A new report by Child Trends found that approximately 18 percent of women aged 18 to 24 years old report having experienced forced sexual intercourse at least once in their lives. This release from the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) notes that the most common types of force are verbal or physical pressure, and being physically held down.
More than half the women forced to have sexual intercourse report experiencing each of these types of force. Approximately a quarter of the women report being physically hurt.
The fact that women are more likely to be assaulted when they're young is not new information, but the people at FVPF are using these numbers to talk about an issue that isn't often discussed: reproductive coercion.
The organization, who had a call out last year for stories of birth control sabotage, has launched the kNOw More initiative, which examines the reproductive health consequences of sexual coercion and violence.
From FVPF President Esta Soler:
The intersection of sexual violence and reproductive health is largely unexplored...With this initiative, we are overcoming stigma and raising awareness about the many women who, while dating or in relationships are forced into choices not their own through rape, sexual coercion or because partners prevent them from using protection. These women are at risk for sexually transmitted infection, unintended pregnancy, HIV, and more. Some suffer miscarriages when they want to carry pregnancies to term. Others become mothers before they are ready. Still others lose their fertility. We are creating a space for women to share stories, and raising awareness among those who may be at risk as well as their friends, policy makers and others.
The stories on the website are chilling. Take this one, from Kylie:
When I first met my ex, he never wanted to use condoms. He did want me to use the 'morning-after pill,' I'll admit. I was quite young and didn't know how to stand up for myself, so I became pregnant after coerced sex. For the next four years, I stayed with my ex for the sake of the baby, suffering the most horrific kinds of abuse - physical and emotional. His 'reason' for abusing me? Because I 'trapped' him through pregnancy. Although the only thing I'd been doing since the pregnancy was begging him to let me leave, he threatened to kill me, the baby, and my entire family if I ever attempted it.
Make sure to spread the word about the initiative - this is too important an issue to overlook.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nearly One in Five Young Women Have Experienced Forced Intercourse.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9208
I'm confused by your use of the term "forced intercourse" here. Isn't this something that you usually call out, asking why they don't refer to it as rape?
Sorry Halfmad, I should have mentioned something about that in the body of the post. I'm using the language of the report and FVPF. My assumption is that because the study takes all forms of sexual coercion - not just physical force - into account (like verbal coercion), some of the incidents wouldn't legally constitute rape. Whether or not we should call it rape is another conversation, I suppose, but I try to always use the language that the expert org is using.
Again, the first thing that came to mind was the lack of political and mainstream media attention these issues really get, when so many women are affected by sexual violence, coercion or suffer the ramifications of being denied access to reproductive health.
In the campaign, we hear "pro-life" or "pro-abortion." Interesting that a country that reveres human freedom, liberty and individuality still cannot grant women the choice to control their own bodies. Why can't this be part of the debates going on? Pro choice means supporting comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, family planning services and options, and safe abortions, and yet the issue comes down to "abortion" each time.
I think I am railing off topic a bit, but I definitely see the connection between sexual violence and reproductive and sexual rights and freedoms as they are both misunderstood and misrepresented by the mainstream media, and only the most extreme examples.
Does anyone know if there are any states which do include verbal coercion in the definition of rape? I believe that some states include verbal threats in the definition of force.
the_next_gloria,
I don't think you're off topic. Awareness of this serious, publicly under reported, conduct infers also viable solutions -- one of which is access to birth-control, a choice to not have unwanted pregnancy, especially if one cannot afford to raise a child, and all others. Diagnosis of a problem/issue, outreach and consciousiness-raising about it, are not exclusive of debate and dialogue about implicit solutions -- especially public policy, as it relates to the pro-life vs pro-choice debate.
"...verbal...pressure."
So now:
"Honey we haven't had sex in a month..."
"You are verbally pressuring me!!!"
{Dials 9-11}
Are you being purposely obtuse, Lee?
As someone who was, in a past relationship, "verbally pressured" or what I like to call coerced into intercourse (among other things), it is nothing at all like that.
wow, lee, just wow.
way to belittle the experiences of people who've been sexually assaulted. i genuinely hope that you realize how wrong it is to post something like that in a space like this without anything happening to you or one of your loved ones.
ugh.
"I could hide it when it was bruises.
"I could hide it when he forced me to have sex.
"But I can't hide my pregnancy."
Perhaps I'm missing something, and I don't mean to sound callous, but—is she inhabiting a world where she can't get an abortion?
Pregnancy is very, very hideable; pretending it's not is bad marketing.
Kee, perhaps you should re-read the personal stories. In many cases, the threat or use of violence and/or other forms of abuse such as financial abuse, prevents a woman from accessing abortion or other birth control.
I ought to know. It happened to me. My ex husband refused to allow me access to family finances when we were married. This prevented me from accessing birth control and he refused to use any. Naturally, I got pregnant. I was only able to terminate because I was able to get funds from an outside source.
"is she inhabiting a world where she can't get an abortion?"
It's not exactly easy or cheap to get an abortion, so for some women/girls it may very well be close enough to "can't get an abortion".
And besides, while I am 100% pro-choice (and would likely get an abortion if I were to become pregnant right now), it bothers me when people ask these questions. "Oh, she's pregnant, why can't she just get an abortion?!" The choice should of course be there, and women should be aware of that choice, but not everyone *wants* an abortion (no matter how they got pregnant), and not everyone can afford one for that matter. Your "is she inhabiting a world where she can't get an abortion?" was condescending, at the very least.
Kee, depending on which area of the country you live in, getting an abortion and 'hiding' your pregancy may not be an option. Id the woman in question under 18? There may be parental notification or consent laws. Even if the woman is 18 or over, there may not be a doctor in the area willing to perform the procedure, or she may not have the money to cover an abortion. Also add in religious, familial, and social pressures (not to mention the woman's own thoughts) and having an abortion may not be an option even if service and money were available.
