Originally Posted by Zichao

My point is just that attitudes aren't fixed. There's no natural law saying that X amount of rape will produce X amount of trauma.

True and, as I said, I am not against trying to adjust attitudes but I can see it's going to be pretty difficult. Feminists, for example, would be screaming that you're trying to diminish the importance of violence against women...

Quote:

She'd be traumatised by the religious elements, not by any lack of consent in itself.

Sure. But again, as AIS also pointed out, that's because women were seen as property and, even when it came to men, the ability to control violence was the determining criteria. If you (or your clan/mesnie/gang, whatever) couldn't generate the amount of violence needed to at the very least stay free, you had no right to complain when someone stronger made you his bitch.

Without the violence to back their pretensions to freedom up, women's opinion on their fate was irrelevant.

Your body belongs to the strongest person in the vicinity. That is still technically true today but, of course, we've invented the police and stuff to compensate. OTOH, if you can be stronger than the state, you're absolutely free and laws will de facto cease to apply to you. However there's never been a real-life example of the "James Bond Villain" kinda character. Osama Ben Laden was the closest and he was pretty pathetic.

Quote:

Well, no, I was thinking of the judges, as it happens.

French judges blather like the English? Really?

Quote:

"Officer, officer! A man just raped me!" "What, down that alley back there? But I could hear you screaming 'yes'..." "I was worried that if I didn't he might rape me." "Er..."

I don't really think they're screaming 'yes'. What was that Julian Assange's stuff you posted? Seems pretty close, iirc. "Yeah, I didn't really want to sleep with him but he basically went ahead anyway and I was like, 'whatever'..." . My search skills are failing me and I can't find the article anymore.

Or, I'll give you another one - Slightly drunk woman wakes up to find the guy she was sleeping next to "as a friend" having sex with her and decides to chuck it up to "learning experience" rather than "rape".

And, truth be told, it probably will create less trauma if she sees it that way. But that would still be rape, wouldn't it?

You can play around with consent but what I like about it is that it's pretty clear cut.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

If that were true the Middle Ages truly would have been a Decameronesque free-for-all. Rape was disapproved of, they just had a different definition of it to the one that we've adopted. Going back to the Liaisons Dangereuses example, when, in one of the subplots, the Marquise de Merteuil sets Prévan up, she decides to ruin his reputation by making everyone believe that he tried to rape her (that's "rape" in their understanding of the term). For it to fit the 18th century definition of the word, she basically can't be seen to have led him on first. She makes it look like she did everything possible to preserve her virtue, and duly succeeded. This contrasts with the affair of the Présidente, in which everyone's more or less aware that she pretty much wanted it anyway, or at least provided all the opportunities. Then there's also the aspect of outcomes mattering more than intentions. (Shame society, master morailty etc etc). Same example: Cécile de Volanges has no choice but to confine herself to a convent at the end, not because she's guilty of anything in so far as we'd undertand it, but simply because outcomes are more important than intentions. Check out Japanese CEOs apologising publically for stuff that really wouldn't be considered their fault from a strict legal point of view. I guess the Medieval rape equivalent would be "the buck stops at your vagina" - we all know that it's not necessarily your fault really, but this is the situation we've got and we're just going to have to live with it. Sucks to be you, eh? If, theoretically, Prévan had succeeded in his attempt, and people found out about it, the Marquise would basically be in the same shit as Cécile, in that people would suspect her of conniving in the thing. Anyway, it's not just guys who bought into these definitions, everyone did, women included. La Présidente would have seen what happened to her as seduction rather than rape, despite the whole unconsciousness aspect - she's not traumatised afterwards or anything. This whole argument is, of course, meaningless unless you've read the book. I'd say that the big change was the reinvention of romantic love at the end of the 19th century. That was all about the consent.

Yeah but you're talking about went on in a book written during the height the decedent French aristocracy in the 1700s (and was later made into the shitty movie Cruel Intentions). So, different definitions sure, but also different definitions for different classes of women and I don't believe for a second it was because any concerns for the women were taken into consideration, its because it now marked them as damaged goods.

