Pages

Jump to bottom

239 comments

1 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:54:55am

Great discussion to have independently. Legally I have what feels like conflicting thoughts on rape accusations. In many cases it is the ultimate "he said-she said", "he said-he said", or "she said-she said". I believe in not-guilty until proven innocent and conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, I really cannot stand that in any high profile (or low profile, although within a smaller audience), there is always a significant backlash of victim blaming and slut shaming. Especially if the accusation is of one of their own, whether a celebrity or politician or "hero". Always there are assumptions, and not a tiny minority, that the bitch must be lying. Because thats what they do. Or that she was asking for it. Who goes home with a guy drunk anyway? Did you see what she was wearing? She's already fucked tons of people, what is one more?

And then there is the other side again. Accusations of sexual assault, even if dropped or acquitted, they stay forever. Our repulsion at the crime makes it one of the worst to be accused of. If the accused is of a different race or socioeconomic level than all the attending societal prejudices accompany the accusation. and vice-versa if the victim is of an underprivileged group.

Ultimately it is society that needs to change. At this point I would feel better if not every single time a woman alleges sexual assault she is immediately suspected, essentially re victimized. This is why so many women never report rape. Who wants to go through it?

2 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:23:06pm

This is a mess where there is no good reality.

Most cases of rape, the woman is rather clear from the start that she is not interested in many different ways. There really is little grey zone there.

We start getting into intractable parts of the law when we hit the grey zones of her changing her mind and when she changed her mind.

Obviously, obviously, the nano-second a woman says no, you (as a man) police yourself up - even if she was literally (and I mean in actuality) seducing you before, seemed "completely into it" up until that nano-second and you are one nanosecond from finishing.

Of course, how often does such a thing really happen? I have never encountered myself or met anyone with a story about a woman changing her mind mid sex.

This strikes me as so rare an actual behavior, in fact, that if a woman claimed she started out interested, and proceeded to the point of actual sexual relations, and then claimed that she changed her mind midway, and then was pressing charges, I would tend to suspect she is gaming the system and actually "changed her mind" much longer after the fact.

If such a thing did happen, she actually had second thought mid coitus, the only recourse a man has if she does something like that without a very good reason, is to consider her crazy and run screaming.

Obviously obviously, women are abused terribly the world over and given the basic nature of things, default support needs to go to the woman.

The flip side of this is, what about the small number of cases where the man is actually being set up by the woman? The vast majority of rape cases were an actual rape. I am not arguing that, and that is not my direction with this.

What I mean is that there is a subset of these cases where the man is actually being set up by a woman who is exploiting the system for whatever reason. There are all too many cases like this.

Now suppose you are the defence attorney of the accused man. The only thing you can do is attack the credibility of the woman.

This is why there will never be a solution. Say 9/10 accused rapists are guilty as sin, scumballs who deserve the worst punishments. 1/10 is not in that category. All 10 out of 10 have only one defense option, which is to counter attack the credibility of the woman.

3 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:36:10pm

re: #1 sizzleRI


Ultimately it is society that needs to change. At this point I would feel better if not every single time a woman alleges sexual assault she is immediately suspected, essentially re victimized. This is why so many women never report rape. Who wants to go through it?

Exactly. (I'm supposed to be making dinner, so I'll be around and about).
I think Jill makes some good points about the wingnutty media narrative on this. It's worth remembering that marital rape wasn't even a crime in all 50 states until 1986. Issues like this show that we don't really take female autonomy seriously-- access to a vagina once given can never be revoked, apparently.

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

I have never encountered myself or met anyone with a story about a woman changing her mind mid sex.

Even putting it this way buys into the wingnutty narrative: 'changing her mind midway'. That isn't the issue; the issues would be about consent being predicated upon condom usage, and about the right to say "Stop" during the act. Obviously these are things that happen all the time, whether you have encountered it or not.

Given how difficult it is to prosecute rape generally (as the post notes, many states still require force for nonconsent to be proven), it really isn't a surprise that people are reluctant to come forward in these grey areas.

Besides "She changed her mind" has always been the rapist's first line of defense, whether it's an assault by a stranger or date rape -- or marital rape.

4 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:41:11pm

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, you're touching on the legalities of what I meant by confusing. I am going to work on a thought our response because I have strong feelings about it all. I, like many women, have encountered situations and have friends who were the victims of sexual assault. I was also raised by a criminal defense attorney and am going to school to be one. So, yes complicated.

But my response to Iceweasel and the entire Assange sex angle was the anger I have at the undercurrent of misogyny and victim blaming that lace every conversation when a women accuses a man who someone respects. The merits of a rape accusation should be verified in judicial court.

5 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:47:00pm

re: #3 iceweasel

Even putting it this way buys into the wingnutty narrative: 'changing her mind midway'. That isn't the issue; the issues would be about consent being predicated upon condom usage, and about the right to say "Stop" during the act. Obviously these are things that happen all the time, whether you have encountered it or not.

I think you have misread me. I thought we were talking about general cases, and as you point out, "she changed her mind" is always brought up. As to consent predicated on condom usage in the Assange case, I think this is a perfect example of the system being gamed. The claim is that a condom was used and that it broke. That is hardly his fault. I am no fan of Assange, but doesn't it seem rather obvious that a questionable sexual crime was attributed to him precisely when he drew the wrath of the entire Western World?

Besides "She changed her mind" has always been the rapist's first line of defense, whether it's an assault by a stranger or date rape -- or marital rape.

I didn't think I could have been more clear about how ridiculous I think this is. I wrote specifically:

Most cases of rape, the woman is rather clear from the start that she is not interested in many different ways. There really is little grey zone there.

As to changing her mind specifically:

Of course, how often does such a thing really happen? I have never encountered myself or met anyone with a story about a woman changing her mind mid sex.

However, there is also the very real issue that women can be and are just as evil as men and they will exploit the system just as freely as men. There have been all too many grudge accusations of harassment and "after the fact" rape made in legal history.

The point I am making is:

This is why there will never be a solution. Say 9/10 accused rapists are guilty as sin, scumballs who deserve the worst punishments. 1/10 is not in that category. All 10 out of 10 have only one defense option, which is to counter attack the credibility of the woman.

I am not saying that I like the intractable problem and I am not saying that I think it is a good thing. I am certainly very sympathetic to the woman who was victimized and then re-victimized in court. I simply don't see how this can be avoided.

6 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:57:47pm

re: #5 LudwigVanQuixote

The point I am making is:

This is why there will never be a solution. Say 9/10 accused rapists are guilty as sin, scumballs who deserve the worst punishments. 1/10 is not in that category. All 10 out of 10 have only one defense option, which is to counter attack the credibility of the woman.

I am not saying that I like the intractable problem and I am not saying that I think it is a good thing. I am certainly very sympathetic to the woman who was victimized and then re-victimized in court. I simply don't see how this can be avoided.

There's two different issues here: how an individual criminal defendant responds (attack the credibility of the victim, obv) and how we as a society think of, talk about, and punish sexual assault. The first is the one you're (probably correctly) pointing out is intractable. The other is not.

And even in re 1-- it's not as intractable as all that. We now have some laws about victim's prior sexual histories or clothing say being irrelevant. We now acknowledge that prostitutes can be raped, and wives. We now notice media narratives that engage in slutshaming. Things can change, even if slowly.

there's an awful lot of nutty 'this is the kinda crazee law you get when you put wimminz in charge!' going on in the wingnut sphere today, for example. It's going to be interesting to see how many of the same wingnuts who want to see him assassinated by the CIA suddenly decide he's a Code Penis Freedom Fighter.

RSM already has a post up about the Feministe post and it's filled with all the sort of hawhaw, who wants to wear a raincoat good-ole-boy backslapping that you'd expect.

(for the record, i don't really care about assange at all nor have I been following it-- too busy!-- but these are important issues).

sorry this is all over the place-- multitasking. hope you're well!

7 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:43pm

Ever have your sergeant force a man to strip while you photograph him for physical evidence based on what turned out to be a patently false allegation that was later recanted? Count yourselves lucky because, perhaps not surprisingly, it's a less than enjoyable experience.

Now imagine that the alleged offense you're trying to investigate doesn't even require a single scrap of physical evidence to support it, your witnesses have been actively colluding with each other before coming to the police, and gave interviews to tabloid newspapers during your investigation. Also, one of your witnesses has written a detailed multi step guideline for getting legal revenge on a lover who cheats on or dumps them, and step 4 is "use your imagination." Lastly, your witnesses refuse to sign an actual criminal complaint, they insist they're just "seeking advice" on how to force a man to take an STD test, and that there never was any threat, force, or sense of fear involved.

I'm sure there are situations where the condom breaks, the woman notices, tells the man to stop, he doesn't and that's a form of rape. Yet the risk of bodily fluid transmission is always present in consensual intercourse, condoms do break, in rare occasions because the woman has sabotaged them. If a person didn't sign on for that risk, and aren't willing to deal with attendant consequences, perhaps they shouldn't be having sex.

Speaking solely as someone with experience in forensic analysis, I like cases that can actually be proved, that don't hinge entirely upon competing raw assertion. Especially when my only two witnesses know each other and have been colluding with each other prior to coming forward.

8 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:01:36pm

re: #6 iceweasel

There's two different issues here: how an individual criminal defendant responds (attack the credibility of the victim, obv) and how we as a society think of, talk about, and punish sexual assault. The first is the one you're (probably correctly) pointing out is intractable. The other is not.

1000 times this!. And I have talked to criminal defense attorneys about attacking the credibility of the victim. It is a thin line, juries don't love when attorneys cross the line. In makes me feel a little better about society.

9 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:05:15pm

re: #7 goddamnedfrank

Ever have your sergeant force a man to strip while you photograph him for physical evidence based on what turned out to be a patently false allegation that was later recanted? Count yourselves lucky because, perhaps not surprisingly, it's a less than enjoyable experience.
[...]
Speaking solely as someone with experience in forensic analysis, I like cases that can actually be proved, that don't hinge entirely upon competing raw assertion. Especially when my only two witnesses know each other and have been colluding with each other prior to coming forward.

You know what--this is not a thread about assange. . This thread was started to discuss issues that are independent of Assage.

There are several on the main blog though, and you can always start a page of your own about it.

10 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:03pm

re: #7 goddamnedfrank

Sorry if that sounded snippy. I'm perfectly happy to discuss issues about malicious false accusations of rape-- just not on a page that is specifically trying to deal with the difficulties in getting people to even understand what the notion of consent is in the first place.

I forgot to defrost the chicken for dinner and i'm cranky and hungry. Sorry!

11 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:09:54pm

re: #9 iceweasel

Respectfully, Ice, if this is not a thread about Assange, you might wish to change the tags you put on it.

12 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:30pm

re: #8 sizzleRI

There's two different issues here: how an individual criminal defendant responds (attack the credibility of the victim, obv) and how we as a society think of, talk about, and punish sexual assault. The first is the one you're (probably correctly) pointing out is intractable. The other is not.

1000 times this!. And I have talked to criminal defense attorneys about attacking the credibility of the victim. It is a thin line, juries don't love when attorneys cross the line. In makes me feel a little better about society.

It's a while since I checked, but it used to be the case that female jurors were more likely to blame the victim than male (in a rape trial) -- the going theory was that blaming the victim (for clothing, behaviour, where she was, etc) made the women feel "this couldn't have happened to me, *I* would never do X".

I think that does still happen somewhat.

13 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:42pm

re: #9 iceweasel

You know what--this is not a thread about assange. . This thread was started to discuss issues that are independent of Assage.

There are several on the main blog though, and you can always start a page of your own about it.

It seems inextricably twinned. The reason it's not a crime here is because it's nigh impossible to prove. If a woman asks a man to stop and he doesn't, I agree that veers over into force, rape, but how does she prove it without physically attempting to stop him?

14 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:13:08pm

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

Respectfully, Ice, if this is not a thread about Assange, you might wish to change the tags you put on it.

Well, it does come up in the article I linked, and therefore is useful for someone searching.

And I had the idea that this statement of mine was pretty clear:

This is not a post about Assange per se really but about the thinking behind various sorts of rape laws. I think it's a discussion worth having independently.

15 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:22:37pm

re: #13 goddamnedfrank

It seems inextricably twinned. The reason it's not a crime here is because it's nigh impossible to prove. If a woman asks a man to stop and he doesn't, I agree that veers over into force, rape, but how does she prove it without physically attempting to stop him?

Okay, this is a useful discussion. And this is imo a discussion worth having. We have a system that's different than sweden's; one reason is that we don't take the notion of consent as seriously, but a more valid reason is that it raises issues of proof. And by proof you physically attempted to stop someone, what counts? Moreover, there are going to be situations where you might believe you endanger yourself more by trying to physically stop someone.

Sorry, i'm prety tired. The case you gave about the sergeant-- sounds awful. And i know that accusations of rape are as sizzleRI points out something that can destroy men's lives even when wholly unfounded.

(For what it's worth I'm inclined to think you're probably right about Assange but we don't know enough yet. Sounds sketchy though and I'd rather not discuss it yet)

back in a bit

16 SpaceJesus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:07:24pm

I should go into the business of drafting mini contracts on the backs of condom wrappers that allow for both parties to give expressed consent.

Problem solved.

17 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:13:29pm

re: #12 iceweasel

In my experience, even women who have been victims of sexual assault (ranging from molestation to rape) invoke many of these ideas about themselves.

Actual conversation with a high school friend: "When I came to (she had been drinking) we were having sex and I asked him to stop. He kept going. It's my fault though. I was really drunk and he was my boyfriend. He told me it wasn't possible for a guy to stop."

Other examples abound.

18 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:19:40pm

re: #15 iceweasel

And by proof you physically attempted to stop someone, what counts? Moreover, there are going to be situations where you might believe you endanger yourself more by trying to physically stop someone.

What counts is anything that can be documented as with any other violent crime, scratches, scars, bruises (UV photography can lift even latent bruising), video or audio recording, eye witnesses, or a confession. I agree that situations exist where women might feel too frightened to attempt physically stopping their consensual partner turned surprise sex rapist, and I have no idea how to help those women under criminal law short of securing a confession from the man. I really do wish I could think of another way, but I can't. He said she said is more of a matter for civil courts to sort out, where the burden of proof is far lower.

19 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:20:25pm

re: #17 sizzleRI

In my experience, even women who have been victims of sexual assault (ranging from molestation to rape) invoke many of these ideas about themselves.

Actual conversation with a high school friend: "When I came to (she had been drinking) we were having sex and I asked him to stop. He kept going. It's my fault though. I was really drunk and he was my boyfriend. He told me it wasn't possible for a guy to stop."

Other examples abound.

Precisely. Maybe not just 'even women who have been assaulted' but 'especially'-- the culture works overtime on getting women to blame themselves.

re: #16 SpaceJesus

I should go into the business of drafting mini contracts on the backs of condom wrappers that allow for both parties to give expressed consent.

Problem solved.

okay, but I want each one to have a spacejesus aphorism on the back too. Like bazooka joe.

20 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:23:04pm

In terms of misogyny and social responses, this is something that I think can be mitigated. This is certainly something that must be mitigated.

However I do not think it can possibly ever be solved, without fundamentally changing the nature of human beings.

Before you read what I am about to write, I beg you not to read in any anger or any bitterness. I am simply writing about what I have observed in the way people tend to behave. It is also with the clear understanding that it takes two to tango.

The one clear advantage that women have always had over men is that many women can easily get most men to jump through all sorts of hoops with even just a hint of a promise of sexuality. Most women have figured this out. Most (if not all) straight women have exploited this basic aspect of human hardwiring to a greater or lesser extent in their own relationships. Many exploit it so casually that they do not even notice.

This is the root problem. To other women, who "slut shame" they are putting down their rivals by assuming that their rivals got places by this exploitation. In many cases, they are also no doubt jealous that they failed to exploit it first themselves, or worse, tried and failed. In cases where the accused woman actually did use the exploit, then those who did not exploit, rather rightly, think she cheated.

As to men. Every single straight man has met a dozen women who flirted at them as an attempt to manipulate. In many minds, she made a sort of contract with him. I am not saying that she did. I am just saying that many think that way, and for the manipulation to even work in the first place, it depends on men thinking that way.

If he ever gets wise to it, the fact that she meant nothing by it only adds to the resentment. Every man has that one gf who broke his heart or that one co-worker who gets her way with winks or wiggles or wears whatever revealing clothing, and he knows what she is up to.

The typical male response to this is anger. No one likes to be played for a fool.

I have been ruminating a lot about how very negatively I come down on the Fox News women for their teased hair and short skirts and featured bosoms. You know what? They dress like that on purpose. They are using their bodies and their sexuality to sell evil lies that hurt people and propaganda that hurts the nation as a whole. I have no problem calling them disgusting whores because they are.

I want to take this a little further. It is absolutely true that many times a man calls a woman he desires, but who wouldn't ever sleep with him, a "slut" out of anger and rejection.

What is much worse for a woman, is a man who himself, would never desire that woman, because he finds her repugnant, and she tries that crap on him. I call the filthy, repulsive, gutter sluts on Fox News, whores and mean it precisely because of the insult when they presume their tits will shut down my brain enough to buy their propaganda. It is not that I desire them or ever would desire them. They stand for things I consider evil. I despise their values. The thought of being intimate with a woman like that is repulsive to me. That she would invade my mental space by trying to project her sexuality into it, with an agenda that I find repulsive, makes me despise her instead of just her ideas.

This is all a long way of saying that The main larger problem is that women will never escape resent of their sexuality from men and other women, until most women never exploit their sexuality and most men stop falling for it. That si not going to happen.

21 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:29:12pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

I call the filthy, repulsive, gutter sluts on Fox News, whores and mean it precisely because of the insult when they presume their tits will shut down my brain enough to buy their propaganda.

Wow.... all I can say is Wow.

