.P.s use it shouldn’t be encouraging. If you mean western whites then for fucks sake say that. Most of us are not that anglo saxon. White, as a cultural construct, would be the more correct term and then the region you are talking about after that. Obviously if you say western you are including non-whites, and definitely non-anglo-saxons, unless you’re a racist in addition to a misogynist.
I know they’re not. Other leftist parties of course also have Marxist influences, or groups that are Marxist, like the Stamokap group in the SPD. But I do think it’s justifiable to go by those groups who’ve actually governed a country. Maybe call them Communists rather than Marxists, because most parties called themselves “Communist Party”.
Or are you going to tell me that “anglo-saxon” *really* means kyriarchy and I should just sit back and watch you jerk your load.
Here, have a song, bourgeois fascist pig.
I’d love to hear a definition of “bourgeois” and an explanation of how being concerned about objectification and dehumanization of women are “bourgeois” concerns as opposed to universal concerns of women everywhere.
Women of color and poor women are at higher risk of being raped or sexually assaulted. It’s not because they are less likely to be objectified and dehumanized by misogynist rhetoric like the stuff that was quoted in the OP.
No, you’re bad for not shutting the fuck up and listening. Just like all the MRAs, who are a waste of energy required for their inane posts.
It’s ironic.
;)
No shit, it’s as if because he can only hold one or two things together in relational context he assumes that no one else could possibly see… oh I don’t know… intersections.
@Algernon #609
Err, you don’t have any french or spanish friends then? They constantly refer to english speaking peoples as anglo-saxons. We Irish find it hilarious.
Algernon:
You’d think it would be obvious, but I’m afraid our non-diplomat isn’t too sharp. I wonder if there’s any awareness at all of the different races and socio-economic statuses of the people refuting xis nonsensical crap.
well, that’s easy: just as there are women’s concerns and completely non-overlapping racial minorities’ concerns (because minority women don’t exist), so feminist concerns have nothing to do with workers’ concerns, because there are no female workers. Just ask H*per*n.
Sorry, bro. You can’t have it both ways. People can say it colloquially all they want, but if you want to use it in the discourse you’re pretending to know so much about you’d better use it right.
He dodges! He bobs and weaves!
@Aletha H claw #595
Ok I’m going to have to spell this out. “Clear as is the summer sun” was used in Henry V (secen II, Act I) by his courtiers as an ironic expression to illustrate how tenuous the current french kings claim on the throne of france was and how Henry could thus claim it for himself.
Thus if something is opaque you can say “as is clear as is the summer sun”
Hmmm, so I am theoretically for the liberation as long as it doesn’t affect them cleaning my underpants and making my dinner?
Actually, as I’m sure you know this has always been a huge problem in the marxist movement. I had to be fought with on these very issues as are most young male recruits if the organisation is any good.
However there is not a single thing I have said which would support that opinion. You are just making an ad hominem attack.
More generally I have only been attacked on this blog from the right. Please. Attack me from the left. It so rarely happens I promise you a worthy response.
Right, right… you’ll have to pardon me, I keep forgetting that the vast majority of us just don’t exist.
Yeah right. It’s been done, and your response has been mostly pathetic, relying as you do on using your own idiosyncratic definitions of words with already well-established meanings.
@Inane Janine #607
I’m a great admirer of Robespierre, the Committee of public Safety and the Red Army. That wasn’t an insult.
QFT. As I was arguing upThread, sexism intersects with other forms of oppression. In my own field of interest, immigrants’ rights, it’s impossible to ignore the way that racism and anti-immigrant prejudice intersects with the systemic disadvantaging of women. If you’re a refugee woman from a war-zone or from a repressive state, you are very likely to have been raped or sexually abused, often with total impunity, by men with power – especially so if you’re part of an ethnic or religious minority that is oppressed in that country (such as indigenous people in Central America). If you’re an undocumented migrant woman working in a low-paying exploitative job (often domestic service, agricultural work, or sex work), and are afraid to seek protection of the authorities for fear of being detained and deported, you’re at an extremely high risk of being raped or sexually assaulted. In these cases, racism and anti-immigrant discrimination intersect with feminism: and it’s impossible to deal with one issue while ignoring the other.
Or it’s called Social Democracy.
You know in Western Europe, Social Democratic governments have actually had the chance to institute social reforms, unlike the Communist opposition parties denouncing them as Social Fascists.
I am so glad I’m not the only one that was reminded of him. But I think our friend here is more likely a CHAMPION of the other races.
Speaking of sexual objectification and women I just read a really interesting article on that written by, of all things, a woman who is a racial minority.
http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/06/nudie-neon-indian-stage-crashers-and.html
But I’m sure it’s just her anglo-saxon feminism and adherence to RCC values.
This doesn’t speak very well of your character.
(Yeah, I think we’ve got a real live neo-Leninist on our hands. Though don’t tell him about Alexandra Kollontai.)
D’awwww, he’s so cute!!! Completely ignoring that Feminism and Marxism share a great many goals, particularly now that Feminism is opening up to intersectionality with race and class. Besides the concept of “Don’t objectify women” isn’t in itself bourgeois. Ignorance is not a Marxist virtue.
oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were worth noticing. My mistake.
Not an insult? Well, it is always lovely when this informal collection of people on the internet gets compared to a formal organization. Try again, assclam.
(That was an insult.)
@620 Sally Strange
Like everyhting else I say I try to be as honest as possible. I only discovered the french call all us english speakers l’anglo saxonne recently – as I spent a lot of time with french expatriates. I picked it up and loved it because I’m irish and the Irish love to call themselves celts and hate to be compared to the British (who are culturally the same for nearly every other country in the world)
It might be an example of my supposed sociopathy but i haven’t been kidnapped and ransommed to the British government… yet…
It’s an example of your microscopic vision.
*yawn*
Your dodging and weaving is no longer entertaining.
I’m outtie, folks, it’s rehearsal time. Won’t my mates be pleased to hear I was late because I was transfixed by the spectacle of a misogynist neo-Leninist making an ass of himself on the internet.
Have fun!
Walton, actually Lenin cared and wrote more about women’s issues than GD, I have a copy of his speech on Women’s Second Burden (housework). I’m thinking GD’s a little more Neo-Stalinist. Russian women lost a lot of ground under Stalin.
No geeksgirlrules I was a Trotskyist.
So please attack the substantive points I’ve made from a marxist perspective. I promise a considered response and other than responses to insults I’ve tried to give that.
—————
Its late here now though and I need to go to bed. Wage slavery awaits in 7 hours. Goodnight all.
Sweet dreams, you insipid nugget.
Sure. Historically, it’s certainly true that the early Bolsheviks held progressive views on gender equality. And Kollontai, who held ministerial office under Lenin, was undoubtedly a committed feminist (albeit of a rather eccentric kind).
But the Leninist régime was pretty nasty and authoritarian, nonetheless, and Marxism-Leninism is not a school of thought with which I have much sympathy.* If I were ever to join the radical left, I’d be more likely to end up as an anarcho-socialist in the vein of Chomsky or Kropotkin.
(*Though I certainly wouldn’t discard every aspect of Marxian historiography or political science; while I’m very far from being an orthodox Marxist, I can acknowledge the debt that all modern progressive thought owes to Marx, particularly when it comes to understanding the relationship between economic class power-structures and political events.)
Frankly, this was an insult – to yourself, to your own intelligence.
I’m reminded of the story of the Swedish Social Democrat who gave a speech in China about how both Sweden and China had had an unjust society with a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. China had tried to improve the situation by abolishing the bourgeoisie.
“We have abolished the proletariat!”
:-D Sometimes I just love British understatement.
would love to. unfortunately, you haven’t made any, from a marxist perspective or any other.
you’ve said plenty of stupid shit indicating severe misunderstanding of basic terms like “pseudonym” and “object”, and tarring marxist with your own fucked up version thereof. no points though, substantive or otherwise.
The only point GD seems to have made it that it’s OK to treat women like commodities, and only bourgeois women would object to that. Which is such transparent nonsense that it doesn’t need any concerted rebuttal. Mockery and jeering seem more appropriate.
I think Jadehawk and Alethea H. Claw beat me to the punch.
There is nothing bourgeois about not wanting to be treated like an object, and nothing Marxist in insisting on your right to do so.
That’s the impression I got from this post. (didn’t bother reading its latest blather…such a whiny tasteless chew toy)
Gunboar idiot @410
Woman are exactly like coffee mugs. How dare we call him a lying, misogynistic, maggot filled pile of dogshit?!
@David Marjanović #639
Sure, in Sweden robots take out the garbage, build the cars and drive the buses.
Err, that doesn’t sound right…
@Tethys #644
Oooo, more smack talk, keep it coming!
I’m going to have to loosen my collar at this rate, I’m getting hot flushes ;)
@Algernon #637
3/10. Must try harder. Have you used up all your best lines already? Or do I just need a bigger fix to really enjoy it each and every time? Is that whats called desnsitisation?
Tethys:
Well, when you feel loving, you can anthropomorphize your coffee mug and it doesn’t mind and when you just want to use it and consider it an object, it doesn’t mind that, either! It’s magic, why wouldn’t it work with humans?!11! :eyeroll:
@Caine #646
I know! Its like when you use the “objectify voodoo trick” somehow a real living perosn becomes an object unable to give or withold consent because you’re thinking about them the wrong way.
A long and illustrious career in the Minsitry of Truth awaits you!
Gunboat Diplomat:
That’s exactly what we call it. Desnsitisation.
Though we all differ on pronunciation.
@geekgirlsrule #643
You’ll forgive me if i don’t take lessons on whats marxist and what isn’t from someone who doesn’t understand one of the basic pricniples the movement was founded on – the poltical independence of the proletariat.
Go ahead though, keep trying to reconcile Marxism and feminism. As Bismarck said “every reltionship has a horse and a rider”
Hint: you’re the horse
To extend the analogy to Sally Strange argument earlier:
The RCC has been in the social manipulation business a looong time. They’re very good at it. If you find yourself in a relationship with them you’re not the rider.
I have a polite request for you. Cease posting stupid shit. Asshole.
Thanks.
Gunboat Diplomat
You know what you are?
You are everything that’s wrong with many brands of Marxists and communists.
You are a pompous arrogant asshole who thinks that because he can throw in the word “Marx” some time or other, he’s dead right, just like those fucking Christians when talking about Jesus.
You are that kind of “Marxist” who says “all or nothing” and then goes for nothing.
You don’t give a shit about people.
If you and your likes have the chance to do some real good and improve things for people, but it would mean that you can’t have the one, good, true, allein seelig machende revolution now (which you won’t get anyway) and have to make some compromises, you throw everybody under the bus: workers, women, children, farmers.
Because when push comes to shove, you really don’t care.
You are like those idiots in Greece who babble about the revolution at the moment, with their broad alliances that consist out of themselves, their own union and their own youth organisation instead of linking arms with all forces in society that are fighting the unjust cuts and the robbery of the people that is commited by their government and the EU.
You are the reason why other Marxists generally don’t come up front because it means that in people’s minds there will be idiots like you and none of us wants to be thrown into any kind of loose association with you.
You are not interested in building a society that’s free and equal.
You are not interested in finding out why the fuck it failed so spectacularly the last time they tried, and what is necessary to prevent it from happening again.
You are interested in being a martyr saint of the revolution that’s never going to happen, waiting for the kingdom of heaven that isn’t going to happen either.
Go become religious, because it suits your mindset much better. They also have the nicer buildings.
I see you decided to completely ignore CC’S story and her first hand experience with a man who considered her an object and the effect it had her.
GD:
Enough is enough. It’s time to ask PZ to consider putting your ass in the dungeon where it belongs. This might be all fun and games to you, however, it is not to us.
Those of us who have been abused, assaulted and raped don’t find your attitude amusing. Some of the people here are easily triggered and don’t really need to find themselves anxiety ridden, nauseous and having flashbacks. Yeah, PTSD, it’s not just for vets anymore.
You are indeed a sociopath, GD. That’s a pity, however, it’s no excuse whatsoever for your continued shit which pours from your mouth in an unceasing flow.
I realize you don’t have the capacity for empathy, so try getting a clue instead: leave. You aren’t wanted here, in any way, shape or form.
@Caine/Julian
I take these issues extremely seriously. I stand by everything I said and I have not made one single sexist or misogynist comment nor have I belittled or made fun of any individuals abusive experiences.
If my opinions on the causes and specific mechanisms of womens oppression offend you or anyone else, tough shit.
I thought this was a science blog where all sorts of issues in relation to human evolution, sexual relations, politics and historical development and mcub else could be discussed openly. This “sexual objectification causes rape” mantra is rejected by many feminists. The fringe group of feminist posters on this blog do not speak for feminists everywhere, thank god and you certainly do not speak for all women or victims of abuse.
I’m sorry for peoples bad personal experiences but I deliberately did not read any of them on this thread nor did I discuss any of them. Why? Because this is not an abuse victim support group website and its none of my fucking business what terrible shit individuals went through and those individual stories do not preclude anyone else having quite different experiences.
I also have not discussed any of my personal experiences. Why? Because its not any of your fucking business what happened to me and it doesn’t strenghten my argument one bit if I were to come out and say “well I’ve been objectified and I didn’t mind it at all.” So what?
Its like you guys WANT me to start spewing sexist garbage and become the cartoon villain you accuse me of being. After all you’ve already called me every name under the sun, so why not? If I’m going to be called an MRA, male supremacist, bordelrine rapist, sexist misogynist lying sack of shit then why not just spout off and fulfill your sick fantasies?
Becuase that would disgust me and people who do that disgust me regardless of the provocation.
Oleanna is a great play and and the main male charcater was put under terrible provocation. But what he did was really really fucking wrong and theres no excuse for it. Yet you want to chuck me in the same bag as him. To hell with you.
So go ahead and complain to PZ. His opinion would certainly be instructive to all of us, including me.
Hi cupcake, here’s news for you: This ain’t even Scienceblogs, where the focus was somewhat on science.
This is Freethoughtbolgs.
Ahhh, we had the “no true Marxist” already and now we have the “no true feminist”.
BTW, I thought you thought that feminism was wrong and incompatible with Marxism which is right and therefore you win?
No, we don’t speak for all feminists, there are many types of feminists.
What you find here are mainly sex-positive, egalitarian pretty mainstream feminists. Certainly not “fringe groups”.
We also don’t speak for all women because not all women are feminists either.
So, get out of here, take your decaying porcupine on the way out, instruction labels are conveniently attached to its leg.
Oh, and I don’t think that you want PZ to enlighten you. His enlightenments for people like you are usually short and result in banning.
So, in a discussion about the harm objectification can cause you decided that the experiences of those who have suffered from objectification didn’t warrant your attention.
Says it all right there.
@ Gilleil #651
What was the purpose of this post Giliell? To convince me I really am the kind of horrible person you describe? to convince other readers? Just to make yourself better by blowing off some steam? To bully me into silence?
I don’t suppose theres anything I can say that would give you a different opinion of me but I don’t recognise the person you describe and neither would anyone I know.
Whatever you say about the greeks, the rioting and strikes managed to geta lot of the countrys debt cancelled which will make a real difference to the lives of the workers and oppressed in that country. Woudln’t have happened with just peaceful demonstrations.
Gunboat Diplomat
I see you’re still too high up to spell my name correctly, but just to prove that you are a fucking moron who doesn’t know shit:
Given that I was talking about asshole Marxists, it should have been clear that I was talking about asshole Greek Marxists as well.
And given your response, you have shown yourself ignorant on the positions and actions of the KKE, KNE and PAME in Greece, who think that working in broad alliances with other groups in society will dilute their pure revolution.
Because the protests went mostly over their heads.
Well, you know, everybody who’s read your bullshit on this thread recognizes the person I described above as being you. Maybe you should think about that.
Well, laws of chance are still working, you managed to spell my nym correctly.
What’s the purpose?
Getting as much room between you and me as possible, so that no person might think that because I adopt the same label as you I’d agree with any of your bullshit.
Oh, and telling you again to fuck off (which is not the same as silencing you, before you complain)
Has GD said anything new? He’s such a pompous idjit blowhard his prose isn’t worth the effort of reading. And it can’t be parsed. All that comes across is anger that he isn’t taken seriously by those he sneers at and dismisses…
@Gileill
Promises promises “cupcake” yet no banhammer yet cometh. If I was banned it would certainly be educational for me. If I’m not banned would it be educational for you guys?
I mean PZ DOES ban people for coming out with openly misogynist crap. I certainly think I have been ujustly accused of that. And its been implied I’ve already been complained about. So if I’m not banned would you perhaps review YOUR view?
—–
I am also quite aware not all feminists have your opinions, there is a broad spectrum there. Would you accept that many feminists would not take my comments as misogynistic? Or are you too sure YOU’RE right even for that?
Also, sorry about all the typos but my web browser doens’t have a spell checker and I can’t touch type.
However given I’ve been accused of being, what was? “borderline rapist” or something like that at one point, I would think typing to be the very least of my “thought crimes.”
No, not really. You’re not very smart or interesting, and your ideas are more stale and familiar than you think they are.
I dunno, but I think this song was written for him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQWt3oMids
So true.
We could never be your women, so fuck off.
I’m not trying. I just was hoping you had a good night.