Did you know that recent academic studies have found that women not only commit but initiate (not self defense) domestic violence almost as much as men do.
Sociological research, consistently shows that women are just as violent as men in relationships and that men sustain one-third of the injuries. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes over 200 of these studies in his online bibliography at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Harvard Medical School just announced a nationwide survey that found half of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is reciprocal and that women initiate most of the reciprocal and 71% of the non-reciprocal violence, while both sexes suffered significant injuries. http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
The University of New Hampshire recently performed 32-nation study that found women are as violent and controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male
I know this story is mostly about forced intercourse and not D.V., but it's still worthy to note that women are becoming increasing more violent, and according to these studies, the violence is not some sort of retaliation or self defense (like someone was attempting to force intercourse and the woman reacted violently). No, these are woman who initiate the violence and are the abusers.
I know this may be hard for some of you to accept, but it looks like woman are becoming just as bad as men are.
As far as reproductive coercion goes, looks like it swings both ways in the form of paternity fraud. Michigan Family Independence Agency statistics indicate that 30 percent of the paternity tests performed in Michigan exclude the tested man from being the child's biological father. The American Association of Blood Banks, which evaluated 280,000 paternity tests in 1999, found similar numbers. Currently 1.6 million men are forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm
And as for verbally coercing someone to have sex...
Yes, people can be verbally coerced in many different ways. I know this from personal experience. I was once involved in a long term relationship with a man who regularly coerced me into having sex. At the time I didn't this was rape and like one of the above posters, I didn't know how to defend myself.
Some of his favorite tactics:
Repeatively asking for sex, as in every five minutes or so, getting more and more agressive as time went on.
Not letting me go to sleep until we had sex. Sometimes this involved waking me up around 1am and not letting me go back to sleep. Usually I gave in just to get some rest (8am classes the next day).
Picking a fight because I didn't want to have sex for some reason (wasn't in the mood, was doing homework, tired, etc). Usually this blew up into accusations that I was cheating on him.
Threatened to not let me have contact with my older brother, who was the only family member I had in the area. He often accused me of being "too close" to my brother and sometimes accused us of having an incestuous relationship.
Often threatened suicide. Usually because me not wanting to have sex at that moment meant that I didn't love him.
Threatened to kick me out of our apartment. Nevermind the fact that I was one paying most of the rent.
The phone was in his name and he had the long distance calling disabled so that I couldn't call my "lovers" back home. This was after I began to not give in to his bullsh*t. Having sex with him made him magically trust me again.
Threatened to kill my cat. Ironically, this was the last straw for me. (apparently you I could take the physical/verbal/emotional abuse and be cutting off from my family, but not a threat to my kitty cat. Go figure.)
I know there's more, but this is what I thought of off the top of my head. My point is that there are a lot of ways to force someone to have sex without physically forcing them to.
The verbal coercion sometimes escalated to physical abuse. Yes, he did physically hold me down on more than one occasion.
When I itemize the abuse like that, I have a really hard time understanding why I stayed in that situation for over 4 years.
IndyKat34:
First of all no one is arguing that there all types of victims in domestic abuse situations (men, women, victims of same-sex partnerships, etc.).
I've read the studies that examine both men and women's rates of abuse on their partners. I don't deny that women can be violent towards their romantic partners, but studies of straight statistics don't show the underlying causes of the domestic violence.
The Harvard Medical study you cited even stated as such:
The authors say they have no intention of minimizing the very real problem of serious domestic violence — the classic male batterer. The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering.
The site you linked on the New Hampshire study doesn't work, but I am curious in how they operationalized violence and control in such a way that men's and women's rates were similar.
You said: I know this may be hard for some of you to accept, but it looks like woman are becoming just as bad as men are.
You again ignore the underlying causes of violence and mistake motivations as being similar.
Finally, your last link was laughable. It plays so fast and loose with statistics that I LOL'ed. This author extrapolates that because one result of 30% of DNA paternity tests showing that the father was not the biological father of a child named in a paternity suit, that UP TO ONE-THIRD OF WOMEN LIE ABOUT WHO FATHERED THEIR CHILD (quote: "The sample size of 300,000+ DNA tests a year suggests that, as an upper limit, 30% of all children are conceived by a man other than the one named by the mother. With ~4 million children now born each year in the United States, 1.2 million men are likely victims of paternity fraud each year.").
I like to look at the results of the paternity tests thusly (because paternity tests really only come about when men are pretty sure their SO's have been cheating): Two out of three men who think their SO's are cheating on them are wrong. That's not a great track record.
Sure, women can lie when it comes to pregnancy and they can do it in order to maintain control within a relationship, which is flat out wrong. However, the vile actions of some women shouldn't negate the experiences of others.
Off-topic, I apologize, but I just read some of the above posts, and, well -- I just don't understand or want to understand why women in the 20/21st century still permit themself to become economically dependent on a man, whether he is their boyfriend or husband, whether she decides to have kids or not. I just see it as 100% abdication of one's power -- in the fantasy, fair-tale, name of delusional-love. And then after reality bites, they complain about how the "man" did this and that, instead of how they put themself into a patriarchy-prison. Some much for the walk down the isle, white wedding dress, and happily ever after guarantee. What, one person above talked about how her husband "would let her have access to his funds" -- and she marry this guy, WOW! I apologize for the 20/20 second guessing. But I only hope none of these women repeated their dependency on a male. Yes, I'm going to be 100% upfront about my bias or opinion as it relates to women choosing to become dependent on males economically, especially to be a wife and/or have kids .... 100% STUPID/DUMB! Now back to the topic .... sorry for that digression.
