Yes Means Yes law passed

[jimmy eat jazz]

Your quotes didn't offer any evidence of the bogus part. For example, "the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire" is no greater than the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were" less "apt to have completed the questionnaire".

You misrepresented Summers misrepresentation of the study.



Your video is using a definition of rape culture that I have never seen a feminist use.

I find it continuously curious how right-wing loud mouths like Babe and Pearl Watson (not to mention their kindred spirit blowhards on the right-wing radio and blogosphere) find the time to get all righteously indignant about feminazis illegitimately crying rape but never (or rarely) can find the moral energy to get righteously indignant about about rape (or sexual assault) itself.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

There are probably scenarios when a woman consents to sex and then the man upsets her in some way, so she decides to cry rape in an effort to **** the man over

Yes this may happen, but what would be your guess as to how often this happens compared to how often actual sexual assault happens. Say, for every 100 accusations of sexual assault, how many would you guess are intentionally false?

My guess is that the % is quite low.

 

[moevillini]

I find it continuously curious how right-wing loud mouths like Babe and Pearl Watson (not to mention their kindred spirit blowhards on the right-wing radio and blogosphere) find the time to get all righteously indignant about feminazis illegitimately crying rape but never (or rarely) can find the moral energy to get righteously indignant about about rape (or sexual assault) itself.

I'm NOT saying this is how either Pearl or Babe see things at all...

But there are some (on all sides of the political spectrum) who STILL believe that just about any woman who gets raped was "asking" for it in one way or another. They will almost always find some reason to say it was the woman's fault.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I'm NOT saying this is how either Pearl or Babe see things at all...

But there are some (on all sides of the political spectrum) who STILL believe that just about any woman who gets raped was "asking" for it in one way or another. They will almost always find some reason to say it was the woman's fault.

Absolutely. Which is one reason why a non-trivial share of sexual assaults/rapes don't get reported. There's no 'coveted status' to being a sexual assault victim (out of touch old white man George Will's claim not withstanding), but in many cases still, there's stigma attached to it. The woman had it coming, is a gold digger, is a man trap, is using sex as a weapon, etc. etc. Among the many things I find curious about this discussion is the number of men who never imagine themselves as a victims of sexual assault weighing in on what women should do and think on this topic. Capacity for empathy has never been the hallmark of right wing blowhards spouting off on feminazis.

 

[One Brow]

Nevermind.
This is something that you just won't ever be able to understand no matter how much we discuss it

Actually, I do understand it quite well. I used to think just like you do.

 

[One Brow]

"Secular Humanism", if kept dissociated from propaganda intended to legitimize political action inimical to the rights of others, could be discussed on the merits of the ideas just as well as any religion, but it is inherently, also a "religion".

I agree that in many ways, "humanism" performs the moral functions of a religion; "secular" just means that religions should not be the basis for government decisions (I would agree that humanism is on the list for this purpose, as well).

 

[babe]

I agree that in many ways, "humanism" performs the moral functions of a religion; "secular" just means that religions should not be the basis for government decisions (I would agree that humanism is on the list for this purpose, as well).

For as much as I rag on you about your seemingly obdurate advocacy of progressive agenda items, I have to put you in a whole 'nuther class from those who are willing to diss me as a blowhard before they actually understand what I said.

Class Act.

 

[LogGrad98]

For as much as I rag on you about your seemingly obdurate advocacy of progressive agenda items, I have to put you in a whole 'nuther class from those who are willing to diss me as a blowhard before they actually understand what I said.

Class Act.

You need to remember that a large proportion of the people don't want to actually think about others' points of view; they just want to happily be told what to think, and go to sleep each night secure in their knowledge that everyone who thinks even a tiny bit differently are morons and not really "people".

 

[moevillini]

and sometimes (oftentimes???) a woman's harshest critics are other women...

we can't always blame the men

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The problem with your assertion is that it's just false. The public has been largely cut out of the information base, out of the news coverage, out of the positions of leverage in our educational system, out of the legislative and judicial and executive functions of government.

Um . . . ok, but your argument above has absolutely nothing to do with my statement--nothing whatsoever, so if you'd hoped to demonstrate why my statement is false, you've failed miserably.

The rest of your rant is right wing alarmist BS.

 

[babe]

Um . . . ok, but your argument above has absolutely nothing to do with my statement--nothing whatsoever, so if you'd hoped to demonstrate why my statement is false, you've failed miserably.

The rest of your rant is right wing alarmist BS.

you mad, bro?

as much as it is deplorable when people resort to hateful stereotypical labels when talking about rape victims, it's just as deplorable for you to interpret others, whom you know essentially nothing about, with hateful stereotypical labels. Unless you can deal with the subject intellectually, marking some meaningful distinctions between "right wing" and "left wing" that don't invest either with a hate value, you're no better than a true right wing alamist conspiracy theorist sexist capitalist racist bigot in your own right. . . . or left, perhaps in your case.

The problem with rhetoric begins when words lose their meaning in a flood of hate.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

it's just as deplorable for you to interpret others, whom you know essentially nothing about, with hateful stereotypical labels.

