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

Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

chrisbrecheen.blogspot.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#41

Post by JulianMorrison »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #40
JulianMorrison wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feminist narrative is that women would like a bit of consent with their sex, thank you very much. That includes eye sex.

A substantial part of feminist theory holds that intercourse is rape.

Nope, just that if what you want is consent, and if you don't permit consent to count unless it's genuinely meant - no pressure, no arm twisting, no punishment for a "no" - then it's damn hard to contrive a circumstance where in a patriarchal society, a man can assume a woman is consenting. "Yes" can only be understood as "yes, given the estimated probability of consequences for no". And it takes a whole lot of effort even to blunt that a little.

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#42

Post by foobarbazqux »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #41
foobarbazqux wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substantial part of feminist theory holds that intercourse is rape.

Nope, just that if what you want is consent, and if you don't permit consent to count unless it's genuinely meant - no pressure, no arm twisting, no punishment for a "no" - then it's damn hard to contrive a circumstance where in a patriarchal society, a man can assume a woman is consenting. "Yes" can only be understood as "yes, given the estimated probability of consequences for no". And it takes a whole lot of effor…

So if consent is more or less meaningless, why isn't it logical to conclude that intercourse is rape?

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#43

Post by JulianMorrison »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #42
JulianMorrison wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, just that if what you want is consent, and if you don't permit consent to count unless it's genuinely meant - no pressure, no arm twisting, no punishment for a "no" - then it's damn hard to contrive a circumstance where in a patriarchal society, a man can assume a woman is consenting. "Yes" can only be understood as "yes, given the estimated probability of consequences for no". And it takes a whole lot of effor…

So if consent is more or less meaningless, why isn't it logical to conclude that intercourse is rape?

It's absolutely not meaningless. The opposite! But it's hard.

And yeah, that means for most people who aren't putting in the unusual effort, most nominally mutual intercourse is somewhere from slightly to heavily contaminated, depending on things like "how abusive is the relationship?". Call that what you will.

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#44

Post by foobarbazqux »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #43
foobarbazqux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if consent is more or less meaningless, why isn't it logical to conclude that intercourse is rape?

It's absolutely not meaningless. The opposite! But it's hard . And yeah, that means for most people who aren't putting in the unusual effort, most nominally mutual intercourse is somewhere from slightly to heavily contaminated, depending on things like "how abusive is the relationship?". Call that what you will.

But like I don't think consent is hard, and I don't rape people, and I'm not a feminist because I believe unhealthy relationships are equally bad for men (assuming I'm allowed to choose my identity which seems to be a tenet of modern sexual politics). It's obvious if someone wants to have sex with me, usually based only on their body language, and I respect it if they don't. But maybe I'm just one of the lucky and sensitive ones.

This was interesting:

http://www.xojane.com/issues/im-a-sex-negative-feminist

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#45

Post by cbhl »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #26
cbhl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the narrative won't change without both men and women being involved in making that change. My limited understanding of history is that "affluent white men" were involved in granting women and blacks the right to vote, due to the nature of "democratic" processes at the time. Similarly, ongoing debate about granting equal legal (tax, etc.) benefits to those in homosexual relationsh…

So the guy could have gone up to the girl and said, "Is this guy bothering you?" and then encouraged her to talk back to him herself. That's not nearly so stereotypical.

If I was a girl, I would find that overwhelming. Instead of unwanted contact with just one guy, I now have unwanted contact with two guys.

Plus, that sounds like a bad cop/good cop routine to use the first guy to make the second guy look like an attractive candidate for a significant other.

Maybe I'm just over-thinking this.

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#46

Post by fosap »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #37
fosap wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It follows a feminist narrative where woman are asexual beings and sex is something only men like and force upon women. (sex-negative feminism) In such a narrative every statement of attractiveness is ultimately a outing a want-to-be rapist or a predator. If you are in such a narrative it also makes perfect sense to say it's sexist. Outside of that narrative hardly.

The feminist narrative is that women would like a bit of consent with their sex, thank you very much. That includes eye sex.

Ok, I'm not even sure if you are sarcastic or serious. Did you seriously just say that looking at somebody can constitute rape?

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#47

Post by JulianMorrison »

fosap wrote: post #46
JulianMorrison wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The feminist narrative is that women would like a bit of consent with their sex, thank you very much. That includes eye sex.

Ok, I'm not even sure if you are sarcastic or serious. Did you seriously just say that looking at somebody can constitute rape?

Nope, but

  as rape is to sex,
so

  nonconsensual leering is to hot eye sex.

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#48

Post by fosap »

michaelochurch wrote: post #31
fosap wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outer appearance of the two people interacting are descried. There is even a picture illustrating how the man looked like. How this is sexism against the woman is beyond me. How this is sexism at all. This seems to be a feminist keen-jerk reaction. Outer appearance of a somebody? That somebody happens to be a woman? What a misogynist!

I didn't claim he was a misogynist . There's no evidence of that. Now that is an overused word. Our culture is sexist, and all of us are (in daily practice) to some degree. With women, there's a strong focus on their attractiveness that doesn't exist for men. For just one example relative to this society (not OP) people don't infer radically different personalities for men based on attractiveness (except, perhaps, fo…

Yes, it is overused, that's why i used it. The last sentence was not serious, but a caricature.

> With women, there's a strong focus on their attractiveness that doesn't exist for men.

Except there is not in this text. As i said, it is very balanced, if there was not the picture.

Your posts illustrates exactly what i said. Any mention of attractiveness leads to accusation of misogynist (or sexism towards woman, I have to say I don't really know the difference), no matter in witch context. No matter how the author does this for all genders, at some point somebody points out that "all genders" in include woman, and that this is not ok. And clearly discrimination to include women into "all genders".

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#49

Post by fosap »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #47
fosap wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I'm not even sure if you are sarcastic or serious. Did you seriously just say that looking at somebody can constitute rape?

Nope, but as rape is to sex, so nonconsensual leering is to hot eye sex.

So, looking at somebody consensually is "eye sex" and non-consensually is "eye rape"? I have to say... I can't take this vocabulary serious.

/edit

Looking a somebody and having sex with sombody is as far apart for me as a hand shake and a MMA fight: the polar opposite sides in the spectrum of social interaction.

Re: Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative

#50

Post by JulianMorrison »

fosap wrote: post #49
JulianMorrison wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, but as rape is to sex, so nonconsensual leering is to hot eye sex.

So, looking at somebody consensually is "eye sex" and non-consensually is "eye rape"? I have to say... I can't take this vocabulary serious. /edit Looking a somebody and having sex with sombody is as far apart for me as a hand shake and a MMA fight: the polar opposite sides in the spectrum of social interaction.

I'd ask why you're defending nonconsensual leering, but it's clear you're anti-feminist trash, so meh, please disappear.
Post reply on HN