Geez… I won’t try to be nice to you anymore then.
By the way, I think you’re completely disgusting for refusing to read the things that people write about what this kind of attitude has done to them.
You’re a liar. You don’t care about people. You really really don’t.
The very fact that you can pretend everyone here is from the same social class, and ignore the effects that things have on individuals, is a strong indicator that something is very very wrong with you.
Honestly, no movement needs pieces of shit like you in it.
You haven’t said anything new, and your attitude of being the smartest person (not!) at the blog is a turnoff. You have nothing to teach. Just person the personal opinion of a sexist parasite.
IOW, it’s very good you’re “not politically active” these days. I’m glad you confine yourself to internet wanking.
You have expressed many many sexist attitudes and a complete callousness to human suffering on this thread, you have also been an evasive little liar.
You assume, when I say, go fuck yourself, that I do it to pleasure you.
No no, I truly have nothing but disgust for you. You are nothing to me or anything here, and I could not begin to care how you feel or what you like.
There is no power here for you to reclaim, so go get your kicks elsewhere you lying little troll.
Also, you admit you don’t read the posts people write here. You have just ceded that you are not here trying to learn anything.
You are lying again.
Trolling, lying, being a sexist ass, and literally arguing that using people like mindless things for your own aims is perfectly ok (despite the abuse victims trying to tell you what it is like to be literally used like a thing), not only arguing that this is ok but excusing it with your childlike zeal for marxism which you may have noticed some of us just don’t give a fuck about.
You assume the race, the social class, and even the gender of the people here which says everything about yours and nothing about ours.
You are full of shit, and looking for excuses to justify the poor way you treat other people.
This could, in fact, be because you are a sociopath but it could also be because you’re a lazy privileged little shit as well.
Honestly, the latter is more likely and more common.
A common, lazy, entitled, privileged little shit seems about right to me.
GBD,
PZ is travelling today, the ban hammer might yet come down on you. Or at least a warning.
Like many here, I stopped taking you seriously after your admission that you admired Robespierre, but let me tell you this:
Several people have tried to explain the concept of sexual objectification to you. Some have told you that your attitude towards objectification hurts them and others, yet you choose to ignore this. Also, there is actually research on sexual objectification, you should google it some time. Yet you arrogantly assert that you alone are in possession of the Truth (from my perspective, a typical Marxist position).
No wonder people tell you to fuck off…
Your behavior has all been power seeking: seeking to tell people what they can and can’t think (not to mention projecting that aim onto others), seeking to use sexual objectification to shut people up (trying to get the power back because instinctively you know that is a way to do it even while your flaccid intellectual efforts attempt to hide it), dismissing the individual stories and ignoring those who have been hurt (la la “I’m not LISTENING”) which is a way to keep control, labeling (bourgeois, white, blah blah blah), attempting to assert that you are a source of real learning (we all should be trying harder because you’re so smart), making baseless claims and then refusing to back them up (you know shit about feminism and shit about sociology), and the list goes on…
You are a self important little turd who just wanted to make it all about him.
Now you have lots of attention, and a whole blog can see how stupid and useless you are, and just the kind of person who would espouse the views you do.
Isn’t that nice?
I think so.
So thanks for playing!
Just did a quick word search and the only one to imply you were a potential rapist was you. No one has accused you of anything like that during this thread from what I can see. Many have said you’re excusing the mentality that lets men rape without consequence and with a clean concious but no one has called you a rapist.
Oh yeah, I needed to add making repeated strawman arguments to my list, which falls under telling people what they think and projecting.
By the way, that’s probably projecting!
There’s also some tone trolling too.
He’s a good example of how terrible things remain terrible even when they are free of bad language.
Compare to my “goodnight” for instance.
Which is sad, because the cool idea Marx and Engels had was to treat politics, economy, and ideology like science, testing, evaluating, readjusting.
The first time I encountered the phrase “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” was when reading Engels.
But given our prime-hand example here, I can’t blame you for getting that impression.
But I notice that our little textbook-Marxist has failed to comment on such thing like why pure Marxism(TM) failed women in the socialist countries, which, since he thinks that Marxism is incompatible with feminism, is a problem he would have to solve, unless he wants to tell us that we have to shut up and spread our legs because after the revolution everything is fine* (sounds familiar? Yeah, makes me puke every time)
*and while you’re at it, make me a sammich, you’re hindering the revolution here, baby**
**I wish I were making that shit up. Marxist(TM) men can be the biggest mansplainers in the world.
@Julian #670
Took me a while to track down the exact quote, but here we go:
@SallyStrange #363
Of course I don’t think that just like I don’t think and haven’t said 95% of the things I’m accused of by “you crazy kids.”
However SallyStrange was clearly telling me I was thinking that and I was thus “standing on the border of rapeland.”
I’ve never heard of “Rapeland” before but you guys are flying further and further into la-la land.
So I guess what you are saying is that when you want sex, the person whose body you will stick your cock in has no say in the matter because it isn’t like it’s a real person since what you want from it isn’t, like, anything about it that is human so it’s all good.
I mean, because if you haven’t put it into action then you haven’t. But you are, very much, saying that it is ok. You have said that. Then you just deny that this is what it means, even when people expressly share their stories of how this was done to them.
This is because you are a liar. Any guilt or defensiveness you feel is on you.
If only all liars would reveal themselves so readily.
No, not really. We’ve stayed right here. We just aren’t taking your vapid bullshit.
Guess what, no one is going to at this point.
Your little lies and linguistic gambits are very transparent.
I prefer deeply conflicted monarchists, myself. But I never thought a troll would make me so glad to live in libertarian country.
Did you read, by any chance, the article about how native women are impacted by sexual objectification at the hands of whites?
Or did you skip that too.
I mean, why listen to bitches when you can preach your
religionideology.No she said if you treated a sexual partner as if they were an object you could easily cross over into committing rape. That is not the same thing as calling you a borderline rapist. It’s at worst a condemnation of your world view based on a possible outcome she sees of taking it and applying it to your relationships.
If your offense is based on playing word games with what’s said to you you could at least avoid exaggerating.
Aww. I have hurt GDB’s delicate fee-fees.
The only way you could possibly read this as a direct accusation at you personally, of GDB being a rapist, is if you a.) do believe that it is necessary to treat women as objects in order t obtain one-off, commitment-free sex, and b.) you have already put this belief into action, and had sex with a woman whom you treated as an object.
If you have only gone so far as a.) convincing yourself that there is absolutely no way you can get sex unless you objectify and dehumanize the woman you are lusting after, then yes. You are a borderline rapist. I stand by my assessment, particularly given your deliberate refusal to grapple with the reality of the damage your attitudes cause in the real world by refusing to read the personal accounts of abuse that were shared here. A non-borderline rapist would read those things and say, “Holy shit! I had no idea this type of thinking could be so damaging. Let me rethink my assumptions about sex. I always thought that treating women as ambulatory fleshlights was relatively harmless, but now I see I was wrong.” Instead, you insist that objectification is A-OK. Your reasoning for why it’s A-OK shifts–sometimes you insist that objectification is just so difficult and alien that it’s impossible that it happens as much as we say it does (gaslighting, typical misogynist technique) and sometimes you say that objectification is perfectly compatible with a consent-based sexual interaction and therefore not as harmful as we say it is, which is precisely false.
Your shifting rationales also speak to the fact that you prioritize maintaining an idealized, non-rapist self-image over actually dealing with the fact that your ideas are harmful, specifically to women in our culture, and you have probably caused some of that harm yourself, on a personal basis.
This has nothing to do with Marxism and everything to do with you justifying your disgusting failure to be a decent human being.
This is all I need to know about you, GD:
Projecting responsibility for your own actions onto others is one of THE danger signs of abusive behavior. When you’ve spouted objectifying insults at people here (Not “if”, because you’ve already done it), it’s never because they MADE you do it. The naughty words didn’t soak into your fingers and make them move by themselves. You’re responsible for everything that comes out of your keyboard, including the vile shit. That’s not even feminism. That’s Decent Human Being 101.
@pelamun #668
I won’t be emotionally blackmailed into changing my opinion on a widely disputed political, psychological and social process you call ” sexual objectification,” its causes and consequences.
You have NO RIGHT to demand this of me and neither does anybody who has suffered the trauma of rape or sexual assault. IF I claimed rape “wasn’t that bad” or “womens fault for dressing provocatively” or any of the other sexist bullshit that blames the victim or belittles the actual crime the you would be justified. But I don’t and you’re not.
“Sexual Objectification” remmber is not the crime. The crime is rape, murder, torure – mental and physical – and abuse.
“Sexual Objectification” is a method feminism uses to try and understand how these crimes occur in society
You guys seem to want to classify it as a “thought crime.” Good luck with that.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that if he did read them they made him feel disgust and contempt for his inferiors at most.
@pelamun #668
In either case I would learn something. If neither takes place will you learn something?
Please quote where I have ever said anything in the least bit like “I alone am in possession of the truth”. What tripe.
GDB, please note the conditionals in my paragraph: IF you have convinced yourself, etc.
If you have done none of those things, then none of what I said applies to you, and you have no grounds for taking offense.
If you are going to take offense, then I will conclude that at least part of what I said applies to you.
Again, he thinks that if he doesn’t use the words that describe what he’s doing, he couldn’t possibly be doing it.
You must think we’re really stupid, eh GDB? Classic Dunning-Kruger.
‘
Were we… asking for it?
Oh man, your number has been dialed. You’re just a petty little abusive and entitled fuck who uses ideology as an excuse.
Now that you bring up the RCC, I see why. So much projection. So little time.
So you’ll only learn something when PZ does or says something? You’re a troll and a sexist little liar who came her to invalidate people.
You won’t learn anything, you tool, because you’ve refused to learn anything this far.
Stop you bullshit lies already, no one believes you.
@Algernon, by the way, I did read that article, and watched the 45-minute video “Rape on the Reservation” too. It’s like a microcosm of the rape-culture issues we’ve been discussing: lack of enforcement, harassment of victims, toxic masculinity and so on. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Also, your appeal to male authority is noted.
It really is all about power and control with you. So why *are* you so defensive about your sexual exploitation?
@Algernon #689
MY appeal to male authority?? I was threatened with being reported so I say “Bring it on” and now I’M the one appealing to male authority.
Yes and up is down and down is up.
My what? how on earth have I ever sexually exploited anyone? Ok you got me, I run a crack house in my home town. Coz theres loadsa crack houses in Dublin. You’d fit right in.
What?
That’s bullshit. Asking people to examine their behavior, their thought process and the possible reasons or ways why they may hurt others is not the same as trying to criminalize their thoughts.
And to be frank if you have a tendency of thinking of those close to you as objects people are right to avoid you. Why would anyone want to be in a relationship with someone who will always think of them as less than a person with full autonomy?
This is not blackmail. No one is trying to guilt you into anything.
They’ve explained and shared first hand knowledge of how “sexual objectification” has hurt them and hurts others. That is not blackmail. That’s arguing their case and trying to provide relevant information.
What some have done is ask you to acknoledge these arguments and reply to them. You have not. You have instead admitted to intentionally ignoring them because you consider those experiences irrelevant. Why? You haven’t even bothered to explain.
Yep, yours. You haven’t attempted to learn anything, and have purposefully refused to listen yet you say you’ll learn something from PZ’s actions alone.
That is what it is.
I don’t care how greasy you are, little piglet, you just don’t wiggle like you think you do.
@Pteryxx #680
I’ve just dealt with the objectifying insults bafflegab in Post 681.
Psychological mechanisms are in play her all right but its not projection on my part. Its displacement on yours. You’re pissed off at MRA’s and my opinions annoy you so you want to believe I’m an MRA, a mysoginist, a male supremacist etc so you can vent your frustrations at me.
Really, this is the state of your brand of feminsim today? Stifle debate and different opinions, slander them becuase they don’t agree with your analysis of society. And I’M the one who’s unrasonable?
What, with the Irish? Doubtful.
You just explained why it is ok to exploit people by using them as objects, and how this is not a problem, that they don’t need to be treated like humans when you want something from them.
You’ve been defending this shit for days.
You deliberately refuse to listen to people who have had this done to them.
I also note your disdain for drug addicts.
Who else do you feel superior to?
Well, you haven’t bothered to engage with any of the feminist scholars (like Catherine Mackinnon, whose work I cited earlier) who have, in fact, worked to reconcile Marxism and feminism. I have no particular desire to argue about Marxism, seeing as I’m not a Marxist, but you seem to have a very shallow and stuck-in-the-early-twentieth-century understanding of Marxist theory.
*headdesk*
Because you don’t care. You’re interested in discussing ideology, not real people’s actual lives.
Is PZ the only person whose opinions are important to you? Do you place more stock in what a man thinks about women’s experiences than in what actual women think about them?
No brand, no united front. Just people here reacting to your sickening drivel.
It’s only emotional blackmail if you know that you have done the specific things we have identified as being harmful, the things that contribute to rape culture. The only people among whom this theory is truly controversial is the male supremacist set, to which you clearly belong.
We have every right to demand that you treat women as people rather than inanimate objects. Basic human rights.
Thanks for spelling out how it is you rationalize to yourself that it’s okay to treat women as inanimate objects. Yes, all those things contribute to rape culture. So does treating women as inanimate objects who exist purely to fulfill the sexual needs of men. You’re basically saying that we should be grateful that you’re not even more of a misogynist than you actually are. That’s not good enough.
We’re saying that the mindset that justifies treating women as inanimate objects that exist solely to gratify men’s sexual desires also justifies sexual assault. Treating women as inanimate objects isn’t illegal unless you carry it into the physical world and begin hitting them or taping them. If you just carry it around in your head, you may just be an emotional/verbal/mental abuser of women, which obviously is not illegal, but is an indicator that you are a shitstain on the panties of humanity.
Indeed, and so far you’ve offered no convincing alternative explanations. Why should we believe you over generations of feminist scholarship, particularly when you have no coherent alternative explanation? I mean, you don’t even have a consistent explanation as to why it’s okay to objectify women, so it’s pretty laughable that we should privilege your half-assed, eternally shifting arguments over the solid, well-researched, and extremely predictive models developed by feminists scholars over the years.
When you descend into such blatant strawmanning, you know your argument is on the ropes. Of course it’s not a “thought crime.” It’s just morally wrong, and contributes to actual crimes. You have the right to continue to objectify women, and we have the right to continue to point out that you are a disgusting, misogynist failure of a human being for doing so.
@Algernon #692
Wow you don’t have much imagination do you? You think I’ll change my opinion on this just becuase PZ says so? sorry I’m not into cults. If I get banned I’d learn something about PZ. I don’t envisage that happening based on my understanding of his politics but I could be wrong.
ps
Ooo, I’m a little piggy now am I? “Oink Oink!” ;)
No one has slandered you and I seriously doubt it’s possible to slander an opinion. It’s a thought. Something to be crtiqued which it has been here by multiple people. That is the opposite of stifling debate. That’s encouraging debate and discussion. Your refusal to answer criticisms and you constantly hiding behind a smirk and a cool veil is hat’s stifling debate. Looking over the comments I can’t see if you ever so much as recognized how certain words and phrases were being used here.
Wait, what? You deny that sexual objectification exists?
But you have every right to come here and deny that sexual objectification exists despite multiple anecdotal accounts and the extant research?
My, my, my.
Correction:
Then there’s this:
Who’s being stifled? You’re still typing, aren’t you? And if PZ does ban you, all it means is that you don’t get to use Pharyngula as a platform for justifying treating women as inanimate objects. There’s a whole world wide web out there. And plenty of people who will agree with you about women being nothing more than broken coffee mugs. Like the guy PZ quoted in the original article.
How is it slander? You don’t deny that you think it’s perfectly fine to treat women as inanimate objects. You just think we’re wrong that it’s harmful to women to treat them as inanimate objects. It’s pretty obvious that we are correctly representing your attitudes, we just disagree about the probable results of putting those attitudes into practice in the real world.
Really, the more you write, the more you reveal your hand. You are growing increasingly desperate to rationalize your inhuman behavior. “Thought crime,” “silencing,” and “slander”–these are words that come up only when you have no rational basis left to defend your pathetic thesis that it’s perfectly fine and not at all harmful to regard women as inanimate objects that exist solely to gratify the sexual needs of men.
Ah, so he’s not interesting in learning about women, or what it’s like to live with the reality of being treated like an inanimate object, or anything like that. All of this has been an elaborate ruse to learn something about PZ’s opinions.
Riiiiiiiiight.
You won’t be banhammered due to your allege politics. You will be banhammered for being a stupid ideologue who preaches like any godbot/creobot/MRA/liberturd, and doesn’t really repond to the refutations of your
ideotheology. You are one arrogant and stupid ideologue, with his fingers in his ears. Time for you to shut the fuck up and listen for a change.@Nerdhead #703
Ooo, more smack talk, lots of exciting dirty words for my fetish ;)
Well, sometimes. Depending the weather and what time of day it is, he may also hold the opinion that sexual objectification is a real, but perfectly harmless, phenomenon.
Like with the global warming denialists, you can tell when a person’s denial of a well-established theory is based on emotional resistance rather than facts, because the alternative explanation is continuously shifting.
