Let me cut right to the chase:

Rape is wrong. Rape apologia is wrong. No means no and frankly, any time anyone on this board has tried to argue, in this group at least, for an "extremely nuanced definition of consent" I have consistently said no, consent is and needs to be a bright, unequivocal, clear line.

Most men don't rape, and most men don't tolerate rapists. This imaginary cartoon dude in the locker room with the "bros before h**s"... I've never heard anyone talk like that, nor have I ever known anyone who THOUGHT like that.

And the "rape culture". Elsewhere in GD you hear rape blamed on Hollywood. On Culture. On all sorts of things, all sorts of nefarious programming and spooky cultural mojo, not to mention whatever it is about "masculinity-in-general" that is deeply in need of "change"..

So how about putting the blame for rape squarely where it belongs?

The Rapists?

Does me saying that mean my "feelings are hurt"? Do I have "sour grapes"? Do I not empathize with women who fear assault? No. No, and No. Although I realize that opening my yapper on this topic will, invariably, mean I will have that crap thrown at me. Predictably.


And what you don't hear, however, is word boo about why, in the context of these explanations, rape rates have declined significantly in the last 30 years, peaking in 1992 and now at about 75% of their 1980 level as reported per 100,000 of population.

Didn't take 1/3 of your GD thread before people started reflexively complaining about those numbers, because they screw with the preferred narrative of a culture in decline, of a media 'objectification' crisis, of porn causing rape.

Wait, I thought this was about rape, right? Not porn. Not about something else. Not about some other agenda. Right? Rape, which we all agree is wrong. Always.

Of course, that's what all the threads are about. That's why the topic was brought to GD in the first place, with fully predictable mass DU meltdown results.

Of course.

But I digress. See, these decline in rape rate numbers may be used by people who deflate the "porn causes rape" argument, but that doesn't mean there is no decline. So where do the actual numbers come from? The USDOJ, for one. They have a handy reporting tool. Here are the salient points for forcible rape rate numbers from 1980-2010, incidences per 100,000 persons.



The entire data table is in this post, I have not reproduced it because it takes up a lot of space.

and remdi95

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=5578

However, anyone who doubts the validity of those numbers is welcome to check them themselves with the DOJ reporting tool. (Please note it is the rate, not the actual numbers of incidents, which are at near the same level as they were in 1980. However, the population of the US in general has, in that time, increased significantly.)

So I ask. Are men already 'repairing'? Is the "rape culture" getting better? You talk of a "dire need to come up with something, and soon" ... I agree that violence is unacceptable, and we all should do everything we can to end it, in all its forms- but given that most men aren't violent, most men don't rape... this 'dire need'- is it based upon actual trends in actual reality, like the trend of violent crime in the US-- which is, also, declining?

Like the trend of violence worldwide.. declining?

"Dire need" would seem, to me, to indicate a problem which is getting worse. Like the ice caps melting. Not one that is, at least by credible statistical measurements, getting BETTER. Now, saying it's getting better doesn't mean it's NOT a problem that needs fixing. Doesn't mean it's not an UNACCEPTABLE problem. One is too many. But it should make us skeptical of narratives which try to offer spurious cultural explanations which seem to have little to do with the actual crime as it occurs in reality.

Or is rape, as I suspect, a violent crime which is committed by violent criminals who belong in prison, and of which one is still far too many, and one of which we ALL have a duty to speak out and draw clear lines around concepts like consent--- but which doesn't have anything to do with Hollywood, or some hypothetical "rape culture", or some problem Germaine to all "us men", most of whom already know we shouldn't rape people...

it is a crime, an inexcusable crime which should be called out, and vilified, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... but one for which the responsibility falls, and you're damn right I'm going to say it- on the perpetrators, not all men in general.

And to imply that somehow the vast majority of men are in dire need of 'repair' I think is a massive, and silly, generalization that might understandably be driven by other cultural ideas or agendas, but realisticaly has little to do with rape.

Yes, yes, tsk tsk. There is still one entire irritatingly unlocked thread left on DU in which people refer to attractive members of the opposite, or same, sex as "hot"

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

all sorts of people are desperately pulling all sorts of creative "alternatives" out of their rears.

