Then you're delusioned and self important and don't understand the words 'rape' and 'assault' very well.
It still has no effect on the experiences of people who have been raped or assaulted.
But we're indulging in Slippery Slope arguments here. Even if I conceded that 'touched my arse = rape' insulted me, would I then have to concede that claiming anything other than a direct mirror of my experiences was also insulting? Because I get rather sick of the "what she experienced wasn't real rape" arguments, being applied to anything from sex-with-coercion to marital rape.
Yeah, I think a lot of the arguments here happen in the interface between "We shouldn't tell people that their experiences of X are invalid" and "We should charge people with the crime of X", where people think that if you do (a) you have to follow it up with (b).
Yeah - I think part of that comes from different implications. I'm generalising somewhat here, but to a man "X is rape" means "I could be charged with rape for doing X", because that's the context in which men and rape tend to be associated. When they hear people opening up new things they hadn't realised they could be charged with rape for, it tends to then trigger a negative reaction.
Without wishing to conflate legality with morality again, I don't recommend lying for sex in any case.
I appreciate you're male, and I assume Joe is from the spelling of hir name, but I'm not particularly interested in a conversation about rape from the point of view of people who might be accused of it. My original comment was about victims' experiences.
Very true - that's a typical context. Misrepresenting yourself is such a broad thing - if I fib about my salary, does that matter? If I exaggerate my height online, will that be held against me?
I don't want us to talk past each other, but I'm having trouble fitting the first and second portion of your argument together.
Would it be fair to say I'm talking about rape as it's represented publically, and you're talking more about internal experiences? I absolutely have no problem with different people reacting to an event in different ways - we all have different reactions to violence, grief, loss, etc. My reaction to the spitting was trivial, but another person might have been deeply psychologically affected.
But, while this is just a one-off story, if every man and woman who lied to their partner was now defined as a rapist, I'd have a hard time taking stories of rape seriously. That is, I'd have a hard time knowing that, say, increasing sexual assault statistics included a woman saying 'I'll still love you in the morning' or a man saying 'I'm 28' when he's 30. And while I might have every sympathy for an individual and their personal experience however they define it, I'd become somewhat more cynical or distrustful overall. If the boundaries of 'assault' include harsh language or when 'racial hatred' includes Andy telling me a joke about the Irish, I get pretty cynical.
I know what you mean about slippery slope arguments, but for me some terms are only so elastic, and then snap.
Don't forget, we're also talking about a situation that's not in our country, and while I'm in no way supporting or ignoring the very strong racila element in this one story, if there is precedent that lying=rape, then there's precedent.
If it helps to clarify my opinion on this one case:
- Because laws are country-specific, the legality of any one action depends on where it takes place.
- Lying to get sex is immoral.
- Rape is sex without the consent of any or all of the parties involved. If that consent is conditional on a lie, than the definition gets blurry. Personally, I think it depends on the lie.
- "He told me he was Jewish!" is a racist argument and one that I find abhorent. I am not, however, a citzen of Israel.
- regardless of your personal opinion of whether act 'X' is rape or not, the attitude "calling it rape is offensive to real victims of rape!" will make me headdesk.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-07-22 12:00 pm
no subject
It still has no effect on the experiences of people who have been raped or assaulted.
But we're indulging in Slippery Slope arguments here. Even if I conceded that 'touched my arse = rape' insulted me, would I then have to concede that claiming anything other than a direct mirror of my experiences was also insulting? Because I get rather sick of the "what she experienced wasn't real rape" arguments, being applied to anything from sex-with-coercion to marital rape.
no subject
no subject
I have a strong disconnect between the two, and I sometimes run into difficulty when I forget that some people think I consider them the same.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I appreciate you're male, and I assume Joe is from the spelling of hir name, but I'm not particularly interested in a conversation about rape from the point of view of people who might be accused of it. My original comment was about victims' experiences.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Would it be fair to say I'm talking about rape as it's represented publically, and you're talking more about internal experiences? I absolutely have no problem with different people reacting to an event in different ways - we all have different reactions to violence, grief, loss, etc. My reaction to the spitting was trivial, but another person might have been deeply psychologically affected.
But, while this is just a one-off story, if every man and woman who lied to their partner was now defined as a rapist, I'd have a hard time taking stories of rape seriously. That is, I'd have a hard time knowing that, say, increasing sexual assault statistics included a woman saying 'I'll still love you in the morning' or a man saying 'I'm 28' when he's 30. And while I might have every sympathy for an individual and their personal experience however they define it, I'd become somewhat more cynical or distrustful overall. If the boundaries of 'assault' include harsh language or when 'racial hatred' includes Andy telling me a joke about the Irish, I get pretty cynical.
I know what you mean about slippery slope arguments, but for me some terms are only so elastic, and then snap.
no subject
Don't forget, we're also talking about a situation that's not in our country, and while I'm in no way supporting or ignoring the very strong racila element in this one story, if there is precedent that lying=rape, then there's precedent.
If it helps to clarify my opinion on this one case:
- Because laws are country-specific, the legality of any one action depends on where it takes place.
- Lying to get sex is immoral.
- Rape is sex without the consent of any or all of the parties involved. If that consent is conditional on a lie, than the definition gets blurry. Personally, I think it depends on the lie.
- "He told me he was Jewish!" is a racist argument and one that I find abhorent. I am not, however, a citzen of Israel.
- regardless of your personal opinion of whether act 'X' is rape or not, the attitude "calling it rape is offensive to real victims of rape!" will make me headdesk.
Um, does that help?
no subject
I'd not really thought about how consent (part of the definition of rape) isn't a simple binary, and should actually be _informed consent_.
no subject