@SallyStrange 702
Still formulating a reply to your earlier post, might take a little time. In the meantime:
I’m interested in a lot of things and I’ve certainly learned some things about your branch of feminism. I now understand better why so many women I’ve always thought should be feminists aren’t. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot. (Of course thats only part of the reason – patriarchy, recent anti-feminist reactionary backlash etc etc)
por sagrado corazón de Jesús
Does it cause you physical pain to actually respond to the criticisms aimed at you?
Hey Nerd, you’ve been sexually objectified. Can you tell that GDB has nothing left in his intellectual arsenal and is reduced to attempting to devalue your contributions by implying that your disdain for his behavior makes him sexually excited?
No wonder he’s so passionate about his right to objectify women. It’s one of his main defense mechanisms for keeping the knowledge that he is a failure at being a decent person at bay.
Liar. You haven’t learned shit, as demonstrated by your continued failure to understand what’s being said to you. If you could demonstrate that you are capable of using the terminology that’s been presented to you in its correct context, I might believe you. But you don’t. Hence, I conclude that you have learned nothing here except that you are right and we are wrong. But then, you already knew that, right?
@SallyStrange #705
This is exactly the problem. You present your highly debatable theories as scientific fact. Someone earlier compared it to evolution.
Yeah, show me where “sexual objectification causes rape” is endorse by 95% or more of the worlds scientists.
If our theories are so highly debatable, you should be able to debate them. But you can’t. All you do is quibble with definitions and deny reality.
Show me where “sexual objectification is perfectly harmless and not at all related to rape culture” is endorsed by 95% or more of the world’s scientists.
Gunboat Diplomat, your intellectual arsenal is empty.
Time out.
You started this discussion by saying that you could not consider yourself a feminist and have frequently pointed out how feminism runs contrary and is incompatible with other idealogies. But you feel these women you know should be feminists? Why?
@SallyStrange #697
Finally somethign I can get my teeth into:
Oh no, my secret is out I – Dude, I was educated by the Christian Brothers, you need to do a lot better than that if you’re trying emotional manipulation on me.
Thats not whats being demanded – you demand I buy into your feminist ideology by agreeing with this “Sexual objectification causes rape” woo. And I don’t just like I don’t buy into the zionists “support israel or you’re an anti-semite” claptrap.
You just don’t get it do you? I don’t care about what gets you off ;)
My language is dismissive because I think you are not worth anything better. I don’t think there is a point in addressing you otherwise. You can keep trying to re-assert your power there by trying to make it about you. But it isn’t about you.
By the way, you’re really amazingly stupid.
I have learned something from you, by your definition then. I have learned that you are stupid, that people who sound sexist usually are, that you are a vapid prosthelytizer and that you never intended to learn anything.
I’ve learned that confronting people like you draws them out, and makes them expose themselves as liars.
I’ve learned that this is valuable for other people even though the person you are talking to is not worth dealing with.
I’ve learned that it is good to expose people for what they are.
I’ve learned a lot, but nothing you can really take credit for. It’s the same things learned from every dipshit who comes to tell the women how they should think and feel.
I really wish you would stop saying things like this. It is extremely creepy. And it’s an attempt to trivialize the discussion and to silence and disempower those who are arguing with you.
By using sex. This is very important to him.
Because he is, at the end of the day, just a rape apologist.
I swear, he’s so much like hyperon it’s sad.
Well, I wasn’t educated by the Christian Brothers, so perhaps I have trouble understanding why you would feel “blackmailed” if you haven’t done whatever it is you feel you’re being blackmailed about. It’s a basic question of word definitions. “Blackmail” is what you do to someone who has done a bad thing, and they want to keep it covered up. If they haven’t done whatever bad thing it is, then you can’t really blackmail them, can you?
Of course, your willingness to redefine words whenever it suits you to do so has already been noted. You are not arguing in good faith.
Yes, “Do it to Julia” would be right up your alley, wouldn’t it? After all, you can just pretend she’s an object with no autonomy, feelings, or aspirations.
As I said, when you descend into accusations of this sort–comparing your interlocutors to violent thugs enforcing state oppression–you know you’ve got no rational, fact-based arguments left.
Please, continue showing your ass to the world. It’s quite fascinating.
Only some one who refuses to empathize with other human beings would take any of that as manipulation.
I do believe that you only show emotion to manipulate people though, that wouldn’t surprise me at all.
I’m not at all surprised to find you have a background with a heavy dose of a patriarchal religion in it.
I don’t.
I wasn’t brought up in your church.
That’s you projecting your baggage there.
The British talent for understatement on display again!
I don’t find his ass that fascinating, actually.
Look you pompous self absorbed ass, no one is trying to manipulate you, emotionally or otherwise. Seriously, do you have some script running in your head where everyone you’re talking to is some passive aggressive manipulating monster like GLaDOS?
Ok then. How have you come to exclude “sexual objectification” from contributing or leading to rape?
Christ but you’re an ass.
Well, the ass itself is predictable and stale. What’s fascinating to me is his apparent conviction that it’s the most novel, beautiful thing anyone’s ever seen.
I believe this is typical of narcissists.
And, as we have already noted, there is a large overlap between male narcissists and misogynists.
I’ve met a lot of narcissistic asses in my day.
The thing is, the jig is up, he’s definitely shown himself to be what he is and he isn’t going to do anything but try to blather on to make the waters more murky for him.
@SallyStrange #718
Oh I think thats a pretty mild and common analogy. 1984 is only fiction you know ;) It does fit nicely with the theme of this ideological disagreement though.
True. They’re not the same person; their writing styles are very different, and Hyperon doesn’t identify as a Marxist. But the basic ideas are rather similar.
Oh, and tell us all about how we might fit into his sex fetish.
So, GD, what do you feel when you read accounts of objectification and abuse from women who have lived through being treated like that?
Do you feel angry because they’re trying to manipulate you? Do you figure they’re lying? Do you feel contempt?
What do you bet the pathetic little shit won’t even answer that?
You’re a gutless coward, gunboat dipshit.
Hyperon is also English. And GD hasn’t posted anything about Muslims. But the personality is shockingly similar.
@Algernon #725
What jig is up? I’ve been completely upfront about my views whenever asked.
Also don’t call me an ass. You know what that does to me.
Not at all, asshole. Not at all. Hell, people have even compared you two contradictory statements but that doesn’t stop you from lying more.
Oh no, of course not.
At the very least, perhaps his solipsistic wanking here will prevent him from inflicting his neurosis on some hapless
sex objectwoman. At least for a while. So really, we’re performing a public service.Assuming you directed this at me specifically:
Interesting how you’ll now dismiss my criticism as invalid on emotional grounds (“pissed off”, “venting frustrations”) only AFTER I told you I was one of those survivors. Like the ones you started out ignoring and are now actively demeaning with fetishy comments.
Along with your claims of “emotional blackmail”, “emotional manipulation” and this:
You really don’t want to deal with emotions at all, do you? You think evidence only counts if it’s free of emotional content, and same goes for people. (Well, except when YOU get angry. Then, it’s our fault for maaaaaking you.) Well, here’s a newsflash for you. Facts are just as true when we’re angry about them. Opinions are just as valid or invalid whether or not they’re delivered politely. More to the point, YOU are still wrong whether or not you get pissy about being critiqued.
Why do you keep telling us how you’re not belittling women (in the abstract) or failing to take rape seriously (in the abstract) when we can SEE you belittling actual women right here in this thread and dismissing their first-hand experience with actual rape? Is it like donating money to a safely distant cause for you, so you can feel good about yourself without dirtying yourself with those icky unmanly emotions?
Yes, I’m intentionally being blunt and impolite about it. That’s because I don’t think I’m arguing with a rational actor in you, GD, but with a person who’s allowing his bias against emotions, women, or both, to cripple his judgement and justify his behavior.
So in a thread concerning misogyny, in which posters shared their experience of being raped and the damage it did to them, you feel entirely righteous and good in making sexual innuendos when you don’t know any of them and have been told it’s inappropriate, creepy and brings up bad memories.
Seriously. Stop with the fetish talk. It’s creepy and controlling. You’re using it in an attempt to shut down discussion and to silence and disempower the people who disagree with you.
Either grow up enough to have a mature discussion, or fuck off.
Disdain for emotions. Very telling.
You know emotions are beautiful right? They’re very human. They’re the most wonderful, expressive parts of humanity IMO.
There’s no shame in being emotional. None at all!
QFT!
He doesn’t want a mature discussion, he wants a free fap session.
Whatever. I just think it’s instructive that guys who come in espousing ideas that sound only mildly sexist, like, “Hey, obviously it’s wrong to blame rape victims for their assault, but there’s no harm in appreciating a little T&A from time to time, right? Objectification of women is really no big deal,” inevitably reveal themselves as having serious issues with sex, and deep hostility towards women.
Let me explain why the sex talk doesn’t bother me.
If you have a fetish then good on you. Frankly I don’t care how weird it is, from talking dirty to having a pope-shaped anal drill shoved up your ass while you lap schoolgirl’s piss out of a trough while wearing a my-little-pony costume.
That’s your bag.
Hell, if you want to ask me to hoist you up in a sling and play pin the free-weights on the ballsack I might decide that’s good for a laugh.
But I might not feel like it either.
Oh the magic of consent. You see, if you want that shit done to you then that is fine. If you want to ask me to play with you that is fine. I’m not bothered.
I certainly won’t be letting you do any of that stupid shit to me, and therefore I have nothing to fear. Because you’re not a rapist and you wouldn’t assault me.
So my withheld consent is all I need. Now, if you ignore that then…
well then if the shoe fits.
So please, just understand that I simply don’t care what gets you off.
GBD:
Could you please explain how sexual objectification does not contribute to rape or the continuation of patriarchal culture?
Lastly, you need to understand that it simply does not intimidate me. So if it’s me you’re trying to bother with that shit you have the wrong number. Now other people seem to be getting creeped out, but frankly if you just wanted to turn a thread about problematic veiws of sex into an in-depth discussion of your sex life then please, you could have spared us all the stupid waffling and cut to the chase many hours ago.
@Algernon #728
Only your filthy insults. I think its callled “defence mechanism” Now theres a psychological mechanism that is widely accepted. Quite unlike your “sexual objectification” – which, as we’ve established is accepted by the Catholic Church at least.
I read that on Noam Chomskys wall theres a poster with Bertrand Russell which says: “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.”
Like most people I get upset when I hear or read bad things that happen to people. Its not helpful to have such high emotions when you’re trying to objectively understand something though and thats one of the reason I avoided reading peoples personal stories on this thread.
I find it weird you are asking me that question about anger and contempt. Personally I’ve never experienced these feelings towards women even when I was at my lowest point after my poor likkle young heart was broken.
I know some men do feel these emotions towards women but I’ve only ever seen it as a transitory thing and only in few men. It comes and goes depending on whats happening in peoples lives. I see a certain level of dehumanisation of women that comes and goes too but I’ve never heard anyone glorify rape or abuse or anything like that. Hmm ok I did once but that guy had just come out of prison and even in that rather dodgy company it was nto glorified or condoned.
And I’m from a pretty backward patriarchal macho sexist part of europe.
So when you talk about “rape culture” it makes no sense to me. Most men aren’t rapists – they’re just not. This isn’t to say the potential cannot be there but the potential for all sorts of nasty shit is in us all depending on the circumstances. All bets are off after the nuclear winter.
Your repetitive claims establish nothing.
Technically, the RCC regards women as baby-making objects, not sex objects.
Not much of a difference.
All this proves is that you really don’t understand what “rape culture” means.
But I don’t see the point in explaining the terms to you because you have not listened to anything so far and I don’t like wasting my time on the willfully ignorant.
So I’ll just say: That’s not what that means and it’s very ignorant to claim that it is.
‘
That’s good. That’s better, at least. Then the next step is to put your own feelings aside and listen to the person.
Most importantly, GD, it is increasingly clear that you have a much more sex-negative attitude than I do.
I will happily talk to you about your sex life if that is what you’d prefer.
I will also talk to you about sex-positive feminism and about the problems with the attitude that women don’t like or want sex, or that they can’t be talked to like real people.
I will explain to you how the view that treating women like they are either above that (virginal purity) or below that (whores) is problematic and how deeply religion has hurt women with that dichotomy.
But I will not talk to you about anything unless I think you are operating on good faith. Your behavior here has indicated that you are not.
Why should we ignore that?
Ooh, he thinks my 60+ year old male body (think Ed Asner) is sexy??? Wow. Doesn’t say much for his taste though. Nor does it make his prose anything other than deflection of the need to do some introspection.
He reminds me of a now banned troll (S*lach**) on SB. Couldn’t make straight response or prove its opinions were reality with citations. But wouldn’t acknowledge refutations or go away either. Just squated on the thread and wasted electrons, saying essentially nothing.
I see. And all parts of the world must be the same as yours, right?
The world average is that 1 in 3 women will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Who do you think assaults these women? Sky fairies?
off-topic aside @Algernon: Wow. I had thought you were just using ball-torture for rhetorical effect. Hmmm.*
(*stage 2 “Hmmm” somewhere between “EW EW EW” and “Where do I sign up?”)
Hey, my personality is um… multifaceted, but I don’t front!
So why not ask the posters here what they consider to constitute a rape culture and why they feel the term applies. You could begin a dialoge.
The gift that keeps on giving: Meet the Predators
Around 6-10% of men self-report rapes if the questions don’t call them rape. They’re given credibility by the lie that women just asked for it or deserved it. (hence the term “rape culture”. This is pretty basic knowledge.)
Anyone got the citation for 30% or whatever it was of men saying they’d be willing to rape someone if they knew they wouldn’t get caught? My search fails me…
Sure, 1 in 10 or 20 may not be “most” but it’s definitely A LOT. It’s extremely likely that ANYONE with any social circle at all has met at least one predatory rapist without knowing it.
So, I’ve finally caught up with the thread. That was a lot of reading to do. I left here somewhere around 400 comments.
I’m confused as to how Gunboat Diplomat can deny the reality of objectifying people and how he can deny the reality that people can dehumanise other people.
Some people, like some sociopaths, don’t even have the ability to consider that others have the qualities of being persons (you know, fully realised humans). It can be trained or conditioned in people too. Serial murderers certainly aren’t concerned about the personhood of their victims, they certainly don’t consider them human in the sense in which they consider themselves.
Merely putting another person below oneself is dehumanising them. There are these things, universal rights, that constitute those things that all people can expect as a quality merely of existing. There was a time not long ago when blacks weren’t considered fully human, something about lesser races preceded that. There was this time in near history when ethnic Jews were being persecuted, so were Romas, gays, atheists, communists and others. And more recently still, a genocide that left some 20% of a country’s citizens dead. All of this suffering was predicated upon the idea that these other people weren’t fully people, were less human in some way. The dehumanising of these people is what ultimately allowed the dissociation between them and their killers that culminated in their murders.
That’s what dehumanising someone is. It’s stripping them of some or all of their human qualities (ignoring those innate qualities) and there’s many reasons and many ways in which a person, or entire groups of people can be dehumanised.
This is related to objectifying someone or a group of people. To objectify someone, they must first be in some way dehumanised and ultimately be used. To objectify someone sexually, they must be dehumanised by having, essentially, their personhood ignored and then their bodies used, disjointed from the fact that it is a body inhabited by a person, sexually.
It must be pointed out that objectification and dehumanisation do not require an agreement on the part of both parties involved. It is a belief about the other that is projected onto them independently of their actual personhood. If there is enough of a power imbalance, and such imbalances may be subtle and aren’t even necessarily physical, then that projection may be carried through into reality. When that happens women get sold into the sex trade, people are treated as slaves, minorities are rounded up and slaughtered, human rights are suppressed or never acknowledged nor granted, people are raped.
This objectifying and dehumanising isn’t even necessarily a behaviour unto itself, but rather results from other behaviours or beliefs; it can be subconscious or embedded in the fabric of a culture, as in the very relevant case of sexism of this extant patriarchy. And there are shades of dehumanising and objectification in this patriarchy, so that some women may well be better off than others, while still being dehumanised and objectified to some extent. We can observe that ‘sex sells’, particularly women, that there is pay inequality, that abortion is made illegal, that access to contraception is restricted or that unnecessary and humiliating hurtles are set up in order to make those latter two examples difficult.
This is dehumanising. These are challenges to being fully realised people that men won’t have to encounter. If it were the case that people couldn’t be dehumanised as Gunboat Diplomat insists, then I should expect that the civil and human rights struggles of people the world over would not exist, as every society would be egalitarian. The enslavement of people for sex or work wouldn’t happen, nor would genocide, oppression of human rights nor the singling out of a stereotyped gender to sell products because of societal conditioning that the sexual pleasure of men necessarily needs appealing to.
Gunboat Diplomat, I think, is a troll or a wilfully ignorant male supremacist bigot, because the obvious truth of objectification and dehumanisation as real and harmful are unavoidable in so many disparate cases that only trolling or wilful ignorance can explain the failure to grasp these rather basic concepts.
Gunboat Diplomat, as has been suggested, the gig is up so, fuck off. No one wants you here, you careless asshole.
@ julian
I know what rape culture is as a concept. Its not difficult to google things these days and its not the first time I’ve come across it.