IndyKat's post reminds me of the people who interject into any discussion of sexual assault the fact that occasionally men are falsely accused of rape. Yes, that's awful. So is domestic violence, whether it's against women or against men. This country certainly needs to have a discussion about the reproductive rights of men, and how we balance them with those of women. But being as how the incidents of women and girls held in abusive relationships, forced into having sex, etc., VASTLY outnumber the cases of victimized men, I think your concern is misplaced.
When I was a kid, I had a doll like IndyKat34--everytime you pulled her string, she said the same thing.
I suggest that Indy take his/her tired, not-based-in-any-shared-non-MRA-reality argument and go elsewhere. Everytime you quote the Harvard study, one smart poster or another picks out that same quote that makes your entire argument moot. Just let it go dude, your argument is a bad one.
One more thing...Kee, almost 90 percent of counties in the U.S. don't have a ingle abortion provider. So, to answer your question...yes, she is.
One more thing...Kee, almost 90 percent of counties in the U.S. don't have a single abortion provider. So, to answer your question...yes, she is.
OneVoice, you cannot be serious. They are about to turn off power here at work to do some construction, so I have to shut off, and I'm sure someone else will come through and tear your argument to shreads, but can I say something? you're 100% STUPID/DUMB.
OneVoice, I found your post incredibly insensitive and offensive. I was in an emotionally abusive relationship for over a year (and I'm pretty sure it would've escalated to physically abusive if I didn't get out of there) and I WAS NOT in the relationship for economic stability or my lovely dreams of wearing a white wedding dress. How offensive! Have you ever spoken to someone in an abusive relationship? Do you even understand what emotional/psychological abuse is? How it works? Do some research before making such idiotic statements next time please.
OK OneVoice, I'll bite.
Why do women enter and stay in abusive relationships? There are many reasons. I know I did not hit all of the reasons, but here's a start.
1. The abuse is usually gradual. I sdidn't knowingly walk into a full blown abusive relationship. The situation degrades over time.
2. Women, especially young women, often do not know how to stand up for themselves. This is not because they are stupid. This is because they have been socialized since birth to be a good wife or stand by their man. We are taught not to make a fuss.
3. Woman are shown poor examples of relationships, from real-life role models to popular culture. In my case, I grew up watching my parent's relationship; my father was often abusive.
4. We are taught that men are providers and will take care of things. It is usually not the woman's intent to be helpless and dependent on the man. However, when one spouse must sacrifise a career, it is usually the woman.
5. The abuser often makes the victem feel like it's her fault. You make me so mad when you... or you make me so jealous when you... This is part of the emotional abuse.
6. The abuser destroys the victem's self esteem. The victem feels like she is unlovable and deserves to be treated this way. See above.
7. The abuser isolates the victem and cuts off her support system. This can be done in subtle ways. In my case, my ex-boyfriend would get very jealous when I would spend time with my firends and not him. In order to cut down on fights, I spent less and less time with friends.
OneVoice, you do realize that a number of the people here have been in the situation described? How about instead of hauling off with the insults, you ASK -- politely -- some of the posters who've commented about being in an abusive relationship why they relinquished control to someone else? Or better yet, read up on the issue yourself.
While you're at it, read the comments policy.
And if you're planning to respond to criticism with a lot of rude mockery, "LOL"ing, and protests that you're "just having some fun", as you have previously, please be advised that that's not going to fly here.
"OneVoice, I found your post incredibly insensitive and offensive."
My first answer. I don't care how YOU experienced my opinion. It was direct at YOU personally. It was my political opinion.
My second answer -- yes! I come from an abusive single-parent father home, where I was almost murdered four times, in a manner of abuse one would describe as tortue. My siblings and my mother (who is still alive today) also experienced this abuse. And I saw such abuse daily by other men (and law enforce) and others in my community, and I've also studied it in college, undergraduate and graduate level, and dialogue about such my female public interest lawyer friends/associates who do this work.
So, no, I'm not an expert. I did not write any books. I don't intend to be mean to YOU personally. And my post tried to qualify my political opinion with (I'm apologize about 20/20 second guessing people -- because I knew someone was going to take my comments out of context).
Enough said! Get some professional counseling if you cannot deal with opinions that you disagree with given your experience. I'm not being cold. I'm just not here to hold your hand, give you clinical therapy, or self-censor myself based on some impossible assumption of who might be subjectively offended or sensitive. I agree we all should strive to be understand. But millions of people blog in cyberspace and I suspect thousand on this site. There is would simply be impossible to accommodate or speculate or know what each and every persons values, life experiences and sensitivities are about a particular opinion I have. So I asssume, perhaps wrongly, that we all come here with "thick-skin".
Ladies,
I appreciate your critque. Some of you have made some assumptions about what I know or have not experienced or witness. I do understand some being upset. Again, my political opinion was not direct at them, personally. It was my political opinion -- and not one based on some sexist assumptions, or lack of reading, or any of those assumptions. How any of you (or other women and men) deal with their abuse is their personal business. How I deal with mine, and those persons I know, is ours. We all have our respective different life experiences and opinions. I don't get upset when persons talk about abuse, even though I have been and my mother and my sisters and other women. Offline and online, hundreds of persons have opinions or convictions that don't speak to my life or those I know. I let them have their opinion. They don't have to speak to my experiences. They don't have to have politics that comform to some presumption of how to talk to or interact with abuse persons. I don't get into that power dynamic, or expectation, or projection. So, can we leave this one alone, ladies.
I sigh in disappointment when I see reports like these, not because of the horror reported but because the study and report is so sloppy that the credibility of those speaking out about the problem of rape is damaged by stuff like this.
