[RD] Why Men Need to be Involved in the #MeToo Movement

[Lexicus]

No, I absolutely don't believe that women owe men sex as a matter of course!

Being deprived of something basic to human happiness is as much a wrong as having your personal space or body violated.

women are necessary for the welfare of men.

What do you mean by these two statements if not "women owe men sex as a matter of course"?

Ritual. For monotheists, marriage is not merely a contract between two parties, it's a religious duty which carries mystical significance. I'm skeptical about the idea of secularism producing anything as effective,

This example is not really dispelling the idea that you think women have a right to sex with women, given the historical roots of marriage in the Abrahamic tradition. Marital rape is not even a crime in many countries and was made a crime only decades ago in most others.

In short, when you say that sex should be based on 'ritual' rather than consent I'm not sure how to interpret it except that you are saying that men should be able to rape women they are married to whenever they want.

making casual and premarital sex - for both men and women - taboo is a step in the right direction.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

 

[inthesomeday]

I compared the current state of the sexual economy to capitalism. Marxists blame commodification on capitalism. I'm against the idea of sex being an exchange or a right, and this is due to my belief that sex should not be commoditized.

Who here has been arguing that sex with someone else is a right besides you?

 

[Tigranes]

I can see why some feminist movements encouraging educating men to not be predators is a thing now, given that there are two grown men on CFC seriously arguing that reducing a little girl to the quality of her breasts is equivalent to playground hair pulling and singing k-i-s-s-i-n-g chants and should be permissible.

Permission, discouragement, punishment and witch hunt are all very different levels of reaction against the objectionable behavior. Sometimes it is ok to be reasonable, you know?

 

[Mouthwash]

What do you mean by these two statements if not "women owe men sex as a matter of course"?

I mean that men should be given every opportunity possible to get a girlfriend/wife, and that the institution of monogamy makes it much easier. I don't want to force women to donate a quarter of their sex to the disadvantaged; rather, I want to set up a society in which sexual or romantic deprivation is very easy to ameliorate. Is that clearer?

This example is not really dispelling the idea that you think women have a right to sex with women, given the historical roots of marriage in the Abrahamic tradition.

Well, I don't think that the biblical figures themselves are very good models for this. But the Christian and Rabbinic (NOT Islamic) attitudes are very healthy.

Marital rape is not even a crime in many countries and was made a crime only decades ago in most others.

That's probably more due to the pressure against the state intruding into the 'household' than the idea that taking one's wife by force is morally acceptable. I think it should be considered a form of domestic abuse, but not as bad as regular rape.

In short, when you say that sex should be based on 'ritual' rather than consent I'm not sure how to interpret it except that you are saying that men should be able to rape women they are married to whenever they want.

Every marital code I know of mandates some obligation from the husband to the wife, even those that condone wife-beating and marital rape. I don't understand why you would interpret the idea of a code to mean that women should lose all their rights as individuals.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Okay then, I think every male should have his genitals cut off, and every female should have type III FGM performed on them. Has your level of disagreement increased?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, society of eunuchs wouldn't be ferociously obsessed with sexual politics all the time. I'm convincing myself!

Who here has been arguing that sex with someone else is a right besides you?

You interpreted my statement in that light.

 

[red_elk]

...seriously arguing that reducing a little girl to the quality of her breasts is equivalent to playground hair pulling and singing k-i-s-s-i-n-g chants and should be permissible.

This is a strawman. Nobody equalized it with hair pulling, much less said it should be permissible.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean that men should be given every opportunity possible to get a girlfriend/wife, and that the institution of monogamy makes it much easier. I don't want to force women to donate a quarter of their sex to the disadvantaged; rather, I want to set up a society in which sexual or romantic deprivation is very easy to ameliorate. Is that clearer?

Not really. If women aren't to be forced into sex there are going to be some deprived men. That's unavoidable. It goes the other way, too.

But the Christian and Rabbinic (NOT Islamic) attitudes are very healthy.

Couldn't resist throwing some craven Islamophobia in, eh? I'm sure you have paragraphs of special pleading backing this silly idea up.

That's probably more due to the pressure against the state intruding into the 'household' than the idea that taking one's wife by force is morally acceptable. I think it should be considered a form of domestic abuse, but not as bad as regular rape.

