What is "Rape Culture"?

[Tiassa]

I've yet to define harassment for anyone.

It would probably count as helpful―

"But having someone say hello while crossing their path is not harassment. I think on that point we can also agree…right?"

(#294↑)​

―if you started attending reality.

Stop trolling.

I mean, really, let's be realistic. Do you think people don't see? And just how often should anyone find need to ask that question?

You refuse the humanity and human rights of women. That pretty much disqualifies your opinions about women from having any value. As such, you continue to say stupid things, horrifying others with your bigotry, for the sake of cheap self-gratification.

This is inappropriate. It is hatred at the very least, and you need to stop behaving this way. You can hate whoever you want for whatever reasons you want, Bowser, but that's between you and yourself, and it should stay that way.

 

[birch]

But having someone say hello while crossing their path is not harassment. I think on that point we can also agree…right?"

Strictly speaking, of course not.

But that video is so obvious, its ridiculous to debate.

But look at the the elements in that video and how those elements are arranged in relation to each other.

She was not really crossing their path, though it may appear that way superficially.

Put yourself at right angles to her straight line direction. If you were standing on the side of the walk and said 'hello', specifically to her, amongst many busily coming and going, that's not normal. Look at her body language, its exudes directness to her destination. Shes not lazily strolling by. She did not stop to ask for directions. She did not stop for a second to look at the scenery or glance in their direction and smile. She did not bump into them for an 'excuse me' or 'hello'. What would possess anyone to greet someone in this situation? Thats a flag right there.

They are not greeting her, they are trying to get her attention. What's really being said, 'hey you! notice me'. Some are being disrespectful in tone too getting their jollies. Its not illegal but I'm explaining this has nothing to do with good manners as you cross someone's path. Its a rather cheap shot for attention from the female or hope she might stop to speak.

 

[Bowser]

I think I agree with these people. Being gross and catcalling will get you nowhere, but I see no harm in telling another person they are beautiful. People need to find an avenue to connect. If you see a woman for whom you feel attraction, eventually you must approach her and express it.

 

[Secular Sanity]

Does nature define culture? Does nurture? If so, then isnt culture a product of and not a cause?

Nurture defines culture. Nature and culture interact in a number of different ways.

I do agree with Pinker, though, so in this sense, sex itself is biologically driven.

“I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out.”—Steven Pinker
​

Levine suggests that sexual desire has three components which link several different theoretical perspectives together:

1. Drive – The biological component. This includes anatomy and neuroendocrine physiology.
2. Motivation – The psychological component. This includes the influences of personal mental states (mood), interpersonal states (e.g. mutual affection, disagreement), and social context (e.g. relationship status).
3. Wish – The cultural component. This considers cultural ideals, values, and rules about sexual expression which are external to the individual.

 

[Tiassa]

I think I agree with these people. Being gross and catcalling will get you nowhere, but I see no harm in telling another person they are beautiful. People need to find an avenue to connect. If you see a woman for whom you feel attraction, eventually you must approach her and express it.

But you refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.

Your judgment of what one must do to a woman is only relevant to women insofar as they at least know you're one more dangerous person in the world.

 

[Kristoffer]

But you refuse to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.

Your judgment of what one must do to a woman is only relevant to women insofar as they at least know you're one more dangerous person in the world.

Maybe his chosen screen name's a clue?

A reptilian creature kidnapping a princess.

 

[milkweed]

Nurture defines culture. Nature and culture interact in a number of different ways.

Nature of the beast defines culture also. Probably more so than nurture. And then there is that pesky twin thing from the Time article I linked... lots of unknowns isnt there?

I do agree with Pinker, though, so in this sense, sex itself is biologically driven.

“I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out.”—Steven Pinker​

​

I think stranger rapes, such as Bundy, are about violence/dominance/fear not sex. I think men are susceptible to sexual arousal from a much larger base of stimuli than women (generalization). Example, my step dad talked about his own raging hormones/puberty as my brother began to deal with his sons' puberty. Step-dad: 'there was one whole year where I didnt wear shorts, just the wind blowing on my leg hairs caused me to get an erection'. In the 1940s. Not a tv, movie, video game, cultural issue.