Robert Samuelson's idea of a "good deal" on taxes sounds oddly like something coming from someone who thinks Romney won the race:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-we-need/2012/11/18/3870f9c6-3014-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html





Yes, how reasonable, Bob- let the top rate go back to pre-Bush levels for one whole year (!!!) after which, of course, we HAVE to find a way to get the rates for the poor oppressed top bracket (the so-called "wealthy" harumph harumph because no one can afford that 2nd house in the Hamptons on a measly impoverished 250K a yr harumph harumph) back down lower than they already are- say, 30%, slobber slobber drool drool.



How about this: We have an income tax in place. Large transfers of money (as opposed to assets) are ALREADY reported to the IRS. Raising the top marginal rate is a fairly simple matter, and wouldn't require any fancy new reporting or ideas.

so discovering my inner remdi95 will have to wait.

I said I agreed with yardwork that in this context "p*ssy" is offensive and a broad slur. I also explained my reasoning. That's not a "mea culpa", in fact, I've never expressed a different opinion about "p*ssy" in this context NOR did I weigh in on the original thread.

But, see, that's because I'm interested in the actual underlying meanings of the words and engaging in a rational discussion of them, not focusing endlessly on whether something constitutes a "win" or a"point" or "my team".

Also, it's meta. There is a well established tradition of using the popcorn smiley in reaction to an expected flame fest. that you immediately decided to get outraged about THAT, I think, says an awful lot about ... shit, something.

Let me break it down for you: "p*ssy"? In the context of the linked OP? Offensive. Popcorn in the context of the post YOU are now fulminating bout? Not so much.

in your OP.

You've been asked, repeatedly in this thread, where precisely these "extremists" are who are arguing for abortion right up until the second before birth? What exact situation in the real world, and not the fevered brains of right wing radio hosts doing "thought experiments", would this shit actually come up?

Oh, one extreme is very real: Not only does the entire anti-choice movement hinge upon the conceit that there is no difference between a fertilized egg and a baby, making them equivalent (and, by extension, outlawing not just abortion but IVF and most forms of birth control) is the core of the legislative agenda.

On the other "extreme" you've got.. well, nobody. There are no legions of people "demanding" to abort right before birth. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN, and the presumption or "fear" that it might is frankly insulting to the central philosophical no-brainer behind what it means to be pro-choice, namely that women themselves can and and should be the ones in charge of making these decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies.

What is the common thread to all the anti-choice bargle, to all the shit about "legitimate rape" and all the grousy whining by frustrated old white-haired dudes about how if women are "allowed" to get "exemptions" for health or rape they'll just take advantage of them So they can sneaksy sneaksy get abortionses that they shouldntses?



Tricksy! Tricksy womenses!

It's the idea that women can't be trusted to make the call themselves. It's the presumption that women, some women, women who get abortions, whatever-- they're doing it wrong and we know better and for goodness sake someone needs to correct their behavior. Because we know better than they do.


OTOH, the reason these states you refer to allow abortion "without restriction" is because these states understand that WOMEN CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WITH THEIR DOCTORS. When abortions take place later in pregnancies, usually it's for medical reasons. Pregnancies go wrong or other situations arise that, ah, maybe state legislators aren't the best people to pre-emptively figure out in a law. So that's why there's "no restrictions". Not because these states are leaving the door open for some "irresponsible" "woo-hoo-let's get a late term abortion because we can!" shit that, again, only exists in the imaginations of anti-choicers.

The idea that abortion needs "restriction", that somehow women can't be trusted to make that call themselves about their own bodies and pregnancies- when they can, and they do- that is offensive.

you could have taken that opportunity, as she hauled her arthritic knees through DC holding a big-ass Planned Parenthood sign, to lecture her on her shortcomings as a Feminist because of her word choices.

I blame Bush, speaking of "how the culture has changed for the worse" . He was constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his fuckups.

(Warning: These are links to DU posts still openly available and not hidden in the archives, however, some of the threads may contain words or language readers may find offensive. Again, these are only links to posts and threads, written by DU members years ago, which are readily and publicly available to anyone who searches the archives of DU2.)


2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1359420

Skinner: "this is thread #8 on the subject" - April 6, 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1332538&mesg_id=1332538


2007:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6699622&mesg_id=6699628

2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7581142

2010:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8848113&mesg_id=8848170


No offensive google ads to complain about, either, in the good old -sigh- days...

oh wait

2009:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7146970&mesg_id=7146970