I’m saying I think its a… fallacious?, um lets say “not useful” concept. I don’t think its helps us understand society better than “sexist” or “misogynistic” culture of which rape is one form of oppression. And because it implies most men are complicit in it and tolerate it generally. And this is not true in western european culture at least although I can certainly believe it is much more common in some cultures and enviroments. Sexism is endemic misogyny extremely common, even popular, but rape is a step too far for the vast majority of men most of the time.
@Pteryxx
So even by your own figures the majority of men don’t rape or sexually assault women. Even the 30% figure is misleading (even if true) as theres a big difference between saying something and doing it.
Oh great, and now Gunboat Diplomat shows himself to be concerned.
Well, cupcake, it’s noted. So is your ignorance and your failure to actually graps any concept, let alone basic concepts. Really, just fuck off already.
@Walton #736
No, I’m using it as a defence mechanism. If you look back you’ll see the only time I’ve used it is when someones been really abusive. Thats not allowed?
@Algernon
Its nice you’re not shouting at me anymore.
Don’t take this the wrong way but as a rule I pay little attention to what anyone says about themselves on internet forums unless I know them or of them in real life. I’m not denying your life but its meaningless to me other than as a general human being. I don’t come on internet forums to make friends or share stories or become part of a community as my life is full enough already and I have a general distrust of the value of online communities.
I come to search for knowledge, test ideas with people who are more knowledgable than me and who I don’t have contact with in real life. And occasionally fool around to kill some time. This foray was the first two which has ended up taking up way too much of my time.
I have obtained a better understanding of some feminist arguments and how they are applied. I have also obtained a better understanding of why feminist ideas are so deeply unpopular with people who I think otherwise should be sympathetic. And I’ve obtained some further lines of inquiry into psychological mechanisms.
However I’ve been largely disappointed with the quality of the arguments, the souces people have used, the methods of argumentation and the open mindedness of the participants. Its been pretty poor in comparison to other forums such as bad science for example.
But thank you for the time.
I have to again now, real life calls but I will be back and I can’t wait to see if I get banned!
@57 Thomathy
Sorry I don’t have time to read or answer your long post right now.
so I guess I am fucking off in a way.
cupcake ;)
Okay, lets try this one again. It’s not helpful to other people engaging with you in an objective manner when you say things that deny their very real experiences. This is not saying that you must adopt our perspective in order to participate, but it would surely help your interactions here if you were to acknowledge that it is part of the fabric of this community and use some degree of discretion in how you address these issues. Prior to this comment you have not done this, instead running over people’s feelings with barely a hint of concern. Assuming that because you can distance yourself from the topic tells you anything about how other people are impacted by it is an indication that you are projecting your personality on to other people at the least or that you just don’t care.
So, no, it’s not helpful to have high emotions when trying to discuss a topic objectively. Not all of us have the luxury of discussing these things at all in a dispassionate fashion, if you can’t cope with real people having real reactions to a topic, I really don’t think Pharyngula is good for you and I am quite sure that you aren’t good for Pharyngula.
Out of curiosity, just what do I have to say to get you to let me know if my insult appeals to your fetish? You seem to be inconsistently using this ‘defence mechanism’.
Oh, and my post? It’s not aimed at you anyhow. It starts off with a quandary about your utter inability to apparently grasp two simple concepts and then largely goes into an exploration of those concepts, but it’s not directed at you. Well, the last two sentences are, since I did write that with the assumption that you’d at least see the post. Cookies for me!
Your condescension is completely lost on me, however, so I’d really appreciate that if all you could be assed to read is me telling you to fuck off, that actually do and that you actually do it like you know I mean for you to. Just stop posting here, you insipid troll.
The idea of rape culture is fallacious? The possibility that rape culture exists is a “not useful” concept?
Have you, GBD, ever heard a rape joke? Did you laugh at it? Did you think to yourself, ‘that’s not something to joke about’? Or did you vocally object to the joke, telling the ‘joker’ that humour about doing violence to another human being is not acceptable? Options one and two contribute the rape culture. Option three does not.
Did you, GBD, read or, in any other way, hear about John McCain’s speech in Washington, DC, in which he said,
? If you did not, you now have heard it. Is your response, “Heh, that’s funny”? Do you feel uncomfortable that an elected official in the United States (this was 1986) feels that was appropriate at a speech before he National League of Cities and Towns but not uncomfortable enough to object? Or do you think that is flat-out unnacceptable? Again, options one and two contribute to rape culture. Option three does not.
Note that, in neither of these questions, do I even imply that the one telling the joke, whether an unknown private citizen or a future Presidential candidate, is actually a rapist. Telling sexist jokes, telling rape jokes, in an atmosphere in which no one objects, in which the audience laughs, is contributing to a culture in which rape is considered a minor problem rather than a horrific and too-frequent real-life nightmare.
This is just one example of rape culture in the modern United States.
Others include teenage boys who assume that, since it is the fourth (or whatever) date, the girl damn well better put out. And if the girl tells anyone, reactions range from, “Well, what was she wearing?” to “Well, boys will be boys.”
Another example is the mental and legal abuse a rape victim suffers if she does report the rape. Did she know the alledged perpetrator? What was she wearing? Had she been drinking? Was she in a bad part of town? Did she scream? Did she fight back? She has no black eye or fat lip so it couldn’t have been rape. Besides, she was drunk and she knew the guy. And what was she doing in that part of town? Did he have a knife or a gun? And it goes on and on and on.
You not believing that a rape culture exists is not the same as it not existing. Most of the modern GOP elected officials do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. Doesn’t mean it ain’t happening, it only means that they have a vested interest in it not existing.
So, GunBoatDiplomacy, what is your personal interest, your vested interest, in rape culture not being real? or sexual objectification not being real? What is in it for you to not believe in reality?
Sorry, that should be GunBoat Diplomat. I was not intentionally screwing up your ‘nym, just a brain glitch on my part.
So you don’t think that telling people to seek enthusiastic consent and to acknowledge no as an acceptable and definitive response provides any protection for people’s sexual autonomy?
Would you agree that sexist and misogynistic culture puts undo pressure on women to either accept advances from men or be very non-specific in their rejections? Would you agree that sexist and misogynistic culture encourages men to think that no can mean ask again, no can mean not right now, no can mean yes, and that they have some expectation of it being acceptable to test which of these meanings no had when it was stated? Would you agree that sexist and misogynistic culture pressures women to be friendly towards men, to smile on demand, to frame response in vague and often contradictory fashion so as not to be judged worse, and to avoid confrontation? Can you see how these pressures make it easier to intrude on and pass over the personal boundaries that women have, whether through malice, oversight, or ignorance?
If you are going to call rape culture into question, you are in effect saying you deny the above.
Women are complicit in it and tolerate it generally too, hell, many people actively pursue it. I get sick at hearing people say “Sometimes it’s more exciting not to have permission.” “I said no to test how interested you are.” and other tired scripts which encourage a culture where the active participant is the only one who determines when a suit is no longer to be pushed.
Western Europe means a lot of different cultures.
If so, then there should be no objection to no meaning no, only yes meaning yes, and a respect for personal space in public arenas. Are you saying that these things are vastly favoured over the alternative?
I think GD uses the term dispassionate discussion to mean agree with him and his idiocy. He is passionate in his ideology….
GD,
Not that I expect you to notice or respond to this, as so far you have completely ignored me, but whatever.
So you think we want you to read the stories people shared of their personal experiences as part of some community-building-lets-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya thing? Fuck but that’s dense. Those stories are data points that directly contradict your stated premise about which behaviors are impossible, and even if they were possible that they would not result in harm. Your refusal to read them is nothing but you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU”.
No you haven’t. You’ve just been erecting strawmen distortions or flat out ignoring anything that doesn’t agree with your preconceptions.
Because they are idiotic douchebags who don’t argue in good faith? Yeah, unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about that on our end.
@447. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM : 27 October 2011 at 12:26 am
I read what you wrote there. You have my utmost respect and sympathy. I can’t imagine, well, can only very inadequately imagine to a tiny extent what that must have been like for you.
Words are inadequate, wish I could do something, make things better but, of course, I can’t.
But what I will do here :
Is that I promise I will never do either of those things. Never argue that dehumanisation is impossible because it isn’t and never argue that objectification doesn’t lead to abuse.
(Not that I would have before, but I’m making an extra conscious effort to from henceforth.)
I know it can only be in the smallest of ways but I hope that helps some.
(hugs) if you want them from me.
Cannot catch up, so… just…
In terms of their financial and social status, the few people who do that in that kind of country belong to the middle class, and there is no lower class. Where are you from that you haven’t noticed? Is the Irish education system governed by the school board of Texas?
Sure, in places like Germany at least, a lower class is now reforming because of neoliberal policies and economy crises. But that speech doesn’t date from such recent times.
The argument from stupid authority is a logical fallacy.
It is your fucking business when you unwittingly contribute to the preservation of a climate that is leading, and will continue to lead, to exactly this terrible shit again and again and again.
You act as if you didn’t know there are such things as unintended consequences.
Congratulations, troll! You just admitted to being a troll! I burp in your general direction.
He’s not here to discuss anything. He’s here just to make us angry. He’s a troll.
That explains a lot of things.
I know a lot of people have CG on ignore, so I won’t quote anything other than this:
Can he stick the flounce?
Amphiox:
He’s a piece of something….
Gregory Greenwood@323
I agree. That comment alone is worth an OM, if Walton hasn’t been nominated yet (I haven’t even looked at the latest Molly nomination thread yet.
Gen, or The RadFem of Dhoom, that’s some damn fine writing there. Thanks for the link. I’ll have to pass that one on to my wife.
Pteryxx @ 372
While I get what you’re saying here, my experience has been that often, the people who make complaints like slothrop1905 are that shallow, and have expectations that the (physically) hot supermodel types are the only ones ‘worth’ going after.
This might not be the case in slothrop1905’s circumstance, but I see that a lot, and many of them would be male supremacist types, or borderline, at best.
I promise I will never do either of those things. Never argue that dehumanisation is impossible because it isn’t and never argue that objectification doesn’t lead to abuse.
Plus I will try to argue more against those saying otherwise from now on too.
When the thing you are trying to understand is a subjective phenomenon, at least in part if not in majority, then what is REALLY not helpful is an obstinate insistence on only trying to “objectively” understand.
No, we’re pissed off at MRA attitudes, opinions, and ACTIONS.
They annoy BECAUSE they are MRA opinions.
Stupid is as stupid does. Or writes. Or says.
Your words are our evidence. Belief is not required.
Yeah. One of the kinds of mental abuse I discussed in my post that you apparently didn’t think was worth reading was objectification. Go read it.
And after that, you can stop telling me where to aim my ire, you stupid denialist fuck.
I, for one, have never heard a rape joke, nor have I heard about rape jokes. I learned of their existence on the Internet (that’s reading, not hearing), and the one you quote is the first I’ve ever encountered. Rape jokes may well be an American thing.
Ooooooooor… I just know way too few people in meatspace.
(Incidentally, gorillas have the smallest penises of all apes, us of course included.)
Not even. He isn’t actively refusing, he simply doesn’t care – he isn’t here to discuss or learn, he’s here to troll.
…For the record, I’ve read comment 447. It leaves me… rather speechless.
I agree the shallow often runs both ways. Still, I try to point out the possibilities every chance I get; it’s sort of a calling of mine. Some folks might benefit from being a little more open-minded about what kind of bodies sexy people can have… and if not, they STILL can’t un-see it. Win-win! *cackle*
David Marjanović:
Sorry to be the one to introduce you to that particular subset of USAinsanian mysogyny. You have my permission to bleach your brain.
Yet, I’ve said precious little about myself, dipshit.
It’s you who can’t stop wanking. You’re trite little attempts to “reverse” things are cute. But you have hardly shut up about your worthless and pathetic little self since you’ve been here.
Once again, I trump you. You are so sad, so small, so very pathetic.
I see again, you couldn’t bring yourself to answer anything I said. Well, then you have admitted it. You are just a pathetic little troll. See how nice I was to you? And it was pointless, because there never was anything to say except “shut up you misogynistic fucker” and anything more was a waste.
Thanks for once again proving me right. It is nice, playing with some one so stupid and so easy as you though. I have to admit.
He has an OM, and a very well deserved one at that.
@Algernon
Its true. You got me. You trump me. I can’t hardly shut up about my sad small pathetic self. At least you’ve been proven right, if theres anything to be salvaged from this mess its that.
GunBoat Diplomat:
You wrote:
I’m saying I think its a… fallacious?, um lets say “not useful” concept.
The idea of rape culture is fallacious? The possibility that rape culture exists is a “not useful” concept?
Have you, GBD, ever heard a rape joke? Did you laugh at it? Did you think to yourself, ‘that’s not something to joke about’? Or did you vocally object to the joke, telling the ‘joker’ that humour about doing violence to another human being is not acceptable? Options one and two contribute the rape culture. Option three does not.
Did you, GBD, read or, in any other way, hear about John McCain’s speech in Washington, DC, in which he said,
? If you did not, you now have heard it. Is your response, “Heh, that’s funny”? Do you feel uncomfortable that an elected official in the United States (this was 1986) feels that was appropriate at a speech before he National League of Cities and Towns but not uncomfortable enough to object? Or do you think that is flat-out unnacceptable? Again, options one and two contribute to rape culture. Option three does not.
Note that, in neither of these questions, do I even imply that the one telling the joke, whether an unknown private citizen or a future Presidential candidate, is actually a rapist. Telling sexist jokes, telling rape jokes, in an atmosphere in which no one objects, in which the audience laughs, is contributing to a culture in which rape is considered a minor problem rather than a horrific and too-frequent real-life nightmare.
This is just one example of rape culture in the modern United States.
Others include teenage boys who assume that, since it is the fourth (or whatever) date, the girl damn well better put out. And if the girl tells anyone, reactions range from, “Well, what was she wearing?” to “Well, boys will be boys.”
Another example is the mental and legal abuse a rape victim suffers if she does report the rape. Did she know the alledged perpetrator? What was she wearing? Had she been drinking? Was she in a bad part of town? Did she scream? Did she fight back? She has no black eye or fat lip so it couldn’t have been rape. Besides, she was drunk and she knew the guy. And what was she doing in that part of town? Did he have a knife or a gun? And it goes on and on and on.
You not believing that a rape culture exists is not the same as it not existing. Most of the modern GOP elected officials do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. Doesn’t mean it ain’t happening, it only means that they have a vested interest in it not existing.
So, GunBoat Diplomat, what is your personal interest, your vested interest, in rape culture not being real? or sexual objectification not being real? What is in it for you to not believe in reality?
Well fuck off then, why don’t you. I mean you damned sure aren’t going to listen to anyone, and all you are waiting for is to find out whether you can consider PZ an ass because he banned you or consider him your kind of guy because he didn’t.
What’s the point?
Why not just fuck right off since no one here is going to bother with your sanctimonious preaching now that it’s damned well established you are not arguing in good faith and have no intention of doing anything but ignoring what is said to you so you can prosthelytize about how it is ok to treat people like unthinking non-humans because you’re a Marxist. And how treating people like that doesn’t correlate to, you know, treating them like that.
That much is obvious.
Gunboat Diplomat @ 756;
I am curious as to why you feel that rape culture is not a useful concept. The ubiquity of rape apologia and rationalisation in our society is self evident. As an example, in pop culture you have such things as the fight/fuck trope (if you will forgive the crude language) where the woman initially physically resists the advances of the man until she realises that she ‘wants it really’. While less popular in modern culture than it has been previously, how is this anything other than a cultural replication of rape apologia?
I referenced another clear example of rape culture in action in my post @ 545 where I wrote;
The intersection between cultural acceptance of certain forms of behaviour, that today we would clearly recognise as rape, and a legal definition of rape that excluded those self-same behaviours is clearly shown here. It is a case of a culture that normalises all but the most stereotypical stranger rapes, thus facilitating other forms of rape. What is that if not ‘rape culture’?
If the above isn’t sufficient to convince you of the existence of a rape culture, then consider the fact that only 6.5% of reported* rapes in the UK result in convictions. This figure is substantially lower than that for other serious crimes. If one acknowledges the existence of a rape culture than this low figure can be explained by police officers and court officials who do not take claims of rape as seriously as other serious crimes. By an adversarial legal system that encourages defense lawyers to attack the character of the victim, seeking to place her prior sexual history on trial. By the social stigma that attaches to rape victims, the idea that she must have ‘led her attacker on’ or was otherwise ‘asking for it’, that discourages many victims from coming forward at all. In this light, the figures begin to make sense.
If, however, one denies the existence of a rape culture, then what alternative explanation is there? To claim that random chance alone leads to such consistently low conviction rates over a period of many years stretches credibility to the breaking point. So what other possibility is there? Without a concept of rape culture, you are either left claiming that the cases were evidentially unprosecutable (which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny given modern forensic techniques and the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service was prepared to let these cases go to trial at all), or that the vast majority of the women who come forward as rape victims are unreliable – that they are either too ‘hysterical’ to provide any coherent account of events, or that they are out-and-out lying about the sex in question being non-consensual or even that any sexual act took place at all – both attitudes that impugn either the rational faculties or honesty of these women based explicitly on their gender, which is textbook misogyny.
You either accept that rape culture exists, or you tacitly blame women for being raped. There really is no credible third option.