22 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:31:11pm

re: #21 Buck

Wow... all I can say is Wow.

Of course, in the case of a man who would desire the sexual advances of such women, it is convenient to imagine they would thank him physically for rising to their defense.

23 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:35:51pm

re: #22 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course, in the case of a man who would desire the sexual advances of such women, it is convenient to imagine they would thank him physically for rising to their defense.

No no... it would be better that they wear a black cloth cover from head to toe, and shut their mouths....

You cannot be responsible for your reaction to their .... what was the word you used? oh ya, featured bosoms...

You are so fucked up, I don't know where to start.

24 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:44:59pm

re: #23 Buck

No no... it would be better that they wear a black cloth cover from head to toe, and shut their mouths...

You cannot be responsible for your reaction to their ... what was the word you used? oh ya, featured bosoms...

You are so fucked up, I don't know where to start.

Or they could dress in a manner that said listen to my ideas. They could present themselves as grown up professionals with actual insights to discuss.

Rachel Maddow is awesome. I love Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow is a lesbian. I wold never ever have a shot with her even in principle.

Maddow dresses like a professional, talks like a professional and seeks to sway by force of reason and force of evidence. This is respectful of my intelligence and integrity.

The Fox News sluts dress that way in an attempt to sway with their bodies. It is insulting that they even try it.

As to how fucked up you think I am as always, your little brain goes straight to an Islamic example and misses the main point as always. Buck, this is a grown up conversation. Why don't you just sit down, learn to read, and then maybe you will learn something.

25 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:00:23pm

Right Rachel Maddow. This explains why your misogynistic rant specifically slams straight women.

Not just Fox announcers, but ALL straight women who either used their sexual powers to manipulate men (to make them jump through all sorts of hoops), or failed to try, or tried and failed.

AND your hostility towards women who have a different opinion than yours? Wow... the stream of .... women hating insults wold make a lesbian merchant marine blush.

I am actually working on a post for LGF pages that line by line details it. Before I publish it, I want to show it to a couple of feminists I know to get thier opinion. I am sure I am missing at least half of the hatred you displayed for women.

26 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:05:42pm

Actually, I should send it to Rachel Maddow, and get her reaction. What will she think of your language? You think she would approve?

27 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:06:32pm

re: #25 Buck

Wow how creepy and stalkerish Buck! Will you include the dozens of things that I write that are very strongly feminist, like my essay on how amazing most women physicists are? Will you write about my posts on womens education and sexual equality? Will you write about how I consistently point out the revered place women have in my own faith?

I am sure that when you eventually go over to the stalkers they will love you.

In the mean time, do what you will. No one here takes you seriously.

28 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:07:39pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

I'd have preferred to have this discussion without throwing around the term "whores" or "sluts" in any context. A lizard who apparently over-invested his precious respect in my pixels lost much of it yesterday because he thought my discussing the actual documented facts and evidence surrounding the Assange case was somehow unseemly. Whatever your intent, your editorializing about FOX News anchor women fits that term rather more closely, and either way we're ranging pretty far afield now from the original discussion of how various rape laws actually work, both in theory and application.

They stand for things I consider evil. I despise their values. The thought of being intimate with a woman like that is repulsive to me. That she would invade my mental space by trying to project her sexuality into it, with an agenda that I find repulsive, makes me despise her instead of just her ideas.

Operationally what you're describing here isn't that different from homophobia. If somebody you don't like and aren't attracted to tries to invade your "mental space" with a projection of their sexuality, that's no reason to despise them. Just let it go, they can't "make" you feel anything, your reaction is always your choice.

29 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:12:29pm

re: #27 LudwigVanQuixote

I am sure that when you eventually go over to the stalkers they will love you.

Ahh the final word.....calling me a stalker, and inferring that I belong with the stalkers... the others... the enemies.

This allows you to dismiss my points as coming from .... the enemy of everyone here.

classic

30 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:21:08pm

re: #28 goddamnedfrank

Operationally what you're describing here isn't that different from homophobia. If somebody you don't like and aren't attracted to tries to invade your "mental space" with a projection of their sexuality, that's no reason to despise them. Just let it go, they can't "make" you feel anything, your reaction is always your choice.

ON the contrary, I don't see gay men assuming they can seduce me into accepting their ideas. There is no comparison at all.

What I am talking about is no different than the notion that a pretty girl in a bikini can convince me to drink crappy bear. It is an insulting notion.

In the case of Fox News though, they are using sex to promote things which are much more evil than just drinking crappy beer.

Further, if you believe that women are the intellectual equals of men, and I adamantly do, then they should act like it and not try to sell ideas with wiffs of sexuality.

31 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:23:10pm

re: #28 goddamnedfrank

Actually thank you for helping me refine that. I added that notion to my thread on the topic.

32 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:25:46pm

re: #30 LudwigVanQuixote

ON the contrary, I don't see gay men assuming they can seduce me into accepting their ideas. There is no comparison at all.

No you think that most straight women assume they can seduce you into accepting their ideas.... it is the homophobe that thinks gay men are assuming they can seduce other men into accepting their lifestyle/ideas.

33 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:26:36pm

re: #28 goddamnedfrank

And as far as respect for pixels is concerned I respect all the commenters on this thread, save Buck, who is an idiot, immensely.

34 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:27:01pm

re: #32 Buck

NO I didn't say that at all, Buck. Learn to read.

35 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:31:32pm

re: #34 LudwigVanQuixote

NO I didn't say that at all, Buck. Learn to read.

The thought of being intimate with a woman like that is repulsive to me. That she would invade my mental space by trying to project her sexuality into it, with an agenda that I find repulsive, makes me despise her instead of just her ideas.

Now say it as a homophobe:

The thought of being intimate with a man like that is repulsive to me. That he would invade my mental space by trying to project his sexuality into it, with an agenda that I find repulsive, makes me despise him instead of just his ideas.

36 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:36:30pm

re: #35 Buck

OK Buck, the day they have an all gay Fox news channel that uses the same memes and techniques to push their propaganda in the form of gay sexual advances, I would say the same thing.

I would be less personally offended however, since the thrust of it was not pointed at me, but rather was trying to use sex to sway gay men.

In the mean time, learn to read. Then learn to think.

37 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:51:50pm

re: #28 goddamnedfrank

I'd have preferred to have this discussion without throwing around the term "whores" or "sluts" in any context. A lizard who apparently over-invested his precious respect in my pixels lost much of it yesterday because he thought my discussing the actual documented facts and evidence surrounding the Assange case was somehow unseemly. Whatever your intent, your editorializing about FOX News anchor women fits that term rather more closely, and either way we're ranging pretty far afield now from the original discussion of how various rape laws actually work, both in theory and application.

Bingo.

I've absolutely fucking had it with people referring to female politicians or newscasters they don't like with terms like 'sluts', 'gutter sluts' and 'whore'.
There is no reason on earth to use those terms. I've HAD IT.

38 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:59:44pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

I call the filthy, repulsive, gutter sluts on Fox News, whores and mean it precisely because

I. DON'T. CARE.

I've fucking had it with this. I've explained politely before to you and Cato that this is UNACCEPTABLE-- and I know I'll get back some barrage from you AGAIN defending your use of these terms, and topping it off with some other bullshit about how if only I were a REAL feminist I'd understand and not be offended.

Knock it the FUCK off. You're alienating people who want to agree with you. You add NOTHING to any discussion by using these terms, and guess what? Youj DON'T GET to tell women we're wrong to be offended when YOU use those words-- any more than you get to lecture black people about when they're ALLOWED to find something racist.

Just stop.

BTW, buck is of course a troll who wants to provoke all sorts of shit.

39 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:01:29pm

Out for the night. Ludwig, take 24 hours to think about what you're doing before you respond to me. Seriously.

40 Claire  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:12:30pm

LVQ - I'm not comfortable with your descriptions of women, either. It's creepy, too. I'm almost completely blown away. That's like serial killer talk.

Seriously, you have some major issues with women and sexuality. Major.

41 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:16:51pm

re: #39 iceweasel

Ice, I really don't think this should about threatening each other.

I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. I understand the harm you see from such language even existing.

I understand the unfairness with which it is frequently applied.

Now in terms of:

I've absolutely fucking had it with people referring to female politicians or newscasters they don't like with terms like 'sluts', 'gutter sluts' and 'whore'. There is no reason on earth to use those terms. I've HAD IT.

I do not merely dislike the lies on Fox. I do not merely disagree. These people are fucking evil and you know it. A woman who uses her body to sway people to evil is called all of those things and worse in this language.

Do you deny they are using their sexuality in an obvious way to sell the propaganda? Do you think that is appropriate?

OK, let's say we use other words for a woman who engages in this behavior. Call it NEWNOUN.

NEWNOUN: A woman who uses her sexuality in an attempt to manipulate others towards self serving or evil ends.

Given all of the very basic and obvious psychology that I pointed out in my post. How long before NEWNOUN is said with the same resentment level of all of those other words you hate?

The entire point is that there is a fundamental exploit of the system built in to our biology. Unless Both men and women resist employing or falling for the exploit, it will continue to be resented.

Now you can hate me for telling the truth like that. It does not change the truth.

42 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:22:31pm

re: #40 Claire

LVQ - I'm not comfortable with your descriptions of women, either. It's creepy, too. I'm almost completely blown away. That's like serial killer talk.

Seriously, you have some major issues with women and sexuality. Major.

I promise I do not. I have no issue at all with women or their sexuality. I have no issue with women choosing to express it. I have no problem with women expressing sexuality on their own terms, and I certainly do not have a problem with respecting the rights of women.

I have an issue with the presumed insult that I am so stupid that the tasteless displays on Fox are a substitute for thought.

What amazes me is that you are surprised that men would notice and resent obvious manipulation or attempts at it.

Also and this is important:

The main argument is that anyone promoting ideas should do so on the basis of the ideas. In order for women to gain the intellectual respect they deserve, which is absolutely equal to a man's, they need to present their ideas and not their bodies as a substitute for thought. It is insulting to those of who like to think when that happens, and it degrades all of women, by perpetuating the notion that women only achieve anything because of their bodies.

You don't see Beck or Rush having to be in shape or dressed like a male exotic dancer do you?

Why do you think there is such a double standard?

What do you think that double standard does for women?

43 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:25:29pm

re: #41 LudwigVanQuixote

Ice, I really don't think this should about threatening each other.

No one is threatening you. More downstairs.

I'm downdinging and reporting all posts that refer to women as sluts, gutter sluts and the like. I really have had it.

And you should have taken the time to think, really think, about the points I made before responding.

44 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:26:12pm

re: #43 iceweasel

I mean threatening friendship and making this personal.

45 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:27:48pm

Ya, LQ... I guess you figure it is above her head too.

Actually the main argument or root of the problem is:

The one clear advantage that women have always had over men is that many women can easily get most men to jump through all sorts of hoops with even just a hint of a promise of sexuality. Most women have figured this out. Most (if not all) straight women have exploited this basic aspect of human hardwiring to a greater or lesser extent in their own relationships. Many exploit it so casually that they do not even notice.

Right? Most straight women you have met and worked with have done this to you....manipulate you...those .........

46 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:28:24pm

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

I mean threatening friendship and making this personal.

What? Don't be nuts. Of course we're still friends -- I wanted to email you about this issue and haven't had time. I really, really, really have an issue with your use of those words and wish you'd think about what I've said.

47 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:29:07pm

re: #43 iceweasel

And I did think of your points. I disagree with them. One thing I do consistently always is refuse to engage in willful blindness.

Whatever we choose to call NEWNOUN behavior, it exists and has always existed and it is not nice and it is not good.

I have acknowledged all over, up and down, that most of the time a woman is called a NEWNOUN it is done unfairly and for bad reasons.

However, that does not preclude the fact some women really actually are NEWNOUNS

48 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:29:36pm

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

I mean threatening friendship and making this personal.

Again, I must point out that Buck is a shitstirrer of major proportions. Ignore the troll though and think seriously about what I've said, ok?

49 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:30:52pm

re: #46 iceweasel

What? Don't be nuts. Of course we're still friends -- I wanted to email you about this issue and haven't had time. I really, really, really have an issue with your use of those words and wish you'd think about what I've said.

Fair enough. I think that should go both ways. I really do hear your points. I am trying to refer to a basic psychology here that I see in action, and I brought up the Fox women because I was wondering why they piss me off just as much as the Fox men. The most odious of the Fox folks are the men. Yet the women piss me off as much.

This is the ultimate reason I think.

50 Claire  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:36:16pm

Why is there a double standard? Because men are weak, duh.

Is this how you view every women who comes into view- on whether or not you'd "do her?" These are not women in your workplace. These are not women you will ever meet in real life. Whether they pass your "I'd fuck 'em" test or not is moot. Do you treat actual women you meet this way? I hope not.

You resent their sexuality? Which isn't even that overt, they are just a collection of very pretty girls (with law degrees, lol.) Why do you resent it, and most men 99.99% don't have a problem with it? Most guys like looking at pretty women. Why you and only you? You have some issues. You just do.

51 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:36:24pm

re: #49 LudwigVanQuixote

Fair enough. I think that should go both ways. I really do hear your points. I am trying to refer to a basic psychology here that I see in action, and I brought up the Fox women because I was wondering why they piss me off just as much as the Fox men. The most odious of the Fox folks are the men. Yet the women piss me off as much.

This is the ultimate reason I think.

OK. MY point is that no argument is ever improved by using those words. This thread and yours is an illustration of that. They make people too angry to care or engage with any reasonable points you might have because of the use of them. So let's not use them. They're offensive, and not only to me.

You don't even have to agree with me to be able to see that, as well as the points I made downstairs.

We're not going to have some huge fight over this. No matter how much Buck et al would like it, heh.

52 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:49:24pm

re: #12 iceweasel

Women are much less generous to each other than men.
Great thread!
*waves*

53 The Left  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:52:50pm

re: #52 Floral Giraffe

Women are much less generous to each other than men.
Great thread!
*waves*

Hey cutie! Glad you liked it! Hope you're well. I will try to email you before the weekend. :) What's new? (and lvq too)

54 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 5:58:02pm

re: #51 iceweasel

I think the use of such words, stops it from being "civil discourse" and closes many minds, to what could otherwise be valid points. If you substitute profanity for insults, it has the same effect: shuts off many from the discussion.

55 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:00:47pm

re: #51 iceweasel

OK. MY point is that no argument is ever improved by using those words. This thread and yours is an illustration of that. They make people too angry to care or engage with any reasonable points you might have because of the use of them. So let's not use them. They're offensive, and not only to me.

You don't even have to agree with me to be able to see that, as well as the points I made downstairs.

We're not going to have some huge fight over this. No matter how much Buck et al would like it, heh.

It is hard bouncing upstairs and downstairs. I understand your point. I really do understand.

As to offending women. I hear that too. I do not want to offend women in general one bit. Not even close.

I am always of the opinion that women are just as bright, talented and capable as men in all things - except certain obvious physiological differences. Men really can't nurse a baby as well as a woman etc...

I certainly don't have an issue with women being sexual beings either.

I will refrain from using that language in an effort to not create unneeded strife.

That said, what about the elephant in the room?

Certain women most certainly do exploit their sexuality to manipulate men. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some reasons are much more noble than others.

What about the fact that when some of them do it for utterly selfish or evil reasons, men notice sometimes and get offended themselves?

Is the fact that I have noticed, and men have through the ages noticed, which is why we even have those words in the first place, not a valid observation? That being observed, how does one address the issue while being truthful to the basic feeling of disgust it engenders, without offending?

What I am asking Ice, is how would you say it?

56 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:03:13pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I think the use of such words, stops it from being "civil discourse" and closes many minds, to what could otherwise be valid points. If you substitute profanity for insults, it has the same effect: shuts off many from the discussion.

The the same question I just posed to Ice to you as well.

I am not talking about an abstract behavior that never happens.

What do you call it? What do you call the woman who does it?

I am specifically referring to manipulating others to her own selfish or evil ends, through her sexuality.

And I am not saying anything at all in a religious context. I mean where a woman literally uses her sexuality to manipulate men.

57 Aye Pod  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:03:20pm

re: #54 Floral Giraffe

I think the use of such words, stops it from being "civil discourse" and closes many minds, to what could otherwise be valid points. If you substitute profanity for insults, it has the same effect: shuts off many from the discussion.

Agreed, FG. Just popped in to say hi to you and Ludwig - we're off now but hopefully we'll see you tomorrow or so.

PS Ludwig - ice is happy that you have agreed not to use those words anymore. She'll write more later and says to say 'hi' to miss S.

58 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:07:30pm

re: #45 Buck

Looks like both of us think you're a dick Buck! See! The adults are talking. You should be quiet!

59 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:16:14pm

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

I am trying to think of a good comparison, but may have to let it percolate overnight. I also think people manipulate each other all the time, and in lots of different ways. Sex is just one of them, a powerful tool, but just one in the toolbox. I also think that people who rely on manipulation to achieve their goals, must be very insecure about themselves.

60 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:27:56pm

re: #58 LudwigVanQuixote

Yes it seems that everyone is happy to ignore the obvious fact.

I guess it is easier to pretend you aren't talking like a serial killer on meth. Calling me a troll for pointing it out makes people feel better.

61 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:31:54pm

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

So, I had to calm down before posting again. Ice covered everything I wanted to say. Especially in a thread about rape and he way that women are devalued for what they wear, how they look, and with horrible names. This devaluation contributes to rape culture. Fuck that. I don't care what those Fox women (and they are women, not whores or sluts or girls) wear or how they act. If they were raped none of it would matter. It would just mean they had the misfortune to be around a rapist.

62 Interesting Times  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:34:57pm

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

And I am not saying anything at all in a religious context. I mean where a woman literally uses her sexuality to manipulate men.

