Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
Showing Original Post only (View all)Let's talk about "Coercive Sex". [View all]
How do you define "coercive sex"? MY answer is that that is rape or sexual assault. It is NOT "pressuring" or "trying to convince".
A redefinition is taking place by some to try to redefine "persuasion" (even "romantic" persuasion) as "coercion".
Have a look at this definition of rape. It involves the concept of "consent" at its core.
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm
Rape / Sexual Assault
Although the legal definition of rape varies from state to state, rape is generally defined as forced or nonconsensual sexual contact.
So what happens when the concept of "consent" is removed from the equation and we now create the crime of "pressure"? Are we now going down the road to criminalizing behavior that is not criminal? That is merely something to be negotiated within the boundaries of individual relationships?
"Why do men think "no" means "try harder?" --perhaps a better question would be "why do some women think that giving consent does not mean "consensual". It is no accident that the word "consent" and "consensual" sounds the same. They mean the same thing. We cannot now pretend that if some pressure (whether that is giving flowers, pleading or whatever) is perceived that that means the power of agency has been taken away from women. To do so would be to reduce the minimize of rape itself. Consent is consent is consent. Words have meanings that are indivisible.
The only relevant question it seems to me is do women have the authority and agency to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them? If they do, then their is no need to patronize them by pretending that they lack the ability to own their own consent.
Have a look at this link:
http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-going-to-dropkick-the-next-dudebro-who-tells-me-coercive-sex-is-consenting-sex
Does she think that "dudebros" have some kind of magical power, like Saruman, to take away the will of women? Are men THAT powerful and women THAT weak? Should "persuasion" be the next definition of "aggression" and "coercion"?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
93 replies, 61117 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yesterday I read on DU that preschool boys who knock down block towers are being trained to rape.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#1
If they built the blocks to look like girls and fucked the structure first, maybe.
Gore1FL
May 2013
#6
What it was was taking an example of shitty parenting and trying to sketch some
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#7
I'm not sure that building and knocking over block buildings qualifies as shitty parenting, either.
Gore1FL
May 2013
#11
No, it was that the parents excused it by saying "boys will be boys", supposedly.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#12
additional clarification: yes, the point of block towers is to build and knock them down.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#13
They will continue to engage in it because they know it succeeds occassionally
Major Nikon
May 2013
#18
Very telling how some believe in the validity of guilt-by-association fallacies
Major Nikon
May 2013
#24
If you think about it, the only thing stopping you is a $15 domain registration
Major Nikon
May 2013
#26
Yeah, I really got a kick out of it at the time. It hit exactly the right spot for where I was in my
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#40
"the no means no meme is bullshit" - followed by quoting a nearly *30* year old study...
redqueen
May 2013
#45
You're still not answering the question. Why do you repeatedly quote a 25 year old study, alongside
redqueen
May 2013
#51
Are you seriously ignoring the subject being discussed (that "the no means no meme is bullshit")?
redqueen
May 2013
#42
Explain why you quote it along with your defense of Farrell being 'quoted out of context'. nt
redqueen
May 2013
#47
First try reading what was posted with and without context and see if you derive the same meaning
Major Nikon
May 2013
#48
ROFL, ... unfuckingreal. No, opiate69, THAT thread inspired THIS one. AS USUAL!
redqueen
May 2013
#57
Right.. because 3:50 pm today is before yesterday, which was when bonobo started this thread..
opiate69
May 2013
#61
Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#43
Yeah, like when they're married to someone they don't love, but don't want to cheat,
redqueen
May 2013
#60
I've said over and over that I don't give a flying philadelphia fuck about Warren Farrell.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#74
In no other realm would you expect me to substitute my judgement for hers.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2013
#80
For me, it's simply being conscientious of what the other person wants or doesn't want.
nomorenomore08
May 2013
#89
In general, I think I agree with you. And I think splitting hairs over someone's "real intentions"
nomorenomore08
May 2013
#91