People (both male and female) are often complicit in rape culture by the very fact of either being ignorant of its existence or choosing to ignore its implications. The social construction of gender, and in particular the often deeply toxic construction of ‘true’ femininity and masculinity as seen in everything from feature films to magazine adds for deodourant, plays into a discourse that can minimise issues of consent and seek to delegitimise the experiences of women and men who do not conform to accepted gender norms. Such a toxic environment provides cover for rapists, and can even lead to people becoming rapists who do not realise that what they are doing is rape. Rape culture, like the broader patriarchy of which it is a part, is harmful to both women and men. This is not about assigning blame to one gender. This is about deconstructing a particularly toxic group of social memes that legitimate the idea of women as property or sexual capital.
‘Western European’ is a broad category, and as illustrated above, the Western European UK seems to have very serious problems with rape culture.
A majority of men aren’t rapists, but it doesn’t take a majority of men to be rapists to create a culture that minimizes the horror of rape and provides cover for those who are rapists. It is scant comfort to a rape victim to be told that her rapist was atypical of men in general when society at large is so invested in judging her for her own rape by implying that she must have been or acted in such a way as to ‘invite’ it.
But ‘saying something’ most certainly can establish a discourse and create a social environment where ‘doing it’ becomes more normalised, and thus more likely. Words and actions are not totally disassociated.
* Note that these are reported rapes. Given the social stigma that attaches to rape victims, it is likely tha a very large proportion, perhaps even the majority, or instances of rape never even get reported in the first place. The article I linked to suggests that the figure might be as high as 95% of rapes going unreported.
Thank you :) that’s something that makes it sort of worthwhile to have posted about it, even if Gunboat Diplomat is fucking arrogant enough to decide it’s irrelevant to him without even reading it. And thanks and hugs to everyone who did take the time to read it, especially those who have responded so kindly.
I think this should be emphasized, for the sake of readers less stupid than Gunboat Diplomat, though most of the other survivors here already know: what I related in 447 was not at all unusual. The only thing that makes it sound any different from some of the other stories that I and others have related here is that that particular abuser was extremely articulate and willing to talk about what he thought of me. But I’m willing to bet that many of the survivors here recognized what he said, felt the sort of dread and pain mixed with sympathy that I feel when I read about what happened to the rest of you. Because being turned into an object is not fucking voodoo and it’s not an intellectual game. It’s an experience that is horrendously common, and even if oblivious idiots will never be able to understand what it means, we always have to live with knowing.
oh, but don’t you understand, certain kinds of feminism are OK for lowly women who have wrong ideas but who aren’t totally hopeless.
You know, real, pure Marxism(TM) isn’t for everybody, you need a special brain for that (and a penis).
He’s the avantguarde and if the good feminists are OK following him, they are OK. There should be more of them. He’d even allow them to join any movement he’s heading, providing they bring sammiches.
David
Hmm, maybe you either have been very shielded, or Austria is very different, or maybe you didn’t recognise them for what they are.
Not all rape jokes are that blunt.
Algernon
Well, I didn’t get me one of those either ;) (ehm, neither a Marxist, especially not a bullshit one, nor a conflicted monarchist)
Although Mr. can be a terrible mansplainer, too. The best of men can be, because it’s hard to shake it off.
But, yeah, GBD has been a perfect example of what I hate:
Self-righteous douches who are utterly convinced that they don’t have to pay attention to shit that happens here and now (unless they can exploit it politically), because everything comes second with The Revolution(TM). And afterwards, well, everything is fine, so no need to discuss things like feminism, gender, race, sex, disabilities and so on.
In short: Total freedom from any responsibility.
Only “intellectual debates” allowed, emotions are no good to discuss (well, could it be that there’s a little piece of human decency left in him that would become uncomfortable?), and so on, and so on.
Combined with what’s basically a deeply religious mindset. You only have to exchange God and Jesus with Marx and Lenin, their writings with the Bible, paradise with socialism, sin with “false consciousness” and you can hardly spot the difference.
As I said before, can’t blame people for getting the impression that Marxists are assholes.
To be honest, the only Marxists I ever met have been feminist historians in Grad school. So it’s not something I’m used to encountering at all.
@ Classical Cipher
You have great strength and courage for recognizing that relationship for what it was, and for moving beyond it. Much sympathy and empathy. If you accept internets hugs, I will pass them along.
—————————–
@ Giliell
And then there are the rape jokes that aren’t jokes… the people who say shit like “I got raped on that test!” or “I got raped at (insert name of random video game here)!” All of this trivializes what rape victims go through, and it desensitizes people. That person obviously doesn’t get hurt by these things, so rape obviously isn’t that bad, amirite? And the people hearing those things know that the speaker didn’t get hurt, so they internalize that “rape is just a minor inconvenience” bullshit.
Which obviously doesn’t contribute to rape culture in the least. /sarcasm
A bit late, but…
Has it really failed to penetrate your skull that, if you’re not simply being dishonest here, you are using the term “object” in a fashion inconsistent with what it means to literally everyone else posting here?
And if so, why don’t you simply rephrase?
Because he’s zerpling.
Erulóra:
GD is rich in zerpleness. GD is a more toxic variant of zerple.
Zerpling, markling, hoggling… our taxonomy of misogyny and trolls is rich indeed.
WRT rape culture: Greydon Square, the atheist rapper, tweeted at one point that folks should call the police, because he “raped” a particularly delicious set of tacos. I wrote back to him asking not to use that language. He ignored me.
Sally:
From what I know of him and the RRS, it’s hardly a surprise.
Re: Greydon Square
Ugh. I’m sorry to hear that, because I actually like some of his stuff. I hate losing respect or people like that.
Indeed. Or “Facebook rape” (usually shortened to “frape”) as a term for having one’s Facebook profile hijacked and altered. I see acquaintances of mine use this all the time, unfortunately; and when I call people out on it, I usually get accused of overreacting and being oversensitive.
Walton:
FFS. Someone could just as easily say they felt violated, which would be accurate. So…Fiolated?
QFT People use rape analogies too many times. It’s becoming the new godwin’s Law.
I think even that would be overstating it. In my experience, most of the people who talk about “frape” (mostly drunk college-age kids) are talking about their friends taking their phones or typing on their computers when they’re not looking, and posting an embarrassing FB status as a practical joke. They’re not usually referring to any kind of serious attempt at impersonation or identity theft.
This usage of “frape” is intensely trivializing and insulting. It’s demeaning to victims of sexual violence, and it directly rhetorically equates sexual violence with something obviously trivial. Unfortunately, it seems to have passed into the vernacular, and many of the kids who use it don’t seem even to have thought about the implications. (When I’ve complained about it in the past, I’ve generally been told I’m overreacting or being “politically correct”.)
(Complained about it on Facebook, that is. More than once I’ve gotten into arguments with old school acquaintances and the like on FB about this.)
Walton:
Ah, I see. It goes to show just how deep rape culture goes, that the word itself is being morphed into describing the most trivial events. :shakes head:
In light of such things, it’s hardly surprising, the amount of people who will admit to rape as long as you don’t call it rape. (Ref. Meet the Predators.)
Oh, going back for a moment to GD’s incredibly misogynistic appeal to authority with the quote about “in every relationship there’s a horse and a rider”, well…lots of us are in a relationship of two horses. Think wild horses – equals who won’t accept riders.
I’d love to see a citation with context of Bismarck’s quote.
But he also said this, which I think is relevant:
“When you say you agree to a thing in principle you mean that you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice.”
Also, Otto von Bismarck is definitely who I’d go to when discussing sexual relationships. Just before Schopenhauer.
God fucking damn it.
I posted a pretty funny (iidssms) comment here this afternoon and evidently it got moderated out of existence.
OK, it was repetitive, but the point was to document the several dozen comments posted by Gunboat Diplomat after claiming he was ‘done with this thread’.
This is the second time in 2 days that I’ve been moderated for bullshit reasons. Fuck you, FreethoughtBlogs.
Algernon:
Me too. Considering much of what Bismarck had to say throughout his life, I’m not putting money on a benign context.
The horse and rider thing is
a. disgusting and immediate proof of GD’s gross sexism; and
b. hilarious, because who’s actually the Old Trot here?
And FFS, it’s not exactly hard to construct a Marxist account of rape culture. Divide et impera, at least. You don’t need to read Catherine McKinnon yet, since you’ve been in a coma since the 1960s and this would probably give you culture shock. But have you not even read your Engels? (Mostly The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State).
Or to move into the 20th century and get a grip on Marxist accounts of culture, try a spot of Gramsci, or Marcuse, depending on your taste. And to start edging on up out of the 60s, you could do worse than Shulamith Firestone’s Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism.
PS: WANT!!!
PPS: Trotsky would have been ashamed of you.
Algernon: “Also, Otto von Bismarck is definitely who I’d go to when discussing sexual relationships. Just before Schopenhauer.”
Ohhh! Win!
Link borkage repair: WANT!!!
@Chas: it was probably links. FTB has been having a problem with posts with more than one link recently. Our tentacular overlord might be willing to check the spam filter if you ask nicely.
@ Alethea H claw #5
I’m sure its not. it doesn’t mean its any more a useful expression for understanding society and womens oppression though. The manifestations of rape culture given earlier are completely bizzarre and alien to most culture between men in much of western and northern europe.
Men in this part of the world don’t sit around making rape jokes and even among sexist humour its considered beyond the pale by the vast majority.
One practical measure to reduce misogy and sexism in society that would be possible under capitalism would be the decriminialisation of prostitution which would at least provide a safety valve for many some mens sexual frustration and the problems that can result from that.
Unfortunatelty we’re seeing the opposite of that happening in many places in europe and unfortunately some feminist groups, particularly in the UK have been against that and in fact are in favour of MORE repressive laws on prositution including the prosecution of the customers of prostitutes which makes a difficult job even more dangerous for them, particularly the most vulnerable.
A few years ago I would have said the ending of censorhip on pornography would also have been a positive step to take but luckily the internet has bypassed that issue. However the British Prime Minsiter recently said he wants ISP’s to include an “opt-in” clause for pornography sites which will effectively ban pornography for many people becuase there is still a taboo about it within many families.
It supposedly being done to “protect the children.”
@A Ray in dilbery space #6
I used the expression horse and rider as relationship between political forces, specifically femisnism and marxism and this particular brand of feminism and the Roman Catholic Church.
If you guys WANT to use it in relation to sexual relationships go right ahead, who am I to judge what you get up to in the bedroom? ;)
So, not Win methinks. More like Epic Reading Comprehension Fail.
This, I assume, is relevant because nothing exists outside of your part of the world and those you are speaking to can’t belong to these make believe non existent places outside the glorious wonderland that is North and Western Europe.
You don’t give a fuck about anyone but yourself.
The assertion that rape culture is somehow very weird to enlightened Europeans is laughable, to say the least. Because everybody in Europe is highly cultured and would never ever waste their time on Hollywood movies or American TV.
Remind me, what’s the reputation of France and Italy like for street harassment?
Ask the many victims of Dominique Strauss-Kahn how seriously they were taken.
Where did convicted child-rapist Polanski find sanctuary?
For that matter, on which continent is that Vatican place, the one that hosts all those child-raping priests? Where was that? Antarctica?
Ask the Rape Crisis Network Europe about European attitudes to rape – curiously, their list of myths about rape is very much the same as you see in the US or Australia.
And I’ll take “missing the joke” for $1,000,000, Alex. (TROT, you moron.) While I’m at it, I’ll also take the horse. The one who does the work, and is exploited by the other. What was your confused metaphor supposed to be about again? How you rule over the proletariat? LO fucking L.
You’re such a twit.
GD says,”Men in this part of the world don’t sit around making rape jokes and even among sexist humour its considered beyond the pale by the vast majority.”
Really? Well, I suppose that is because sexual assault is a hobby rather than a joke over there? Dude, that’s bullshit. Do you even know any women?
I deal with brilliant European (Brits, French, Italian, Belgian…) women in my day job (radiation physics) on a semi-regular basis. Some of the stories they tell–about being dismissed by male colleagues, passed over for promotion and, yes, groped–astound me. Yes, things are different in Europe, but it’s still a “Boy’s Club”.
Dude, patriarchy IS rape culture. I suspect your failure to perceive the existence of rape culture (Quel surprise!) has more to do with your dulled perceptions and the lack of trust women have in you than it does with any absence of misogyny
I see GD is still preaching his fuckwittery. We’ve heard all you have to say GD. You can shut the fuck up now. You have nothing more to say, and nobody here believes anything you do say. You failed big time to convince anyone, which is your wont.
GD must inhabit a different western and northern Europe than the one I’m familiar with.
GD must inhabit a different western and northern Europe than the one I’m familiar with.
‘Tis:
Of course it’s different. In GD’s western and northern Europe, there’s only men.
Strangely, when I went to college in Ireland, the first things I got told were to never walk alone in the dark and never to leave a drink unattended and never ever to accept one from somebody I didn’t really know.
And given the sexist shit I encountered there, the groping, the violation of boundaries and all the fuck, I knew why that was “good” advice.
@A ray in dilbert space #
No its not, its just an exaggerated label put on society to push your particular ideological worldview.
You might as well call prostitution synonymous with trafficking and chattel slavery. Or pornography as a cultural form synonymous with misogyny.
They all contain those elements but that is not the entirety of them and to pick out the worst element and use that as a label is fallacious.
Hard to tell when you’ve spent so much time talking about your fetishes ;)
Well, duh.
No, what is fallacious is you dismissing the evidence out of hand, like you are doing. You don’t like the label, therefore you must invent sophistry to avoid being tagged with an accurate and appropriate label. Rather than changing the label, you should be changing your attitudes…
GunBoat Diplomat:
You have stated that you think that the idea of rape culture is fallacious, that it is a lie. You have yet to provide any evidence pointing in that direction other than your handwaving opinions. You not believing that a rape culture exists is not the same as it not existing. Most of the modern GOP elected officials do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. Doesn’t mean it ain’t happening, it only means that they have a vested interest in it not existing.
So, GunBoat Diplomat, what is your personal interest, your vested interest, in rape culture not being real? or sexual objectification not being real? What is in it for you to not believe in reality?
Gunboat is so familiar to me, but I can’t quite place it. Either way he’s doing the equivalent of heavy phone breathing and should be axed.
Have you seen his responses on the thread? He objectifies people reflexively.
So his denial of the existence of either rape culture or obectification of humans makes it possible for him to participate in, and propogate rape culture so that he can, without feelings, objectify humans?
(by the way, third time with that question and he will not respond. i wonder why?)
Ogvorbis:
Are you serious? I’d say it’s pretty fucking obvious. GD would fit right in Meet the Predators. Predators Redux, too.
It’s not just the attitude and creepiness, it’s the practiced handwaving words into what he wishes them to be, rather than what they are, just like the people in Meet the Predators.
Ogvorbis:
Perhaps he thinks you’re female.
FTFY
What’s in it for him is that he’s enjoying getting a rise out of people. It doesn’t look like there’s much more to it than that.
What Ing said.
@Ing:Od Wet Rust:
Perhaps you’d like to provide an example of where I have objectified people “reflexively”? What you can’t? tutut
As for what my personal vested interest is, lets see:
Perhaps I have never had any contact with women and thus “sexual objectification” is the only thing I know?
Perhaps I feel guilty about all the women I’ve had sex with who were really really wasted ? (on the border of rape land?)
Perhaps I’m sitting in a mansion with a big pile of cash and cocaine in front of me bought with the profits of people trafficking?
Or perhaps I don’t think “objectification” is necessarily a bad thing if the person being “objectified” is up for it based on the principle of effective consent. Wait – objects can’t give consent! Except if the object is a functioning human being they can. And if they’re happy with the “objectification” then thats cool
You choose.
Damn. I guess “Father” Ogvorbis is too subtle.
Pick any place where you dismiss people with the sexualized “Oh fetish I am so masturbating to you” shtick.
Gee…why does this one seem to flash big and red? It’s not the border line, asshole.
PEOPLE ARE NOT OBJECTS. And you’re objectifying people and treating them like shit without their consent because you are treating them as tinker toys. And it’s been pointed out to you that what you’re doing is not cool and is compounded by that some of your targets are RAPE VICTIMS who have told you how creepy and WTF you’re sexualization of them is.
Gunboat apparently thinks it’s just fine with going into discussions about someone’s miscarriage and posting dead baby jokes. Because you know…uppity bitches I guess.
GDB:
No ‘perhaps.’ What is your interest in denying that either sexual objectification or rape culture exist? Especially in light of the evidence provided by others here and elsewhere.
You frighten me. Really.
Experiments have shown, and real life has shown, that certain levels of stimuli will, in certain situations (prisons, abusive marriages, for example) reduce the victims to the point at which they are mentally unable to refuse the domination of the abuser. So if you mentally and/or physically abuse your woman long enough she will not object to you using her as a thing.
So your vested interest in denying that rape culture or objectification exist really is so that you can participate fully and without guilt in said sociopathic behaviour.
Ogvorbis:
Well, in fairness, he’s an idiot. It’s been assumed, over and over that I’m male, despite the “Fleur” in my nym.
Ing:
Ugh. The douchebag would no doubt adore theotheratheists.