Why not ask why men continue to fall for it? :P Seriously though, you have to look at this in context - back in the good ol' days, sexuality was the only "weapon" women had. Unless they were independently wealthy or in a convent, just about the only way they could earn a living was marriage or prostitution. This is because misogynistic societies were deliberately set up that way, to make women feel as if they were worthless and powerless without men. So it's only natural (perhaps even evolutionary?) that this kind of thinking seeped into the "collective unconscious" of women.

Again, look at it in context - compare the length of time the most "enlightened" societies have been around to the length of time women have had something even close to a level playing field with which to work. Ingrained dynamics that have been around for 1000s of years aren't going to disappear overnight, even if the conditions that necessitated them have changed for the better.

...just the way all that CO2 won't disappear even if emissions ended tomorrow :/

63 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:41:09pm

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

The one clear advantage that women have always had over men is that many women can easily get most men to jump through all sorts of hoops with even just a hint of a promise of sexuality. Most women have figured this out. Most (if not all) straight women have exploited this basic aspect of human hardwiring to a greater or lesser extent in their own relationships. Many exploit it so casually that they do not even notice.

Yeah...flirting is part of human nature, we all do it. Doesn't make us all manipulative bitches. And I'd give up that one "clear" advantage if it meant I could hang out with a guy, after making it extremely clear I am not interested (Hi, my name is Sizzle, did I mention my girlfriend?, or before that just not flirting, never letting a guy pay) and inevitably having the guy say sure sure, and then spring a move. I'm not ridiculously hot, just ordinary. It fucking sucks. The whole time you're thinking "hey, this is cool we're having a fun time, he seems to respect what I'm saying" and then its sinks in as the hand comes over (not for the first time, after pushing it off previously) "oh, he just thinks I'm a vagina. Great."

Not most guys, thank god. But more than once. And I would guarantee most women would tell you the same.

So fuck that advantage, I don't want it.

64 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:44:57pm

I like you Ludwig, I've enjoyed your posts for far longer than I've been commenting. But this:

As to men. Every single straight man has met a dozen women who flirted at them as an attempt to manipulate. In many minds, she made a sort of contract with him. I am not saying that she did. I am just saying that many think that way, and for the manipulation to even work in the first place, it depends on men thinking that way.

Comes really fucking close to rape apology. A sort of contract?? This says it better than I ever could:

65 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:49:14pm

Women got the right to vote in the US in 1920.
(There are far too many places in the world where a woman is still a piece of property). That is a mere 90 years ago. Barely 3 generations ago.
We've really come very far.

66 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:54:18pm

re: #65 Floral Giraffe

We really have. On some days I consider it a blessing to be born now and here when I can complain about the sexism that still exists because I am not worrying about who I'll be married off to, if he'll only beat me occasionally, and how I would feed myself if my husband died or never materialized.

67 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:07:38pm

re: #64 sizzleRI

I like you too very much.

I realize that I wrote some stuff that was playing with fire.

I realize that what I wrote is easy to be interpreted with a lot of baggage I never intended. I'm not blaming you for reading me that way - but I must insist I don't mean it that way at all. Sometimes when I try to be accurate and say what I literally mean, I find that everything goes non-linear.

Perhaps if I change the emphasis...

In many minds, she made a sort of contract with him. I am not saying that she did. I am just saying that many think that way, and for the manipulation to even work in the first place, it depends on men thinking that way.

In other words, the sort of man who is scum enough to assume a "contract" is all too common, and those women who use sex as a manipulation could not succeed in doing so if there were not many such men.

In these cases obviously (or I had hoped it was obvious) I disapprove of both.

68 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:10:37pm

re: #64 sizzleRI

And that song rather shows that Anni Defranco gets what I am talking about too - at least as far as lowbrow men are concerned.

69 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:19:26pm

I probably won't surprise anybody to learn that I have trust issues. It happens, I've seen more than my fair share of bullshit behavior both personally and professionally and am no longer surprised by anybody's capacity for it.

My ex wife use pride herself, ironically in moments of candor, on what she thought was her excellent ability to lie and get away with it, her capacity to tell a convincing falsehood. She really wasn't that good at it, but anyway this was something she really believed about herself. Apparently she respected me too much to lie about any subject worse than her own infidelity, which didn't work, then it was over between us, we got divorced and we were friends again, sort of.

Friends enough that she thought it okay for me to know that she put a pin through the condom that her personal trainer at the gym used. Yes, she screwed her personal trainer, for real. Predictably she got knocked up, pretended it was a huge surprise, gave the kid his last name, etc. They're raising the kid together now, but they aren't together, he doesn't want to be with her but loves his child. He doesn't know.

What's the point? I'm not sure there is one except that like I said, I have trust issues. Yes some women lie but certainly most do not, and generally never about rape. Some men rape but certainly safeguards should exist to prevent false accusations from destroying lives. I use to deal in evidence, things that could theoretically be proven, for a living, until the endless capacity for human misery, mendacity and actual, godawful violence just burned me the fuck out. Enough I said, I'll just inject with radio isotopes and contrast dyes and help doctors look inside them for cancerous tumors and suchlike, because these kinds of diseases are comparatively much easier to diagnose.

70 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:21:05pm

re: #67 LudwigVanQuixote

You know, maybe I didn't take enough time to cool down before I responded. (I really do not respond well to calling women such dehumanizing names, I see red and then did not interpret the rest of your comment in a cooler mind). I understand that what we are discussing is more complicated than this medium, or really any, can handle perfectly. I really want to emphasize that I do not mean all men. Not even close. And I also think that sexual relationships and their derivatives are among the most complicated of human interactions. Its why I always try to separate in rape/sexual assault conversations the legal from the societal. I think somewhere up there goddamnfrank was talking about how some things are wrong but cannot be proven objectively in court. I absolutely agree. And I agree with you that it is matter of mitigation and not solvation(?).

Its funny, usually I am horrifying my liberal friends with my opposition to strict liability statutory rape laws and the problematic rape shield evidence rules. Shrug.

71 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:21:38pm

re: #68 LudwigVanQuixote

Yeah, I love her anyway, but she gets it just about perfectly there.

72 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:23:52pm

re: #63 sizzleRI

The one clear advantage that women have always had over men is that many women can easily get most men to jump through all sorts of hoops with even just a hint of a promise of sexuality. Most women have figured this out. Most (if not all) straight women have exploited this basic aspect of human hardwiring to a greater or lesser extent in their own relationships. Many exploit it so casually that they do not even notice.

Yeah...flirting is part of human nature, we all do it. Doesn't make us all manipulative bitches. And I'd give up that one "clear" advantage if it meant I could hang out with a guy, after making it extremely clear I am not interested (Hi, my name is Sizzle, did I mention my girlfriend?, or before that just not flirting, never letting a guy pay) and inevitably having the guy say sure sure, and then spring a move. I'm not ridiculously hot, just ordinary. It fucking sucks. The whole time you're thinking "hey, this is cool we're having a fun time, he seems to respect what I'm saying" and then its sinks in as the hand comes over (not for the first time, after pushing it off previously) "oh, he just thinks I'm a vagina. Great."

Not most guys, thank god. But more than once. And I would guarantee most women would tell you the same.

So fuck that advantage, I don't want it.

I hear that.

How about this. You are giving the other side of the coin of what I wrote.

You are taking the standpoint of someone who does not play games and simply wants the basic respect I think everyone should have without unnecessary drama.

So where does most of this drama come from?

Partially, it comes from the fact that men are stupid enough to believe a flirt is more than a flirt, or are easily swayed by it. Partially, it comes from women who exploit this fact.

Now here is the place where I hope we can bridge our views and see we are talking about similar things.

You say:

It fucking sucks. The whole time you're thinking "hey, this is cool we're having a fun time, he seems to respect what I'm saying" and then its sinks in as the hand comes over (not for the first time, after pushing it off previously) "oh, he just thinks I'm a vagina. Great."

When it comes to intellectual or political things, I am just thinking wouldn't be nice to talk about the issues. And then it sinks in as I notice the heaving breasts of the Fox broadcaster, (not for the first time, after being repulsed before by the mixture of sex and evil propaganda) that they think I am just incapable of controlling my penis enough to think.

The fact that many are that f'n dumb just makes it worse.

The fact that the Fox news woman is there precisely because of her sexual projection, doesn't help any more either.

Doubt that last is true, then why isn't everything that is said by the like of Beck said by a Chippendale?

Then I look at the whole thing and realize the way this is a doubly predatory cycle that sets women back ages and it pisses me off.

But I will be honest. What pisses me off the most is that I like women and I love sex, and seeing hot blondes say things that are utterly evil while dressed provocatively just insults me. It takes something I should like seeing, and channels everything positive about that, into disgust at the evil being said and the fact that people are trying to make evil sexy.

73 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:24:42pm

re: #69 goddamnedfrank

My ex wife use pride herself, ironically in moments of candor, on what she thought was her excellent ability to lie and get away with it, her capacity to tell a convincing falsehood. She really wasn't that good at it

I had to quote that first, because it is true of so many people. My ex-stepmother (who I still love because wtf I'm human and that is what we do) thought herself the master manipulator. Umm, not masterful if we all fucking knew when it was happening!

74 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:25:40pm

re: #69 goddamnedfrank

WOW. I don't think I would want to be friends with someone who did that.
You have earned your trust issues.

75 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:27:56pm

re: #73 sizzleRI

People that have to lie to achieve their goals, are not decent, positive, caring human beings. Yes, if they're family we still love them. But it's best if we know what they are, and still CHOOSE to love them.

76 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:29:23pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

If T&A didn't sell, the advertisers wouldn't use them.
In either direction.

77 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:31:20pm

re: #73 sizzleRI

Umm, not masterful if we all fucking knew when it was happening!

It's such a red flag, to brag about something like that. In retrospect I knew it too.

78 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:32:15pm

re: #76 Floral Giraffe

If T&A didn't sell, the advertisers wouldn't use them.
In either direction.

OK so coming full circle what do you call a woman, in this day and age, who knowingly and willfully uses her T&A to sell malicious lies, evil propaganda and utter falsehoods in the hopes of manipulating stupid men?

79 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:32:19pm

re: #69 goddamnedfrank

What she did there? To me that is also a denial of consent. Again separating the legal from the moral. But still it is.

To take it a step further, and this may be too much for some people, but the issues of the inequities of reproduction fascinate me. It seems unfair (biological, but still) that women have to bear all the physical bs. But at the same time, if a man does everything in his power short of remaining abstinent to prevent a child being born, he can still get stuck with the responsibility. And its not just the money; like your ex's personal trainer, its is also a life that you had a part in initiating. But a woman can do the same thing, but she has the option to abort. A man has no say in the decision, and he shouldn't because it happens to her, but should he then have to take responsibility for a child he never agreed to? I honestly don't think so.

80 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:32:53pm

re: #75 Floral Giraffe

wow, what a great way to say it!

81 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:33:35pm

re: #69 goddamnedfrank

That is one hell of a story. Damn.

82 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:36:26pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't think these are terrible points. I was just reading you firsts posts in the rape/consent way, so I think I was interpreting them in a sort of defense, as if some women are so disreputable they deserve whatever they get.

83 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:41:22pm

I don't know where this fits in the thread, but it seems appropriate. My stepfather is always willing to spar with me as I try to figure out the edges of criminal justice and morality and feminism.

Him: A woman doesn't ever have to worry about a false rape accusation.

(caveat - obviously not always true, women can rape and be falsely accused, but obviously men bear the brunt of this fear)

Me: Yeah, well how many men do you know who walk to the car with their keys beared out of their fist?

(again no absolute, women also worry more about getting drunk with strangers or even "friends", sometimes their partners, and men can fear physical attack

84 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:42:55pm

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so coming full circle what do you call a woman, in this day and age, who knowingly and willfully uses her T&A to sell malicious lies, evil propaganda and utter falsehoods in the hopes of manipulating stupid men?

What do you call a Chippendale's male dancing boy?
Or a Hooters waitress, they are one and the same.

Silly punchline? Employed!
///

85 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:42:55pm

re: #62 publicityStunted

I am sorry I missed this post earlier.

Why not ask why men continue to fall for it?

I do! They are morons! How could you think I am letting them off the hook?

:P Seriously though, you have to look at this in context - back in the good ol' days, sexuality was the only "weapon" women had.

I thought I had clearly acknowledged that.

Unless they were independently wealthy or in a convent, just about the only way they could earn a living was marriage or prostitution. This is because misogynistic societies were deliberately set up that way, to make women feel as if they were worthless and powerless without men. So it's only natural (perhaps even evolutionary?) that this kind of thinking seeped into the "collective unconscious" of women.

Agreed of course. This is why I wrote that I don't think the issue will ever go away completely and can only be mitigated.

Again, look at it in context - compare the length of time the most "enlightened" societies have been around to the length of time women have had something even close to a level playing field with which to work. Ingrained dynamics that have been around for 1000s of years aren't going to disappear overnight, even if the conditions that necessitated them have changed for the better.

Agreed of course. This is why I wrote that I don't think the issue will ever go away completely and can only be mitigated.

...just the way all that CO2 won't disappear even if emissions ended tomorrow :/

Agreed of course. This is why I wrote that I don't think the issue will ever go away completely and can only be mitigated.

86 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:44:44pm

re: #84 Floral Giraffe

What do you call a Chippendale's male dancing boy?
Or a Hooters waitress, they are one and the same.

Silly punchline? Employed!
///

Of course they are the same. Why do you think that is a punchline?

This is more evidence my whole line of reasoning.

Why doesn't Fox use Chippendales, but they do use Hooters girls?

87 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:45:56pm

re: #82 sizzleRI

I don't think these are terrible points. I was just reading you firsts posts in the rape/consent way, so I think I was interpreting them in a sort of defense, as if some women are so disreputable they deserve whatever they get.

God forbid!

My very first post had the following in it.

Obviously, obviously, the nano-second a woman says no, you (as a man) police yourself up - even if she was literally (and I mean in actuality) seducing you before, seemed "completely into it" up until that nano-second and you are one nanosecond from finishing.

Obviously I mean that.

88 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:48:26pm

re: #86 LudwigVanQuixote

Men are more visual?
In the former business world of sales, I can honestly name both men & women who traded on their looks, or sexuality as a competitive edge.
I think men are possibly more conscious of "trading" with it, and that women haven't had the freedoms to be competitive without it for very long.

89 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:49:51pm

re: #87 LudwigVanQuixote

*smooch*
I know you do.
sizzleRI please trust LVQ.

90 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:53:21pm

re: #82 sizzleRI

I suppose what I really learn from this is that certain words, even when used surgically, get people so angry that one's points are lost.

I find this frustrating.

I really did use them surgically, because the women on Fox literally, obviously, in your face and (in Maxim too!) are using sex to sell evil propaganda. They are disgraceful.

And one other note, just as women women really hate to have their emotional reactions invalidated, men do to. I really am sickened by the behavior. I really do find it utterly offensive and insulting to me as a man.

You, I presume would hate the idea of someone assuming crassly that you are an idiot because you are a woman and then acting in ways that would try to exploit that. Why is it not offensive in reverse?

Moreover, the English language has those words in the first place, precisely because men get angry at such behavior.

So I guess what I am saying is that I really get how ineffective accurate discussion one's responses can be. That doesn't make my revulsion less real, or the behavior I am upset about less real.

91 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:55:07pm

re: #88 Floral Giraffe

Men are more visual?
In the former business world of sales, I can honestly name both men & women who traded on their looks, or sexuality as a competitive edge.
I think men are possibly more conscious of "trading" with it, and that women haven't had the freedoms to be competitive without it for very long.

Exactly. Hence it is obvious that the Fox people are using the exploit. That pisses me off. Not just that they are using it, but on the more primal - "who do you think you are!" level.

92 Interesting Times  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:56:01pm

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

OK so coming full circle what do you call a woman, in this day and age, who knowingly and willfully uses her T&A to sell malicious lies, evil propaganda and utter falsehoods in the hopes of manipulating stupid men?

You just reminded me of one deeply disturbing story.

It was a girl, I think 15 or 16, who set up a pay-access website where she posted borderline soft-core porn images of herself (not nude, but "revealing" clothing and "suggestive" poses).

Her mother knew about it and approved.

The girl's rationale, when asked if she was comfortable with middle-aged men ogling her image?

"Every time I go to the supermarket, I get stared at anyway, so might as well make some money off it."

93 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:57:31pm

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

I am always of the opinion that women are just as bright, talented and capable as men in all things - except certain obvious physiological differences. Men really can't nurse a baby as well as a woman etc...

I think that in many ways, you are much more educated and enlightened than the average American. And that the average American is more educated and enlightened than much of the rest of the world.

94 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:00:29pm

re: #93 Floral Giraffe

I am always of the opinion that women are just as bright, talented and capable as men in all things - except certain obvious physiological differences. Men really can't nurse a baby as well as a woman etc...

I think that in many ways, you are much more educated and enlightened than the average American. And that the average American is more educated and enlightened than much of the rest of the world.

Well I do appreciate that.

95 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:04:58pm

re: #89 Floral Giraffe

Honestly, I really do. And I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation. But I really will never go with the slut, whore, etc. Just not cool with me. I still like Ludwig, promise. (I really love the Jewish law lessons, so cool and enlightening.)

96 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:05:04pm

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

you just can't help yourself

When it comes to intellectual or political things, I am just thinking wouldn't be nice to talk about the issues. And then it sinks in as I notice the heaving breasts of the Fox broadcaster, (not for the first time, after being repulsed before by the mixture of sex and evil propaganda) that they think I am just incapable of controlling my penis enough to think.

The fact that many are that f'n dumb just makes it worse.

The fact that the Fox news woman is there precisely because of her sexual projection, doesn't help any more either.

Everyone saw you apologize, and thought you were all better.

It isn't sex or evil propaganda, it is simply an opinion that is different than yours. Ya, women have breasts, even Rachel Maddow. You generalize about all the women who are on Fox News. You call them dumb simply because they disagree with you and have breasts.