And that translates to various aspects of life for men. Women dress up in cloths that accent sexual trigger points, wear make-up, scent themselves with pleasing odors, often food based (and food motives a lot of men to do things they dont want to, like going to her relatives home for thanksgiving) and then complain when men are triggered to present themselves, not unlike the birds of paradise reaction to a female, except we are more like gorillas/chimps with the male thumping his chest or bending saplings to show strength.

edit: I remember one bartender commenting on my hands. He said he always looks at a womans hands and mine were the kind he considered beautiful. I looked at my hands and dont see it. But I began looking at peoples hands and yep, they are different. At halloween I was able to recognize many people by their hands. Some had really great costumes and I would have never guessed who they were.

Just adding that its not just the accenting sexual trigger points. People have different trigger points. /edit

How this relates to Bundy? I dont think the arousal was for the sex act, I think his rapes were a result of how inflicting fear/violence stimulated him. He was a sadist by nature.

And back to the birds. While watching various videos, I thought to myself, why is it that women have this need to preen up like a male bird of paradise? Are we the only species where the female is expected to outshine the male's plumage?​

​

Levine suggests that sexual desire has three components which link several different theoretical perspectives together:

1. Drive – The biological component. This includes anatomy and neuroendocrine physiology.
2. Motivation – The psychological component. This includes the influences of personal mental states (mood), interpersonal states (e.g. mutual affection, disagreement), and social context (e.g. relationship status).
3. Wish – The cultural component. This considers cultural ideals, values, and rules about sexual expression which are external to the individual.

Is the above in order of influence on the individual?

 

[milkweed]

To: Milkweed​

re: Reality​

 

[Randwolf]

'What is "Rape Culture"?'

Well Bowser, maybe it's a conspiracy. It must be, after all, mainstream media is always on about. Those women just don't know when they have it good - so many compliments and all...

The Thing All Women Do That You Don't Know About

...
So maybe they don't know.​

Maybe they don't know that at the tender age of 13 we had to brush off adult men staring at our breasts. Maybe they don't know that men our dad's age actually came on to us while we were working the cash register. They probably don't know that the guy in English class who asked us out sent angry messages just because we turned him down. They may not be aware that our supervisor regularly pats us on the ass. And they surely don't know that most of the time we smile, with gritted teeth. That we look away or pretend not to notice. They likely have no idea how often these things happen. That these things have become routine. So expected that we hardly notice it anymore.

...

So, maybe Bowser, you just don't know.


Oh, a question for you, yes or no will suffice:

Do you acknowledge that women are human beings and have human rights?

Maybe you can just ignore that though, probably easier not to face your true opinions...

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Nurture defines culture. Nature and culture interact in a number of different ways.

...

Is this a nature versus nurture argument?

 

[tali89]

I don't equate women with children. My point was that if it's okay to do to women, it's okay to do to men and children as well. Correct?

You claim that you didn't equate women with children, and then go on to equate women to children in the next sentence. Once again, what does how we treat children have to do with how we treat adults? Why are you demeaning women by comparing them to small children?

And once more, context. Those men are only saying it to women.

How do you know this? The video in question was just over 2 minutes long, and only showed a few seconds out of the lives of most of the men in question. I can't see how we can make any assumptions about how those men behave in the remaining 99.999999% of their lives from 5 seconds of footage, unless you have access to other videos of them that I'm not aware of. If so, please do tell.

tali89 said: ↑
Please show where I claimed I wouldn't find the behavior you described disconcerting. Please make sure you provide a direct quotation instead of your own summary of what you think I said, since you've previously admitted that you don't pay attention to what you read.

Bells: You have consistently defended the behaviour of the men in that video. Consistently. I don't need to link anything. You are still doing it. People just need to read your posts to see that. So stop dodging and stop trolling about it.

If I am consistently defending the behavior you allege I have (ie. men commenting on a womens' backsides, men telling a woman to smile so she looks pretty), then you should have no problem providing just *one* direct quotation of me doing so in this thread. The fact that you have refused to substantiate your claim tells us all we need to know. You know that you have misrepresented me, and now that I've asked you to provide actual hard evidence, you whine and bawl. That's hardly surprising, since you have a long history of misrepresenting the opinions of posters whom you disagree with, and then accusing them of trolling when they refuse to dance to your discordant tune.

I've snipped the rest of your drivel, because it's all based on your faulty assumptions and lies that I exposed above. Get back to me when you're ready to argue against what I'm actually contending, instead of the strawman it would be convenient for you to argue against.