Ogvorbis:
Guilt and sociopathy don’t go together. I don’t think GD feels guilt, that’s pretty obvious from what it writes. The sociopathic aspect comes through with clarity.
What if someones really really wasted they can’t give consent now? Well it depends on the circumstances. Unconcious obviously no. A couple of E’s? Yes for many people and situations, no for others. I hear that can be really amazing for women incidentally. Not so much for guys though. Or perhaps you think if you’ve had 2 drinks that you’re no longer capabale of making decisions about what you do?
@Caine
Internal guilt isn’t there…but didn’t a recent text analysis of sociopaths find that they use language to remove personal motivation and frame things so that they react rather than act?
Hit a nerve
Ing:
I haven’t read that, but I’d like to. That does make sense.
@Caine #34
Well I’ve nothing to feel guilty about so why would I feel guilty? I am kind of amazed at the insanely vicious response on this partiuclar forum to issues whcih are discussed quite calmly and openly in situations with other feminists though. I’m really looking forward to sharing this discussion with them.
Ing:
Um, yeah. I was right, GD’s a perfect fit with Meet the Predators.
FIFY.
@37 Ing
You did indeed, theres been more than a couple of times I’ve been unable to “perform” while under the influence of Class A substances. The shame! poor old me. Hey maybe thats at the root of my imaginary misogyny?
Speaking of which if I’m really making misogynistic comments (which I’m not), then wheres the banhammer you guys threatened me with?
@Caine
It was a science or fiction on the last Skeptics Guide I believe. Let me check and see if I can dig up the reference.
Here we go
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02025.x/abstract
Drama queen much, Cupcake? Considering the amount of shit you keep vomiting up and the rude, creepy remarks constantly directed at any woman posting, we’ve been downright sweet to you, lackwit.
You’re free to fuck off, you know. I strongly suggest it, seeing as you have non-uppity wimmins somewhere who will swoon over your vomit. :eyeroll:
It is cliche Mr. Ripper.
A) You are
B) You are now Daffy Duck jumping up and down yelling “SHOOT ME NOW!”. Keep going that route.
@The Ys #41
Alas I am not so imposing as to instil fear in men or women in real life.
Ing:
Oooh, thank you!
Point of interest highlighted. They use language to distance their agency from an action. “Bitch MADE me” comes to mind.
Yawn, GD keeps making the same boring evidenceless claims like any idjit trolling. His opinion isn’t evidence, except of his sociopathic nature. He can’t change our opinions without evidence.
Like I said. He’s a keyboard breather. He can’t piss all over people in real life like he wants to to get himself hard so he uses the GIFT and snipes from behind a very very very sticky screen.
PZ is traveling, you dimwitted fuckwit. Keep yelling, you’ll get his attention sooner or later. He’s ever so impressed with morons screeching to be banned.
I’ll also point out the comment about psychopaths being emotionally detached and “pleasant” when talking about what should be emotionally charged topics. Now I am in no position to arm chair psychoanalyze, but I will anyway.
GBD:
Being tall/large or looking imposing isn’t the only thing that can terrify others into agreeing with you. Being a creepy fuckwit with no respect for boundaries does nicely all on its own. Winning!
Ing:
Which GD has been doing from the beginning. I’m thinking about that whole “hey, she had two drinks, are you saying she shouldn’t be responsible!?” What a loathsome asspimple.
I’m not saying GD is a psychopath. But there are many seemingly normal people who have adopted the structures of psychopathy in their ideology; such as objectivists.
@Ing
I have to admit I was initially shiocked and got annoyed when Nerd lied about my posiiton.
But its become so over the top now, misprepresentation, falsification, hilariously off the mark pop-psychologising and the insults – oh my – that its difficult to take any of you seriously. However I’m still learning fromm the process (although not in the way you perhaps would like) so its still of some use.
As a side note, how does everyone like the icon that GBD loaded up?
Wasted, Gunboat Diplomat. You said wasted. I’ve been drunk enough times to know what wasted means.
Wasted is nearly passing out. Wasted is you hoping your character hurries up and dies so you can stop the herculean task of propping yourself up on your knees and make a bea line towards the bathroom. Wasted is not knowing that the reason your “buddies” are laughing is because you’ve still got your shoes on and someone has brought out the shaving cream.
A wasted person cannot consent.
@GB
Yup keep on using that language. It’s US who have made you closed minded. If I may, I also note a sharp increase in spelling and punctuation mistakes in your last post where you were fairly clean and crisp before. Sudden emotional spike perhaps? Hit a nerve have we?
Impractical for Russian Winter
Well, if you have had three drinks and either have them in quick succession, are fairly slight, otherwise have a low alcohol tolerance, or haven’t eaten recently that is pretty much enough to get you a drunk driving citation. Know why we do that? We do have a more rigorous legal alcohol limit based on blood saturation, but in general we tell people two drinks is the cut off. Why? Because the effects are not consistent from one drinking experience to the next.
Add in a person you don’t know well, whether through just having met them or years of miscommunication, and how would you know whether you are dealing with someone who is good to go on those two hits of E as opposed to someone who is not? This is not obvious, people misinterpret signals all the time. We need to stop waiting until the morning after to decide that something was inappropriate.
I am the last person here who would suggest that people shouldn’t have casual sex, shouldn’t have sex that involves drug use, shouldn’t have sex with strangers, or anything else that you appear to be saying is a target of our concern. What I want is for people to talk about casual sex frankly with the people they engage in it with, for people who take drugs and have sex to discuss their boundaries before they get high, for people who have sex with strangers to acknowledge that they know one another but poorly and address that before they get slippery. There is a lot to learn from some of the fringe sexual communities, (yes, BDSM and lifestyle communities have their own problems, but they are more open about the problems and active in effecting change,) about how to protect members from predacious behaviour while still encouraging experimentation and relative spontaneity.
Go learn someplace else, jizzboat.
See I personally wouldn’t have sex with anyone of either gender who consented while inebriated (beyond just buzzed) or on something mind altering like E. I don’t want to take the risk.
So did you ever find out after whether it was a yes or a now with her and you?
If someone is incapacitated, even willingly incapacitated, then fucking that person is rape. No ‘depends on the circumstances,’ it is rape. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. And to imply otherwise, and expect that people will agree with you (and yes, there are too damn many who will) is a perfect example of the existence of rape culture.
Alas I am not so imposing as to instil fear in men or women in real life.
Size has little to do with it. Anyone, male or female, big or small, can be abusive if they so choose. To claim, ‘Oh, I’m just a little guy, how could I be an abuser,’ is just plain bullshit.
By the way, thank you for answering my question. It appears to have brought your sociopathy right out into the open.
All I’d like is for you to go away.
A couple of acquaintances once included me in on a story about a great time they had fucking a girl who was off her ass on ketamine. They assured me she had a great time, though none of them it seems had contacted her or even knew how after the party.
Still, they were sure she had a great time. I mean she was spiraling down the k hole, how could she not have?
The funny thing is, I can imagine myself now being used as an example of a feminist who would agree with them too.
Funny how all that works, no?
My cat agrees with me.
The Lament of the Ineffectual Abuser.
@Algernon
Your cat is a known liar.
Gunboat Diplomat;
I would still be interested to hear how you reconcile your position that rape culture is not a useful concept when applied to Western Europen countries with the fact that, as I posted back at 782, only 6.5% of reported rapes in the UK result in convictions, a figure significantly lower than that for other serious cimes.
Also, with regard to your post @ 35 on the second page of this thread;
It is important to remember that people react differently to alcohol in different circumstances, such as when they are ill or have not eaten recently, or if they possess a particularly low body mass. For some people, in certain circumstances, two drinks may indeed prove sufficient to render them incapable of providing consent. This applies equally in the case of narcotics. It is important to seek to judge the mental state of the other party in such situations, rather than appeal to some imaginary set of hard and fast rules. If a person seems disoriented or is slurring their speech, for instance, then it is reasonable to assume that whatever they have been imbibing has begun to degrade their faculties, however little they have consumed at that point.
When someone is, as you put it, “really really wasted” it is reasonable to assume that they are suffering from a significant degree of incapacity through drink or other intoxicants. A person in such a state is unlikely to be able to provide informed consent, if they can even form coherent sentences at all. In such a circumstances, even something that you may interpret as encouragement or consent should be viewed with caution to say the least. Better by far to wait until the other party is in full possession of their faculties and able to express themselves cogently and clearly. Then consent (or its absence) will be unambiguous.
As Ing: Old Wet Rust points out @ 30, engaging in a sex act with someone who is inebriated to the point of not being able to render clear and informed consent is clearly a form of rape. Rape does not require physical intimidation or emotional abuse – any sex act undertaken in the absence of free and informed consent is rape, and any definition of rape that excludes such circumstances is at best hopelessly unrealistic, and at worst little more than rape apologia.
That’s my thinking, too. It’s such a pointless and reckless thing to do with a stranger. Why would you?
The thrill? The rush? Why don’t you get behind the wheel of a car while coked out of your mind on an empty highway? There’s your rush. There’s your danger.*
*For some reason I actually see that as more ‘right’ than trying to sleep with someone who’s intoxicated or drugged up.
No wonder you have to rely on getting them so wasted they can’t resist your predatory advances.
Yeah, nothing like rape culture where you live, jizzboat, nothing like.
You’re still mad about the money, aren’t you?
Nah! Stay sober and free climb a local tower. It’s thrilling, illegal, and you’ll probably die.
Ing:
Same here. I don’t find anything terribly attractive about seriously fucked up sex anyway. I much prefer very involved sex which has the advantage of being remembered clearly later on. Not that I’m against a drink or two, if it’s someone I know well, or a little smoke, again, if it’s someone I know well.
Also seems more right than trying to bed someone whose drunk or otherwise blitzed out of their mind.
Wouldn’t some one who consistently accepts that they are an object to be used by it’s owner be a… willing victim?
Caine is persuading me with this one.
Algernon:
Huh?
Yes, but a willing victim is still a victim.
When I was in high school, there was a couple who had been ‘going steady’ since they were nine years old (third grade or so). Boyfriend and girlfriend. And the parents approved.
And, from the time I moved to Maryland until they graduated (we were in the same class, but I enjoyed my sophomore year so much I decided to repeat it), it was not at all uncommon for her to have a fat lip, or a black eye, or fingertip bruises on her arm, or hand-grasp bruises on her thighs (gym class and/or short skirts). And, if anyone asked her about it, her response was some variant of, “Well, I did something wrong and I won’t do it again. But I love him and he loves me.” Sometimes followed by, “And it’s not like anyone else will love me.” She was a victim of abuse, but a willing victim. For years.
And yes, some of us did express our concerns to the public school heirarchy. And were told to, basically, mind our own business. She doesn’t have to stay with him. She did stay with him. They were married about six months out of high school. No idea what’s happening with them now.
Anyway, the point of that ramble is that a willing victim of objectification and abuse is still a victim.
Ogvorbis:
Thinking on it, I’m not so sure about the ‘willing’ part of willing victim. There’s a distinct difference between that and non-standard consensual sex play.
To me, someone who consistently accepts they are an object is someone who eventually came to consistent acceptance (and someone has to be on top of that person to keep the acceptance consistent), so that removes the ‘willing’ part for me.
If all someone is looking for is a convenient hole, hey, there’s all manner of choices, object-wise. There’s no need to degrade a human being for that purpose, especially to the point that they view themselves as non-human.
Caine:
Good point. Can someone who has been abused to that extent, and is still in the abuse cycle, be considered willing?
The Willing-Victim is as willing as the slave is once they’ve been broken. It’s the same sort of social conditioning.
No.
We recognise that coercion is not acceptable when it comes to sex…so why wouldn’t we be consistent and say that coercion is unacceptable when it comes to conditioning a victim to believe that she (or he) deserves to be abused?
Oh no, I’m not saying a willing victim isn’t a victim. Only that the willing victim that seems to be GD’s doorprize here seems indistinguishable from the willing victim that is the goal of many a sociopath.
Algernon:
Oh, I see. I was confused there for a bit. Yes, I’d agree with this assessment.
Willing, is of course, in the eye of the beholder. I mean, once you have some one who will not disobey you and who has lost their will, some one who at least for the time being is utterly broken, the will be willing after all. Since that is, by definition, the ultimate goal.
Just pointing out the backwardsness of his assertion is all, and increasingly amazed by the level of either a)narcissism or b) blind privilege to make that argument.
Well, it could also be both narcissism AND blind privilege.
Gotcha. I didn’t understand where you were going with that one, and I think you’re right.
That seems very likely, yes.
I’m unclear on what it would mean, precisely, to consent to be objectified. “Hey baby, let’s pretend you’re my blow-up doll”?
Somehow I doubt that’s what GDB is talking about.
If I may be charitable, he may be talking about submissiveness and/or humiliation in sex. But despite the superficial similarities, it’s not the same as truly being objectified. Because if you are indulging in the sexual fantasies of a sub, you are respecting him/her as a person. Of course, I’m way behind in this thread, and it has the stink of creep all over it.
Well, yes, and this has been pointed out many times already: obtaining someone’s informed consent to be treated as an object is not the same thing as treating them as an object. As I said to Verbose Stoic on the same subject, the difference is much the same as the difference between looking at a person and looking at an image of a person. When you obtain consent to do sex play involving humiliation, abuse, or any of the things that commonly go along with actual objectification, you are performing a facsimile of objectification. It is a simulation of objectification; it is not the real thing. Why? Because objects are incapable of giving or revoking consent. If you are interested in getting their consent, then by definition you are not treating them as an object.
GDB is irrationally attached to the idea of it being okay to treat someone as an object, though, so he is refusing to grapple with these nuances. He insists in redefining “objectification” to include things that are clearly not objectification, so he can justify whatever abuses it is he gets off on perpetrating.
I think I saw a site like that somewhere. Women and men dressed up as blow up dolls that came “alive” while you did your thing. The costumes were heavy on the black and spandex with expressionless faces.
…Not sure why I brought that up.
Julian,
Rule 34, man. Rule 34.
In the end, doesn’t it all come back to ENTHUSIASTIC (YES,YES,YES) consent?
Besides the blow-up dolls, there’s also folks who enjoy pretending they’re turned into statues or furniture, say. I gather they get turned on by the transformation, restraint or submission aspects, as in other forms of trust-based play.
*nod* and IMHO, this can’t be stressed too highly. I think it’s all too easy for humans to get absorbed into pretend roles without clear and conscious reminders that they are merely pretend. That’s one reason I have personal rituals around hockey, for instance: to remind myself that rough physical contact is okay only here, in this space and context.
And, that’s part of why the list I mentioned is so long. My partner would enjoy things done to xir that I can’t tolerate the thought of doing to anyone, even willingly. Being abused really put a damper on my role-playing ability.
yar. The other person is RIGHT THERE. There’s no excuse to pretend y’ can’t just ask them.
@Rey Fox #89
No I’m not talking about BDSM.
“Objectification” is often used as an expression by people to refer to consensual sexual relations which have very little emotional involvement. “I felt like he was treating me like an object” after a late night booty call for example.
This would be the most common usage most people would be familiar with and it is of course the reason I originally said objectification does not necessarily lead to dehumanisation and abuse.
The meaning of “sexual objectification” as used by my detratctors here is partly synonomous with dehumanisation.
However even dehumanisation itself, which clearly is a prerequesite for bigotry and rape, murder etc is not necessarily a problem in a specific sexual encounter. For example I know people who have had sex with people they despise, really hate and have said the most awful things about them afterwards to the point of considering them subhuman. Or who have had sex with people who disgust them and are then filled with self loathing afterwards. Hardly a healthy situation for the individuals and hardly good for soceity and women generally but these are examples of how the sexual objectification -> deuhamnisation -> abuse narrative can be wrong. Becuase people also have the right to make bad decisions and effective consent is the key principle.
So I believe there is a deliberate conflation of the different meanings of “objectificaiton” and then the late night booty call I mentioned earlier can then be turned into abuse. Or guilt over cheating on a partner can lead someone to claim abuse.
This does happen in society, men and women complaining of abuse because of hurt feelings or guilt rather than any actual abuse, ie lack of effective consent.
I know a couple of people who have been accused of rape who are completely innocent (and thankfully charges were never brought). Julian Assange is a high profile example of this kind of problem.
Regarding the low rape conviction rate mentioned I suspect part of that has to do with this problem. A big part of it is also often the police don’t really give a fuck whether a woman is raped. No doubt there are many other factors.
None of this denigrates the very real and major problem of rape and abuse throughout all societies. But the sweeping up of innocent people in an anti-rape hysteria doesn’t help the cause one little bit, not least because the rich and powerful can usually buy or bargain their way out of it á la Dominique Strauss Kahn, while even being ACCUSED of rape can and does ruin lives.
The play Oleanna dealt with this issue very well I thought.
Now because I have not accepted this other meaning of objectification and the narrative that accompanies it and because I have not responded to the abuse stories somehow I’m a misogynist monster.
Now you’ll excuse me as I’m going out to get wasted and hopefully laid but that will depend on the mood of the woman in question.
I’ll be sure to refuse if she has more than two drinks though, otherwise I’ll turn myself in tomorrow morning.
Does Gunboat or others really think the “LOOK AT MY PENIS!! I HAVE SEX WQITH WOMEN!” is impressive?
I see what you did there.