Here's the link to the actual report, a two page "fact sheet". It took a couple of clicks on links to get back to it. http://www.knowmoresaymore.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/child-trends-forced-sexual-intercourse-fact-sheet.pdf
Of the 18% who reported "not voluntary" for intercourse, 32% reported "threatened with physical hurt" and 61% reported "pressured by words/actions without threats". At most then this review would support a 6% rate of forced sexual intercourse which would be accepted by reasonable people. That's still a very high and very bad number, but it's not the 1 in 5 reported in the headline.
Verbal abuse in a relationship is a bad and demoralizing thing and verbal "coercion" short of threats of physical harm is also bad. But neither falls to the level of rape as most reasonable people would accept or define the term.
I find OneVoice offensive. And quite possibly, a troll. I request she/he be banned.
"Some of you have made some assumptions about what I know or have not experienced or witness."
I'd say you are making a lot of assumptions about people yourself, wouldn't you?
I find MariLove offensive. And quite possibly, a troll. I request she/he be banned.
"Some of you have made some assumptions about what I know or have not experienced or witness."
I'd say you are making a lot of assumptions about people yourself, wouldn't you?
"As far as reproductive coercion goes, looks like it swings both ways in the form of paternity fraud. Michigan Family Independence Agency statistics indicate that 30 percent of the paternity tests performed in Michigan exclude the tested man from being the child's biological father. The American Association of Blood Banks, which evaluated 280,000 paternity tests in 1999, found similar numbers. Currently 1.6 million men are forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs"
Bullshit!
The myth behind paternity fraud
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) ^ | 30 June 2005 | Adele Horin
Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:38:08 PM by Lorianne
Widespread paternity fraud is an urban myth - that is the finding of research published today which says claims up to 30 per cent of Australian men had not fathered children they believed to be theirs are wide of the mark.
A more realistic figure is 1 to 3 per cent, according to Michael Gilding, a professor of sociology at Swinburne University.
"The most outlandish figures have been quoted," he said. "But they have their origin in some very questionable research."
When news broke that the federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, was not the biological father of his alleged son, Daniel, many authorities, including obstetricians, testing laboratories, and newspapers claimed between 10 and 30 per cent of Australian men might make a similar discovery about their own children.
But Professor Gilding, director of the Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies, said the state of anxiety being promoted about paternity was silly.
"It's a product of the alienated fantasies of fathers' rights activists and the commercial interests of the paternity testing industry," he said.
Prompted by the repeated assertions of widespread paternity fraud in the aftermath of the Abbott drama, Professor Gilding undertook an exhaustive review of available international research. It is published in the latest People and Place, the journal of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University.
He found studies based on genetic testing of families for medical conditions such as cystic fibrosis consistently showed a non-paternity rate of no more than 3 per cent in Western countries. These studies provided valuable evidence of the incidence of non-paternity in general because the genetic testing was unrelated to paternity issues.
As well, several representative surveys of sexual practice in Western countries consistently showed high rates of monogamy in marriage. For example, in the 2001 Australian sex survey of 10,173 adults, of those who had been in a regular relationship for at least a year, only 2.9 per cent of women had more than one sexual partner. The survey pointed to differences in socio-economic groups with 6.5 per cent of women with household income of less than $20,000 having had more than one partner compared to 2.2 per cent of women on more than $52,000.
Dr Gilding dismissed figures from laboratories that specifically test for paternity as being small, unrepresentative samples where the issue of fatherhood was already in question.
virago, your last paragraph demonstrates Gilding is talking about a different number than the paragraph you criticize. Gilding is talking about overall paternity, testing for various reasons even when paternity is not an issue. The first paragraph is talking about percentages where the paternity is being tested because it is contested. Neither number shocks me.
kaylagrrl, From your comment comparing me to one of your dolls you played with as a kid, sounds like you have a lot of hatred in you. Maybe the truth hurts a little.
"Verbal abuse in a relationship is a bad and demoralizing thing and verbal "coercion" short of threats of physical harm is also bad. But neither falls to the level of rape as most reasonable people would accept or define the term."
While my cynical side tells me you may be correct, the fact that "most reasonable people" would not define these things as rape speaks more to the fact that our society condones sexual violence than anything else.
I have been in the type of situation this study describes. Similarly to VT Idealist, my partner:
systematically isolated me from my friends and family,
used the money I earned so that I had no savings,
accused me of cheating if I did not want to have sex,
told me that if I did not have sex when he wanted I did not love him,
acted as though making sex pleasurable for me was an unrealistic burden, repeatedly (every five minutes) harassed me to have sex with him when I had already said no,
and, here's the kicker:
when I had repeatedly said no to sex he responded with, "just let me try a little, maybe you'll change you're mind," and proceeded to climb on top of me anyway. Because he had emotionally and verbally abused me constantly, and because I cared about him (and was at least slightly afraid of him) I didn't fight back. I just laid there miserably, trying to block out what was happening, until I couldn't stand it any more and pushed him off. He usually proceeded to act hurt like there was something wrong with me for not "changing my mind" and liking it.
I was never held down or overtly threatened with violence, but I most certainly was raped. When I told my current partner about what I had experienced (in much less definite terms than I have used here) he immediately recognized it for what it was. The fact that "most reasonable people" might not is just sad.
middleageliberal, I think your missing the point. The paragraph that I criticized states that 30% of "contested" paternity tests exclude the men being tested as the biological father of said children. The father's rights groups try to spin this 30% number to the general population. In other words, they wants us to believe that 30% of men IN THE GENERAL POPULATION are victims of paternity fraud. This is what indyKat34 is trying to say.