I think its simply that high class women were seen as being more valuable than say a chamber maid and thus were given a few more protections to protect their market value and/or the honor of the house that they were part of.

Just like a professional dog breeder would be pissed if one of their show dogs got knocked up by some mutt.

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

Quote:

True and, as I said, I am not against trying to adjust attitudes but I can see it's going to be pretty difficult. Feminists, for example, would be screaming that you're trying to diminish the importance of violence against women...

And I'll point to the Australian case, and they'll look like unscientific, unrepresentative puritans (again).

Quote:

Sure. But again, as AIS also pointed out, that's because women were seen as property and, even when it came to men, the ability to control violence was the determining criteria. If you (or your clan/mesnie/gang, whatever) couldn't generate the amount of violence needed to at the very least stay free, you had no right to complain when someone stronger made you his bitch. Without the violence to back their pretensions to freedom up, women's opinion on their fate was irrelevant. Your body belongs to the strongest person in the vicinity. That is still technically true today but, of course, we've invented the police and stuff to compensate. OTOH, if you can be stronger than the state, you're absolutely free and laws will de facto cease to apply to you. However there's never been a real-life example of the "James Bond Villain" kinda character. Osama Ben Laden was the closest and he was pretty pathetic.

Well, yeah, that's the traditional view of history, as beloved by old white guys the world over.

In fact, what's interesting is that women tended to have even stricter views about female chastity than guys - who would probably have appreciated a few heteirai knocking around the place. And women were the ones who spent all their time educating the next generation.

Bad luck guys. If you'd only sent more of them out to school you could have had yourselves more tail.

Quote:

French judges blather like the English? Really?

Well I meant English judges, who tend to go for this condescending business. French judges are just straight up sexists.

Quote:

I don't really think they're screaming 'yes'. What was that Julian Assange's stuff you posted? Seems pretty close, iirc. "Yeah, I didn't really want to sleep with him but he basically went ahead anyway and I was like, 'whatever'..." . My search skills are failing me and I can't find the article anymore. Or, I'll give you another one - Slightly drunk woman wakes up to find the guy she was sleeping next to "as a friend" having sex with her and decides to chuck it up to "learning experience" rather than "rape". And, truth be told, it probably will create less trauma if she sees it that way. But that would still be rape, wouldn't it? You can play around with consent but what I like about it is that it's pretty clear cut.

Unless you're the guy. You thought she was into it throughout, I mean, she didn't refuse or anything... Now suddenly you're looking at six years of watching your back in the showers?

Quote:

Yeah but you're talking about went on in a book written during the height the decedent French aristocracy in the 1700s (and was later made into the shitty movie Cruel Intentions). So, different definitions sure, but also different definitions for different classes of women and I don't believe for a second it was because any concerns for the women were taken into consideration, its because it now marked them as damaged goods. I think its simply that high class women were seen as being more valuable than say a chamber maid and thus were given a few more protections to protect their market value and/or the honor of the house that they were part of. Just like a professional dog breeder would be pissed if one of their show dogs got knocked up by some mutt.

But, see above, women totally bought into this idea too. We actually see them squabbling with guys on other issues, but I've never read a (non pornographic) book where a female character thinks that women in general should be able to fuck whoever they please with no consequences.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

And I'll point to the Australian case, and they'll look like unscientific, unrepresentative puritans (again).

Details, please. What is the Australian case?

Quote:

Well, yeah, that's the traditional view of history, as beloved by old white guys the world over.

Are you saying it's wrong?

Quote:

In fact, what's interesting is that women tended to have even stricter views about female chastity than guys - who would probably have appreciated a few heteirai knocking around the place. And women were the ones who spent all their time educating the next generation. [...] But, see above, women totally bought into this idea too. We actually see them squabbling with guys on other issues, but I've never read a (non pornographic) book where a female character thinks that women in general should be able to fuck whoever they please with no consequences.