And no way they could be qualified (former lawyers and broadcasters), they are ALL only good for one thing. Looking pretty and shutting up.

You are so busted. Saying that you think women are just as good as men...I am sure they are happy to hear that. Except if they hold a conservative view, or simply disagree with you. We know what they are then.... don't we?

In all the posts that told you how offensive you are being, you never really apologize. You never really acknowledge the horrible hurtful things you say. You never really admit that you are wrong.

and you are wrong.....you just don't know it.

97 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:07:43pm

re: #96 Buck

Obvious troll is obvious.

98 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:09:16pm

re: #87 LudwigVanQuixote

Obviously, obviously, the nano-second a woman says no, you (as a man) police yourself up - even if she was literally (and I mean in actuality) seducing you before, seemed "completely into it" up until that nano-second and you are one nanosecond from finishing.

I absolutely believe you. And its true of most men in my experience. I really want to emphasize that.

99 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:09:34pm

What tweeks me is that if it's a problem of human nature, using sexuality towards a means to get something, then why aren't men included in this discussion? Men don't lie, manipulate women or use their sexuality to get a woman in bed?

And I guess that means that CNN, MSNBC or those "liberal" stations have disgusting, pig women anchors?

Veronica de la Cruz
Soledad O'brien
Kiran Chetry
Betty Nguyen
Amy Robach
Erin Burnett
Contessa Brewer

All gorgeous women. What they look like has nothing to do with what's coming out of their mouths. I detest Fox anchors, the men and the women, but it certainly isn't based on how I perceive some undercurrent message of sexuality.

So Ludwig, my friend, you have a long way to prove your point. Further, the things you're saying is really what rapists say. They were lured or teased by a woman. And if you say that a woman doesn't even know she's doing it, than the only way to prevent is by... I don't know... wearing a burka?

Another reason I detest religious dress codes. For women anyway.

I'm tired of being blamed for a man's inability to control himself.

Gotta go with Iceweasel on this one.

100 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:10:11pm

re: #96 Buck

Buck, OK in the interests of showing how equal opportunity I am with language:

I despise repugnant little men too. You are worse than the women on Fox because you are one of the stupid ones who knee jerk defends all of the evils they and their male counterparts purvey.

You actually believe that Rush's racism or Becks neo-fascism are ok, excusable things. You think the disdain for the poor and the suffering is just ducky.

So let me tell you what you are.

You are an aspiring rasha.

There is no harsher word I know. Now fuck off.

101 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:11:36pm

re: #92 publicityStunted

Most of us women learn quickly as teenagers. At first attention is flattering, especially if you feel ugly/awkward (and what 15 year old girl doesn't sometimes/always?). And then it gets creepy, and often kind of scary.

102 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:12:02pm

re: #99 marjoriemoon

What tweeks me is that if it's a problem of human nature, using sexuality towards a means to get something, then why aren't men included in this discussion? Men don't lie, manipulate women or use their sexuality to get a woman in bed?

And I guess that means that CNN, MSNBC or those "liberal" stations have disgusting, pig women anchors?

Veronica de la Cruz
Soledad O'brien
Kiran Chetry
Betty Nguyen
Amy Robach
Erin Burnett
Contessa Brewer

All gorgeous women. What they look like has nothing to do with what's coming out of their mouths. I detest Fox anchors, the men and the women, but it certainly isn't based on how I perceive some undercurrent message of sexuality.

So Ludwig, my friend, you have a long way to prove your point. Further, the things you're saying is really what rapists say. They were lured or teased by a woman. And if you say that a woman doesn't even know she's doing it, than the only way to prevent is by... I don't know... wearing a burka?

Another reason I detest religious dress codes. For women anyway.

I'm tired of being blamed for a man's inability to control himself.

Gotta go with Iceweasel on this one.

Of course men lie cheat and do all sorts of things to manipulate women. What makes you think that those who do are getting any slack for it from me?

How, however does that fact excuse the women who do so?

103 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:14:27pm

re: #99 marjoriemoon

Veronica de la Cruz
Soledad O'brien
Kiran Chetry
Betty Nguyen
Amy Robach
Erin Burnett
Contessa Brewer

Are not in the process of selling a political agenda based in evil. They also don't sit on couches where there short skirts are always in danger of rising up in order to keep the rubes hoping fr a panty shot.

104 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:14:39pm

re: #102 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course men lie cheat and do all sorts of things to manipulate women. What makes you think that those who do are getting any slack for it from me?

How, however does that fact excuse the women who do so?

It doesn't excuse them. It means it's not a woman's issue. It's a human issue, because men do it just as often.

105 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:16:52pm

re: #103 LudwigVanQuixote

Are not in the process of selling a political agenda based in evil. They also don't sit on couches where there short skirts are always in danger of rising up in order to keep the rubes hoping fr a panty shot.

They don't wear short skirts or low cut blouses? I'm sure I can scan the net quickly to disprove that.

106 Buck  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:19:13pm

re: #100 LudwigVanQuixote

Buck, OK in the interests of showing how equal opportunity I am with language:

I despise repugnant little men too. You are worse than the women on Fox because you are one of the stupid ones who knee jerk defends all of the evils they and their male counterparts purvey.

You actually believe that Rush's racism or Becks neo-fascism are ok, excusable things. You think the disdain for the poor and the suffering is just ducky.

So let me tell you what you are.

You are an aspiring rasha.

There is no harsher word I know. Now fuck off.

You don't know me at all. You just throw insults and accusations my way, and think they stick.

You don't know me. You don't know how I feel about the poor or the suffering.

You don't know me. You can call me a troll, or a stalker... but I know the real truth. I am the guy who called you on your bull shit.

Yep, you have shown time after time that you really don't have anything more than name calling, and swearing. I am not the only one who has noticed the misogynist nature of your posts. It was not an accident, you did it once, were told how offensive you were being and then copied and pasted the whole thing again....

guilty as charged.

107 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:21:43pm
108 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:22:20pm

re: #104 marjoriemoon

It doesn't excuse them. It means it's not a woman's issue. It's a human issue, because men do it just as often.

Actually not at all in the same way. Women in my experience are no where nearly as visual as men. A scantily clad man will not at all produce the same response in women that a scantily clad woman will produce in men.

OK, there is a reason why women tend to be better at keeping eye contact in conversations with the opposite sex than men.

A woman who is dressed provocatively is without doubt being provocative.

Before reading anything into that which is not intended....

OF course that does not imply consent to unwanted advance.

However, let's not kid ourselves. If some women were not trying to be alluring, they would wear comfortable clothing and shoes. There would not be a multi billion dollar cosmetic industry. Magazines like Cosmo would not exist and most importantly, they would not flaunt.

I am not saying that being alluring is bad either. Please don't read that into what am writing.

I am saying that no-one unless they are utterly stupid exposes a lot of skin and does themselves up and thinks they are NOT going to get attention.

It is a woman's right to do so, and under most circumstances, I am very happy wen she chooses to do so.

When a woman does this to try to sell me something evil though, I get offended.

109 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:23:41pm

re: #104 marjoriemoon

I think I have been trying to find a way to say this. Women can be assholes as much as men. And men can manipulate anyway possible as much as women. Including sex. (And we'll ignore for the moment that assholes and manipulators are present in the gay male and lesbian community as well. Funny that, seems like its human behavior and not just sexist heterosexual driven behavior.)

110 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:25:42pm

re: #99 marjoriemoon

I am a shameless flirt. I don't think it's harmful. I use my wiles all the time.

Generally, women understand nothing more is meant by it. When they don't, it can be handled gracefully.

There's a big difference between happy flirting and devious manipulation; the latter person is normally a rather unhappy soul.

111 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:27:29pm

re: #110 Obdicut

Yes! Sexuality can be fun!

112 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:28:47pm

re: #79 sizzleRI

What she did there? To me that is also a denial of consent. Again separating the legal from the moral. But still it is.

Yep, couldn't agree more. It's also none of my business and the guy absolutely adores his daughter.

Funny thing is that the ex always wanted a boy, use to say that if she had a daughter that would mean God was punishing her because of how difficult she herself was as a kid. Whatever, I'm just grateful they moved away.

113 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:29:05pm

re: #105 marjoriemoon

They don't wear short skirts or low cut blouses? I'm sure I can scan the net quickly to disprove that.

OK I will be honest. I have exactly the same emotional response you would to an unwanted advance. The women you are talking about are still not - as far as I have seen as provocative as the ones on Fox, but that is not the real root of my reaction.

If some skeezy guy is hitting on you, you hate it right?

He may even be really good looking, but he's a creep so you really really don't like his attentions right? You really don't like him projecting his sexuality at you because it is nauseating right?

There are all sorts of nasty dehumanizing words women use for creeps like that too. And I don't have a problem with it because I am not a guy like that. I think they are scum too. How friendly a word is scum BTW?

OK fine. So some woman who is a creep on Fox is projecting her sexuality at me while saying things which are utterly evil, things like not feeding the hungry or helping the poor. How do you think I feel about that?

114 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:30:16pm

re: #47 LudwigVanQuixote

And I did think of your points. I disagree with them. One thing I do consistently always is refuse to engage in willful blindness.

Whatever we choose to call NEWNOUN behavior, it exists and has always existed and it is not nice and it is not good.

I have acknowledged all over, up and down, that most of the time a woman is called a NEWNOUN it is done unfairly and for bad reasons.

However, that does not preclude the fact some women really actually are NEWNOUNS

Sometimes it's better to just objectively describe the behavior and steer clear of the word. The words have connotations that "newnoun" doesn't have. You're being a physicist, and we're not talking physics here. In physics and in math, words mean exactly and only their official, carefully defined, prescriptive meaning.

In the rest of life, there's a lot of spillover. Your friends are trying to tell you this, and you're responding with more of the same exact, analytical logic. Missing the point entirely, which is unusual for you.

Sleep on it?

115 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:34:02pm

re: #110 Obdicut

Oh, and gay guys are fun to flirt with precisely because they know I'm straight and nothing is possibly going to come of it. Lesbians, to, in the vice-versa way.

If there's any major difference between myself online and myself in person, it's a lack of flirtation, given that it's basically just creepy on the interwebs.

116 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:34:36pm

re: #108 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually not at all in the same way. Women in my experience are no where nearly as visual as men. A scantily clad man will not at all produce the same response in women that a scantily clad woman will produce in men.

OK, there is a reason why women tend to be better at keeping eye contact in conversations with the opposite sex than men.

A woman who is dressed provocatively is without doubt being provocative.

Before reading anything into that which is not intended...

OF course that does not imply consent to unwanted advance.

However, let's not kid ourselves. If some women were not trying to be alluring, they would wear comfortable clothing and shoes. There would not be a multi billion dollar cosmetic industry. Magazines like Cosmo would not exist and most importantly, they would not flaunt.

I am not saying that being alluring is bad either. Please don't read that into what am writing.

I am saying that no-one unless they are utterly stupid exposes a lot of skin and does themselves up and thinks they are NOT going to get attention.

It is a woman's right to do so, and under most circumstances, I am very happy wen she chooses to do so.

When a woman does this to try to sell me something evil though, I get offended.

You're not a woman so you have no idea about the reaction women get when looking at a man she finds attractive and it can indeed be sexual and lustful. We size up the foot and hand index, check out the pecs or how nice he's lookin in those tight jeans. Why do you think it's so much different? It's not.

117 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:34:48pm

re: #109 sizzleRI

I think I have been trying to find a way to say this. Women can be assholes as much as men. And men can manipulate anyway possible as much as women. Including sex. (And we'll ignore for the moment that assholes and manipulators are present in the gay male and lesbian community as well. Funny that, seems like its human behavior and not just sexist heterosexual driven behavior.)

So of course this is true. And that comes back to my basic point.

There are fundamental words that we use for users, and gigolos and male prostitutes. Women are not offended by using these words to describe those scummy men.

I think they are reprehensible scum too and deserve the language. I like being accurate more than I like being diplomatic.

Yet women who indulge in the same behavior are exempt from the harsh criticism they deserve by using the equivalent words. I am not going to even whine about the double standard. I can see clearly that ignoring it will derail all of the real points I am trying to make.

Speaking for myself. I am offended by the women on Fox for indulging in obviously shallow manipulative behavior designed to sell me evil with the thought that I am so out of control of my man parts that such a thing will work.

118 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:37:11pm

re: #117 LudwigVanQuixote

There are fundamental words that we use for users, and gigolos and male prostitutes. Women are not offended by using these words to describe those scummy men.

Gigolo has a generally positive meaning. Definitely not nearly as negative as whore.

Yet women who indulge in the same behavior are exempt from the harsh criticism they deserve by using the equivalent words.

The words aren't equivalent, because the sexual status of men and women in our society isn't equivalent.


Speaking for myself. I am offended by the women on Fox for indulging in obviously shallow manipulative behavior designed to sell me evil with the thought that I am so out of control of my man parts that such a thing will work.

Sure. But it's got nothing to do with sex in particular. It's just manipulation. They try to get you through a lust for violence too, and a desire to belong to the 'in' group.

119 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:37:22pm

re: #116 marjoriemoon

You're not a woman so you have no idea about the reaction women get when looking at a man she finds attractive and it can indeed be sexual and lustful. We size up the foot and hand index, check out the pecs or how nice he's lookin in those tight jeans. Why do you think it's so much different? It's not.

Women are certainly sexual beings. I am certainly not suggesting that they don't respond to visual cues at all. However, the suggestion that women are just as visual as men contradicts everything I have observed on the matter for my entire adult life.

120 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:37:34pm

re: #110 Obdicut

I am a shameless flirt. I don't think it's harmful. I use my wiles all the time.

Generally, women understand nothing more is meant by it. When they don't, it can be handled gracefully.

There's a big difference between happy flirting and devious manipulation; the latter person is normally a rather unhappy soul.

I'm also a flirt. So is my husband. Well, one can call it charm. He's very charming.

I agree re the happy flirting/devious manipulation. Now if you're out in a club trying to get laid, that would be BOTH men and women, you're ok with the manipulation. That's the game, after all. But as to someone who uses sex in their daily lives, I've dated plenty of men who have used their money, charm and all around ego to get into my pants when that was ALL they wanted to do.

121 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:39:02pm

re: #112 goddamnedfrank

Yep, couldn't agree more. It's also none of my business and the guy absolutely adores his daughter.

Funny thing is that the ex always wanted a boy, use to say that if she had a daughter that would mean God was punishing her because of how difficult she herself was as a kid. Whatever, I'm just grateful they moved away.

I'm glad you're rid of her. You seem to be a guy who deserves better. It's good to be a little distrustful anyway. But I hope you can find someone (if you haven't already!) that appreciates you.

122 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:40:50pm

re: #118 Obdicut

Gigolo has a generally positive meaning. Definitely not nearly as negative as whore.

For me they are the same. Perhaps my problem here is that I really do think of men and women are equal and I really do not excuse bad behavior in one, but not the other.

The words aren't equivalent, because the sexual status of men and women in our society isn't equivalent.

You have scored a point. I shall have to meditate on that.

Sure. But it's got nothing to do with sex in particular. It's just manipulation. They try to get you through a lust for violence too, and a desire to belong to the 'in' group.

Those things are offensive too. However, I am surely not the first man to notice a woman he does not like trying to manipulate him sexually become repulsed and even insulted.

123 Claire  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:40:55pm

re: #116 marjoriemoon

What's the foot and hand index?

124 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:41:33pm

re: #120 marjoriemoon

I'm also a flirt. So is my husband. Well, one can call it charm. He's very charming.

I agree re the happy flirting/devious manipulation. Now if you're out in a club trying to get laid, that would be BOTH men and women, you're ok with the manipulation. That's the game, after all. But as to someone who uses sex in their daily lives, I've dated plenty of men who have used their money, charm and all around ego to get into my pants when that was ALL they wanted to do.

I am not at all opposed to flirting.

Like all people though I only want people I like flirting with me.

125 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:44:27pm

re: #122 LudwigVanQuixote

For me they are the same

That doesn't matter in the least.

Perhaps my problem here is that I really do think of men and women are equal and I really do not excuse bad behavior in one, but not the other.

No, your problem here is that you're attempting to get other people to accept your definitions of words, when language doesn't work that way. It's what people understand your words to mean that matters, not what you privately mean by them.

In England, the 'C-word" is said rather frequently-- it's still a hash pejorative, but it's nowhere near the harshness that it is when used in the US. It doesn't matter if an English person only means level 3 harshness when he uses it, because every American will hear level 7.

Those things are offensive too. However, I am surely not the first man to notice a woman he does not like trying to manipulate him sexually become repulsed and even insulted.

Sure. But it's all just manipulation. I fail to see why an appeal to sex needs it's own retaliatory language applied, and not an appeal to violence.

126 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:45:31pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

OK I will be honest. I have exactly the same emotional response you would to an unwanted advance. The women you are talking about are still not - as far as I have seen as provocative as the ones on Fox, but that is not the real root of my reaction.

If some skeezy guy is hitting on you, you hate it right?

He may even be really good looking, but he's a creep so you really really don't like his attentions right? You really don't like him projecting his sexuality at you because it is nauseating right?

There are all sorts of nasty dehumanizing words women use for creeps like that too. And I don't have a problem with it because I am not a guy like that. I think they are scum too. How friendly a word is scum BTW?

OK fine. So some woman who is a creep on Fox is projecting her sexuality at me while saying things which are utterly evil, things like not feeding the hungry or helping the poor. How do you think I feel about that?

About terminology. A lot of women have a visceral reaction to certain words because they are used pretty much exclusively to dehumanize a woman. And those words don't have the same meaning if applied to a man at all. I don't have that strong a reaction as Ice, but I can completely understand and agree with her.

Fox women are creepy, but not for their dress... or undress. I don't put the two together.

