|
Blackjack2000 posted:So this actually happened to me about 5 years back. I was at one of those adult vacation camp places that encourages a lot of hooking up, and sharing a cabin with a man and a woman who were both friends. The woman had a crush on me and I knew it but was not attracted to her. Thanks for talking about what happened to you - I can guess that its a difficult topic for you. Remember, you aren't to blame for what happened. You were hobbled by intoxication, social convention, and this was exploited by someone that should have known better. That doesn't make you weak, or complicit in some kind of wickedness. The blame and fault rests on another. Blackjack2000 posted:Also, I want to say that even if they're legally the same, I think there's a big difference between MF and FM rape when it involves this kind of "erosion of resolve". Like this experience would have been a lot different for me if she outweighed me by 80 pounds instead of the reverse. There isn't, actually, but I understand why you would feel that way about this situation.
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
McAlister posted:
Thats a long winded way of saying that though you are aware of potential power disparity opportunity outside of a purely physical sense, you promptly ignore them in the context of a sexual interaction. It's okay though, that kind of situation-specific blindness due to deep-seated misogyny is pretty commonplace. P.S Nice victim blaming bro.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:LeJackal's post took me a while to process, but I think I ultimately feel like LeJackal is correct. (That is some drat fine passive voice, because this is causing me to think far harder than I expected.) Thanks. S.T.C.A. posted:This thread is blowing my mind because I started to write this post feeling like LeJackal is advancing an MRA dog whistle and I just can't see/explain it (and to a point I fear that my post here could be misused to that direction in a way I cannot see) Imagine this: You are at a local government meeting of some kind where you wish to plead for some of the budget being allocated to fix a decaying bridge, or something of that nature. Just as you finish your impassioned plea for funds to be used to maintain the town infrastructure for safety and tourism and so on, another person stands up. Its Crazy Racist Jim, and, after putting on his Klan hood, begins screaming out rants that the bridge must be repaired to help stave off the Zionist hordes of mud-people out to capture the town's women! Eventually he is escorted from the hall, but later when asked about the bridge repair topic, what do you think people will remember? The MRA movement is like a one-handed clock made of radioactive cow-poo poo; disgusting in general, rarely correct (and only tangentially), and it taints anything that gets near it. There are legitimate problems with many of the topics they involve themselves with, but their toxic and frankly misogynist thought processes present them from identifying the root cause of the issue or adequate solutions. So I not surprised that when discussing the issue of gender relations, you might be reminded of the MRA movement. If we were in Hypotheticaltown and I brought up the state of disrepair on the bridge over some coffee, you might subtly feel I was advancing a racist agenda, no? S.T.C.A. posted:while I (still) view McAlister's post as, "Come on, factor in reality, it is thoroughly disingenuous to say that having the option to exercise physical restraint versus not having that option does not affect the dynamics of the situation immensely," which seems pretty legit, if not a tangent; that said, just writing out my view of McAlister's post makes me experience cognitive dissonance in that McAlister's post does make me feel like I'm implying, "He could have resisted if he wanted to because of the physical power disparity," which makes LeJackal's post seem valid again. I think that McAlister is considering the situation in a one dimensional way (through the lens of physical prowess) which it obviously is not. As a population (avoiding the :biotruth: trap here) men are larger, stronger, etc and if some alien form transported a man and woman into an alien coliseum for a one-on-one bare-hands deathmatch then okay, his comparisons could be valid. In the world as it is, though, there are factors as strong as or stronger than mere physical ability. There are social, emotional and legal pressures that affect one's actions and can effectively limit their choices. This becomes especially clear in cases like the above, where social dogmatism and legal doctrine provide a suite of pressures that combine to suppress a physical advantage. For example, there is a social pressure to treat women delicately (wife-beater is a pejorative, 'you never hit a girl!'), a social pressure to appear in charge of the situation (a delusion which physical resistance would betray, as would calling it rape), social pressure to seek sex ('dude you said no are you a fag LOLOLOL'), legal pressures like the implied aggression of the male (because the legal system considers women to be invalids incapable of instigation) and so on. You already went through the gender-flipping thought experiment, so you can see the disparity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alternatively, a primary factor appears to be "being drunk impaired my judgement" which is a fairly specific loss of agency which is very easily remedied, and not an inherent part of one's existence. So its his fault for being drunk? Interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 14:52
|
|