Hope you use condoms.
Why do we still say Kahn was just accused when it was pretty clear they only dropped the case because they thought the victim was too big of a whore to be trusted by a jury?
Also, your sex life sounds pathetic. Why do you insist on sharing it publicly?
@Algernon
20 bucks says he gets shitfaced and winds up humping a club urinal
I thought it was because they decided she was lying about crucial details…as if being in shock doesn’t make you do odd things, right?
They had physical evidence of trauma and assault, however…and they fucking dropped the case. I don’t understand it.
Rape culture in action.
A tankard of 7-day-old grog says he gets shitfaced, tries to hump his inflatable doll, but can’t get it up…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is GBD pulling the “pity the poor men accused of rape, they’re the REAL victims” line?
That’s how I read it, yes. Along with GBD previously claiming that men should have greater access to prostitutes to stop them raping, and that bad sex somehow proves objectification isn’t a problem. With a chaser of “but I’m not denigrating rape!” Blech. That was one seriously wasted benefit of the doubt I gave this guy.
GD, the rape apologist, is just hoping to intimidate people here because that’s been his schtick for a while.
I wonder why he cares so much to make an impression. He must have some really deep insecurities or something.
If you do rape somebody tonight, GD, I hope it’s the last time ;)
I know, pteryxx, I know.
I hate it when people put up epic displays of misogyny. It makes me wand to hide under the covers.
Personally I’m not quite ready to rip into all of them out-of-hand, but I’m developing a sort of countdown-to-epic-misogyny-reveal timer in my head. *sigh*
Power differentials. The criminal “justice” system, like every other institution in our society, primarily serves the interests of those with power, not of those without. It’s very, very, very hard for a poor, non-white, immigrant hotel worker to take on a rich, powerful, politically-connected white man.
I’m not prepared to assume that Assange is innocent. He may be, but I’ll reserve judgment on that unless and until the case goes to trial and more facts emerge. I will not assume without evidence that the woman is lying and/or a CIA plant. At the moment, there’s no way of telling either way. And taking an automatic attitude of “she must be lying” contributes to a hostile culture in which actual rape victims are afraid to speak up.
(And I say this as a strong supporter of Wikileaks.)
This from a man who claims that the idea of a rape culture is fallacious. Total and epic self-awareness fail.
Dang, that could go two ways, but I meant GD’s pride and joy is flaccid, not a balloon.
Out damned spot! Out I say!
Wait, I thought Assange’s defense was to admit that he had sex with a woman while she was asleep but claim that that totally wasn’t rape, honest! And this is an example of poor, innocent men being victimised? Seriously?
That is in fact Assange’s defense. Also, her demand that he wear a condom was unreasonable and he was 100% justified in sticking it in her while not wearing one, despite her protests to the contrary.
Both of those are rape.
There was a lot of confusion in the press reports about the exact accusations against Assange, but the Guardian has the specific accusations in detail (which I hadn’t seen before). Two separate victims have come forward.
If the allegations against him are true, then he is almost certainly guilty of rape. In relation to the second victim, his defence is weak, and reads like an exercise in rape-apologetics. In the law of most countries, having sex with someone who is asleep is presumptively rape. To say that “she never indicated that she did not want to have sex with him” is not an excuse; it is the perpetrator’s responsibility to ascertain affirmative consent.
There’s also no evidence that any of the accusations are politically motivated. Indeed, it’s extremely unlikely that they are, given that Assange admits to having had sexual encounters with both women (though he claims they were consensual), and, in the second case, he seems in substance to be admitting to most of the facts pleaded.
I hope Assange is happy though that for two orgasms he’s done more to hurt his cause than any conservative authoritarian could have.
Gunboat Diplomat @ 95;
(Emphasis added)
You appear to be suggesting that the low conviction rates for rape in the UK and other Western societies can be explained in part because women make up accusations of rape in order to ‘get back’ at men who there are angry with or in order to sublimate their own feelings of sexual guilt. Doesn’t it occur to you that such a discourse can provide perfect cover for rapists? The idea that women are given to inventing rape allegations plays directly into the belief that a rape victim is unreliable and so accusations of rape need not be actioned.
You yourself say that a “big part” of reason for the low conviction rate for rape is because;
Leaving aside the curious aspect of a position that makes such a statement about police behaviour in regards to women and yet simultaneously dismisses the usefulness of rape culture as an explanation for such behaviour, would it not be fair to postulate that a major component of why the police are often so unwilling to take rape cases seriously is because there is a standing trope in society that women who make accusations of rape often have ulterior motives for doing so? A meme that you yourself have just replicated?
But you just stated above that women are given to making up allegations of rape and abuse where this is not the case. How is that anything other than minimising the severity of rape as a social problem and denigrating the experiences of its victims by implying dishonesty on their part?
(Emphasis added)
This is… shall we a say a most unfortunate turn of phrase. Using the term ‘hysteria’ in this context, given that word’s social and medical history and original supposed relationship to a disturbance of the uterus, is problematic enough, but pressaging it with the phrase ‘anti-rape’ is even worse. Rape is a terribly traumatic experience. It is a pervasive blight on our society, and taking a strong stand against it and the social mores that enable it is anything but ‘hysterical’.
Rape is an emotive topic, and it makes many people angry. Rape victims in particular often have an entirely justified emotional response to issues surrounding rape and rape culture, but this is no basis to dismiss anti-rape movements as expressions of a mindless, ‘knee-jerk’ reaction utterly unrelated to the evidence. Rather it is a considerd and rational response to a societal problem that afflicts a substantial proportion of the population and ruins many thousands of lives every year, as well as factoring into other serious crimes including violent assaults and murders.
There can be no compromise – rape is in all circumstances wrong. Those who are innocent of the crime will ideally not be accused, or should be vindicated by the justice system, but no level of rape is acceptable as a trade off for avoiding the possibility of wrongful accusation. If nothing else, it seems very likley that actual rape or attempted rape is many orders of magnitude more common than malicious allegations of rape. It is not reasonable to avoid taking all steps possible to oppose a major and ubiquitous social problem in the name of tackling a comparitively rare related issue of false accusation.
Assange’s innocence has yet to be established, so it is too early to claim that the allegations are false, still less actively malicious or politically motivated.
And what about the woman in this case? What about the campaign of legal character assassination launched against her? What about the other women who have come forward and stated that Strauss Kahn sexually assaulted them, but that his wealth and power protected him from prosecution? What about other possible victims who saw waht happened to the Hotel maid, and thought better of coming forward to report an assault that they suffered at the hands of Strauss Kahn or someone like him lest they suffer similar demonization? Aren’t these victims worth considering? Why do you focus so narrowly on the men who may be falsely accused of rape and lack the money and power to make the problem go away? Especially when there seems to be little hard evidence to support the contention that this problem is anything other than a rarity? Surely protecting women from powerful men who think they can take whatever they want with impunity should be the priority here?
Once again, it comes back to GDB’s delusional belief that it’s necessary to objectify a sexual partner in order to obtain one-off, commitment-free sex.
He is conflating sex with little to no emotional attachment with objectification. Not the same thing.
Once again, it comes back to GDB redefining words in order to justify his own bad behavior.
Nothing new here, except he’s getting a tad more specific about what he’s actually been up to.
It is the woman’s state of mind that matters, not the number of drinks she has imbibed.
A woman is NOT a graduated cylinder.
A rather telling comment, come to think of it.
I’d add to that list the scientist why wrote about the “chilly climate” at CERN; which, last I checked, was not in Kentucky.
except for the part where neither prostitution nor pornography are inherently sexist, while the Patriarchy by definition is.
something about false dichotomies and excluded middles…
unless you’re talking about grammar, people by definitions aren’t objects. when they’re treated as such, they’re treated as not-quite-human. why are very basic meanings of English words such a stumbling-block for you?
point of interest: misogynists and other bigots don’t always get banned. If you want to check the dungeon, bigotry by itself is not a banning offense. Tedious bigotry however might get you banned eventually.
To the other commenters here telling trollface that he’ll get banned: I’d like to remind you that PZ seriously hates it when the horde tells others they’ll get banned as soon as PZ wakes up; knock it off.
what is this, the fucking steppes? most people with the power to harm are not physically imposing.
either you or those hypothetical people don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. where did you read that, on an “abstinence only” website?
objectification is treating a person like an object; like something upon which one can act, but which does not act itself. fucking strangers in the park after a soccer game isn’t objectification, it’s fucking; unless you’re a dishonest theist/conservative or someone who gets his information about meanings of basic sociological terms from dishonest theists/conservatives.
and why don’t they give a fuck? because women are the sex class; that is patriarchy, and that is rape culture. this really is quite simple.
wow. no.
that doesn’t actually happen. what there is is a “hysteria” about it maybe happening. in reality however, false reports of rape are no more common that false reports of other crimes, and in almost all instances, the consequences of such an accusation are also no worse than for accusations of other serious crimes.
It is admitting to being a rape victim and daring to try to get your rapist convicted that tends to get one’s life ruined, not being accused; not even rightfully accused.
not in the rape culture it obviously isn’t. as I’ve written about recently, women, being the sex class, are being seen in a perpetual state of consent to sex unless they explicitly(and sufficiently often) say “no”.
Emotion isn’t a prerequisite for respecting others’ personhood, either, by the way. It’s entirely possible to have consensual, respectful, casual sex with someone without being particularly emotional about them.
that’s true for all kinds of human interactions. I have no feelings towards the vast majority of people I interact with; and yet, they’re not “objects”: my will does not trump theirs, they’re not there to be acted upon by me without equal say in the matter.
And as a side note: In my experience (YMMV, privilege, etc.) after sexual objectification, the objectification of service industry workers is worst.
Well, Catherine Mackinnon would disagree. I’m not sure where I stand on this question, though.
IIRC. McKinnon’s argument was that prostitution and pornography are sex discrimination; and certainly, in our culture they are. I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that sex work would stop existing in an sexually egalitarian culture, though (that makes about as much sense as saying that traditionally working-class jobs would disappear in a economically egalitarian culture)
the anti-sex-work sentiments of that cohort of feminists strikes me sometimes quite a bit like the pro-prohibition sentiments of First Wave Feminists…
Ah yes, there is no rape culture in Europe.
Besides Assange and DSK, there was another high-profile rape case that attracted public attention in Europe, that of Swiss weatherman Jörg Kachelmann. This also ended in an acquittal. Irrespective of the question of guilt (the Kachelmann case being the only one of the three high-profile cases brought to a legal conclusion in court), I found it quite alarming that all three cases strengthened many preconceptions people had about rape cases and all in all created some kind of chilly climate for rape victims in Germany and other European countries.
Quote from the link
For instance, it became clear that Kachelmann had been pursuing relationships with several women at once, and many people were quick to suggest that the accuser had brought charges because she found out about his infidelity; also her testimony had some contradictions, which was a major factor in his acquittal. Probably the way the legal process should be, in dubio pro reo, but again many people were quickly to jump in and say she was a liar. I haven’t done any studies on how this case was portrayed in the media, but I did notice that many people seemed to appear very irritated at Alice Schwarzer (who sat in on the trial and reported on it for the country’s biggest tabloid, BILD).
Where did all the earlier comments go? (Puzzled)
It’s saying :
But I’m only seeing 127 of them starting with no. 1 here being
Algernon : 28 October 2011 at 11:44 pm
Can’t see any pages link or anything. Where did the rest of the comments go and can I still read them somewhere?
StevoR,
click on “Older Comments”. There you’ll find the first 800 comments.
@julian : 29 October 2011 at 6:24 pm
Watched a doco one night on a sub-culture of geeks that like to imagine their girlfriends are actually robots – as well as trying to construct actual sexbots. One girlfriend actually volunteered to be hypnotised into thinking she was a robot out of love for her partner. Guess that comes under ‘consenusla role playing more than objectification??
(Hey, don’t judge me, the couch was really comfortable, I was drunk with the cat in my lap purring away and nothing on any of the other channels worth watching! SBS TV Oz.)
@91. a_ray_in_dilbert_space : 29 October 2011 at 6:47 pm
That’s the “There will be porn of it” one right?
@92. a_ray_in_dilbert_space : 29 October 2011 at 6:51 pm
YES! That. Definitely. If she (or he) really wants to have sex and makes that clear then that’s consent. Unenthusiatic consent “Er.. oh I suppose if you really must..” ain’t really consent at all.
@129 pelamun : Thanks. See it now. Cheers.
@The Ys : 29 October 2011 at 4:00 pm
The one appearing to the right of his name on his comments of the bikini-wearing woman with the backdrop of the old Soviet flag? Meh, it’s a bit silly but doesn’t overly bother me being less offensive than the content of his posts which veer into seriously creepy rape-pologetics.
Memo to Gunboat Dick-plonk-matt :
People assess you here (& elsewhere in life btw) based on your words and actions.
You have consistently shown from what I’ve read of your posts so far that you refuse to read and refuse to value the comments of the female half of Humanity posting here.
That makes you in my view a male supwemacist and you are also coming across as a sleazebag posisbly over-compensating for something and a creep. Please change your approach, or sod off.
I saw it as an especially bit of Marxist provocation and only mentioned it on TET…
“especially ‘clever’ bit”
I generally don’t judge the relationships of others but, how did the couples seem? Whenever one partner is willing to go to such outrageous lengths for another I become of suspicious of the entire relationship. It sounds, to this largely ignorant of the world 20 something year old, like the partners are posturing or desperate for the approval of the other and both seem dangerous when it’s one partner with all the control.
So Europe isn’t the wonderland Gunboat Diplomat described?
Shocking.
@135. julian : 30 October 2011 at 5:50 am
That doco was shown ages ago and its very hard to tell really from just the snippets you see in a doco but they seemed to be happy and mutually loving from what I remember.
Which admittedly is pretty vague. Forgotten the doco’s title otherwise I’d say & see if I could find online for you. Perhaps too long ago to be available?
@Father Ogvorbis, OM : 28 October 2011 at 6:53 pm
That’s news to me. My opinion of McCain has just dropped another few notches – and it was already exceptionally low after his confusing the Adler planetarium with an overhead projector.
@782. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM : 28 October 2011 at 7:18 pm :
Thanks. The thought that your experience may well be quite common rather than truly exceptional is .. really disturbing for this very sheltered male. :-(
So, basically, Gunboat Diplomat’s no. 1 example of men being victimised by false accusations of rape is someone who publically admitted to raping at least one person, and yet still has not been convicted. And who relied on the standard rape-apologetics of “she consented before” and “she didn’t say ‘no’ (enough)”. But there’s still no such thing as a rape culture.
Seriously, this is what we are talking about. Not that all men are rapists, or even that the majority are, but that society enables and defends rape. We accept as normal dating behaviour things that can easily turn into rape; “persuading” someone to have sex, or a particular form of sex, even when they have said no. Having sex with people who are impaired by drink or drugs. Expecting women to say “no” initially, to show she’s not a slut, or to “play hard to get” – but then of course you can ignore her “no” because she doesn’t really mean it. And then when someone is accused of rape, people will go out of their way to say that it wasn’t really rape, or was all the victim’s fault. To the point where public figures such as Roman Polanski and Julian Assange can stand up and admit to rape, and still get fuckers like you defending them.
That is rape culture. And you are perpetuating it.
I had been imagining GD as Rik, from the Young Ones, but he’s got much too creepy for that now.
Jefrir
Excellent comment, sir or madam.
I would have lolled over Gumboot Diplomat using DSK and Assange as examples of the PUIR WEE DEFENSELESS MEN SO TERRIBLY FALSELY ACCUSED AND ROONT BY THEM BITCHES if it wasn’t so fucking common, symptomatic and all-around depressing.
Bitches ain’t shit indeed.
Oh, I wanted to add:
Gumboot Diplomat:
Actually, there are feminists who argue exactly that and quite cogently and convincingly too. See Dworkin and McKinnon for classical examples, or for more recent examples (women who really made me think hard about this) see Jill over at I Blame the Patriarchy and Skeptifem.
[aside]
Jadehawk, that specific Skeptifem post I linked to argues the difference between religious and feminist opposition against prostitution, if you’re interested. [/aside]
So no, Dumboot, that’s not a “Gotcha, you intellectually dishonest feminist pseudo-logicians”. So solly, cholly.
@Caine #46
@ In #58
Handwriting analysis?? Really? THATS youre evidence for psychopathic behaviour. Holy shit you guys really are into Voodoo! Whats next? Measuring arm length and other “anatomical stigmata” á la Lambroso?
I would have thought on a science blog you woudln’t be bringing in pseudoscience…
@Nerd #104/113
You were both right as it turned out.
Man I’m feeling so…. “objectified” by you guys… and I’m liking it!
I’ll keep quoting this experience and then tell everyone else that because this was MY experience of objectification that nobody else can have a different experience. wait, no I won’t, becuase thats your modus operandi, not mine.
@Gen the Rhadfem of Dhoom #141
I used DSK as an example of a rich person buying their way out of trouble , NOT as someone I though was unjustly accused.
@SteveOr #130
Ok so sex workers can’t consent to having sex now? Or if you’re not really feeling like it but you want to please your partner so you do anyway? These are somehow rape now? After all, no consent = rape, right?