127 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:46:37pm

re: #118 Obdicut

The words aren't equivalent, because the sexual status of men and women in our society isn't equivalent.

ding ding ding

128 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:47:14pm

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

I don't know about women, but to be incredibly blunt, *I've* called it off mid-coitus because it wasn't working, and this is with me on the receiving end. If it happens to me I'm sure it's happened to many women. For whatever reason. You're sick, you get dizzy, you get a cramp, you have to pee, the guy sid something gross or creepy, whatever.

129 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:47:32pm

re: #115 Obdicut

Oh, and gay guys are fun to flirt with precisely because they know I'm straight and nothing is possibly going to come of it. Lesbians, to, in the vice-versa way.

If there's any major difference between myself online and myself in person, it's a lack of flirtation, given that it's basically just creepy on the interwebs.

YOU may know nothing will come of it. I'm not sure they do! I've known some gay men who have had... shall we say experiences? with straight men.

By the way, what are you wearing?

130 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:48:51pm

re: #128 WindUpBird

I kept trying to respond to this, and you did it better than I ever could. I'm so glad you and marjorie and obdicut made it over. I was floundering with my explaining.

(all joking aside, sometimes you really have to pee!)

131 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:49:30pm

re: #117 LudwigVanQuixote

So of course this is true. And that comes back to my basic point.

There are fundamental words that we use for users, and gigolos and male prostitutes. Women are not offended by using these words to describe those scummy men.

I think they are reprehensible scum too and deserve the language. I like being accurate more than I like being diplomatic.

Yet women who indulge in the same behavior are exempt from the harsh criticism they deserve by using the equivalent words. I am not going to even whine about the double standard. I can see clearly that ignoring it will derail all of the real points I am trying to make.

Speaking for myself. I am offended by the women on Fox for indulging in obviously shallow manipulative behavior designed to sell me evil with the thought that I am so out of control of my man parts that such a thing will work.

Calling a man a whore doesn't have nearly the same connotation. What about the B word or the C word? What in woman-speak would be equivalent? Bastard doesn't even make it.

132 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:50:06pm

re: #129 marjoriemoon

Nah, I'm a San Francisco veteran, and I know how to do the "totally straight flirt" with gay guys. Never had a single dude not get the message just fine. It's all in the eyebrows.

By the way, what are you wearing?

A smile.

133 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:51:52pm

re: #119 LudwigVanQuixote

Women are certainly sexual beings. I am certainly not suggesting that they don't respond to visual cues at all. However, the suggestion that women are just as visual as men contradicts everything I have observed on the matter for my entire adult life.

Maybe we hide it better. I know you don't buy that and I couldn't convince you.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld "contest".

At any rate, I gotta get to bed. Ya'll have a good night.

134 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:52:01pm

re: #128 WindUpBird

I've both called it off in the middle and had it called off. I dated a lot of women with issues, and in my experience, a lot of women can get freaked out in the middle and need you to stop right fucking then.

And I've called it off during, likewise, since I got sexually abused as a kid and sometimes get bad moons rising. Not so much these days, but it has happened.

135 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:52:25pm

re: #126 marjoriemoon

Fox women are creepy, but not for their dress... or undress. I don't put the two together.

That is because it isn't sexually pointed at you.

As to your other points and Obdi's points, I get, I really get that my choice of words derailed my points. In the interest of being effective at communicating I will refrain from using them.

But I am at a loss.

I am at a loss Obdi, because I meant level 10 harshness. I despise these people. I despise the men on Fox at a 10 too. There is no imbalance.

The only difference is that Beck's vinegary man boobs simply could never under any circumstance be physically appealing to me, while if the women at Fox weren't just as utterly evil, some of them might be physically appealing.

In fact the very act of hey she's attractive - mental check, she is utterly evil - pisses me off.

136 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:53:41pm

re: #133 marjoriemoon

Studies have shown that women are just as 'visual' but they tend to have much more varied tastes. Men tend to like similar things-- out of a group of 100 women, 100 men will generally rate them mostly in the same order. Women tend to like different things-- shown a group of 100 men, 100 women will rate them highly variably. In addition, they'll rate them differently in terms of long-term and short-term attractiveness.

137 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:55:45pm

re: #135 LudwigVanQuixote

I am at a loss Obdi, because I meant level 10 harshness. I despise these people. I despise the men on Fox at a 10 too. There is no imbalance.

But it has an area-of-affect on all nearby women at harshness 5.

And there's nothing you can call the men that will have an equivalent level of harshness. No specific words.

I'm also just not as into the voicing of despisement as you are. It doesn't do anything for me. I just say that they're basically worthless to me and that I don't know how they live with themselves, and that's my version of a strong condemnation. I don't feel the need to adjective it up.

138 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:57:10pm

re: #128 WindUpBird

I don't know about women, but to be incredibly blunt, *I've* called it off mid-coitus because it wasn't working, and this is with me on the receiving end. If it happens to me I'm sure it's happened to many women. For whatever reason. You're sick, you get dizzy, you get a cramp, you have to pee, the guy sid something gross or creepy, whatever.

Yeah ok, those are very good reasons.

When I said unless she has a good reason in the earlier post, I literally meant that.

Obviously, obviously if your partner is uncomfortable, you stop. In the context of that post, I thought it was given, it was presumed that everything was going great and then "out of the blue" she changes her mind. I meant that never happens.

Right, and this was after being really really clear that you stop period the nano second anyone say no for whatever reason.

I think one of the things I am learning from this thread is just how awful people are to each other and as a result how much is assumed and presumed to be implied when talking about certain things, because so many have had bad experiences or have friends who have had bad experiences.

139 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:57:48pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

Obviously, obviously if your partner is uncomfortable, you stop. In the context of that post, I thought it was given, it was presumed that everything was going great and then "out of the blue" she changes her mind. I meant that never happens.

Yes, it does.

140 What, me worry?  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:58:42pm

re: #136 Obdicut

Studies have shown that women are just as 'visual' but they tend to have much more varied tastes. Men tend to like similar things-- out of a group of 100 women, 100 men will generally rate them mostly in the same order. Women tend to like different things-- shown a group of 100 men, 100 women will rate them highly variably. In addition, they'll rate them differently in terms of long-term and short-term attractiveness.

Interesting. I could see that.

I do have to get, but I guess the bottom line for me in this argument is what I said upthread. Whatever I wear or don't wear, how covered I am or not, there will be a man who will ogle me. But to blame a woman for that is pretty awful stuff, whomever she is. No woman should have to cover herself because a man can't manage his own hormones and yes, I know how powerful that urge is.

141 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:58:50pm

re: #134 Obdicut

Dude, I was trying to find a way to say it. My sister has mental health issues and she used to call it off (she may still) during sex. And her ex-boyfriend would stop immediately, because it wasn't a fucking turn on for him when she started crying and saying no. I have talked to both of them about it, and its the same story. I think now he would just not keep doing it, but they were 19 and in love and not sure what the fuck was happening.

142 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:59:10pm

re: #132 Obdicut

Nah, I'm a San Francisco veteran, and I know how to do the "totally straight flirt" with gay guys. Never had a single dude not get the message just fine. It's all in the eyebrows.

A smile.

A cute smile!
Glad you joined this discussion.

143 Interesting Times  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:00:37pm

re: #135 LudwigVanQuixote

In fact the very act of hey she's attractive - mental check, she is utterly evil - pisses me off.

Ever heard the term "hate fuck"? There was some controversy on Wonkette a while back when commenters were using it in the context of morally repulsive but physically attractive pundits/politicians. Some thought it meant rape, but others responded no, it means consensual sex with someone you otherwise despise because the physical attraction either overcomes the intellectual/moral revulsion or is strengthened(!) by it.

To be brutally honest, it's why I have a hard time "getting" some of what you're writing, because I've seen so much evidence of men putting aside revulsion with all other aspects of a woman simply because of her looks. The most hideous example I can think of is a poll done in response to a particularly gruesome husband/wife serial killer team in Ontario, where a sizable number of men said they'd be willing to sleep with the thoroughly evil but physically attractive wife.

Can you imagine any sane woman saying the same thing about her rapist-murderer husband?

144 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:04:01pm

re: #137 Obdicut

But it has an area-of-affect on all nearby women at harshness 5.

Acknowledged.

And there's nothing you can call the men that will have an equivalent level of harshness. No specific words.

You are probably right. But when I write seriously harsh stuff about Beck and Rush, that to my mind is even more intense, people don't seem to mind. Of course, that is more evidence you are correct though.

I'm also just not as into the voicing of despisement as you are. It doesn't do anything for me. I just say that they're basically worthless to me and that I don't know how they live with themselves, and that's my version of a strong condemnation. I don't feel the need to adjective it up.

We are different people. Like I said before, I don't opine, I don't guess, I know for a fact that these creatures are working very hard to kill billions and end our civilization. I am also not kidding or joking or exaggerating when I write that these people are evil as far as I am concerned.

I am not writing a threatening screed here either. The last thing I need is someone thinking that I want to go out and do something evil myself.

However, when I write that in a just world many of these monsters would be tried for crimes against humanity and executed, I am not kidding. If we had a mature society based on real values, these monsters would not be allowed to do what they do.

145 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:05:24pm

re: #139 Obdicut

Yes, it does.

OK, then it is rare.

146 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:06:53pm

re: #133 marjoriemoon

Its kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. As a feminist I do not want to objectify women. But being attracted women it is hard not to. I try not to with every day women, but the force feeding of images by the media makes it very difficult. It is actually one of the reasons I denied my attraction to women for so long. It wasn't that I was attracted to women, it was just that women are sexualized and presented as objects apart from their humanity. Male gaze I believe is the reference in women's studies. So what if I was thinking about doing women when I got off sometimes, it was just a larger part of the cultural sexualization of women.

Sometimes people think too much. Then I fell in love with a women.

147 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:07:26pm

re: #144 LudwigVanQuixote

You are probably right. But when I write seriously harsh stuff about Beck and Rush, that to my mind is even more intense, people don't seem to mind. Of course, that is more evidence you are correct though.


Yeah, it's just the way language works.

We are different people. Like I said before, I don't opine, I don't guess, I know for a fact that these creatures are working very hard to kill billions and end our civilization. I am also not kidding or joking or exaggerating when I write that these people are evil as far as I am concerned.

I just consider them the problem. I don't have a solution. The problem isn't just them on the TV, it's the ones who fund them and the ones who support them. They may be evil, but what they mostly are is something that needs to change. Either the people themselves needs to change, or our culture needs to change so that we no longer tolerate people like that.

148 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:08:37pm

re: #144 LudwigVanQuixote

Acknowledged.

If we had a mature society based on real values, these monsters would not be allowed to do what they do.

I think that you are expecting a level of competence, and maturity that our society does not yet, and may never, have. Unrealistic expectations, Sir.

149 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:09:07pm

re: #145 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, then it is rare.

In my experience, it is also not rare. I think partially because of my own experiences with abuse I tended to have relationships with women who had a history of abuse as well-- not that I sought them out, but, well, unfortunately they're very common and like often seeks like.

So in my experience, it was rather the norm. Not every time, obviously, but for some women, depressingly frequently.

150 bratwurst  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:10:50pm
151 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:13:17pm

re: #143 publicityStunted

Ever heard the term "hate fuck"? There was some controversy on Wonkette a while back when commenters were using it in the context of morally repulsive but physically attractive pundits/politicians. Some thought it meant rape, but others responded no, it means consensual sex with someone you otherwise despise because the physical attraction either overcomes the intellectual/moral revulsion or is strengthened(!) by it.

Ohh dear God that is disgusting! Yes I have heard the term. I am very much in the camp that is rape.

What I am saying is that like most men, I respond to visual cues. If a normally physically attractive woman is sending those cues and she is not evil, great! Hey thanks for sharing, I'm taken, but thanks for sharing!

If the woman sending them is vile it causes revulsion in the same way that getting hit on by some guy you find repugnant would offend you. I would not touch one of the Fox women with someone else's penis.

To be brutally honest, it's why I have a hard time "getting" some of what you're writing, because I've seen so much evidence of men putting aside revulsion with all other aspects of a woman simply because of her looks.

Yeah, I'm not like that. I simply can't be attracted to evil people. The point is one of being insulted by the presumption that I would be so stupid and shallow in my morals as to be attracted by her even though I know she is evil!

The most hideous example I can think of is a poll done in response to a particularly gruesome husband/wife serial killer team in Ontario, where a sizable number of men said they'd be willing to sleep with the thoroughly evil but physically attractive wife.

Did I mention clearly that many men are utterly stupid and easily led by their peckers and this is the root of the exploit? What a perfect example of what I am describing and why I am offended that the Fox people try to use it on me!

Can you imagine any sane woman saying the same thing about her rapist-murderer husband?

No, but I know of all sorts of insane women who were attached to the worst men. Eva Braun springs to mind.

152 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:24:27pm

re: #146 sizzleRI

Its kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. As a feminist I do not want to objectify women. But being attracted women it is hard not to. I try not to with every day women, but the force feeding of images by the media makes it very difficult. It is actually one of the reasons I denied my attraction to women for so long. It wasn't that I was attracted to women, it was just that women are sexualized and presented as objects apart from their humanity. Male gaze I believe is the reference in women's studies. So what if I was thinking about doing women when I got off sometimes, it was just a larger part of the cultural sexualization of women.

Sometimes people think too much. Then I fell in love with a women.

OK there is nothing wrong with enjoying someone's appearance in general. There is nothing wrong with flirting, and I am a huge believer in no harm no foul and what goes on behind other people's closed doors is not my business.

Also, frankly we have all, I think had people in our lives that we were (or are) thrilled to have look at us with that sort of gaze.

If Miss S looks at me that way, I am a very very happy man. If it is some other woman, I am flattered. If it is some really repulsive woman (and I really only get truly repulsed by a sort of spiritual ugliness) I become insulted and skeeved out.

What matters is how you respond to the flirt. You can do so in mature and respectful ways.

I think this basic thing is true for most people. I am hardly a puritan. I do however like things in heir time and their place. I do not think that men or women who are trying to be professional should also try to be flirty or provocative in the work place, academics or journalism in general.

Since TV News is entertainment, the women will always be physically attractive to some extent. That is the nature of the beast. However, I don't blame them for being attractive. I do blame people for assuming that looks will replace intelligence or spirit with me.

153 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:35:30pm

re: #152 LudwigVanQuixote

Since TV News is entertainment,

I think that, in many ways, the changing of "news" into "entertainment" is a very bad thing. I also don't feel that it is important to our daily lives to be "up to the minute". Who cares? Spend time with friends & family, the Wheel of Time keeps Turning.

154 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:42:04pm

re: #28 goddamnedfrank

I'd have preferred to have this discussion without throwing around the term "whores" or "sluts" in any context. A lizard who apparently over-invested his precious respect in my pixels lost much of it yesterday because he thought my discussing the actual documented facts and evidence surrounding the Assange case was somehow unseemly. Whatever your intent, your editorializing about FOX News anchor women fits that term rather more closely, and either way we're ranging pretty far afield now from the original discussion of how various rape laws actually work, both in theory and application.

Operationally what you're describing here isn't that different from homophobia. If somebody you don't like and aren't attracted to tries to invade your "mental space" with a projection of their sexuality, that's no reason to despise them. Just let it go, they can't "make" you feel anything, your reaction is always your choice.

Quite Concur.

I'm late to this one but for a rarity you've got my full agreement, Frank.

155 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:46:50pm

re: #153 Floral Giraffe

I think that, in many ways, the changing of "news" into "entertainment" is a very bad thing. I also don't feel that it is important to our daily lives to be "up to the minute". Who cares? Spend time with friends & family, the Wheel of Time keeps Turning.

I hear you, Floral, but that's one thing Bernard Goldberg is right about: Once the network's news divisions started to turn a profit (which happened in the mid-to-late 1970's) management stopped seeing them as a duty-driven money loser and started expecting them to continue to turn profits. Cable news channels have always been expected to pay for themselves. The need to make money causes all news networks to cater to audience preferences to make the needed money. Fox News is the worst on this score, but all three cable newsnets engage in this sort of action by neccessity.

156 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:11:14pm

re: #145 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, then it is rare.

You might want to stop with these snap rushes to judgement:

Why do women with panic disorders not panic during sex (or do they)? Results of an empirical study on the relationship of sexual arousal and panic attacks [abstract]

...

Contrary to our hypothesis, 30% of our sample did panic during sexual activity, 50% experienced a loss of control and 70% of the sample did not panic during sex, in spite of overlapping sensations.

157 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:15:36pm

And to all the Stalkers who have used this thread to attack Ludwig and Iceweasel, I say the following:

Both LudwigvonQuixote and Iceweasel are better people than you've shown yourselves to be. They are actually trying to deal with a nasty and complex issue, while you rant and make obscene attacks. So leave them the hell alone.

158 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:18:11pm

re: #156 goddamnedfrank

You might want to stop with these snap rushes to judgement:

OK. It is not a snap rush to judgement. It is not in my experience or the experience of any one I have spoken to - until now. If I am wrong about how infrequent it is, my principle of you stop if she says no, no matter what still applies.

159 sizzleRI  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:20:38pm

re: #157 Dark_Falcon

DF, you are one of the people who I admired so much and then would get so angry with! while I would read through threads. But you really do try to discuss every thing in a civilized and respectful manner all the time. You are a mensch. I'll probably still get short tempered with you. Forgive me.

160 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:21:46pm

re: #159 sizzleRI

DF, you are one of the people who I admired so much and then would get so angry with! while I would read through threads. But you really do try to discuss every thing in a civilized and respectful manner all the time. You are a mensch. I'll probably still get short tempered with you. Forgive me.

It's not a problem. LGF has always been a tough room, but you do well in it. As long as we keep our perspective, we're good. And you do keep your quite well.