The father's rights group also like to spin that all the men being tested are angry fathers who have been misled by evil wives and girlfriends into believing they were the biological fathers of their children when they were not. However, not all men who are tested fit into this category. A woman may have alleged several men as possible fathers, and testing was done to sort out the men who were not the fathers. These men are not being misled. Many men are accused and tested because a man who is NOT excluded as the father is alleging the mother had multiple sex partners as part of his defense. Sometimes, men are tested because of legal presumption. In other words, a woman may list the correct father, but because she is married to someone else, the legal presumption is that her husband is the father, and the husband is tested to exclude him, None of these cases have to do with "paternity fraud". If anything, these are cases of paternity testing being used to find the correct father to avoid naming the wrong guy as bio-dad in the first place.
For FRA's to claim that all men who are excluded as the father in the 30% of contested paternity test are victims of paternity fraud is midleading and dishonest. On top of this, they are trying to say that 30% of men in the general population are victims of paternity fraud based on a skewed sample. That's why Gilding rejected figures from laboratories who do paternity testing. These laboratories don't always know why a particular man is being tested, and they only want to make a buck. It's just another way of saying that women are nothing but a bunch of lying sluts. On the other hand, 70% of the contested paternity tests correctly identified the man being tested as the biological father, and FRA's can't get around that fact. Gilding's idea of looking at genetic testing for medical reasons in families to get accurate data on paternity fraud in the general population is more realistic. These figures are 1-3%, and the FRA's just can't deal with it.
There are plenty of trolls on this thread.
I, for one, am surprised the numbers for assault aren't higher.
I've only ever met *one* woman out of 10,000 or so who claimed not to have been harassed. I'm guessing it should be the same for sexual assault.
I was sexually assaulted at *least* 15 times in my life, not including sexual harassment, and I am *not* a fashion model. So how do you explain it???
I'm *very very* sure the numbers are *much, much* higher and there is a problem in reporting them.
One Voice- if your opinion is truly a political argument, then why does it include calling abused women "stupid"? Your idea of someone's intelligence is subjective, biased, and not based in any fact- so it is a personal attack, and indefensible.
Insulting someone is hard to disguise as discussion, as one is based in ignorance and the other in critical analysis.
Wow, VT Idealist... deja fucking vu! That was my relationship from age 19 to 23.
It is amazing how many of the points in the "classic abuser mentality" seem to be so universal.
I also think there are very subtle societal pressures that put the onus for "making it work," on the female. Unfortunately for me, it was that kind of backward thinking that prevented me from getting out a lot sooner.
I can't explain your reported sexual assaults unless you described them to me, and I'm not asking you to.
My point was that including being "Told relationship would end" and "pressured by words/actions without threats" as verbal coercion sufficient to call the resulting act a forced intercourse makes it hard for many fair minded people to take the problem seriously. Verbal coercion, forced intercourse, sexual assault and rape are being conflated. Someone grabbing your ass at a party is sexual assault. So is having a knife put at your throat while someone jams a penis inside you. They're not the same thing. It hardly needs to be said.
"Someone grabbing your ass at a party is sexual assault."
It is? This has happened to me a couple times where women grabbed my ass. I didn't feel sexually assaulted at all. If she was attractive to me; I was like: "Hey girl, how you doing?".
TLS, since you're obviously a hetero male who would like to have strange women fondle you, those wouldn't be sexual assaults because the contact is permitted and welcome.
Let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose you, as a thoroughly hetero man, go to a social gathering and men start grabbing your ass and squeezing your package. And these men outweigh you by anywhere between 50 and 100 pounds. Perhaps you wouldn't feel quite so flippant.
TO JESSICA
and also
SHIFTER CAT, MARILOVE, HALO and ALL OTHER POSTERS
The poster identified as OneVoice is a 100% troll. ShifterCat is right in her description of his behaviour on a post yesterday, ie the mockery disguised as "having fun", writing "lol" an absurd number of times, and then calling the people he insulted "good sports". His tactics are to deliberately insult other posters in order to get reactions, and so far he has been very successful.
Yesterday the post by Samhita was about a politician and polls so was not as personal. However, to come onto a posting about sexual assault and go about victim blaming because, in his view, women may "allow" themselves to become dependent on a man, and labelling them as "100% STUPID/DUMB!" as a result is beyond comprehension. (Trigger warning: See September 10 4:37 PM)
In the same spirit as yesterday, he then resorts to personally insulting posters who react to his highly offensive comments. This is followed up by a more mellow posting where he tries to defend his actions as being politically motivated, and nothing personal. Marilove, he did exactly the same thing to me yesterday as he has done to you today in repeating your words, and sending them back to you with names switched. As well as being downright offensive, his tactics are becoming repetitive, predictable and boring.
I requested yesterday that this person be banned from this site as his intention is not to engage in rational debate, but to offend and get some sort of twisted kick out of the reaction, furthering his assault by then personally attacking and insulting those who do react.
JESSICA, is it possible for the administrators of this site to have a look at this person's postings and behaviour, and make a decision as to his suitability? As you can read above, I am not alone in requesting this.
In the meantime, it is probably best for other posters not to react to his postings, as getting the reaction is his objective, and then he feeds off this.
Regards to you all,
AliCat
"It is? This has happened to me a couple times where women grabbed my ass. I didn't feel sexually assaulted at all. If she was attractive to me; I was like: "Hey girl, how you doing?"."
Oh, and what if the girl was unattractive? Would you consider this sexual assault than? And what is she kept grabbing your ass after you told her repeatedly not to? Or what if a gay guy grabbed your ass? Of course, than the situation would be different because you didn't welcome their attention like you would an attractive woman. Since you don't know that grabbing someone's ass is sexual assault, do you go around grabbing every woman's ass who you find attractive? Do you just assume she'd find you attractive so that sort of behavior is okay? Is her ass your public property just because some women did it to you a couple of times and you liked it? Woman put up with this shit all the time, and you ask stupid questions like,"It is?" I don't give a damn what sex someone is, or how attractive they are. You don't walk around in public grabbing people's asses like they're your own private property. The fact that you think this is okay says a lot about you.