The whole idea that the state should not intrude into the 'household' is based on the idea that a patriarch is who should control the household. Also for the record, I think considering marital rape anything less than full-fledged rape is reprehensible. And that you evidently disagree, again, doesn't really do anything to dispel the idea that you think men are entitled to sex from women.

Every marital code I know of mandates some obligation from the husband to the wife, even those that condone wife-beating and marital rape. I don't understand why you would interpret the idea of a code to mean that women should lose all their rights as individuals.

Yes, and every king had obligations to his subjects. We interpret the idea of a code that way because that's how it worked out, from pretty much the beginning of recorded history until the mid-to-late twentieth century. You can argue for old-time patriarchy if you like, but at least be aware of (and honest about) what you're arguing for. The "private household", to which you appealed above in explaining why marital rape hasn't been criminalized, is constituted by stripping women (and males who are not heads of household) of their rights as individuals.

Okay then, I think every male should have his genitals cut off, and every female should have type III FGM performed on them. Has your level of disagreement increased?

You misinterpret me. I mean that I believe in essentially the opposite of "casual sex outside of marriage = bad." The more options there are for people, the better, and people who want to only have sex in marriage or refrain from casual sex (that's me, I catch feelings too easily for casual sex to come easy) are perfectly free to do so.

You interpreted my statement in that light.

Don't try to blame that on him. I interpreted your statements in just the same way. Whether you intended it or not that's how they read.

 

[Cutlass]

Sex should not be based on mutually consenting parties. That should be a requirement for sex, but not the only requirement.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Consent is the fundamental requirement. And there really is not, nor should there be, any other requirement, above the age of consent. Children are considered unable to give consent. What age consent is allowed varies. But there's always some age.

Ritual. For monotheists, marriage is not merely a contract between two parties, it's a religious duty which carries mystical significance. I'm skeptical about the idea of secularism producing anything as effective, but making casual and premarital sex - for both men and women - taboo is a step in the right direction.

Make it taboo all you want. You aren't going to change how much sex take place, no matter how taboo it is. And government fundamentally does not have a right to interfere with that.

 

[Lexicus]

And government fundamentally does not have a right to interfere with that.

Except when the consent rule is broken.

 

[Arwon]

That's probably more due to the pressure against the state intruding into the 'household' than the idea that taking one's wife by force is morally acceptable. I think it should be considered a form of domestic abuse, but not as bad as regular rape.

Bloody hell. This is literal rape apoligism.

For the record, intimate partners are one of the major perpetrator groups of sexual violence. We're talking a majority here. In an EU Fundamental Rights Agency survey (PDF), about 11% of women reported experiencing any type of sexual violence. That was broken up into "Forced into sexual intercourse" "Attempted to force into sexual intercourse" "Made to take part in sexual activity against her will" and "Consented to sexual activity because was afraid what might happen" and each of those were 5% or 6%. individually, adding up to the 11% who experienced at least one of those.

Also at 5% or 6%, was the percent of women who had experienced each form of sexual violence by a previous partner since the age of 15. So about half of all those who reported being victims. For non-partners, it was 2% or 3% of women who experienced each of those. Even for current partners it was 1% for each.

In the last 12 months, more women experienced each of those forms of sexual violence from a current partner than from all non-partners.

(I should also note all these figures are virtually certain to be under-estimates.)

 

[Farm Boy]

This is a strawman. Nobody equalized it with hair pulling, much less said it should be permissible.

It is too late, I think. The dogma is too strong to recant.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

[snip]Couldn't resist throwing some craven Islamophobia in, eh? I'm sure you have paragraphs of special pleading backing this silly idea up.



The whole idea that the state should not intrude into the 'household' is based on the idea that a patriarch is who should control the household. Also for the record, I think considering marital rape anything less than full-fledged rape is reprehensible. And that you evidently disagree, again, doesn't really do anything to dispel the idea that you think men are entitled to sex from women.
[snip]

Sharia Law is fully incompatible with modern western feminism. This is a fact, no more debatable than the Earth is round and it revolves around a point within the sun. Sharia Law does not recognize marital rape as a crime. Women and minorities are especially oppressed under Sharia Law. Judaism and Christianity (more so Christianity) gave rise to western feminism. Unless you know Muslims, Sharia Law, or Islamic Philosophy, I cannot give credibility to your claims of Islamaphobia. I know 2 muslim men very well and neither respect women and one expressed a desire to comit sex crimes against American women. I’ve also read translations of parts of the Koran and commonly enforced laws in countries under Sharia Law.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are you expecting me to respond that yes, I'm pro-women-as-chattel or something? Look, imagine that you faced the same situation that these women are. Perhaps you might call it... morally objectionable, at the very least?