161 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:34:00pm

re: #134 Obdicut

I've both called it off in the middle and had it called off. I dated a lot of women with issues, and in my experience, a lot of women can get freaked out in the middle and need you to stop right fucking then.

And I've called it off during, likewise, since I got sexually abused as a kid and sometimes get bad moons rising. Not so much these days, but it has happened.

Sometimes things just Go Wrong!

162 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:39:44pm

re: #159 sizzleRI

Glad to have your valuable input!
Please do keep speaking, or typing out!

163 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:44:00pm

Goodnight, all. Thanks for the mostly civilized discourse. I learn a lot here.
Ice & Jimmah, hope you're not too heavily snow bound. Or if you are, Jimmah's wearing crampons this year. Be safe, be well, & be kind to each other.

164 NJDhockeyfan  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:20:44am

re: #20 LudwigVanQuixote

I call the filthy, repulsive, gutter sluts on Fox News, whores and mean it

Wow Ludwig, you just made the most offensive post on LGF I have ever seen. People like you just disgust me.

165 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:18:23am

Sigh.

166 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:37:05am

re: #157 Dark_Falcon

And to all the Stalkers who have used this thread to attack Ludwig and Iceweasel, I say the following:

Both LudwigvonQuixote and Iceweasel are better people than you've shown yourselves to be. They are actually trying to deal with a nasty and complex issue, while you rant and make obscene attacks. So leave them the hell alone.

They won't leave him or Ice alone ever. They're going to be 80, half blind, can't walk, hunched over their keyboards pounding out insults. We ignore them for the most part which is a good thing.

I love Ludwig, despite the fact that I strongly disagree with him on this. He doesn't hate women, least that's never been my impression. He's passionate and he lets his passions run. In the end, I'd rather be friends with someone who is passionate than someone who sits there like a bump on a log with no thoughts or feelings about anything.

167 tradewind  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:39:49am

re: #24 LudwigVanQuixote

The Fox News sluts dress that way in an attempt to sway with their bodies. It is insulting that they even try it.


There. Are. No. Words.

168 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:18:23am

Obdicut, sizzleRI, and marjorie all did an excellent job of explaining why these words are offensive-- they are gendered, sexually degrading insults used to 'put women in their place'. They simply do not, and cannot, have the same meaning when applied to men-- because men and women do not have the same status in society.

Ludwig has said he won't use them again and appears at the end of the thread to understand why they're objectionable thanks to posts by Obdicut et al on this point. (It's one I've made in the past and I'm tired of making it.) I'll be especially happy if he edits the page he created about this to remove them-- the page that Buck trolled him into posting.

Thanks especially also to marjorie for her posts. There isn't any good defense or justification for using these words and your posts about MSNBC anchors etc help to show that there is no reason to reserve them for the 'specially evil' women of Fox news: This is an attempt to reserve the right to use sexually degrading and demeaning terms for women-- when you don't like them!

And that's an old, old story.

Thanks to everyone who participated; I'm glad that this wasn't a bloodbath. Thanks to lostlakehiker for calming words of reason, gd-frank, Obdicut, and WUB for sharing their stories, and everyone else.

169 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:19:34am

re: #150 bratwurst

Image: delivers.jpg

This. Heh.

170 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:23:31am

BTW,

Women's sexuality isn't something that's 'pointed at you'. It's something we, ourselves, own.

What I'm learning from this thread is that some men experience desire as something women are doing to them.

Which again, is an old old story, but it's always interesting to see how it hasn't gone away.

171 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:25:19am

re: #143 publicityStunted

hey ps-- I'll be back in a bit-- agree and wanted to say something about that wonkette issue later.

Cheers to everyone I didn't get to yet-- busy busy busy...

172 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:29:29am

re: #99 marjoriemoon

What tweeks me is that if it's a problem of human nature, using sexuality towards a means to get something, then why aren't men included in this discussion? Men don't lie, manipulate women or use their sexuality to get a woman in bed?

And I guess that means that CNN, MSNBC or those "liberal" stations have disgusting, pig women anchors?

Veronica de la Cruz
Soledad O'brien
Kiran Chetry
Betty Nguyen
Amy Robach
Erin Burnett
Contessa Brewer

All gorgeous women. What they look like has nothing to do with what's coming out of their mouths. I detest Fox anchors, the men and the women, but it certainly isn't based on how I perceive some undercurrent message of sexuality.

So Ludwig, my friend, you have a long way to prove your point. Further, the things you're saying is really what rapists say. They were lured or teased by a woman. And if you say that a woman doesn't even know she's doing it, than the only way to prevent is by... I don't know... wearing a burka?

Another reason I detest religious dress codes. For women anyway.

I'm tired of being blamed for a man's inability to control himself.

This, all of it, forever and ever.

173 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:43:22pm

re: #170 iceweasel

BTW,

Women's sexuality isn't something that's 'pointed at you'. It's something we, ourselves, own.

What I'm learning from this thread is that some men experience desire as something women are doing to them.

Which again, is an old old story, but it's always interesting to see how it hasn't gone away.

Here is something I just posted on the thread about RSM's actual vile rape fantasies.

This sick, sick depraved stuff is the other side of what I was writing about yesterday.

There are so many ways that people simply abuse each other and justify abusing each other. It is all disgusting in the worst possible ways.

If yesterday, I was sickened by the ways that certain women manipulate stupid men, today I get treated to the ugly, ugly side of abusive men who wish to prey on women.

I suppose the real mediation here to come up with is that the right wing these days is based on the most selfish, everyone for themselves, "I got mine, F-U sort of mentality."

In this way, both of those disgusting things become one in the same.

RSM sees women as object for his enjoyment, and how dare they complain about the actions of an ubermensch like him! They asked for it. He never has responsibility. He never needs to see women as people.

The women on Fox use their sexuality to sell propaganda and turn themselves into such objects. Sure it is all part of the way get they get paid. It's show business. The rubes are stupid... They asked for it. She never has responsibility. She never needs to portray women as people.

Do I make any more sense now?

This is all just a repugnant cycle of abuse, self abuse and dehumanization perpetrated by those who only ever think of themselves, and have no care for others as an enshrined philosophy.

What I'm learning from this thread is that some men experience desire as something women are doing

This is particularly offensive.

Now as to women owning their sexuality, yes of course women own their sexuality as much as men. The choice to broadcast it is up to them as much as it is up to men.

So please get this straight before turning this into a philosophical rant about things it just isn't.

No it is not that men or women project their sexuality and others just can't help themselves. It is that men and women project their sexuality and it is not desired to be projected.

In order for you to be even remotely correct on this point, all that make up, the ridiculously short skirts and the heaving breasts, would have to not be sexual cues that were literally being broadcast.

Of course they are. When that gets mixed with a message of selling pure evil, I don't like it. I find it repulsive. Your thinking on this is at least as colored by your lit-crit notions of feminism as my thinking on this is colored by notions of tsniut. I am not interested in debating all the details, but you are completely off in your understanding of where I am coming from.

I'm not going into how right or wrong the language I used is. Take it as a reflection of my revulsion of how disgusting this whole thing is. However, don't try to prop up a false feminine victim philosophy, when the reality here being discussed involves people who know exactly what they are doing.

174 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:48:02pm

re: #173 LudwigVanQuixote


I'm not going into how right or wrong the language I used is. Take it as a reflection of my revulsion of how disgusting this whole thing is. However, don't try to prop up a false feminine victim philosophy, when the reality here being discussed involves people who know exactly what they are doing.

I get it. Words are offensive when you say they are, and you're the one who's really being victimized.

Fuck off.

175 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:50:58pm

re: #174 iceweasel

I get it. Words are offensive when you say they are, and you're the one who's really being victimized.

Fuck off.

Ice, I already said that the use of those words derailed my entire point.

I won't use them because it seems everything Isaid has been lost because of them.

We aren't talking about that anymore.

Please read what I just wrote and actually understand where I am coming from before putting words into my mouth?

176 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:56:33pm

re: #170 iceweasel

BTW,

Women's sexuality isn't something that's 'pointed at you'. It's something we, ourselves, own.

Of course. That means they are responsible for how they choose to use it and broadcast it just like men are. PERIOD. No way around that!

So if you would be offended by a man broadcasted at you in a way that offends you, why can't a man be offended by the way some women choose to broadcast their sexuality. I do not in general find women's sexuality offensive. That is not the point. I do not even hate mini-skirts! What offends me is the tawdry way Fox uses sex to sell propaganda and these women degrade themselves and other women to do it.

What I'm learning from this thread is that some men experience desire as something women are doing to them.

And that would be the wrong lesson.

Which again, is an old old story, but it's always interesting to see how it hasn't gone away.

Only you are not seeing that at all. You are however busy reading into things much that is simply not there.

177 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:08:41pm

re: #174 iceweasel

I get it. Words are offensive when you say they are, and you're the one who's really being victimized.

Fuck off.

And one other note. Please calm down and listen to your own complaint.

I understand that the way I chose to express what offended me upset others in ways that were not intended and I am sympathetic to the fact that others can get offended. Just as you expect that of me, I expect the same from you.

You do not get to tell me when I find certain things offensive or not.

Right?

You want me to validate that you were offended by my language. I have. NOw have the courtesy of understanding what pissed me off in the first place and actually reading what I wrote without putting words in my mouth or assuming this is about you.

178 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:43:17pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

It is impossible to discuss issues about gender with someone who wants to reserve the right to use sexually degrading language for women-- when they don't like the woman.-- and who regards complaints about this as 'false female victimization'.

Every excuse/justification/rationale for why this language is ok-- when YOU use it-- has been shot down in this thread. Every one.

And it is impossible to discuss it with someone who just proceeds with argument by avalanche-- ignoring others' points, changing the discussion, and, most of all, not reading what others write. It took something like 140 posts for you to even concede that you shouldn't have used those words-- and then it was some bullshit like 'it's not effective'. You've also repeatedly responded to others' personal testimony with "Well I haven't experienced that/It must not happen often" and the like.

No, Ludwig, it is not 'about me'. It's about the use-- in this case, your use, of sexually degrading language, which harms all women.

It is unbelievable to me that on a thread about consent we can't even get someone to refrain from calling politicians and newscasters gutter sluts and whores.

179 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:46:47pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

NOw have the courtesy of understanding what pissed me off in the first place and actually reading what I wrote without putting words in my mouth or assuming this is about you.

This entire thread apparently has been all about you. I'm pissed at a thread about consent being highjacked by this.

I'm really too angry to engage right now, so I'm off.

We'll talk more later. I'll email you also. Understand that I'm violently angry about this and couldn't disagree with you more but it doesn't affect our friendship.

later!

180 Aye Pod  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:47:53pm

re: #173 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course they are. When that gets mixed with a message of selling pure evil, I don't like it. I find it repulsive. Your thinking on this is at least as colored by your lit-crit notions of feminism as my thinking on this is colored by notions of tsniut. I am not interested in debating all the details, but you are completely off in your understanding of where I am coming from.

So is EVERYONE else apparently. Seriously Ludwig, all you are saying here in the end is that attractive women who espouse views you disagree with are sluts. This is what wingnuts do regarding women who espouse liberal views. We are supposed to be better than that.

181 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:16:04pm

re: #180 Jimmah

So is EVERYONE else apparently. Seriously Ludwig, all you are saying here in the end is that attractive women who espouse views you disagree with are sluts. This is what wingnuts do regarding women who espouse liberal views. We are supposed to be better than that.

No I rather clearly defined multiple times in dozens of ways that what offends me is:

Women who degrade themselves and others (including other women) by using their sexuality to push evil propaganda. Even from just a feminist view, do you consider he Fox women to be a step forward or a step back for women's rights? What hypocrisy!

who espouse views you disagree with

WTF Jimmah? Just disagree with? They are actively using their bodies to help sell an agenda that you yourself consider pure evil! And it is pure evil. There is no question.

WTF?

This is not just disagreeing!

What I see from this clearly is indoctrination from the other side.

Exploiting people is bad. Using sexuality to exploit people is bad. It is bad whenever men or women do it. However it seems to me that you are arguing that women can't be held responsible for when they do it.

They should be ashamed in this case.

182 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:27:39pm

re: #180 Jimmah

Seriously Ludwig, all you are saying here in the end is that attractive women who espouse views you disagree with are sluts. This is what wingnuts do regarding women who espouse liberal views. We are supposed to be better than that.

Think of how many conservatives use Maddow's sexuality and appearance against her because they disagree with her views. And the fact that she presents as a woman differently than your typical female on television.

Calling Rachel Maddow an ugly dyke b/c she's a liberal is the equivalent of calling any of the Fox news women a gutter slut b/c you do not agree with her views. It is the same fucking thing.

And not liking the fact that Rachel Maddow presents more gender neutral than feminine? Is the same as not liking what one may perceive as over the top femininity on the part of Fox news women. Because you are placing your views on what is proper for a woman on that woman. She is not attacking you with her sexuality, good lord she is on television, not in your living room. When a man projects his sexuality at a woman? Its generally crowding her physical space and some unwanted touching.

183 Aye Pod  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:38:26pm

re: #181 LudwigVanQuixote


Women who degrade themselves and others (including other women) by using their sexuality to push evil propaganda.

And they 'use their sexuality'? By being attractive and dressing attractively, as is commonplace for female news broadcasters on many stations - not just Fox - and female professionals in many jobs. They are not strutting around in front of the cameras wearing peep-hole bras and crotchless panties. Seriously Ludwig, get real. If you think that Fox relies too heavily on attractive female hosts then by all means criticise the shallow expectations you feel they are playing too - but don't make yourself look like a shit by calling those hosts sluts and whores.

There are a zillion valid criticisms of Fox News - you have chosen instead an approach that makes you look like a misogynist.

184 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:41:52pm

re: #182 sizzleRI

Seriously Ludwig, all you are saying here in the end is that attractive women who espouse views you disagree with are sluts. This is what wingnuts do regarding women who espouse liberal views. We are supposed to be better than that.

Think of how many conservatives use Maddow's sexuality and appearance against her because they disagree with her views. And the fact that she presents as a woman differently than your typical female on television.

Calling Rachel Maddow an ugly dyke b/c she's a liberal is the equivalent of calling any of the Fox news women a gutter slut b/c you do not agree with her views. It is the same fucking thing.

And not liking the fact that Rachel Maddow presents more gender neutral than feminine? Is the same as not liking what one may perceive as over the top femininity on the part of Fox news women. Because you are placing your views on what is proper for a woman on that woman. She is not attacking you with her sexuality, good lord she is on television, not in your living room. When a man projects his sexuality at a woman? Its generally crowding her physical space and some unwanted touching.

YES.
Love your posts btw sizzle RI-- absolutely awesome. I haven't been through this whole thread to updingyet because I have to take long breaks, lol. the rage.

185 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:42:42pm

re: #182 sizzleRI

Seriously Ludwig, all you are saying here in the end is that attractive women who espouse views you disagree with are sluts. This is what wingnuts do regarding women who espouse liberal views. We are supposed to be better than that.

Think of how many conservatives use Maddow's sexuality and appearance against her because they disagree with her views. And the fact that she presents as a woman differently than your typical female on television.

Calling Rachel Maddow an ugly dyke b/c she's a liberal is the equivalent of calling any of the Fox news women a gutter slut b/c you do not agree with her views. It is the same fucking thing.

And not liking the fact that Rachel Maddow presents more gender neutral than feminine? Is the same as not liking what one may perceive as over the top femininity on the part of Fox news women. Because you are placing your views on what is proper for a woman on that woman. She is not attacking you with her sexuality, good lord she is on television, not in your living room. When a man projects his sexuality at a woman? Its generally crowding her physical space and some unwanted touching.

OK, I am getting browbeaten into a point where i don't care. I will try one last time and ask you a question, because truly, I am not doing any of what you are writing and it is not even close to the same.

I am talking about a specific set of women with specific behaviors.

I mean: Women who degrade themselves and others (including other women) by using their sexuality to push evil propaganda (and promote negative stereotypes of women while we are at it).

Even from just a feminist view, do you consider the Fox women to be a step forward or a step back for women's rights? How do you feel about the fact that their well crafted sex appeal sells an utterly evil message?

And please don't talk about "just" disagreeing either.

I just dissagree with you about appropriate language to describe something ugly.

I, and you do a lot more than just disagree with the agenda these women are selling.

As to imposing what a woman's sexuality is on women etc... We all impose constraints on each other. It is called a social contract. No of course being pretty and on TV is not the issue and it never was.

Re: the looks of Maddow, I think Rachel Maddow is kinda cute. Then again, I have always been attracted to intelligence - seriously being smart makes another ma's "5" into a 7 or 8 with me. In either case, that is neither here nor there, because the point is about projecting sexuality. This has nothing to do with "gender neutral." This has to do with certain types of display that one can choose to make or not.

And yes, for certain something on the TV which you can turn off is nothing compared t an in person invasion of your personal space.

Of course.

However, and I mean this,

Certain modes of dress and behavior is evocative. Of course it is! Fox uses this ruthlessly. OF course they do! Are you claiming that dressing in an evocative way is not evocative? Are you claiming that sex doesn't sell? Are you claiming they are not using sex to sell?

186 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:44:30pm

re: #184 iceweasel

YES.
Love your posts btw sizzle RI-- absolutely awesome. I haven't been through this whole thread to updingyet because I have to take long breaks, lol. the rage.

I think she is awesome too.

187 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:46:41pm

Ahhh I have it:

Here, said by P!nk! Her video Stupid Girls is perfect as a visual analogue to what offends me. The moral part comes from not just the venality that is objected to, but the predatory nature of it and the way it is used to promote evil agenda.

Exactly what my objection is:

188 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:49:08pm

re: #183 Jimmah

And they 'use their sexuality'? By being attractive and dressing attractively, as is commonplace for female news broadcasters on many stations - not just Fox - and female professionals in many jobs. They are not strutting around in front of the cameras wearing peep-hole bras and crotchless panties. Seriously Ludwig, get real. If you think that Fox relies too heavily on attractive female hosts then by all means criticise the shallow expectations you feel they are playing too - but don't make yourself look like a shit by calling those hosts sluts and whores.