Yeah, I'm with AliCat. Yesterday OneVoice tried to cover his ass with "I'm just joking LOLZ", now he's trying, "Oh I'm a victim too and so what if people are offended 'cuz it's just my political opinion... can't you ladies all forget about this?"
You can do what you like on your own blog, but when you visit someone else's you follow the moderators' rules.
And there was the post on Community where someone wrote about her friend's boyfriend groping her while she was sleeping, and OneVoice told her to stop complaining because she'd been drinking and should to go jail for life for it. Filled with LOLs and later, "Don't take it so seriously!" again. It's getting old.
OneVoice, you're violating our comments policy - making personal attacks. If you continue, I will ban you permanently from the site.
Zoray, it's also amazing how the abusive relationship often takes place around the same age range. This is not to say that older women are not abused, obviously this is not the case. But I have found from talking with other women that the abusive relationship typically occurs around the same age range - upper teens to lower twenties, or somewhere around college aged. Zoray mentioned above that her relationship took place from 19-23. Mine was from 18-22.
I think young women are particularly suscpetible to this type of abuse. We're not taught how to recognize it, and when we do recognize that something's wrong, we don't know what to do about it.
My 30 year old self looks back at that time in my life and wonders why I stayed so long. I certainly wouldn't put up with that crap at this point in my life. I am much more comfortable and confident in myself.
I think a major problem is getting people to recognize the many forms that abuse takes. We all agree that pysically striking your partner is abuse. What about verbal and emotional? As OneVoice has so kindly pointed out, there are plenty of people out there that don't see these activities as abusive. We really need to get the point across, to both women and men, the many, many ways abuse occurs.
Zoray, you make a good point that the onus on 'saving' the relationship is on the woman, that we somehow have to come up with a solution to all of the relationship problems. You know, if I just did xxx, he would be happier. What complete and utter bullsh*t.
VT I think you're right in that many people don't realize that emotional/psychological abuse is actually abuse. In fact, that's the way that most abuse starts.
And it is interesting that many of us on this thread experienced these bad relationships around the same time in our lives. Mine started when I was 19.
I remember I always used to say that I would never be in an abusive relationship and never understood why the women who were stuck around. Then I found myself in one and I didn't even realize it til it was over. Looking back at it makes me sick. The relationship ended years ago but thinking about the whole thing is still very upsetting. Earlier this year I basically had the revelation that if the relationship had continued that my boyfriend would've soon become physically abusive as well. And that was really scary. And I think about what I would have done in that situation. Would I have stood up to him or called the cops (like I had always imagined I'd do) or would I make excuses for him and be too afraid/ashamed to say anything to anyone about it? Sadly with the way he had already manipulated my mind into working I believe I would have done the latter. I mean, I was already making up excuses for why he would call me a slut and whore everyday, how it was really my fault, so would making similar excuses for him hitting me be that much of a leap?
llevinso, I could have written most of your post. I was 18 when mine started. It lasted for two years, and until it hit the big "turning point" I thought everything was MY fault. The guy was 8 years older, I thought that I was just inexperienced in adult relationships and he knew what it should be like. I always thought, "If I'd just said that differently, it wouldn't have upset him." I thought I just didn't know how to keep someone happy (as if I was responsible for his happiness).
Zoray, it was that universiality of the classic abuser mentality that helped me in the end. A friend gave me a book about verbal abuse, and to this day I remember how eerie it was seeing my relationship in those pages. It took that book to make me realize that there was absolutely no logic behind the boyfriend's actions, nothing that I could do to change him or prevent him from blowing up, and that the only appropriate response was to get out. Even after reading it it took me a while to get out - it took until my disgust with him grew more overpowering than my fear of him.
VT, your relationship and mine sound so similar...
{{hugs}}. It seems like no one understands, and god help anyone who tries to take such a thing to court...
He STILL calls my folks' house to try to get me back, even though I'm married and gone. The worst is that he can deny forever that he is a rapist, and everyone else is A-OK with that.
"OneVoice, you're violating our comments policy - making personal attacks. If you continue, I will ban you permanently from the site."
Jessica, as one of the Editors of Feministing.com I appreciate your warning. However, I have never made any "personal attacks" against any blogger on this site. For you to accept such a claim as being valid disturbs me on many levels, the least of which culturally, especially for what I suspect the reasons to be regarding those bloggers who requested such -- racist misandry!
And, NO, I'm not one to play any fictitious race or any other ISM card. I call it what it is! It would be too easy to list comparative posts on your site in juxtaposition to all of my posts (where we expose gender/cultural identities behind their authors) to 100% demonstrate such. But I prefer to do this kind serious thing in my legal work and politics -- not cyberspace.
Thank you, Jessica, and the other editors for having permitted me to "voice" my multiple-identity-perspectives on your "mainstream site".
Out of professional respect to you and them, I will not post any more of my opinions on your website. I only hope offline, in the real world, that black males like myself (and other members of my community) can overlook cultural-incidents like this (and those I witness daily offline) as not making it impossible for 200 million whites and 38 million blacks to transcend their historical and present-day cultural ISMS.
Only time will tell.
Please feel free to delete any or all posts I have made on your site, especially those which some bloggers (especially those above) have chosen to characterize as "personal attacks" versus my "opinion" -- no less or more voiced or aggreeable or disagreeable than theirs.
Respectfully yours -- OV
Thanks for posting this info. We're using it to help fight Prop. 4 in California: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/more-reasons-to.html
When you call women in abusive relationships "100% STUPID/DUMB" it is a personal attack. So (copying a comment of yours used over and over in a different thread):
TRY AGAIN
OneVoice:
"And then after reality bites, they complain about how the "man" did this and that, instead of how they put themself into a patriarchy-prison. "
Victim blaming.