 

[tali89]

Oh lawd.. God almighty. lol.

Let me spell it out. I suppose it must be done. Lol

If in this same experiment, you are a male, the number of greetings would be almost zilch. Guaranteed. I would even bank on it.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider experiments that haven't been performed, and are assumed to turn up results that conform to your own biases and prejudices, as being a credible source of information.

 

[tali89]

Dude, that's pretty insulting to newborns. Newborns cry because they have essential needs that need to be met. Tiassa is throwing a hissy fit simply because people aren't subscribing to his narrative, and won't buckle to his malicious accusations of 'rape advocacy'. By the way, I'd like to draw the audience's attention to the fact that Tiassa hasn't responded to me after I exposed his intellectual dishonesty. Lefties are good at dishing out the ridicule, but when their atrocious behavior is challenged, they run so fast they leave a dust cloud.

 

[pjdude1219]

Dude, that's pretty insulting to newborns. Newborns cry because they have essential needs that need to be met. Tiassa is throwing a hissy fit simply because people aren't subscribing to his narrative, and won't buckle to his malicious accusations of 'rape advocacy'. By the way, I'd like to draw the audience's attention to the fact that Tiassa hasn't responded to me after I exposed his intellectual dishonesty. Lefties are good at dishing out the ridicule, but when their atrocious behavior is challenged, they run so fast they leave a dust cloud.

Still fucking lying still fucking delusional

 

[Tiassa]

Still fucking lying still fucking delusional

Sure it's only what, forty-five letters? Still, save the effort. After all, twenty would have sufficed for the purpose, and it's not like our neighbor is paying attention to reality these days. While some might hope to troll threads into the ground, that only works if everyone else plays along, too.

Our neighbor, lacking any argument with integrity, is just hoping to change the subject again.

 

[Bells]

You claim that you didn't equate women with children, and then go on to equate women to children in the next sentence. Once again, what does how we treat children have to do with how we treat adults? Why are you demeaning women by comparing them to small children?

Only if you are mentally deficient. Are you?

I also said he should do the same with men, so does that mean, in your ridiculous opinion, that I am equating women to men?

And you are still dodging the question and the issue. So stop trolling.

How do you know this? The video in question was just over 2 minutes long, and only showed a few seconds out of the lives of most of the men in question. I can't see how we can make any assumptions about how those men behave in the remaining 99.999999% of their lives from 5 seconds of footage, unless you have access to other videos of them that I'm not aware of. If so, please do tell.

Because it is pretty obvious tali89.

They never once said the same thing to the man who was walking in front of her with the camera.

So, going to keep dodging and trolling? Or are you going to stop now?

If I am consistently defending the behavior you allege I have (ie. men commenting on a womens' backsides, men telling a woman to smile so she looks pretty), then you should have no problem providing just *one* direct quotation of me doing so in this thread. The fact that you have refused to substantiate your claim tells us all we need to know. You know that you have misrepresented me, and now that I've asked you to provide actual hard evidence, you whine and bawl. That's hardly surprising, since you have a long history of misrepresenting the opinions of posters whom you disagree with, and then accusing them of trolling when they refuse to dance to your discordant tune.

I've snipped the rest of your drivel, because it's all based on your faulty assumptions and lies that I exposed above. Get back to me when you're ready to argue against what I'm actually contending, instead of the strawman it would be convenient for you to argue against.

You cannot address any of the examples I gave which consistently counter your theory that they are just saying "hello" because to do so would show that you are wrong and you have consistently defended the men in those videos and have consistently denied street harassment occurs as was shown on that video.

What was it that you said about the woman who is walking down the street, looking right ahead, not doing anything conspicuous that would draw unwanted attention? Ah yes:

So if women walk around the streets for hours trying to attract attention, a stranger may approach them and start talking to them. Um, I'm not exactly sure why we need to stop the press in light of such information. Are women so weak and fragile that they can't get over an unwanted look or advance? Is that the current state of 'empowered' women? Men receive unwelcome looks and advances when out in public as well, and in most cases it is forgotten about in an hour's time.

One of my ex's used to say that for many women, attention is currency, which is why they attempt to create drama in their lives, and the lives of their family and friends. However, when they receive said attention, they feign indignation.

You couldn't even describe any of it as harassment. You saw the actions of the men in that video as approaching them and simply talking to them.