There are a zillion valid criticisms of Fox News - you have chosen instead an approach that makes you look like a misogynist.

And yet, CNN just doesn't have them in miniskirts that barely cover their genitals like that. Neither does MSNBC.

189 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:51:03pm

This thread has become very difficult to masturbate to.

"How do I let them know because of the unfreezing process, I have no inner monologue? I hope I didn't just say that all out loud just now."

190 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:51:24pm

re: #182 sizzleRI

Think of how many conservatives use Maddow's sexuality and appearance against her because they disagree with her views. And the fact that she presents as a woman differently than your typical female on television.

Yes do! Please do think that through! This is my point or at least part of it! What do those conservatives expect and what does Fox give them?

191 Aye Pod  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:59:08pm

re: #188 LudwigVanQuixote

And yet, CNN just doesn't have them in miniskirts that barely cover their genitals like that. Neither does MSNBC.

The BBC has a history of attractive female newscasters. I see attractive women working in all professions. I've had a look on Fox and I'm really not shocked by what I'm seeing. What is being said there is of course another matter.

And that's the whole point.

192 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:14:01pm

re: #191 Jimmah

The BBC has a history of attractive female newscasters. I see attractive women working in all professions. I've had a look on Fox and I'm really not shocked by what I'm seeing. What is being said there is of course another matter.

And that's the whole point.

Jimmah, THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING ATTRACTIVE!

That is not the issue at all.

The issue is that they dress in a certain way that is more extreme than other networks to use sex to sell their propaganda.

I don't watch the BBC. Perhaps the BBC has their women sitting on couches in micro minis, so that they are always clearly showing a lot of leg and in danger of a crotch shot. Perhaps the BBC does this as well. IF so, that is wrong too. But they don't do that on CNN or MSNBC or any of the major networks here.

193 Aye Pod  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:30:33pm

re: #192 LudwigVanQuixote

Jimmah, THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING ATTRACTIVE!

That is not the issue at all.

The issue is that they dress in a certain way that is more extreme than other networks to use sex to sell their propaganda.

I don't watch the BBC. Perhaps the BBC has their women sitting on couches in micro minis, so that they are always clearly showing a lot of leg and in danger of a crotch shot. Perhaps the BBC does this as well. IF so, that is wrong too. But they don't do that on CNN or MSNBC or any of the major networks here.

Susannah Reid, BBC News presenter:

Image: 772829_f520.jpg

Emily Maitliss, Newsnight presenter:

Image: _46283905_bbcdisco1.jpg

Kirsty Wark, BBC Newsnight Presenter:

Image: KirstyWark440.jpg

Are these women sluts? Are they pushing their sexuality right in your face? Here in Britain they are highly respected broadcasters, especially the last two, who appear to be broadcasting while wearing - gasp - miniskirts.

The miniskirt has been around for a long time now and isn't the badge of sluttishness that you seem to think.

194 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:45:12pm

re: #189 goddamnedfrank

This thread has become very difficult to masturbate to.

"How do I let them know because of the unfreezing process, I have no inner monologue? I hope I didn't just say that all out loud just now."

Words cannot express how much I needed to read that. :)

195 The Left  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:52:50pm

re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

Ahhh I have it:

Here, said by P!nk! Her video Stupid Girls is perfect as a visual analogue to what offends me. The moral part comes from not just the venality that is objected to, but the predatory nature of it and the way it is used to promote evil agenda.

Exactly what my objection is:


[Video]

Look, at this point i don't know, and you don't seem to know, what your objection is supposed to be or what point you want to be making. After saying you won't use those words you're back at it defending them again in the RSM thread, you still don't comprehend what the objections to them are. In one place you're saying this is about women using their sexuality, in another you're saying this isn't about them being attractive.

I think you should rethink whatever your point is and take wrenchwench's advice on the other thread. Make your points--whatever the hell they are-- in a way that isn't offensive to all women and doesn't involve generalisations about all women, as she suggested. Tomorrow's a new day!

196 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:55:19pm

re: #193 Jimmah

In my search for Truth :> I found this link.

[Link: www.ihatethemedia.com...]

Fox anchors with seriously short skirts. Btw, Kiran Chetry is on CNN or MSNBC now! I don't know if the gals on CNN wear skirts quite this short. I couldn't find it.

We have to get past objectifying women. Sizzle made the most AWESOME point about Rachel. When a woman is degraded, it's for looks. She's either too sexy or pretty (i.e. a whore) or too ugly or not pretty enough (i.e. a lesbian), but in either case, it's about what she looks like.

When a man is degraded, he'd degraded for what he says. Rush Limbaugh may be a fat fuck, but that's not why people yell about him.

During the coming of age of feminism, women played down their sexuality so they could feel like they could compete with men and get into the workplace. Back in the 80s, practically every woman attorney I worked with wore a black or blue suit. Period. Very little, if any variation. Now, as women professionals are completely accepted, suits are almost a thing of the past (in FL where it's hot anyway) and more everyday clothes are in style and completely acceptable. I find that women still shy away from color, but there are more pantsuits, blouses and skirts.

Anyway, I'd like to get to a place where a woman can be a woman, look like a woman, not a man, and be accepted or not for what's in her head, even if she chooses to put her sexy foot forward.

197 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:56:28pm
Anyway, I'd like to get to a place where a woman can be a woman, look like a woman, not a man, and be accepted or not for what's in her head, even if she chooses to put her sexy foot forward.

I would too.

It would help then if they presented themselves for their brains and not like this:

Anyway, I'd like to get to a place where a woman can be a woman, look like a woman, not a man, and be accepted or not for what's in her head, even if she chooses to put her sexy foot forward.

198 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:57:09pm

re: #195 iceweasel

Well actually I had about ten points that all came together. You would know what they are if you read the first post without going non-linear.

199 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:57:32pm

re: #197 LudwigVanQuixote

With the link

I would too.

It would help then if they presented themselves for their brains and not like this:

Anyway, I'd like to get to a place where a woman can be a woman, look like a woman, not a man, and be accepted or not for what's in her head, even if she chooses to put her sexy foot forward.

200 What, me worry?  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:58:04pm

re: #197 LudwigVanQuixote

I would too.

It would help then if they presented themselves for their brains and not like this:

Anyway, I'd like to get to a place where a woman can be a woman, look like a woman, not a man, and be accepted or not for what's in her head, even if she chooses to put her sexy foot forward.

You missed it again. She should be credited or discredited on her words, not her body. You're putting the sex out front when you call her a whore first.

201 CuriousLurker  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:27:42pm

Ludwig, I've been watching this thread since it began and here's what I think:

You waked into this thread and basically lobbed a word-grenade into a crowded room. It had consequences you didn't anticipate, namely that the words you used have become the only thing people are going to remember about your contribution this discussion.

I don't know ice well enough to speak for her, but I'll stick my neck out anyway and say she's probably doubly furious with you because not only have you effectively hijacked her page and derailed the conversation she originally wanted to have, but (more importantly) you're her friend and you used the very same type of language that you know has been used against her. That's hurtful—or at least it would be to me—not simply because others used that language against HER (I doubt she loses any sleep over what they say), but because she feels it's wrong to use it towards ANY woman.

I GET that you hate evil. I do too. I also get what you meant, but, as a woman, it didn't stop me from feeling a reflexive flash of anger & resentment at your use of the words. It's one thing when faceless, anonymous creeps do it, but it's something else altogether when it's coming from someone you know and have had good conversations with.

Aside from the clips I see here, I don't watch Fox News. It really doesn't matter to me how any of their people dress as I'm 1000 times more repulsed by the tone & content of their message than by who delivers it or how they're dressed when they do so. If someone is so desperate, oversexed, or witlessly easy to manipulate that they can be convinced to watch Fox's tripe for the SOLE purpose of catching a glimpse of some skin, then I really don't see much point in being upset about it.

IOW, either they watch Fox because they agree with their agenda and the sexy women are just a bonus, or they watch because they're utter fools that any attractive woman could easily lead around by the nose. Getting angry or ranting about either of those scenarios is a waste of time, IMO. I'd rather spend my time talking to/about people who I have at least SOME hope of persuading about the things that matter to me.

202 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:39:14pm

re: #201 CuriousLurker

Great post, thank you for a rational analysis.

203 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:44:52pm

re: #201 CuriousLurker

Great post on a huge and passionate thread. This one has run longer than many main threads and it's stayed mostly civil and sane. Thanks to everyone for helping to keep it sane.

204 CuriousLurker  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:11:56pm

re: #201 CuriousLurker

P.S. Ludwig, I was busy writing this as things were going on in the other threads and didn't realize until after I'd submitted the comment and moved on to other threads that you'd be unable to respond right away. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't purposely time it that way.

205 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:15:46pm

re: #201 CuriousLurker

I honestly could not have said it any better.

If you do not like the message of Fox News and their respective messengers, I understand that. I agree. I cannot watch more than 5 minutes without raging out. Seriously, I am not as well reasoned in my analysis as I would like to be. It is pure propaganda, and not even funny like reading old Soviet material can be. But my distaste for the message and the delivery? Have nothing to do with how the women look. At all.

Hillary Clinton? Brilliant woman who many people dislike for her politics or delivery or personality. But somehow, her looks always come up. That is fucked up.

Michelle Obama? Same.

Ann Coulter? I despise her politics and flame throwing. But when people call her a tranny? That is fucking wrong. It doesn't stop being wrong and offensive and damaging to women and transsexuals because I think her tactics approach evil.

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Barbara Bush, any woman who is overweight or unconventional looking and dares to have an opinion. Or too pretty, never mind sexy, who dares to be serious.

206 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:16:59pm

re: #200 marjoriemoon

She should be credited or discredited on her words, not her body. You're putting the sex out front when you call her a whore first.

The whole thread? Marjorie summed it up in 2 sentences. Wow.

207 sizzleRI  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:19:56pm

re: #184 iceweasel

Thanks, you have been doing a great job here.

You mentioned Amanda Marcotte before? Have you ever commented at Pandagon? I ask because I found LGF through a commentator there. Anyway, I love it here so I want to thank whoever led me over! (it was over a year ago).

208 NJDhockeyfan  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:07:03pm

Barbara Walters is on Letterman wearing a miniskirt and showing her legs. I wonder if LVQ will call her a slut now.

209 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 2:34:28am

re: #208 NJDhockeyfan

Why stir shit?

210 Aye Pod  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 4:49:03am

re: #198 LudwigVanQuixote

Well actually I had about ten points that all came together. You would know what they are if you read the first post without going non-linear.

Ludwig - it was you who massively derailed this thread and now you complain that ice went 'non-linear', and we didn't look at all your points in order, on her own page, on the topic she started, which you haven't even discussed. The reason people have returned to the language you've used is that there is an initial premise that all parties must agree on in order for the conversation to take place. You can't reserve the right to object to misogynistic terms only when they apply to women you like.

211 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:15:04am

re: #207 sizzleRI

Thanks, you have been doing a great job here.

You mentioned Amanda Marcotte before? Have you ever commented at Pandagon? I ask because I found LGF through a commentator there. Anyway, I love it here so I want to thank whoever led me over! (it was over a year ago).

It might have been me, which would be cool! Do you remember what it was about? (There's an 'iceweasel' at pandagon years ago but that isn't me.)

Since becoming a regular here I've posted various places in the leftysphere to urge people to come here and to counteract the old narrative that "LGF is a hate site" blah blah. I remember doing that at pandagon a while ago and a few other feminist sites in particular, and that's one reason why I responded so angrily: I've gone out of my way to tell people that LGF is a political blog with high female participation because it doesn't tolerate misogynistic speech.

Because this specific issue-- reserving the right to call Fox News women and Sarah Palin gutter sluts and whores-- has come up here before, I pretty much went full on rage when it came up yet again --on a thread about consent. It's the starting premise to even have these sorts of discussions about gender and yet we can't get an agreement on that.

212 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:16:57am

re: #204 CuriousLurker

P.S. Ludwig, I was busy writing this as things were going on in the other threads and didn't realize until after I'd submitted the comment and moved on to other threads that you'd be unable to respond right away. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't purposely time it that way.

CL, I think it's a great comment and I'm glad you made it.

213 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:42:37am

re: #143 publicityStunted

Ever heard the term "hate fuck"? There was some controversy on Wonkette a while back when commenters were using it in the context of morally repulsive but physically attractive pundits/politicians. Some thought it meant rape, but others responded no, it means consensual sex with someone you otherwise despise because the physical attraction either overcomes the intellectual/moral revulsion or is strengthened(!) by it.

Publicity stunted-- I remember that. And frankly I didn't buy the claim that it isn't, at least in some cases, used to covertly promote a rape agenda. I think liberal or conservative lists of female pundits they want to hate-fuck are part of rape culture and the sort of thing that keeps female participation in the political blogosphere low.
I have heard the term or rage fuck used in this way:

it means consensual sex with someone you otherwise despise because the physical attraction either overcomes the intellectual/moral revulsion or is strengthened(!) by it.

....

when people are talking about an individual they know and have had sex with, and it's not a gendered term in that usage (although an icky concept): continuing to have sex with someone when you're angry at them, or you've even decided you can't stand them and hate them. As in hatefucking your ex, etc. Men or women can use it, it's used about actual instances of consensual sex with individuals

Men making up lists of pundits they'd like to hatefuck isn't imagining 'consensual sex with someone you despise...'

-- It's saying, I hate this woman and I'd still love to fuck her. I'd fuck her because I hate her! -- about women they've never met. Not "I hatefucked my ex last night'. Or,

It's not the same, at all. Women aren't drawing up lists of men they want to hatefuck on feminist blogs. Men saying "I'd love to hatefuck" female pundit x-- pundit x who is a stranger, with whom they have no relationship-- is rape apologism, whether or not they intend it as such.

At least, that's my view.

214 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:48:30am

re: #213 iceweasel

Hell, I don't even like the much tamer "What she needs is a good lay." Or "He", for that matter.

215 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:51:37am

re: #209 Obdicut

Why stir shit?

One of the recurring issues when this is discussed is various people trolling ludwig. IMO it makes discussion even more difficult, because it very naturally makes LVQ feel piled-upon and just raises the temperature of the discussion.

NJD, I even agree with some of your comments but the personal attack makes it harder for me to upding you without contributing to that dynamic.

Also, I'm responsible for it as well. I definitely responded intemperately all over the place here and i apologise for it-- to ludwig and to everyone else.

216 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:52:56am

re: #215 iceweasel

I'm glad I stuck by my decision to just stop talking.

217 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 5:57:29am

re: #214 Obdicut

Hell, I don't even like the much tamer "What she needs is a good lay." Or "He", for that matter.

Yeah, I don't either. These sorts of comments do tend to be directed more at women than at men though, and that's part of the background we're dealing with here when we talk about gender issues.
Also, it should be obvious that it's more threatening for men to use this language against women than the other way around, for the simple reason that men rape women.

I know you know that, but I think it's part of what's been missed.

218 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 6:02:01am

re: #216 Obdicut

I'm glad I stuck by my decision to just stop talking.

Yeah, well-- i left this thread two nights ago and I've left the topic before as well when it became clear that progress wasn't being made.

But there is a limit to how often one can avoid an issue that's this important.

219 Obdicut  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 6:10:23am

re: #218 iceweasel

Sure. I'd said what I had to say, and I'll stick by it any time that it comes up.

I mean, even just the word 'whore' makes me, in general, cringe. Because most women who are whores are not doing so because they have a real choice in the matter. Many of them are simply prisoner. Many of them are coerced and threatened if they try to leave. Many of them are addicts in a society that criminalizes their addiction. So calling someone a whore, as an insult, makes no sense.

And there simply is no such thing as a slut. It's only meaning is "Woman who has sex or uses her sexuality in a way I personally don't like". It has no other meaning.

220 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 6:32:22am

re: #219 Obdicut

Exactly. Words like slut and whore are words that are used to 'put women in their place'. They're loaded because they're intended to be. They don't, in fact, have any other meaning than to reduce women to their (supposed) sexual nature.

and:

So calling someone a whore, as an insult, makes no sense.

That IS the sense: To remind the woman in question that when all is said and done, she's nothing more than a sexual function: the function of providing sex to men.

They're degrading and depersonalising and specifically gendered.

I am sorry that Ludwig is on timeout, but I do think this was a perfect example of --as charles posted-- the point of the timeout function: Not to shame or humiliate or 'punish', but to stop someone when it gets to the point that bad positions are being defended simply because the internet worm is hungry.

I have avoided this issue for a few months now when it comes up. I made a page about a female politican being called a whore a few months ago and it likewise was invaded by defenses of that term. I simply didn't respond.

I emailed LVQ last night to say I have no hard feelings about the final comment but I haven't heard back.

221 sizzleRI  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 10:04:47am

re: #211 iceweasel

The fact that there was another iceweasel at Pandagon was soooo confusing. LGF was linked there when Charles had his 10 reasons to part with the right. I thought the list was very cool and stayed around to read the comments. And I saw you commenting. I then read more of the Pandagon thread and the iceweasel there was saying she/he didn't care what Charles said LGF would always be a hate blog, blah blah blah. I was trying to reconcile the two ices and decided there must be 2 of you.

I am sorry for contributing to a pike up on Ludwig. This topic is so important to me so I also responded intemperately at times. I don't think Ludwig is hateful, I think he was letting his hate for certain viewpoints and people color his arguments. Anyway, thank you iceweasel for posting this thread, it has been such an interesting conversation.