"But I only hope none of these women repeated their dependency on a male."
More victim blaming!
"Yes, I'm going to be 100% upfront about my bias or opinion as it relates to women choosing to become dependent on males economically, especially to be a wife and/or have kids .... 100% STUPID/DUMB! Now back to the topic .... sorry for that digression."
Yet MORE victim blaming, AND personal attacks.
Troll troll troll troll troll.
It seems like people are assuming that being "threatened with physical hurt" or "pressured by words/actions without threats" would not legally constitute rape. That is just not the case. The first one definitely would be rape. And the second one also could be depending on the context. Rape is not just being physically forced; submitting to intercourse under duress also constitutes rape.
"Rape is not just being physically forced; submitting to intercourse under duress also constitutes rape."
Yes, this! How is it NOT rape? I don't understand anyone who thinks it is anything else.
Now that the story has gone onto page 2 there may not be any readers left. The point I tried to make was that to use lousy studies just because they have shocking headlines and a PhD's name attached to them is bad tactics. It damages the credibility of your argument.
I don't think anyone claimed the first category is not rape; it classically is. I cited that category in my first post to find a good arguable percentage from the study most people would accept as rape--32% of the 18% general category of all supposed "forced" intercourse equals almost 6%.It's hard for me to imagine how "pressured by words/actions without threats" could be considered forced. The problem with your last phrase is the vagueness of the word "duress". I suggested that to include non-threatening words such as being "told relationship would end" as duress, which the cited study does, undercuts the credibility of the study and report.
Now that California NOW has used this report and study, their credibility in my eyes is damaged. They used a crappy study with a sensational headline to support their argument. Since I don't live in California, they probably don't give a damn. But I have relatives there. Prop 4 isn't arguable, really, but if someone came to my county or school and promoted increased funding for rape counselors or rape prevention programs I would hope they wouldn't try to use this study. Or at least not try to use the "1 in 5" mantra.
I suggested that to include non-threatening words such as being "told relationship would end" as duress, which the cited study does, undercuts the credibility of the study and report.
If you're told that X will happen unless you do Y, that's duress. You're not doing X of your own free will. You're doing X to avoid Y.
Er, I got my letters reversed there, sorry.
If you're told that X will happen unless you do Y, that's duress. You're not doing Y of your own free will. You're doing Y to avoid X.
MiddleageLibera, the definition of duress:
du•ress
–noun 1. compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2. Law. such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3. forcible restraint, esp. imprisonment.
—Synonyms 1. intimidation, pressure, bullying, browbeating.
How is, well, browbeating and bullying someone until they give in and give up and then raping them, even though they've made it clear that they do NOT want to have sex with you, not rape?
I was 19-21 during my abusive relationship. He never physically assaulted me or threatened me with explicit physical violence. However, he was a foot and a half taller than me, and could have very easily overpowered me if I tried to fight him, and I knew that. The implication was always there. Sometimes, in fact, he would physically block the door so I could not leave.
He would spend hours browbeating me until I gave in, and then he'd rape me. I'd tell him I did not want to have sex; I'd tell him NO. But he would not let up. He'd go at me, calling me names, telling me how worthless I was, telling me he'd kick me out (when I, at the time, had no where else to go, and he knew that), telling me he'd show everyone all those pictures and videos he took of me (against my will) when I (against my will) took part in the fetishes I wasn't at all comfortable with, if I did not comply and let him fuck me. Or rather, if I did not act like a good little girl and let him RAPE ME.
He did the same thing with drugs. He'd break me down until I participated, even though these drugs made me so sick that I thought I was going to die (I once spent over 12 hours puking, and couldn't eat for almost a week because I had hurt myself from puking so violently ... but of course he continued to pressure me into doing drugs with him, because it made me a lot easier to control).
How is this not rape, MiddleageLibera? How is that not submitting while under duress? Explain to me, MiddleageLibera, how my abusive ex-boyfriend was not raping me.
MiddleageLibera, the definition of duress:
du•ress
–noun 1. compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.
2. Law. such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence.
3. forcible restraint, esp. imprisonment.
—Synonyms 1. intimidation, pressure, bullying, browbeating.
How is, well, browbeating and bullying someone until they give in and give up and then raping them, even though they've made it clear that they do NOT want to have sex with you, not rape?
I was 19-21 during my abusive relationship. He never physically assaulted me or threatened me with explicit physical violence. However, he was a foot and a half taller than me, and could have very easily overpowered me if I tried to fight him, and I knew that. The implication was always there. Sometimes, in fact, he would physically block the door so I could not leave.
He would spend hours browbeating me until I gave in, and then he'd rape me. I'd tell him I did not want to have sex; I'd tell him NO. But he would not let up. He'd go at me, calling me names, telling me how worthless I was, telling me he'd kick me out (when I, at the time, had no where else to go, and he knew that), telling me he'd show everyone all those pictures and videos he took of me (against my will) when I (against my will) took part in the fetishes I wasn't at all comfortable with, if I did not comply and let him fuck me. Or rather, if I did not act like a good little girl and let him RAPE ME.
He did the same thing with drugs. He'd break me down until I participated, even though these drugs made me so sick that I thought I was going to die (I once spent over 12 hours puking, and couldn't eat for almost a week because I had hurt myself from puking so violently ... but of course he continued to pressure me into doing drugs with him, because it made me a lot easier to control).
How is this not rape, MiddleageLibera? How is that not submitting while under duress? Explain to me, MiddleageLibera, how my abusive ex-boyfriend was not raping me.
OOPS SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST YAY INTERNETS!