Whut?

I never accused you of being pro-women-as-chattel. I was pointing out that when women had to depend on the goodwill of their husbands or fathers to allow them to do the most ordinary things that modern women take for granted (vote, own property, control their own money and what they do with their property), that meant that these women were not really free. FFS, Canadian women have been considered "legal persons" for less than a century.

I see nothing in that article that relates to what I said. And yeah, I find the situations in the article utterly bizarre and repugnant - matchmakers telling young girls to "lose a few pounds" and the girls are so desperate to find a husband that they end up dying of anorexia. But as revolting as the situation is, those women are hardly being denied any rights as legal persons. They are being profoundly disrespected in other ways.

I mean that men should be given every opportunity possible to get a girlfriend/wife, and that the institution of monogamy makes it much easier.

What about every opportunity possible to get a boyfriend/husband? And for everyone, not only heterosexuals?

I want to set up a society in which sexual or romantic deprivation is very easy to ameliorate.

How would you go about doing that, in a way that's fair to everyone? And what about the people who aren't interested in sex or romance? Would you make it clear that those people are not to be shunned, belittled, harassed, or mocked? Would you outlaw spinster jokes? How about "You're not married?/You don't want children? What's wrong with you?"? I've had those questions thrown at me. As I said before on this forum, I don't owe the world my offspring.

Well, I don't think that the biblical figures themselves are very good models for this. But the Christian and Rabbinic (NOT Islamic) attitudes are very healthy.

What's healthy about books that say beating children is a good thing, and that women are supposed to listen to and obey their husbands instead of learning and doing things for themselves, or if they decide to? I seem to recall something in the bible about killing disobedient children. How is that a good or healthy thing?

That's probably more due to the pressure against the state intruding into the 'household' than the idea that taking one's wife by force is morally acceptable. I think it should be considered a form of domestic abuse, but not as bad as regular rape.

WHAT?!

Maybe I should take back the women-as-chattel comment. Marriage does not mean the husband acquires a sex slave that he can use any time he wants, regardless of whether or not she is also agreeable.

ANY unwanted/forced sex is rape. It doesn't matter if the rapist and the victim are married or not.

 

[Synobun]

This is a strawman. Nobody equalized it with hair pulling, much less said it should be permissible.

I don't feel it's a strawman. Tigranes qualified his example with lamenting that boys cannot be boys, that a 13 year old girl's peers defining her as "great boobs" is a mere joke or, maybe, an earnest attempt at displaying one's affections. Farm Boy followed up with saying it's one step off from pulling a girl's hair on the playground when you like them, and that behaviour like this should be expected. Neither made any attempt at condemning the behaviour. Both made an attempt at qualifying it as the expected norm.

Granted, Farm Boy edited his follow-up reply afterwards and I'm only reading it now. Apparently not allowing a collective of peers to objectify someone in a daily setting is akin to not being allowed to be sexual with one's spouse. I don't think I'm in strawman territory here.

It is too late, I think. The dogma is too strong to recant.

Yeah, man. I'm a victim of the "hey maybe don't sexualize children and allow their peers to objectify them wantonly" sizzurp. Careful, lest you become my next victim.

What do you mean by these two statements if not "women owe men sex as a matter of course"?

I'm really thankful that you're bringing attention to this. I wasn't willing to deal with the "whoa bro that question came out of left field" response I got and I'm glad that I'm not simply looking for demons in someone else's words.

 

[red_elk]

I don't feel it's a strawman. Tigranes qualified his example with lamenting that boys cannot be boys, that a 13 year old girl's peers defining her as "great boobs" is a mere joke or, maybe, an earnest attempt at displaying one's affections. Farm Boy followed up with saying it's one step off from pulling a girl's hair on the playground when you like them, and that behaviour like this should be expected. Neither made any attempt at condemning the behaviour. Both made an attempt at qualifying it as the expected norm.