222 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:05:45am

re: #221 sizzleRI

The fact that there was another iceweasel at Pandagon was sooo confusing. LGF was linked there when Charles had his 10 reasons to part with the right. I thought the list was very cool and stayed around to read the comments. And I saw you commenting. I then read more of the Pandagon thread and the iceweasel there was saying she/he didn't care what Charles said LGF would always be a hate blog, blah blah blah. I was trying to reconcile the two ices and decided there must be 2 of you.

There's iceweasels all over the leftysphere because it's from a matt groening quote. I'm not any of them and the pandagon iceweasel is probably not any of the others.

This topic is so important to me so I also responded intemperately at times. I don't think Ludwig is hateful, I think he was letting his hate for certain viewpoints and people color his arguments.

I completely agree. It is an important topic and it's one that needs discussion. And I don't believe LVQ is a misogynist; the point that people were making in various ways was that he was using misogynistic language-- and that language can be misogynistic even if that isn't the speaker's intent.

It's important to be able to discuss that especially with the people who have good intentions and don't intend to be part of the problem. And I have no doubt that LVQ is in that category.

223 What, me worry?  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:09:18am

re: #205 sizzleRI

I honestly could not have said it any better.

If you do not like the message of Fox News and their respective messengers, I understand that. I agree. I cannot watch more than 5 minutes without raging out. Seriously, I am not as well reasoned in my analysis as I would like to be. It is pure propaganda, and not even funny like reading old Soviet material can be. But my distaste for the message and the delivery? Have nothing to do with how the women look. At all.

Hillary Clinton? Brilliant woman who many people dislike for her politics or delivery or personality. But somehow, her looks always come up. That is fucked up.

Michelle Obama? Same.

Ann Coulter? I despise her politics and flame throwing. But when people call her a tranny? That is fucking wrong. It doesn't stop being wrong and offensive and damaging to women and transsexuals because I think her tactics approach evil.

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Barbara Bush, any woman who is overweight or unconventional looking and dares to have an opinion. Or too pretty, never mind sexy, who dares to be serious.

If anyone is still reading LOL

You are too kind ((sizzle)). But I had to comment that Elana Kagan came to my mind yesterday and I was going to post about it. Glad you mentioned it The "lesbian insult" (also, see Hillary) is always a good one for less-than-gorgeous or powerful females. It's rather sickening.

224 What, me worry?  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:15:30am

re: #211 iceweasel

I think LGF has always been unique, even back in the day, because of diverse thought. Even from those we consider friends, so I hope your liberal friends will still come here.

Also, Ice, I feel really bad that the conversation got so derailed. I really wanted to discuss date rape with other women. I think it's a huge problem that happens

ALL
THE
TIME

seriously, and I would be curious to hear other women's experiences with that. Hopefully you could bring that up on another thread and we can stay on topic.

225 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:22:04am

re: #222 iceweasel


It's important to be able to discuss that especially with the people who have good intentions and don't intend to be part of the problem. And I have no doubt that LVQ is in that category.

I completely agree.

226 sizzleRI  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:26:10am

re: #222 iceweasel

Iceweasel mystery solved! I am not overly familiar with the leftysphere, just the feminist blogs and Pandagon which is more of a hybrid. I hang out mostly here now, although it is entertaining to go from reading here to read a thread at say, Shakesville.

227 CuriousLurker  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:26:19am

re: #7 goddamnedfrank

I'm sure there are situations where the condom breaks, the woman notices, tells the man to stop, he doesn't and that's a form of rape. Yet the risk of bodily fluid transmission is always present in consensual intercourse, condoms do break, in rare occasions because the woman has sabotaged them. If a person didn't sign on for that risk, and aren't willing to deal with attendant consequences, perhaps they shouldn't be having sex.

Speaking solely as someone with experience in forensic analysis, I like cases that can actually be proved, that don't hinge entirely upon competing raw assertion. Especially when my only two witnesses know each other and have been colluding with each other prior to coming forward.

Going back to the original subject, my opinion is pretty much the same as Frank's if you change the word "colluding" to a word without the negative connotations.

Once consent is withdrawn I would also consider it a form of rape. In my mind it would be the same as if I allowed a friend to borrow my car for 3 days, then on the 2nd day I decided I wanted it back—because an emergency came up, because the friend was driving dangerously, etc.—and my friend refused to return it. At that point I would consider it a form of theft. In both cases the absence of forensic evidence or a confession would make it very difficult to prove in court.

When I was a teen my (much) older brother told me that I should never have sex with someone with whom I didn't want to have a child. His point was that there's a always an inherent risk in the form of the possibility of unforeseen and/or undesired consequences, therefore if I wasn't prepared to acknowledge & accept the risk, I shouldn't do it.

This is NOT to say that a woman (or man) deserves whatever happens to them once they give consent, it simply means that people need to think twice and be aware that things can get out of control and go very, very wrong. I think this is especially true for anyone whose chosen partner has greater physical strength, regardless of gender, because this makes one even more vulnerable. (The last scene of Looking for Mr. Goodbar comes to mind, a movie I only saw for the first time a few months ago. *shudder*)

228 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:26:32am

re: #224 marjoriemoon


Also, Ice, I feel really bad that the conversation got so derailed. I really wanted to discuss date rape with other women. I think it's a huge problem that happens

ALL
THE
TIME

seriously, and I would be curious to hear other women's experiences with that. Hopefully you could bring that up on another thread and we can stay on topic.

I think there's a lot of women who want to discuss that and that LGF should be a place where that can be done. I don't think it happens on most political blogs productively, unless they're blogs that are specifically feminist. I do think it can be done here.

In fact, it would be good if we did some of that on this thread, i think, so that the conversation moves on productively (and in a way that makes it easier for LVQ to come back). So let's do that!

229 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:33:27am

re: #224 marjoriemoon

I I really wanted to discuss date rape with other women. I think it's a huge problem that happens

ALL
THE
TIME

seriously, and I would be curious to hear other women's experiences with that.

I agree that it happens all the time. I think that the wingnut media narrative about them is that it doesn't, and that posts like RSM's vomitous screed yesterday are deliberately trying to make the discussion of it difficult. Anytime there's pretended confusion over this new fangled notion of consent it serves to muddy the discussion.

The Feministe post, and the ones made by sizzleRI and others, gets at ways in which victims of date rape blame themselves for what's happened. Often these women don't want to call what happened to them 'assault' or 'rape' because they've so throughly internalised the notion that female behaviour is somehow responsible for rape. "If I didn't go to his hotel room, if i weren't drunk,...if I hadn't dressed like this, then this wouldn't have happened". etc.

230 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:42:26am

re: #227 CuriousLurker


This is NOT to say that a woman (or man) deserves whatever happens to them once they give consent, it simply means that people need to think twice and be aware that things can get out of control and go very, very wrong. I think this is especially true for anyone whose chosen partner has greater physical strength, regardless of gender, because this makes one even more vulnerable. (The last scene of Looking for Mr. Goodbar comes to mind, a movie I only saw for the first time a few months ago. *shudder*)

oh now THAT is a horror movie. Oh yeah.

I think one of the problems with these discussions is the difficulty of expressing opinions that say something like what I've bolded, and those that slide into attitudes-- or policies-- that put the onus of preventing rape on women.

231 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:43:33am

re: #225 Floral Giraffe

I completely agree.

yay, I'm glad you're here!

232 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:53:47am

re: #227 CuriousLurker

Going back to the original subject, my opinion is pretty much the same as Frank's if you change the word "colluding" to a word without the negative connotations.

Knowing now that this thread isn't about Assange, I feel responding puts me on thin ice, so to speak. I used colluding because while getting moral support from each other is a good thing, from a law enforcement standpoint it's really problematic for two people who present themselves as victims of the same perpetrator to be talking to and texting each other before going in to talk to the police.

This has simply evolved in a way that is completely different from any successful prosecution I'm familiar with, and the way it's evolved raises flags. If they hadn't been in prior contact before coming forward, if their stories hadn't changed after the first MW warrant was rescinded by a senior prosecutor, and the victims weren't then represented by the same lawyer who presented an updated set of allegations to a new prosecutor I'd be far less bothered by the circumstances.

233 The Left  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 11:58:55am

re: #232 goddamnedfrank

Updings for all who make the thread about anything else at all at this point, seriously. Go at it!

234 sizzleRI  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 12:05:05pm

re: #230 iceweasel

I think one of the problems with these discussions is the difficulty of expressing opinions that say something like what I've bolded, and those that slide into attitudes-- or policies-- that put the onus of preventing rape on women.

I remember my mother trying to explain this to my sister and I when we were young during the general sex talk and the no one touches you without you wanting it talk. She wanted us to know that we should be able to go anywhere and wear anything and that our choices did not mean that someone had the right to hurt us. But, we were her children and she didn't want us to be assaulted and so she had to tell us to be careful, that certain decisions could put us in danger. It is hard to express both of these ideas, because part 2 gets awfully close to telling women and children they are at least partly responsible for what happens to them.

I believe it was at Shakesville where I first read, and it clicked, that a woman is raped for only one reason. She had the misfortune to be around a rapist. I repeat that to myself. Because having been assaulted? It was blaming myself that hurt the most.

235 CuriousLurker  Thu, Dec 9, 2010 1:33:44pm

re: #234 sizzleRI

I remember my mother trying to explain this to my sister and I when we were young during the general sex talk and the no one touches you without you wanting it talk. She wanted us to know that we should be able to go anywhere and wear anything and that our choices did not mean that someone had the right to hurt us. But, we were her children and she didn't want us to be assaulted and so she had to tell us to be careful, that certain decisions could put us in danger. It is hard to express both of these ideas, because part 2 gets awfully close to telling women and children they are at least partly responsible for what happens to them.

Reality being what it is, mothers will continue to do so. I don't mean it's a reality that women are at least partly responsible for their own rapes, but rather it's reality that society at large hasn't evolved to the point where mothers can feel it's safe to stop issuing such warnings. Let me change the scenario a little:

I should be able to walk anywhere I choose covered in expensive furs & diamonds without having to worry about being mugged. If I am beaten & mugged it's because I had the misfortune to be around a violent thief. This neither excuses the thief nor does it make me responsible for what happened—just as in the case of rape, an innocent person is violated by someone who feels he has a right to take what isn't his based on opportunity and how his victim is dressed.

Granted, a jury would almost certainly be more sympathetic towards a woman who had been mugged if she is perceived as "respectable" (i.e. wealthy enough to have furs & diamonds), than they would be towards a woman who had been raped that they perceived as less than respectable (i.e. dressed in "sexy" clothing, the definition of which could vary widely from person to person).

This is unjust. It is wrong. But it is reality. Again, until society's attitudes change, mothers have no choice but to continue giving the same confusing advice to their children in the hopes of simultaneously building their self-esteem and keeping them safe.

I think that type of change will take many generations. Look how long it took just to get where we are today...

236 The Left  Fri, Dec 10, 2010 2:29:43am

re: #234 sizzleRI

I think one of the problems with these discussions is the difficulty of expressing opinions that say something like what I've bolded, and those that slide into attitudes-- or policies-- that put the onus of preventing rape on women.

I remember my mother trying to explain this to my sister and I when we were young during the general sex talk and the no one touches you without you wanting it talk. She wanted us to know that we should be able to go anywhere and wear anything and that our choices did not mean that someone had the right to hurt us. But, we were her children and she didn't want us to be assaulted and so she had to tell us to be careful, that certain decisions could put us in danger. It is hard to express both of these ideas, because part 2 gets awfully close to telling women and children they are at least partly responsible for what happens to them.

I believe it was at Shakesville where I first read, and it clicked, that a woman is raped for only one reason. She had the misfortune to be around a rapist. I repeat that to myself. Because having been assaulted? It was blaming myself that hurt the most.

You posted that upthread as well and I think I saw you use it elsewhere-- and I thought it was just brilliant. It really does cut through and lay bare all the bullshit that is the rape culture, because it ought to be the most obvious statement in the world, -- especially to victims of sexual assault!-- but it hits us like a revelation.

That alone-- that it should come as a revelation-- is a testimony to just how powerful, and pervasive, the rape culture is.

Shakesville is great! We have to exchange lists sometime of the feminist blogs we read-- i bet there's a lot of overlap! It's a joy to have you around.

And finally, the most important point (I couldn't leave your comment hanging there without addressing this)-- I am so terribly sorry this happened to you. Thank you for having the courage to discuss it here (thanks to all who did here, discuss their own experiences)-- it makes a difference in the world and your courage helps others.

237 CuriousLurker  Fri, Dec 10, 2010 10:01:49am

re: #236 iceweasel

And finally, the most important point (I couldn't leave your comment hanging there without addressing this)-- I am so terribly sorry this happened to you. Thank you for having the courage to discuss it here (thanks to all who did here, discuss their own experiences)-- it makes a difference in the world and your courage helps others.

re: #234 sizzleRI

Ditto what ice said above. I apologize for not saying something sooner. When I was in my early 20's I was robbed at knifepoint & beaten. I was lucky in that I escaped with only a few cuts & bruises. It could have easily been much, much worse.

238 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 10, 2010 12:11:50pm

re: #237 CuriousLurker

re: #236 iceweasel

Thanks guys. I realized that should have mentioned it earlier to at least explain my heated responses. In one way it is important that I've been there, but in other ways it is not about me. I wasn't mentioning friends and my sister as some deflection, it really is an all women kind of feeling. So many that it gets depressing. I was inspired by Obdi, because he is so matter of fact about his own experiences. I think it would be so much better if victims could talk about their experience in a more reflective and forward manner than in the embarrassed and tragic way it seems to occur now. To me it is like abortion, it may be a private matter and no woman should have to talk about or feel about it the same way, but it shouldn't be an experience that is shunned by society and treated as embarrassing and shameful event for the woman.

Ditto what ice said above. I apologize for not saying something sooner. When I was in my early 20's I was robbed at knifepoint & beaten. I was lucky in that I escaped with only a few cuts & bruises. It could have easily been much, much worse.

No apologies necessary CL, there is so much to respond to! I am sorry that happened to you, it sounds so scary. And I am glad you escaped relatively unharmed. I feel the same way about my assault, it could have been and is so much worse for many others.

239 CuriousLurker  Fri, Dec 10, 2010 5:19:05pm

re: #238 sizzleRI

No apologies necessary CL, there is so much to respond to! I am sorry that happened to you, it sounds so scary. And I am glad you escaped relatively unharmed. I feel the same way about my assault, it could have been and is so much worse for many others.

I'm glad you're still around to talk about it. {sizzleRI}


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 191208We’ve mostly stopped counting; shovelfuls, cartloads, wheelbarrow runs, even bags. We do know we just laid 50 bags. It was the last bundle of bags in the original 500 bag order. That was our estimate - 500 bags.We actually 'only' ...
Dangerman (misuser of the sarc tag)
14 hours, 40 minutes ago
Views: 153 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Orville Peck - Nothing Fades Like the Light [OFFICIAL VIDEO] "Nothing Fades Like The Light" by Orville Peck off Pony LP (Release Date: March 22, 2019 Sub Pop / Royal Mountain) TOUR DATES: orvillepeck.comSPOTIFY: open.spotify.com...PONY LP: smarturl.it WEBSITE: orvillepeck.comFACEBOOK: facebook.comINSTAGRAM: instagram.comTWITTER: @orvillepeck #OrvillePeck #NothingFadesLikeTheLight #Country #Pony #HBOsWatchmen VIDEO CREDITS ...
Thanos
19 hours, 3 minutes ago
Views: 212 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
IG Report on Russia Probe: No Evidence of Bias, but Issues With Surveillance : NPR Updated at 5:22 p.m. ET The Justice Department's internal watchdog determined the FBI had sufficient evidence to open the Russia investigation — but sharply criticized the bureau over its surveillance of a former adviser to the Trump campaign. In ...
Thanos
1 day, 12 hours ago
Views: 246 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 14 • Share to Facebook
GHOSTBUSTERS: AFTERLIFE - Official Trailer (HD) Everything happens for a reason. Watch the new trailer for #Ghostbusters: Afterlife in theaters next summer. Visit Site:ghostbusters.com Follow Us On Social:facebook.comtwitter.cominstagram.com Subscribe to Sony Pictures for exclusive content: bit.ly From director Jason Reitman and producer Ivan Reitman, comes ...
Thanos
1 day, 18 hours ago
Views: 273 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Wonder Woman 1984 TrailerStars Gal Gadot, Pedro Pascal, Kristen Wiig. Directed by Patty Jenkins.
Dr Lizardo
2 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 281 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
House Votes to Back Two-State Solution in Middle East WASHINGTON (CN) — Rebuking President Donald Trump, the House of Representatives on Friday passed a resolution supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Smoke rises from Gaza City on May 5, 2019, after Israel launched over 350 airstrikes ...
Thanos
3 days, 22 hours ago
Views: 484 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
California Urged to Rethink 40 Years of ‘Piecemeal’ Freshwater Protections Ultimately the drought had relatively minor impacts on most urban Californians who suddenly had to do things like let their lawns go brown or – gasp – ask for water while dining out. But under the surface, 18 fish ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 528 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
VULFPECK /// Back Pocket (Live at Madison Square Garden)VULFPECK /// Back Pocket (Live at Madison Square Garden)buy on vinyl → vuuulf.com
Thanos
4 days, 23 hours ago
Views: 564 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
EVGENY POBOZHIY QUINTET - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy Quintet - Stranger Thoughts Evgeny Pobozhiy - guitar, compositionAnton Chekurov - saxNikolai Sidorenko - keysSergey Korchagin - bassAlexander Kulkov - drumsRecorded live @ Blues-minus studio, MoscowViktor Farafontov - sound engineerAndrey Galyamin - videoSergey Gasparyan - mixing2019 ...
Thanos
6 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 619 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 191201 It was an ‘easy’ unchallenging weekend. While low key, we got a lot done. We worked on the upper wall, setting and pounding in the 72 bags we dropped in last week. There are now two courses done completely ...
Dangerman (misuser of the sarc tag)
6 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 506 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook