Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#361

Post by wnoise »

tptacek wrote: post #358
manfredo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, “Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” Plenty of people feel violated after being dumped by a significant other, or feeling unsatisfied by entirely consensual sex (see the Aziz Ansari story). Even getting explicit, affirmative consent is no guarantee that the…

Your argument is premised on this unreasonably general statement being an actual norm, which it clearly is not.

This general statement is far short of currently being a general norm.

But his argument stands if it is being pushed as a norm, with attempts to either formally enshrine this as a norm or policies that make it easier to enforce as a norm.

... and that just appears to be straightforwardly true in the university system. The quibbles are as to how effective and widespread such a push is.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#362

Post by strenholme »

Three generations ago, we had a framework in place which minimized these gray areas where, while a reasonable person would infer there was consent to have sex, the partner actually was not consenting to sex.

The framework was this: If the relationship was not a lifetime monogamous commitment, then the sex was not OK.

I have observed, in the majority of these cases (Caleb Warner, etc.), the issue was that two people had sex with each other without first having an established relationship with each other. It’s a simple observation that one can generally avoid a false rape accusation by making sure to only have sex in a monogamous committed relationship.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#363

Post by krapp »

strenholme wrote: post #362

Three generations ago, we had a framework in place which minimized these gray areas where, while a reasonable person would infer there was consent to have sex, the partner actually was not consenting to sex. The framework was this: If the relationship was not a lifetime monogamous commitment, then the sex was not OK. I have observed, in the majority of these cases (Caleb Warner, etc.), the issue was that two people h…

You do realize that sexual assault and rape can occur even within the framework of marriage, right?

This framework only "minimizes grey areas" in the sense that a patriarchal society assumes sex to be the the duty of the wife to the husband, and that, therefore a womans' right to deny consent is nullified under the contract of marriage. But this isn't actually the case. A relationship is not a guarantee of perpetual sexual consent.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#364

Post by strenholme »

krapp wrote: post #363
strenholme wrote: post #362

Three generations ago, we had a framework in place which minimized these gray areas where, while a reasonable person would infer there was consent to have sex, the partner actually was not consenting to sex. The framework was this: If the relationship was not a lifetime monogamous commitment, then the sex was not OK. I have observed, in the majority of these cases (Caleb Warner, etc.), the issue was that two people h…

You do realize that sexual assault and rape can occur even within the framework of marriage, right? This framework only "minimizes grey areas" in the sense that a patriarchal society assumes sex to be the the duty of the wife to the husband, and that, therefore a womans' right to deny consent is nullified under the contract of marriage. But this isn't actually the case. A relationship is not a guarantee of perpetual…

That’s a real strawman there. There is a difference between “a majority” and “all”; I did not at any point say that there is “never marital rape”, nor did I say that there is “never rape in an established relationship”. I certainly did not say that “martial rape is OK”.

However, in all of the campus sexual assault accusations I have seen, not a single one was one where the two people were married to each other.

In the real world, not everything is black and white. There are gray areas. It’s much less likely a sexual assault accusation will happen in a marriage. This does not mean it will never happen; don’t pretend that I said something I never said.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#365

Post by krapp »

strenholme wrote: post #364
krapp wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that sexual assault and rape can occur even within the framework of marriage, right? This framework only "minimizes grey areas" in the sense that a patriarchal society assumes sex to be the the duty of the wife to the husband, and that, therefore a womans' right to deny consent is nullified under the contract of marriage. But this isn't actually the case. A relationship is not a guarantee of perpetual…

That’s a real strawman there. There is a difference between “a majority” and “all”; I did not at any point say that there is “never marital rape”, nor did I say that there is “never rape in an established relationship”. I certainly did not say that “martial rape is OK”. However, in all of the campus sexual assault accusations I have seen, not a single one was one where the two people were married to each other. In th…

It's not a strawman. Marriage has no effect whatsoever on consent.

>It’s much less likely a sexual assault accusation will happen in a marriage.

Do you have data to back this up?

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#366

Post by strenholme »

krapp wrote: post #365
strenholme wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a real strawman there. There is a difference between “a majority” and “all”; I did not at any point say that there is “never marital rape”, nor did I say that there is “never rape in an established relationship”. I certainly did not say that “martial rape is OK”. However, in all of the campus sexual assault accusations I have seen, not a single one was one where the two people were married to each other. In th…

It's not a strawman. Marriage has no effect whatsoever on consent. >It’s much less likely a sexual assault accusation will happen in a marriage. Do you have data to back this up?