There is a difference between "expected behavior" and "accepted norm". I for one, don't consider even pulling hair as something acceptable, but the punishment must be adequate in all cases.
In my opinion, the cases like beating or bullying, where the victim actually suffers and feels offended, are more severe.
And this personal note should not be a reason to kick the boy out of school. For me it's obvious.

 

[Farm Boy]

No chief, pulling hair isn't ok. It's violent. But we don't expel children at hair pulling age from school, nor should we expel boys just learning their own sexuality from school for writing notes like the one in the example. And expulsion* was indeed the example. What we should do, is teach. Expulsion is not teaching. You want to change the example, I'm happy to reassess the situation. But no, sir, I don't reckin' reducin' people to their stinky bits is 'ceptable behavior.

I mentioned the game "school or prison" earlier, where people try to guess which is which. There are echos of "school to prison" in that, which is commonly referred to as a pipeline. Best we remember who stands for that. They're the same people they always were, and they've always said they aren't.

*from cirriculars, cool. Slightly less stupid, but still stupid.

 

[Synobun]

There is a difference between "expected behavior" and "accepted norm". I for one, don't consider even pulling hair as something acceptable, but the punishment must be adequate in all cases.
In my opinion, the cases like beating or bullying, where the victim actually suffers and feels offended, are more severe.
And this personal note should not be a reason to kick the boy out of school. For me it's obvious.

He wasn't kicked out of school, he was kicked off his sports team.

And I would agree that, as a first line of discipline, that's way over the line. But even in zero tolerance districts they usually don't go for the nuclear option straight away. When I went through this process, the punishments started ramping up the more defiant the offenders were.

I only have what Tigranes felt was worth sharing, however. It's possible that this was the result of an extended attempt by school authorities to get the boy to apologize and he refused, or it may indeed be the case that they immediately jumped to this form of punishment. I don't know either way which is why I'm focusing on the general concept instead of the very specific punishment. Expulsion from an extracurricular seems fair if the offending party is consistently defiant.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, so we're changing the example. That's cool. So what, we're still at grown men reducing children to breeding sows?

 

[Ajidica]

Sharia Law is fully incompatible with modern western feminism. This is a fact, no more debatable than the Earth is round and it revolves around a point within the sun. Sharia Law does not recognize marital rape as a crime. Women and minorities are especially oppressed under Sharia Law. Judaism and Christianity (more so Christianity) gave rise to western feminism.

Sources desperately needed.

Unless you know Muslims, Sharia Law, or Islamic Philosophy, I cannot give credibility to your claims of Islamaphobia. I know 2 muslim men very well and neither respect women and one expressed a desire to comit sex crimes against American women. I’ve also read translations of parts of the Koran and commonly enforced laws in countries under Sharia Law.

This sounds uncannily like "I can tell this is a shop by the pixels and I've seen a lot of shops in my time."
Russia, hardly a county brimming with Sharia civil courts or Sharia influenced legal systems, has a pretty poor record on "respecting women" given the Duma recently passed a law giving perpetrators one free "get out of jail free" card for wifebeating.

 

[Synobun]

No chief, pulling hair isn't ok. It's violent. But we don't expel children at hair pulling age from school, nor should we expel boys just learning their own sexuality from school for writing notes like the one in the example. And expulsion* was indeed the example. What we should do, is teach. Expulsion is not teaching. You want to change the example, I'm happy to reassess the situation. But no, sir, I don't reckin' reducin' people to their stinky bits is 'ceptable behavior.

I mentioned the game "school or prison" earlier, where people try to guess which is which. There are echos of "school to prison" in that, which is commonly referred to as a pipeline. Best we remember who stands for that. They're the same people they always were, and they've always said they aren't.

*from cirriculars, cool. Slightly less stupid, but still stupid.

Ok, so we're changing the example. That's cool. So what, we're still at grown men reducing children to breeding sows?

Dude what

We don't disagree on this point, I don't think. Expulsion is an end-of-the-line decision. Education is great and should be the preferred path.

 

[red_elk]

Russia, hardly a county brimming with Sharia civil courts or Sharia influenced legal systems, has a pretty poor record on "respecting women" given the Duma recently passed a law giving perpetrators one free "get out of jail free" card for wifebeating.

First time offense doesn't lead to criminal record anymore, but perpetrator still can get up to 15 days arrest. Unless there was health damage, then it's a criminal offense.