You then went further:

It's poor etiquette to harass others. Unfortunately, you're going to run into rude people where-ever you go, irrespective of gender. Women feigning indignation over an innocent look or comment is quite concerning, though. If they are so fragile, how will they withstand true hardship in life>?

So, harassment is poor etiquette. And then, you say that the men were giving "innocent look or comment", despite clear harassment and stalking taking place. The only way you could possibly view what happened to that woman on the video as being innocent looks or comments is if this is normalised behaviour for you. Is it? Is this how you expect men to treat you? If so, please seek help.

You viewed their comments about her body, her looks, her clothing, her boobs, butt, lets and the stalking and following her down the street, telling her to smile, the constant trying to draw her attention as being "an innocent look or comment". Not content, you again tried to reiterate that a woman walking down the street, minding her own business and looking straight ahead was drawing attention to herself and you found it unsurprising that the woman who wasn't doing anything other than walking down the street, would draw such attention. And you still couldn't classify any of it as street harassment. Better yet, you called a man openly stalking and following the woman as being simply a guy walking in the same direction as her, when it was clearly a case of stalking and following her for several minutes, trying to get her attention:

So now men shouldn't travel in the same direction as women? This is getting ridiculous.

And this is just in a couple of pages of your defending the men who acted like this and who harassed her so openly. Are you still going to try to lie some more?

I could go on for days with this tali89.

So you best run along now, and stop trolling.

 

[tali89]

tali89: You claim that you didn't equate women with children, and then go on to equate women to children in the next sentence. Once again, what does how we treat children have to do with how we treat adults? Why are you demeaning women by comparing them to small children?

Bells: Only if you are mentally deficient. Are you?

I also said he should do the same with men, so does that mean, in your ridiculous opinion, that I am equating women to men?

Why did you ask if it is acceptable for a man to say 'Hello' to children outside of a school, when we were discussing whether it was appropriate for a man to say 'Hello' to a woman on the street? Either you're claiming that adult women are equivalent to children, or you acknowledge that you're introducing irrelevancies into this discussion.

And you are still dodging the question and the issue. So stop trolling.

You're the one continually dodging pertinent questions. Again, how is a man loitering outside a public school to talk to children in any way relevant to a man saying 'Hello' to a woman passing him in the street? Either explain the relevance, or admit the comparison is a red herring.

Bells: And once more, context. Those men are only saying it to women.

tali89 said: ↑
How do you know this? The video in question was just over 2 minutes long, and only showed a few seconds out of the lives of most of the men in question. I can't see how we can make any assumptions about how those men behave in the remaining 99.999999% of their lives from 5 seconds of footage, unless you have access to other videos of them that I'm not aware of. If so, please do tell.

Bells: Because it is pretty obvious tali89.

They never once said the same thing to the man who was walking in front of her with the camera.

I'm not sure which of the examples I cited that you are referring to, but even so, you've forming an opinion from, what, 3 seconds of footage for each incident? So I'm going to ask you again, how do you know that these men don't say 'Hello' to other men on the street? Have you recorded them as they go about their day to day life for months on end?

You cannot address any of the examples I gave which consistently counter your theory that they are just saying "hello"

You haven't addressed the examples I gave of where the men in question gave simple greetings, without any hint of sexual connotation (which I listed here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-rape-culture.153010/page-11#post-3341664), but instead brought up behaviors in the video that I wasn't referring to. I'm not denying that some men engage in questionable behavior in that video. My issue is that incidents of innocuous behavior (such as simple greetings) are being lumped in with incidents of poor etiquette and comments with questionable intent, and then all of the incidents are labelled as sexual harassment.

tali89: If I am consistently defending the behavior you allege I have (ie. men commenting on a womens' backsides, men telling a woman to smile so she looks pretty), then you should have no problem providing just *one* direct quotation of me doing so in this thread. The fact that you have refused to substantiate your claim tells us all we need to know. You know that you have misrepresented me, and now that I've asked you to provide actual hard evidence, you whine and bawl. That's hardly surprising, since you have a long history of misrepresenting the opinions of posters whom you disagree with, and then accusing them of trolling when they refuse to dance to your discordant tune.

Bells: What was it that you said about the woman who is walking down the street, looking right ahead, not doing anything conspicuous that would draw unwanted attention? Ah yes:

Nice try, Bells, but you haven't provided a direct quotation of me defending the behavior you allege I have (ie. men commenting on a womens' backside, men telling a woman to smile so she looks pretty). Indeed, quite the contrary. You have quoted me as condemning such behavior.

"It's poor etiquette to harass others. Unfortunately, you're going to run into rude people where-ever you go, irrespective of gender."

You cited me as condemning some of the behavior in that video as poor etiquette, rude, and possibly even harassment, and then claim I am consistently defending such behavior. This is yet another example of you not paying attention to what you are reading. I thought you would have learned your lesson the last time you did this, where you butchered one of my sentences by turning it from a question into a statement. Apparently you didn't.

 

[Tiassa]

The Next Generation

And then there is this:

This ignoring seemed to piss him off so he lashed out and said "eff you, dumb B****!" Now let's keep in mind he was well-dressed and appeared to be on his lunch break from an office job.

That was my trigger point. The B word. I ripped off my headphones prepared to stand up for myself when this little boy who was walking alongside his mother and little sister in a stroller looked at the guy and said, "Hey. That is not nice to say to her and she didn't like you yelling at her. You shouldn't do that because she is a nice girl and I don't let anyone say mean things to people. She's a girl like my sister and I will protect her."

The man was immediately embarrassed and started gathering his lunch to leave. I asked the mother if I could hug the little boy (his name is James) and I told him how grateful I was for him. He just shrugged and said "Well I just wanted to make sure your heart was okay."

(Price↱)​

You know, we might still get out of this mess. Then again, when the days can feel like years, I can't imagine what the years themselves must seem.

Hey, guys, take a note from the kid.
____________________

Notes:

Price, Jullia. "I was on my usual running path when I heard an older man yelling loudly enough for me to hear through my headphones". Facebook. 18 November 2015. Facebook.com. 24 November 2015. http://on.fb.me/1PLwA4v

 

[milkweed]

Dude, that's pretty insulting to newborns. Newborns cry because they have essential needs that need to be met. Tiassa is throwing a hissy fit simply because people aren't subscribing to his narrative, and won't buckle to his malicious accusations of 'rape advocacy'.

While you have a point, I would suggest the newborn has a chance of growing out of his tantrum throwing behaviors. On the other hand, we have a classic example of...

"regression, in psychoanalytic theory, occurs when an individual's personality reverts to an earlier stage of development, adopting more childish mannerisms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_(psychology)

 

[Secular Sanity]

Nature of the beast defines culture also. Probably more so than nurture.

Humans have a dual inheritance system, nature and nurture. The intellectual and social heritage of past generations, lived out in the present, reformed and transmitted to the next generation, is regularly decisive. Cultures, especially modern ones, change rapidly in a few decades; the human genome hardly changes in thousands of years. Slow-paced genes are difficult to couple with fast-paced cultures. (Source)

Where shall we seek the nature of man? In the stars? In the earth? In the snarl of the tiger, the terror of the heart?

The way to live should issue from our nature, from what it is we believe ourselves most deeply to be. We tend to assume that we know what we are, that our nature is obvious, given to us by direct observation of others and of ourselves: Just look around the world and look into your own heart and you will know the human condition. It’s not so. What it is to be a human being is not clear at all, but deeply shrouded. Because, in the evolution from animal life to human life, along with the gain in knowledge and awareness, we have gained also the ability to deceive ourselves. We arrange not to know our nature, not to see what we are up to. Our self-deceptions are so dense, piled o so thick, like layers of paint on a canvas already painted, layer after layer, laid on from school and pulpit and lectern and TV and Internet that it is all but impossible to break through, to get a clear view of what we really are.

The soul of self- awareness is deception.

Gods can no longer be used to maintain the inviolability of moral and sexual limits. There is no God to establish any position; so every position is arbitrary. If we wish to designate something as sacred and inviolate, we are free to do so, and others are equally free to spit on it.

The jungle and civilization are indeed opposed. Animals do not make rules.

You think this chimp learned this from watching humans or created in a vacuum?

And what about this monkey business of yours, hmm? Are you looking for your prince or was this frog fucker an appeal to nature? Nature rules us, is that it?

The frog fucking monkey lives in an objective world that we subjectively rule. We rule the world because we can cooperate on a large scale.

Moral of the story: Stop kissing frogs.