Glass houses...

 

[LogGrad98]

Glass houses...

Great album.

 

[babe]

Glass houses...

Takes one to know one. . . . .

I guess I knew some would see me for what I deplore in others, and it's a fair point, except for one thing.

I don't hate anyone, and while I may be somewhat silly for imagining such improbable things, I hope to awaken in others the same kind of introspection and careful rejection of the whole toolchest of demagogery that has ever been deployed to manipulate a credulous populace otherwise well-enough off to enjoy their beer, their food, their families, and their work, with nary a care about world politics.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Takes one to know one. . . . .

I guess I knew some would see me for what I deplore in others, and it's a fair point, except for one thing.

I don't hate anyone, and while I may be somewhat silly for imagining such improbable things, I hope to awaken in others the same kind of introspection and careful rejection of the whole toolchest of demagogery that has ever been deployed to manipulate a credulous populace otherwise well-enough off to enjoy their beer, their food, their families, and their work, with nary a care about world politics.

Which again, is probably the same sentiment shared by those you disagree with who get called out. Glass houses...

 

[moevillini]

...I don't hate anyone, and while I may be somewhat silly for imagining such improbable things, I hope to awaken in others the same kind of introspection and careful rejection of the whole toolchest of demagogery that has ever been deployed to manipulate a credulous populace otherwise well-enough off to enjoy their beer, their food, their families, and their work, with nary a care about world politics.

wait... hold on... I'm confused...

what is this tool chest of demagoguery of which you speak?

and who is doing the manipulating?

and are you saying we shouldn't enjoy our food, our beer and our families?

and what does bring well-off have to do with any of this?

I think the word that comes to mind here is obfusciate

 

[babe]

wait... hold on... I'm confused...

what is this tool chest of demagoguery of which you speak?

and who is doing the manipulating?

and are you saying we shouldn't enjoy our food, our beer and our families?

and what does bring well-off have to do with any of this?

I think the word that comes to mind here is obfusciate

I figure the word is "obfuscate".

But that's not your problem. Your problem is that you're trying to fit some square pegs into round holes. How in the world did you imagine my words to mean the exact opposite of what I said?

OK, I'm editing here to try to be "nice", not knowing whether the above is actually sincere, or just another livid retort.

The tools of demagogues historically have been alluring offers like "A chicken in every pot", "Circuses and Bread for the Masses", promises of government largesse for the poor. But any fool knows what really counts is having powerful or influential "friends" or "connections", like Mitt Romney hanging out with the Bush clan, or Obama going to Martha's Vineyard to play golf with the finest people.

Is that clear enough?

And so far as I'm concerned, if anyone prefers beer or food or fun to politics, the world should not be run by schemers who are doing things that cut him out of the loop so far as politics is concerned. The problem is we have a few people who want to exert disproportionate power.

The people who make use of clever tactics to defeat the common public will are almost always "fascist". The word comes from Latin, and means "connections".

In my book, state socialists are fascists if there is an elite inner circle. Communists are fascists because they have an elite little inner Party circle. The "communist" leaders live in posh homes while the workers subsist in cold one-room apartments and stand in long lines to get a loaf of bread. "Communist" is a lie, a sort of left-hand in a puppet show.

"left and right" in politics is generally a lie, because in fact those who seek political power are always going to the "connections" they have with influential or wealthy backers, seeking the money and media support for building political power, which generally requires passing out money to all kinds of folks who value their "connections" and their little streams of wealth that depend on government spending somehow, or legislation affecting their business interests.

If this isn't clear enough, it might be your own problem seeing a simple viewpoint about what has gone wrong with our government.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So are we still debating whether society should take the issue of rape seriously? Or was this ever about that?

 

[babe]

So are we still debating whether society should take the issue of rape seriously? Or was this ever about that?

Fine point.

Nobody in this entire thread has ever said we should not take the issue of rape seriously.

A few people think a law is necessary to define the meaning of "yes", a few people just think that is ridiculous. Apparently, the problem is that we have a government that can't be trusted to follow any law we can pass without turning the intended impact of the law upside down somehow.

Some people think we have a great government that can fix everything that's wrong with everybody, and some people think we have a moron government that will make a mess of everything it undertakes.

I don't think we need this law. I think we need men and women who understand what yes and no mean, and who will respect one another. Uhhhmmm. . . . and maybe some judges and juries who understand this just as well, and who will return a verdict of rape on both men and women who in any fashion entrap one another in dicey poorly-defined sexual relationships. Get a marriage license, folks. A written contract, whatever. . . . but I said above that in a society with unclear morals defined personally, I doubt anyone can really rely even on "yes" for meaning "yes", so whatever. . . . I'm not going to count on yes meaning yes, unless I'm dealing with someone I know means it. Would be a good idea for any man or any woman to do that.

Apparently, some folks don't understand the meaning of words, and if someone says something simple and true, many will misconstrue it somehow.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Why would consent be anything but "yes"? Why should the government not do anything (further, due process as it is kind of a joke with respect to even charging rapists) about an alarming problem like this?