Two out of three sexual assault allegations involve incidents when the person was not in an established intimate relationship with the person: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sexual-assault-victims/

Again, when did I ever say that “marital rape is OK”? I did not, and it’s a strawman to claim that I did.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#367

Post by wutbrodo »

pjc50 wrote: post #225
wutbrodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, racism is much more of a fully-stable equilibrium than sexism, since full dehumanization of the other sex is always going to be impossible, if only due to adjacency. And adjacency can be critical to rights movements: one of the big successes of the gay rights movement was combating the stereotype of evil deviants through a strategy of positioning gay people as neighbors, brothers, sons, etc; regular people w…

> full dehumanization of the other sex is always going to be impossible .. I mean, the Saudi king has lots of wives but until recently wouldn't allow any of them to drive? For a closer example, there are plenty of married Republican politicians who are willing to make statements on abortion that imply they have no idea how the reproductive system works.

> For a closer example, there are plenty of married Republican politicians who are willing to make statements on abortion that imply they have no idea how the reproductive system works.

If you think the abortion issue as simple as men oppressing women, you're horrendously misinformed, in a bubble of ideological ignorance, or both, given that women skew a decent amount less pro-choice than men.

(I say that as someone who's strongly pro-choice and, to my knowledge, has never met someone who's pro-life. I just don't think my bubble comprises the world or even the country)

>

I'm not even sure where to start with this unsurprisingly unnuanced response to my model. Again, if your model of gender roles throughout history is as simple as "men lording power over women because they were able", you should pick up a history book. This middle-school model of history fails to explain the historical imbalance in torture, mutilation, violence, and early death (with corresponding imbalances on the other side in sexual violence, lack of agency, etc). There's no such two-sidedness inherent to racism, historically or theoretically, no analogue to things like "women and children first" that belie, as I said, "full dehumanization".

(I'm not remotely interested in comparing the levels of gender role oppression, historically or currently, because it doesn't have anything to do with my point, which was that there's no corresponding force pushing towards humanization of the victims of racism)

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018...

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#368

Post by wutbrodo »

closeparen wrote: post #146
wutbrodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, racism is much more of a fully-stable equilibrium than sexism, since full dehumanization of the other sex is always going to be impossible, if only due to adjacency. And adjacency can be critical to rights movements: one of the big successes of the gay rights movement was combating the stereotype of evil deviants through a strategy of positioning gay people as neighbors, brothers, sons, etc; regular people w…

> full dehumanization of the other sex is always going to be impossible, if only due to adjacency No surprise, then, that it shows up in the segment of men who are not "adjacent" to any women.

Right, that's one source of sexism, but not by any means a complete picture. The stereotype of the lothario who thinks of women as inferior is yet another one, as is the feminist who mocks both toxic masculinity and male tears.

You're never going to entirely escape from those who are just shitty people, but at the societal level, sexism is unique in that the groups of potential victims and potential perpetrators are intimately forced together, ij a way that isn't necessarily the case for racism or homophobia (when gay people are forced into the closet).

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#369

Post by slimed »

wnoise wrote: post #360
slimed wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that it is not your job to make a determination? If someone shares a story like this you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true. "Your understanding" is purely anecdotal.

> you politely believe them and move on, comfortable in the knowledge that it may or may not be true. You have a very different understanding of the word "believe" than I do.

Someone may be speaking honestly but still be incorrect.

When I believe someone I am making a judgement that they are not deceiving me, not that they are infallible.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#370

Post by vinceguidry »

jeffdavis wrote: post #354
vinceguidry wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You brought up Brett Kavanaugh. That's a silly example. Anybody in politics knows it's a hostile environment. It's like walking into a gunfight and expecting to not get hit. You might not get hit. But just being there makes you a target. In the OP's situation, basic sexual hygiene would have prevented the whole thing. It will for everyone that doesn't put themselves first and foremost in a shooting gallery. You can u…

Isn't politics the place we need to use the most restraint? Otherwise, it's just too easy to remove an inconvenient politician from play.

If you're in politics, you need restraint more than anyone.
Post reply on HN