Excuse me but what's your point? Are you saying that AIS and I got our history roughly correct and indeed women were convinced of the validity of the model even if it was against their own interests? Because, at some point, you seemed to be arguing differently. Again, I would certainly agree that a regime change occurred when we started to consider women as individuals with full right and whose consent mattered. I would also agree that the concept of romantic love moving out of novels and ballads to become a "right" also influenced the picture. But, overall, there's always been laws and diktats against rape. Again, see the 10 commandments. It doesn't get much older yet clear than that...

Quote:

Bad luck guys. If you'd only sent more of them out to school you could have had yourselves more tail.

I fully agree and made that point myself. The less we call women who are generous with their sexuality 'slappers' and 'sluts' and other derogatory terms and the more we actually reward them the same way we reward sexually successful men, the more likely we are to get laid. It'd work for me...

Quote:

Unless you're the guy. You thought she was into it throughout, I mean, she didn't refuse or anything... Now suddenly you're looking at six years of watching your back in the showers?

I still don't buy that you can rape someone by mistake. And, by definition, someone out of it cannot consent. You can push the envelope sometimes but it's up to you to see that clear bright line in the sand. What I would say, though, is that a woman can't change her mind after the fact. Consent is before and during. But not after. If you end up regretting the experience, that's fine, it happens. But that's definitely not rape.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Details, please. What is the Australian case?

I've already mentioned it. They replaced the crime of "rape" with "sexual assault" and it became easier to prosecute.

Quote:

Are you saying it's wrong?

Yup.

Quote:

Excuse me but what's your point? Are you saying that AIS and I got our history roughly correct and indeed women were convinced of the validity of the model even if it was against their own interests? Because, at some point, you seemed to be arguing differently. Again, I would certainly agree that a regime change occurred when we started to consider women as individuals with full right and whose consent mattered. I would also agree that the concept of romantic love moving out of novels and ballads to become a "right" also influenced the picture. But, overall, there's always been laws and diktats against rape. Again, see the 10 commandments. It doesn't get much older yet clear than that...

I'm saying you've got the facts right, but the interpretation wrong. And I don't think that's when the change started, it started before then, in Victorian times, when the idea of individual sentiments came to the fore. You can sympathise with someone's feelings without thinking they deserve any civic or political rights - look at our attitude to dogs.

And... I'm pretty sure that there's nothing about rape in the ten commandments.

Quote:

I still don't buy that you can rape someone by mistake. And, by definition, someone out of it cannot consent. You can push the envelope sometimes but it's up to you to see that clear bright line in the sand. What I would say, though, is that a woman can't change her mind after the fact. Consent is before and during. But not after. If you end up regretting the experience, that's fine, it happens. But that's definitely not rape.

If she doesn't mention that she doesn't want to do it, then how the hell is he supposed to know? Sure, the lack of enthusiasm might be a give-away, but frankly lots of girls just lie there inertly wishing that they were Carrie Bradshaw, it's not like it's the litmus test.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

I've already mentioned it. They replaced the crime of "rape" with "sexual assault" and it became easier to prosecute.

Ah, yes, you did. But is it what we want? Making it easier to prosecute? I mean, frankly, I am quite attached to the presumption of innocence. There had been a similar issue with trying to slice "rape" into various categories to increase the chance of getting a conviction. Apart from the impossibility to rank various rapes (is being raped by an acquaintance worse or better than being raped by a unknown guy?), I'd rather the police be more thorough on existing case to present them more convincingly in court. And, as I said, how do you slice a "he said; she said"...

Quote:

I'm saying you've got the facts right, but the interpretation wrong.

But how is your interpretation different? We all agree that women's consent was seen as unessential because, in any case, might made right.

Quote:

And I don't think that's when the change started, it started before then, in Victorian times, when the idea of individual sentiments came to the fore. You can sympathise with someone's feelings without thinking they deserve any civic or political rights - look at our attitude to dogs.

Well, I would suspect it'd started even earlier than that. The giving of political/civic rights was just the conclusion of a long evolution. You can look at "The Princess de Cleves" - written in 1678, a century before "Liaisons Dangereuses", about a story set in the 1550s.

And, of course, courtly love goes further back. And just as De Nemours does not rape the Princess de Cleves (although he does indulge in sex with others while she doesn't), neither does Lancelot rape Genevieve.

Quote:

And... I'm pretty sure that there's nothing about rape in the ten commandments.

You shall not covet another man's wife?

Quote:

If she doesn't mention that she doesn't want to do it, then how the hell is he supposed to know? Sure, the lack of enthusiasm might be a give-away, but frankly lots of girls just lie there inertly wishing that they were Carrie Bradshaw, it's not like it's the litmus test.

Look, I wasn't there when these things happen and I never tried it myself. But my understanding was that, in the cases I've heard of or Assange's case, the girls were like "no, no, no" but the guy keep insisting "c'mon, c'mon, c'mon" and with a little bit of pinning down, that was that.

As I said, I think that the girls prefer to chuck it to experience than call it rape because it's less traumatic that way. Probably because of the weight we put on 'rape' and because of the 'damaged goods' consequences, they prefer telling themselves "I made a bad call by agreeing to share a bed with that guy" than "this guy raped me"...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

But, see above, women totally bought into this idea too. We actually see them squabbling with guys on other issues, but I've never read a (non pornographic) book where a female character thinks that women in general should be able to fuck whoever they please with no consequences.

Well thats a backwards oppressive culture for ya... But you're ignoring the "Why?" of it which is going to totally undermine the whole "Well a lot of women were all for it too". You're free to agree with me or you can be publicly flogged.

We used to burn people at the stake for being a witch, or publicly saying the King wasn't a divinely appointed ruler to whom all our possessions and even our very lives were owed and most people thought it all perfectly fine and reasonable too...

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

Originally Posted by Zichao

In fact, what's interesting is that women tended to have even stricter views about female chastity than guys - who would probably have appreciated a few heteirai knocking around the place. And women were the ones who spent all their time educating the next generation.

But this isn't universal by a long way. I think this is evidence of how society constructs roles; if it is insistend that sexual pfligacy is bad for women, then women are rewarded for maintaining chaste lives and passing these on to their daughters. That function is an important part of what being a Good Person, in terms of their defined role, is about. But that's all social construction, and, I would argue, something that only arises in male dominated societies:

Quote:

By studying several different tribes of the Western Pacific (employing the method of comparison, popular in ethnography), Malinowski gave confirmations of Lewis Morgan's idea that matriarchy (gyneocracy)[56] was a common feature of primitive societies at early stages, and that female rule needed matrilineality for its existence. He also confirmed that matrilineality often goes hand in hand with promiscuous free love (a fact that was discovered[citation needed] by Bachofen). According to B. Malinowski: "As a rule, amongst natives, a high position of women is associated with sex laxity."[57] "The sexual life of these natives [the Southern Massim tribe] is extremely lax. Even when we remember the very free standard of sex morals in the Melanesian tribes of New Guinea, such as the Motu or the Mailu, we still find these natives exceedingly loose in such matters. Certain reserves and appearances which are usually kept up in other tribes, are here completely abandoned. As is probably the case in many communities where sex morals are lax, there is a complete absence of unnatural practices and sex perversions. Marriage is concluded as the natural end of a long and lasting liaison."[57] "[The Trobrianders'] sexual life starts long before puberty arrives, and gradually shapes and develops as the organism matures... Chastity is an unknown virtue among these natives. At an incredibly early age they become initiated into sexual life... As they grow up, they live in promiscuous free-love, which gradually develops into more permanent attachments... Marriage is associated with hardly any public or private rite or ceremony. The woman simply joins her husband in his house... In her married life, the woman is supposed to remain faithful to her husband, but this rule is neither very strictly kept nor enforced. In all other ways, she retains a great measure of independence."[52]

Matriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where women have political power, female sexuality is no more restricted than male sexuality.