How about a radical redefinition?

[Katherine Brengle]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/12/she-said-i-know-what-its-like-to-be-dead/

<snip>

The problem with rape, other than the fact that 95% of it is perpetrated by men, always seems to boil down to this asinine controversy over consent. The issue is grossly encumbered with a futile focus on meaningless, temporary instances of the withdrawal of consent, to wit: “she said yes” or “she said yes and then she said no” or “she said yes and waited until two days later to say no” or “she said yes and has been lying about it ever since.” She said, she said, she said.

Well, what if lack of consent were the default? What if all prospective objects of dudely predation — by whom I mean all women — are a priori considered to have said “no”? What if women, in other words, were seen by the courts to abide in a persistent legal condition of keep-the-fuck-off-me?

Imagine that. I almost can't even do it - imagine a reality in which my existence as a completely inviolable entity were not up for discussion.

(A couple of months old but definitely worth reading.)

[Katherine Brengle]

1. bumped off the first page already... ouch. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. This Seems To Make No Sense.

What is it that's being asked? Isn't lack of consent already default?

I mean, have I just not happened to notice that currently men can just go up to any woman they want and rape them, and that's ok since the default was that they had consent? Obviously that's not the case, so what exactly is being said here?

Of course the male scumbags are going to claim in court they had consent. That's a no brainer. But that's why there's more evidence usually presented then just he said she said, and why it's up to a jury to make a determination of guilt.

But what is it that's being asked to change here? Should people have to get signed consent forms prior to engaging in sexual activity?

[Katherine Brengle]

5. No, consent or lack thereof is not the default - that it is even a matter for

discussion is the problem. In this country, if a woman is raped, she can go to the police and report said rape - if she chooses to do so, the ensuing investigation, if there even is one, does NOT assume that she is telling the truth. If I am mugged tomorrow on the street and go to the police station to file a report, the police will work under the assumption that I am telling the truth, that a crime was committed against me. If I am raped tomorrow, and have the courage to report it, there is no guarantee under law that anyone will believe me, much less make a serious attempt at getting me any justice.

In addition, the concept of "consent" defines sex as something that is done TO me, rather than WITH me as it should be defined. It also blurs the crime -- because if "consent" is given after coercion, or other difficult circumstances, it becomes a matter of debate whether or not a crime took place.

It is useful to read some of the comments following the blog to get a full picture.

[pitohui]

18. it is a satire along the lines of "a modest proposal" in other words not v. subtle

for instance this line --

...grasp that, technically, the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex

if this person is serious, which i doubt, then she's either mentally ill or heavily invested in stocks in prison for profit corporations

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. On Further Reply: I Read The Link Further. What An Out Of Her Mind Extremist That Is. Holy Cow.

That's one of the most irrational concepts I've ever heard. Talk about someone taking their male-hating to insane degrees. Yikes.

[Katherine Brengle]

6. What's insane or irrational about it?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Everything.

She's out of her mind, with all due respect.

[Katherine Brengle]

38. So explain why. nt

[pitohui]

20. quote: "...the plan criminalizes all male participants in heterosexual sex"

if that is not insane, then give me a better word for it

[aikoaiko]

4. there is nothing radical in her blog -- even heterosexual sex = submission to male dom is played out

It reads like C- work from a bad women's study class in the early 1990s.

Even Katherine Mackinnon would say, "WTF?".

[leftofthedial]

7. how does the woman who is perpetually assumed to be saying "no"

ever say "yes"

or has heterosexual intercourse just ended?

[Cerridwen]

13. Hmm, the same way you know that the default position of someone

walking down the street is "no, I don't care to be mugged".

Do you also think sexual harassment is just another "dating/mating ritual"?

[leftofthedial]

14. My point is that I think that is already the assumption

the issue can become cloudy when the accused rapist believes that "yes" was communicated.

[Cerridwen]

16. Thank you, for taking the time to reply and set me "straight"

about what you meant.

I think part of the point of the article is to send the message to those of a mindset in complete opposition to yours, that the default setting is "no" rather than "yes". You 'get' it so no need to convince you. Others who don't 'get' it probably won't listen, but at least need to be told. I've met "men" over the years who honestly think "no" is just a coy way for a woman to "invite" sex; and some "women" who play that game, as well. Those are the people who contribute to making this issue so "cloudy".

I wish I had all the answers rather than just posting like I do. /snark at myself :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

31. don't

stop




don't

stop

[Katherine Brengle]

42. Would make men think twice before whipping it out, eh? Actually having to be

SURE that a woman wants to have sex with you - what a revolutionary concept.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Funny stuff.

But I can't figure out what she's satirizing.

[Cerridwen]

9. Wow! And all the "out of the chute" responses are from men

who question a woman's right to define rape?! Because they have first hand experience of rape, how? Because they have first hand experience with rape trials, how? First hand, gentlemen, not living through your girlfriend's/mother's/sister's/wife's rape experience, first hand, as a woman, as defined by the judicial system which requires a woman prove she has been raped. One of the few crimes which presumes the victim guilty until proven innocent.

Well, Katherine, it appears this post is good for luring them out of the woodwork, so to speak.

Absofreakinglutely amazing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Extremism Is Extremism.

That article is extremism to all sorts of irrational degrees. The writer is off her rocker.

[Cerridwen]

12. How expectedly ad hominem of you to say so. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. You Need To Educate Yourself On The Definition Of Ad Hominem, Prior To Its Future Use.

[Cerridwen]

17. And another ad hominem. Thank you for yet another example

of ad hominem. I'd explain to you how your previous reply and this are ad hominem fallacies, but I'd have to do it in such a way that the explanation itself would be an ad hominem. :rofl: Oh, wait! I think I just did that anyway. My bad.

And now, I'm bored with playing school-yard name calling games with you. But thanks for a great exhibition of ad hominem fallacy for anyone who might read this thread who didn't know what an ad hominem looked like.


Did not!
Did too!
Did not!
Did too!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. You Should've Taken My Advice. You Obviously Have No Idea How To Determine An Ad Hominem.

In fact, it makes you look extremely foolish to keep using it as if you do.

Seriously, please learn about it so that you can use it correctly in the future. And no, this isn't an attack. It's a sincere suggestion after recognizing you are using a term incorrectly and foolishly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. You're being sarcastic, right?

"You Obviously Have No Idea How To Determine An Ad Hominem," is an ad hominem.

"In fact, it makes you look extremely foolish to keep using it as if you do," is an ad hominem.

"It's a sincere suggestion after recognizing you are using a term incorrectly and foolishly," is an ad hominem.

This is a funny thread.

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Ok Bornablahblah, Point Out The Ad Hominems Prior Please.

Thanks. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. "That article is extremism to all sorts of irrational degrees."

"The writer is off her rocker."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. That's Not An Ad Hominem.

The article is extremism to all sorts of irrational degrees. I am not dismissing the article based on the writer being insane. I am not attacking the writer in an attempt to undermine a factual premise in the article. The article itself, and the content it contains, is irrational and extreme regardless of who the author is. In fact, it was the article itself that led me to the conclusion that the author was off her rocker.

So maybe you should educate yourself on what an ad hominem is as well. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. That's another one right there.

"So maybe you should educate yourself on what an ad hominem is as well."

If you're interested, you can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. I Think You Need To Read Your Own Link Pal.

And it is not an ad hominem attack to inform somebody they are using a definition incorrectly.

Now if you'd like, maybe you could actually read that link of yours, and then use the FACTUAL information found in it to show step by step how my initial comments were ad hominems, ok?

Ready, set, GO! :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. See also the "shoot the messenger" subdivision of ad hominem.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. What On Earth Are You Talking About? Not A Surprise You Can't Defend Your Position.

But I will continue to invite you to do so.

Like I said: Using the facts of ad hominem supplied in your OWN provided link, please show for everybody how my initial statements were ad hominems. You're claiming they were, and even provided an informative link on what an ad hominem is, so why are you having such a hard time defending your own accusation? Is it, maybe, because you can't and therefore just have to keep deflecting away from substance in hopes that people will believe your side of the argument without your having to provide any substance to bolster it?

Pretty weak dude. But like I said, I invite you openly to do so. Will you rise up to the challenge or will you continue to deflect with nonsense in hopes of not having to? Hey, it's your accusation pal. Should be EASY for ya to show for the class just how the initial post was an ad hominem. So ya up to the task?

Ready, set, GO! :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. And that whole post is another example of an ad hominem.

Also, you've diverged into agrumentum ad ignorantium.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. ROFLMAO!!!! You Just Can't Do It! Keep Deflecting Away Pal, But You're Still Losing.

The rules are simple bub: Use the facts in the informative and definitive link that YOU supplied, to show for everyone how my initial post was an ad hominem.

Don't just issue some other nonsensical one liner that isn't defended.

Don't just deflect with some unrelated post.

Don't try and weasel out of it by confusing the issue.

Just short, sweet and simple. One rule. Just find the explanatory part of the ad hominem definition you are accusing me of, post it, then show how my initial post was guilty of it. Should be simple for you right oh guru of the ad hominem? Why do you keep avoiding this quite simple task? Do you think people here are that stupid? So c'mon pal, let's see you put your money where your mouth is so to speak. Go logically show through use of the information in your own link how my initial post was guilty of being an ad hominem.

Ok? Easy enough to understand? Alright then.

Ready, set, GO! :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Yes, yes.

All fine examples.

Now you're getting it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Dude, You're Done. You've Been Thoroughly Defeated... Again.

You lose.

Next time, maybe you'll think twice before acting like an expert on something you know nothing about, though I fear you won't.

Either way, you're done. Pretty funny actually, especially with how confident you tried to make yourself out to be that you actually had knowledge on the subject LOL

Ehhhhh, no biggie. I've dealt with fools before and I'll undoubtedly deal with them again.

Nite now! :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. ad ignorantium.

Beautiful example, actually.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. The definition of words does not depend on the gender of who wrote the definition.

As a man, I could define testicular cancer as a kind of amusement park ride, that doesn't make it so.

"first hand, as a woman, as defined by the judicial system which requires a woman prove she has been raped. One of the few crimes which presumes the victim guilty until proven innocent."

I haven't got first had with the judicial system, but I'm pretty sure all crimes have to be proven.

Or is this got something to do with a redefinition of due process?

[Cerridwen]

27. But, not all crimes require the victim prove that they did not contribute

to their own victim status. That was my point. Yes, a crime victim must prove a crime was committed against them; they rarely have to prove they didn't invite the crime to happen to them.

That's the distinction I made in the post to which you replied.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. There is a difference.

There is a difference between proving the guilt of an alleged rapist and assuming the guilt of the VICTIM.

[Katherine Brengle]

40. Exactly -- if I am robbed, I am the victim - If I am murdered, I am the victim -

the list goes on and on.

If someone rapes me, I have to prove it.

The burden of proof is shifted to the victim and not the justice system.

[Cerridwen]

44. Not only do you have to prove you were the victim,

you have to prove you didn't invite the crime.

Hi, Katherine. :hi:

Amazing that a person's sovereignty over their own body could be such a contentious topic. *sigh*

[Katherine Brengle]

45. Exactly. As one poster said over at IBTP,

this just shifts that feeling of overwhelming helplessness and the burden to men. That feeling that these guys are getting when they read this? That's how we feel every day.

Powerless.

BUT, that's how we are *supposed* to feel while it is injustice to them.

[JVS]

29. If the default setting were yes, there wouldn't be any rape laws at all.

The default setting already is no.

[Cerridwen]

39. Historically, rape laws were to protect the interests of the family;

specifically, the father, his property and his family assets. Rape was considered a crime against the family honor and considered to lower the value of the father's property, e.g., it made his daughter, damaged goods thereby making her un-marriageable or, more accurately, un-tradeable for alliances of either property or politics. In short, rape was a property crime and so, had little to do with the wants, needs or physical or emotional damage to the woman herself.

[Katherine Brengle]

41. The default right now is that a woman can only be raped in certain circumstances

as defined by men, and even then she is the one who must convince the world she was raped - simply claiming that a crime has been committed against her is often not enough to get the ball rolling, as it should be.