@Jadehawk #122
The low conviction rate would seem to say the opposite no? That there are in fact a lot of false rape accusations as there are a lot fo false accusations of many crimes. Unless you somehow believe that the ONLY reason people aren’t convicted is becuase of clever lawyers and technicalities as opposed to them being INNOCENT.
Sex work is work. It’s like buying something at the grocery store. There’s an agreement in place between you and customers and customers still don’t have the right to demand something you refuse to give them.
Stop trying to confuse the issue. They were clearly talking about relationships, not business transactions between a professional and a client.
It depends on the relationship. What you described can easily be a controlling spouse that’s been abusive to their partner. Or it could be a spouse trying to do something nice for another one.
But, honestly, why do you insist on being allowed to mount people who have desire to be mounted? Your arguments don’t read as someone trying to advocate for outside the norm relationships. You come off as someone trying to make rape as iffy as possible and figure out situations where he could get away with dismissing a partner’s no.
And that’s probably why everyone is so hostile to you. Because that’s not the kind of attitude one should have to relationships. It causes very real pain and hurt as you would know if you had bothered to actually speak or read the stories of those posting who have been victims of abuse and partners who played that borderline game.
GD: “Unless you somehow believe that the ONLY reason people aren’t convicted is becuase of clever lawyers and technicalities as opposed to them being INNOCENT.”
Wow. Dude, denial is not a river in Egypt. Hmm, what else could it be?
Maybe it could mean that juries don’t find women’s accusations of rape credible due to their being influenced by rape culture. Ever heard of rape culture before.
Dude, most women don’t even bother to report rapes to the police, because they have no confidence they will be handled competently or with any priority. Most times, it winds up being the woman who goes on trial. Dude, you really are clueless.
I think it is probably safe to surmise that Gunboat Diplomat is an utter stranger to the very concept of enthusiastic consent.
Read.
Judging from this comment you know very little about crime and even less about rape.
EDIT:
“… who have desire to be mounted?”
should read
“…who have no desire to be mounted?”
This thread has been beating around the underbrush for quite a while. I’m going to ask one question of GBD and I hope for (but do not expect) an honest answer:
Have you, GunBoat Diplomat, ever had any form of sexual relations with another person who has said no, or who has not consented, or who has been unable to consent due to incapacitation?
julian
I was wondering why nobody has brought up that link before (it’s actually in my copypasta at the moment, I would have posted it now if you hadn’t done so)
Ah, I see, GBD has never said anything sexist, so his claims that women are lying about being raped is absolutely true.
Since we are, as he tells us, hysteric. Still no sexism…
It’s the typical “rape is bad, but fortunately that wasn’t rape” tactic.
arids
Ah, but according to GBD, rape culture is something hysterical women make up, so he wins.
GBD
Probably the 8 yo girl, whose rapist was acquitted due to lack of evidence, wasn’t really raped, she was only embarassed about having had sex with uncle Johnny and to shift the focus from her being a promiscous slut, she cried “rape”.
So, you’re probably making allowances for underage girls, because they can’t consent (but yer honour I swear she looked older), but the same shit happens to adult women, because it’s the very shit you, GBD, are arguing.
So, tell me, if over 90% of accused rapists are not convicted because, as you claim, the accusations were made up, why aren’t there on the other hand 90% of the accusers in jail? Because making up false accusations is a serious crime, you know.
@ Gunboat Diplomat;
Many commenters, including yours truly, have authored posts explaining that the exceptionally and (relative to other comparably serious offences) disproportionately low rates or convictions for rape may most credibly be explained by the manifold stereotypes and assumptions about women, and their relationship to sexuality, that make up rape culture resulting in a ‘chilling’ environment where women are not readily believed when they report rapes, where the victim and her prior sexual history is put on trial at least as much as the accused, and where some police officers assign a low priority to rape allegations because women who report rape are often held in suspicion if not outright contempt. As for evidence, Julian was kind enough to provided a very informative link @ 151 that deals with the pervasive social myth that women who report rapes are inherently untrustworthy.
Up thread I said that there really are only two choices – accept the existence of rape culture or place the blame on women for being raped, and by extension for the low conviction rates for rape. I still stand by that analysis, and you seem to have chosen the latter option of blaming the victim. This position can only really be read as one of rape apologia. Given the choice between assuming dishonesty on the part of many hundreds of thousands of women who have reported rapes that didn’t result in convictions, and acknowledging the possibility that the sytem itself is biased and broken, and that such a system is a reflection of a society that suffers from a pervasive and toxic rape culture, you have chosen to throw those women, and countless more too afraid to come forward after being raped, under a bus in the name of protecting hypothetical men falsely accused of rape.
Perhaps it is time you re-evaluated your position and considered why you are so quick to blame the victim so long as that victim is a woman, and are prepared to defend hypothetical men from false allegation (even when there is no evidence that such allegations are any more common than for any other serious crime) at the expense of women who have been raped and find that the legal system does not take them seriously.
So, now that it’s been established that objectification is unnecessary if you:
A.) Wish to engage in emotionally unattached sex
B.) Wish to engage in BDSM
C.) Wish to hire a prostitute
What reasons are there left to defend treating your sex partner as an agency-less object?
Hmm, Gunboat Diplomat? The world is waiting to know.
@Father Og #153
What a machiavellian little question. Clearly nobody would even answer yes to such a question regardless of their actions.
If I say “no” you’ll call me a liar.
If I refuse to answer you’ll consider that guilt by ommission.
If I get angry you’ll call it subliminal guilt.
If I DON’T get angry you’ll call me a calculating sociopath.
What a pity people aren’t the mentally two dimensional playthings you seem to think they are.
@Gregory Greenwood #155
Hmmm, I’m either with you or against you? No where have I heard that before? If I don’t support the troops I must be a turrirst!
Nice job trying to put words in the mouth of people who don’t agree with you. I maintain it is entirely possible to recognise rape exists, is morally wrong, is a major problem, is the fault of both the individual perpetrators and the structre of society and the state
Yet not blame the victims of rape yet still think the term “rape culture” is fallacious and unhelpful in understanding the causes of womends oppression including rape.
I take it you never read any of the links to Meet The Predators that were provided for you through out this thread.
btw, Yes. I have attempted sexual relations with someone who said no. My wife. I got off her after one no finally got through to me but that doesn’t change what happened.
I honestly doubt I’m the only person you’ve spoken to who could or would answer yes to that.
Except you have blamed the victims. You have dismissed the prevalence of rape.
No one has put words in your mouth. They have held them back up to you and asked you to defend them. You’ve consistently refused to since you began commenting.
<3 Julian in 159, exactly. Thanks for having the courage to admit and accept it.
I’m with Giliell – Gumboot Dipshit is just another garden variety “sure rape is bad but it’s not that common, bitches make shit up and THAT? That wasn’t “rape-rape”” misogynist. They are a dime a dozen and this specific one obviously has so much invested in believing that Nice Guys (LIKE HIM!) *never* rape women, and if they objectify them and don’t listen to their “no”? Perfectly acceptable, because women like that shit and it doesn’t lead to abuse or rape so what’s your problem, you joy-killers?
I’ll even bet that he or one of his bros has been “falsely” accused of rape by some bitch who just “regretted” it in the morning and was out to get her jollies, eh?
That whole “only a tiny percent get convicted so the rest must be false accusations”? That’s directly from the MRA playbook.
It is also ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
I could name case after case, but since GD believes he, as the “objective” and “Rational” manly dood here is the only one qualified to say “OK, that was rape, and the jury was wrong”, I’m sure he’ll find something wrong with each and every scenario and even when the jury was wrong (time and time and time again, aquitting men who raped 11-year olds because she was “asking for it”, aquitting men who rape women because she was wearing a skinny jean and it couldn’t be rape-rape, a man aquitted from raping a woman because she had stayed the night and had breakfast and asked him for taxi money and had nowhere else to go and was scared of angering the president of her country!, a man aquitted for rape because because because) there’s always something the victim SHOULD have done differenty, innit? and, well that’s certainly not a pattern, right?
Waste of biological matter, in other words.
I, on the other hand, had a perfectly lovely night.
But anyway:
Be sure to quote Nerd again and again. Wait,what? I mean, if you don’t think it can happen, and you don’t think it’s threatening, why would you?
I mean, you don’t believe in that. How the hell can it happen to you when it doesn’t happen?
Oops… unless you’re lying.
Liar!
That’s called “cognitive dissonance”.
The endemic dismissal of rape victims (of any gender) and reflexive apology for rapists demonstrated by law enforcement, judges and juries, schools and colleges, the military, mass media, and in fact most institutions and the general public as a whole, isn’t because of some law saying “bitches lie”. It’s millions of individual people just like you, GBD, defending the lying-bitches vs poor-menz dogma regardless of evidence because it’s convenient for you. Just like them, you’d rather keep blaming victims and women and “the state” – anything that doesn’t include YOU – than have the decency to challenge your own denial. You’re an intellectual and moral coward and you disgust me.
@ Gunboat Diplomat;
It is not about being ‘with me’ or ‘against me’. This is not about me at all. Attempting to cast my comment as being as deliberately polarising and self-serving as the position of the so-called ‘patriots’ of the pro-war brigade is hardly accurate. The dichotomy I put forward is not unreasonable:- rape culture provides an explanation for the high incidence of rape in our society, paired with the low level of conviction, that does not place the blame at the feet of the victims. It is the only explanation that does so, any other relies at least in part on blaming women for rape. If one rejects rape culture, then by implication one places a proportion of the blame on the victims.
I do not need to misrepresent what you say, your own words demonstrate that you place at least some of the blame on the shoulders of the victims. As a case in point, you stated @ 95 on the second page of this thread that;
(Emphasis added)
And later @ 147 on the second page of this thread that;
(Emphasis added)
Here you clearly and unambiguously place the blame for the low conviction rate in substantial part on the supposed untrustworthiness of rape victims who you allege invent claims of rape in pursuit of ulterior motives. I see no other credible way to parse your statements on this topic.
Without a concept of rape culture, in what meaningful way can you identify societal level factors in the prevelance of rape and the formations of attitudes towards rape, its victims and its perpetrators? If we ignore the societal and focus only on the individual, then why are rape aplogetics so uniform and so widely replicated? Why do women encounter such a consistently high level of distrust when they report rape? What alternative model is there that doesn’t descend into blinkered gender essentialism or seeks to shift the burden of responsibility for rape, and the social attitudes that form around it, onto the shoulders of women?
But this isn’t really true, is it? You have placed the blame for low conviction rates for rape on the notional dishonesty of those who report rape, and since most rapes are reported by women, by extension you impugn the honesty of women in relation to accusations of sexual assault and rape. You have identified the, in your eyes, major risk of men facing false rape allegations as a reason to resist what you have termed ‘anti-rape hysteria‘. You seem more invested in fighting against what you see as a hysterical over-reaction to rape than you do in tackling the problem of rape itself. In this light, your denial of rape culture seems motivated more by expediency than by any actual grounds for feeling that the concept is unhelpful or inaccurate. Acknowledging rape culture means accepting that the problem is broader than a few cases of ‘bad lot’ men with the remainder of the numbers being made up by false accusations. It means accepting that the problem lies in the very structure of our society and how it constructs femininity, masculinity and sexuality. It means accepting that people who do not rape can still contribute to the rape culture. It means that your own posts, right here on this thread, are part of the problem.
Except it wasn’t hand writing analysis you idiot.
GunBoat is a moron.
Well, DUH. That was obvious from his first idiotic and misogynic post.
no. what the everglorious fuck would drive you to make such an inane statement?
not like we needed evidence for your idiocy, but contradicting yourself in two consecutive sentences is just fucking stupid. not that it matters, since you obviously don’t actually blame the structure of society, if you think low conviction rates for rape are because of women lying about being raped.
And incidentally, you’ve never bothered to present an alternative theory for the oppression you apparently don’t even know the full extent of. I’d be very surprised if you’d be actually capable of formulating one that wouldn’t in essence be a restatement of rape culture, or conversely more victim blaming.
I have stopped paying attention to this thread a while ago so perhaps I am missing all of the details that would place this in a proper context. But did not GD call himself a communist? If so, why would he trust the conviction rate of a bourgeois judicial system?
Gen, I read skeptifem’s blog and find it quite cogent; however, none of her arguments refute the point I made earlier, which is that patriarchy makes sex work exploitative the same way capitalism makes wage labor exploitative. I simply haven’t seen any evidence good evidence for the claim that the demand for sex-work will diminish in an egalitarian society (I can maybe imagine this to be true for non-kink prostitution, as patriarchy diminishes and artificial restraints on female sexuality and sexuality as a whole diminish and people become more able to just have sex as equals more easily and freely; but even then, I’m not convinced it will completely disappear)
Because it agrees with his ideas about
the ultimate truth as arbited by GBD himselfrape.In surveys, about 10% of males do answer yes to a similar question as long as the word rape is not used.
I would not call you a liar if you answered no. Based on your writings, I would be surprised, but I don’t know you other than your writings.
Refusal to answer merely shows that you are aware that rape culture exists, no matter how much of a lie you may think it is.
Whether or not you choose to get angry is up to you. I just asked a question based on your earlier writings.
And I have never assumed that you, or anyone else, is a two-dimmensional ‘play thing.’ Humans are humans and should be treated as such. You are the one arguing that sexual objectification is perfectly okay and doesn’t lead to violence or abuse. You are the one arguing that the term ‘rape culture’ is fallacious. You are the one arguing that patriarchy and the ficticious rape culture are completely separate and have nothing to do with one another.
I know people are not two-dimmensional things. I really do, however, based solely on your writings, wonder about you.
For the people citing that particular study that where text analysis was performed on the writing or sociopaths and others, the noted effect was incredibly small (though statistically significant), around a 1.8% more frequent use of the language noted, the sample size was very small and the study is preliminary. The study is also highly speculative in the conclusions that are drawn about the possible motivators of the sampled sociopaths.
I would be extremely hesitant to use such a study to make any kind of inference into the behaviour of anyone, sociopath or not.
@146. Gunboat Diplomat : 30 October 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sex workers *can* enthusiastically consent – their motivation for doing so is clear as is their consent or otherwise.
If someone – whether sex worker or not – makes it plain they are definitely of their own free uncoerced will agreeing to sex with you that’s okay.
If not, then, NO, you don’t fucking screw ’em. Because without that, then yes it is rape.
If a sex worker says ‘yes’ unethusiastically then that’s hardly a turn on. (Unless its consensual role play that you’ve specifically requested I guess in which case “eewww..” as you’ve already made your not-so-secret misogynist rape fantasy clear.)
Do you honestly think sex workers are never raped?
Do you think its okay to rape them?
Because the answers to those questions are *NO!*
If your partner doesn’t want sex and is doing it just because you really do then obviously :
a)You are NOT turning them on enough. (Have a lot of trouble with that do you Gunboat?)
&
b) You are NOT caring enough about their wishes to be a good partner.
Question for you misfiring Gumboot Dickplonker :
When (or should I say “if”?) you sex is it all about you and only you or about what you both want?
Are you just totally selfish or do you also care about your partners feelings too?
Do you want her to be happy too – or not?
Correct – surely by accident but correct nonetheless – but do note that consent has to be *real* enthusiastic consent and not forced or pressurised consent.
Its that simple, dude.
Got it now?
Golly, days later now and still no banhammer. You guys are like Mussolini in the 30’s – swaggering around threatening people with someone elses power…
But back OT:
@StevoR #174
How on earth is a sex worker who is hooked on drugs and is working to feed their habit not reacting to coercion? Its not “pressure” when sex workers, especially in third world countries, can’t feed clothe and school their kids in any other way?
Clearly both of these situations are coercion and pressure by any normal persons understanding of the terms. Yet although these situations are far from desirable they are not the same as rape. To say they are (and for sure some feminists do, just as others do not) is downright insulting to those who HAVE been raped.
Therefore I contend your definition of “ethusiastic” consent is yet another term which is “unhelpful” in addressing the issues of womens oppression. “Effective consent” is a much better term.
So what about being forced into prostitution by your parents? Would that not qualify as rape?
Says the man who has consistently refused to listen to the rape victims who’ve posted here.
GD, repeating your idiocy and ignorance ad nauseum. Typical loser tactics.
I’m pretty sure this has already come up. The way I understand it is the difference comes in in that the sex worker has (admittedly under the influence of their addiction) decided to offer sex as a way of feeding their addiction where as the rape victim has been put in the position where they cannot say no to sex if they want (since this is an addiction, I think it’d be more accurate to say need) the means to feed their addiction.
I think a prostitute who is forced into it by addiction is basically a sex slave.
It’s almost like you’re hoping to get banned. Seriously, you’re just stupid and annoying.
First, we are like the Jacobins. Now we are like Mussolini. You are not very consistent in describing who we are.
No matter. I do not give a flying fuck what you have to natter about. As a diplomat, you fail.
Good bye.
(Not a banhammer threat. Just disinterest.)
Is it any surprise, that Herman Cain, who treats people like objects and commodities to be traded or thrown away, also objectifies and molests women?
Julian,
I see a practical difference, at least in culture as I understand it, between those who turn to prostitution out of desperation and those who actually have some interest in being in that line of work. I have trouble seeing any marginalized person who is desperate for income, for whatever reason, as choosing to further marginalize themselves. That’s not a choice.