I just wanted to add that I also was in my abusive relationship from 20-23, and didn't see it for what it was until after. It's really eerie reading some of these accounts, they could be my past relationship word for word.
Sarahbeth, I didn't really see it for what it was until later, either. Near the end, I knew something wasn't right, and I knew I had to get out, but it wasn't until many years later that I realized just how abusive he was.
marilove, even years later, I'll remember specific moments in our relationship and realize "holy crap, that was abuse". It still amazes me sometimes.
"Woman put up with this shit all the time, and you ask stupid questions like,"It is?" I don't give a damn what sex someone is, or how attractive they are. You don't walk around in public grabbing people's asses like they're your own private property. The fact that you think this is okay says a lot about you."
Well, not all of them were attractive. Even the unattractive ones didn't seem to bother me all that much. The fact that it didn't bother me at all says wonders about me. I'm not that insecure. If I felt threatened in any way I'd let you know. And yes if they were gay I'd tell them, don't swing that way bud. But, there is no way I would feel sexually assaulted by a butt grab.
Most people get it when you tell them to take a hike. What it says a lot about you is that you are completely on a high horse.
"I was 19-21 during my abusive relationship. He never physically assaulted me or threatened me with explicit physical violence."
What do you mean never? :O I was shocked to read the rest....
"He would spend hours browbeating me until I gave in, and then he'd rape me. I'd tell him I did not want to have sex; I'd tell him NO. But he would not let up. He'd go at me, calling me names, telling me how worthless I was, telling me he'd kick me out (when I, at the time, had no where else to go, and he knew that), telling me he'd show everyone all those pictures and videos he took of me (against my will) when I (against my will) took part in the fetishes I wasn't at all comfortable with, if I did not comply and let him fuck me. Or rather, if I did not act like a good little girl and let him RAPE ME."
"marilove, even years later, I'll remember specific moments in our relationship and realize "holy crap, that was abuse". It still amazes me sometimes."
You'd be amazed at how much of a con-artist certain women can be. To tell you the truth; I would have rather been beaten for a week straight. I'm serious.
marilove, I don't have any trouble calling what you described as physical intimidation and there fore rape. I'm sorry you went through that.
Man: We need to talk about frequency of sex. We go weeks without and I go a little nuts. Once a month is just not enough for me. If we can't reach some kind of compromise I'm moving out.
Woman: OK, look, let's try scheduling alternate Saturday evenings and I'll do the best I can.
(6 months later in Feministing Couples Therapy office, or even better, Feministing Lawyer's office:)
Woman: He forced me to have sex twice a month.
Man: Huh? WTF!?
Oh yes, because abusers try to honestly talk about their feelings, reach compromises, and go to couples therapy.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or what. All relationships experience a give and take and a "I need this from you for our partnership to work." That's not duress. That's trying to make a relationship work. Abuse is abuse, there's no compromise, there's only control. If you have to conflate the two to prove your point, you don't have a point.
And it's totally off topic but has to be said - if your partner suddenly stops having sex with you, I hope instead of wanting to leave right away you'd say, "Is everything okay OUT of the bedroom? Is there something going on in our relationship that's affecting our sex life? If there is, can we fix it? If not, are you healthy? Should we go to the doctor to find out if something's wrong?"
I mean he never laid a hand on me. It was all very subtle, and it kind of escalated from there. I honestly had no idea it was as bad as it was until I left and went, "Oh. Wow. Okay." I'm not sure why you're shocked or what you're question is, though, TS.
And let me just say that that was well over 6 years ago, and things have only changed for the better, and in the end it made me a better, stronger person. I just find it concerning when people like to think that rape has to include physical assault of some kind. It doesn't.
If you all want to consider all sexual intercourse which does not start spontaneously from the woman’s choice = duress = forced sexual intercourse = sexual assault = rape, go right ahead. I don’t think you will persuade many people to your point of view. When it comes to policy discussions using a study which conflates those concepts is not only an unpersuasive but counterproductive argument.
Consider the following scenario:
Jane loses her credibility and her argument for increased funding. IMHO. Carry on.
To which Jane shoots back, "Who wants sex with someone unwilling? How hard up are you that you have to beg? Is it really that hard for you to find someone who’s eager for your cock?" and John looks down at his sneakers and shuffles awkwardly.
And the Committee slashes the Women's Center's budget 20% from the previous year because they are offended by the personal attack. But Jane and friends feel good and give each other high-fives because they put down that misogynist John Smith.
I don't mean to be arguing against the definitions of duress as much as I am saying that the headline of the original essay, the conclusion of the study, is not supported by the data in the study. Using it to try to persuade anyone but true believers is counterproductive.
Oh, oh, you've won the imaginary situation whose parameters you set up!
Seriously, what we are trying to do is change the paradigms. People need to become aware that there are degrees of violation, and that while some may be more horrific than others, they're all bad. Men need to learn to listen for an enthusiastic "Yes", not just the absence of a "No".
And frankly, MiddleageLiberal, you're not helping matters by saying, "Oh, I'm just worried for you 'cause I don't think you'll be taken seriously." The impression you're giving is that you're not taking our experiences seriously, and I'm sure that's not the case... right?
Let us be the ones to worry about how best to communicate our messages, and to which audience.
Shifter, I'd like the paradigms to be changed, too, much in the way of Amanda's essay to which you linked above. In my view the audience should be broadened beyond an insular cadre and the methods of communicating the message should be tailored to persuade a wider audience rather than to make the cadre feel better.
I'm not worried for you. I'm worried the message will be ignored or marginalized; even more than it has been.
I followed the "Yale sluts" controversy last academic year. The Women's Center supporters made colossal tactical blunders there and damaged their credibility and the credibility of their cause in doing so. But maybe the purpose there was to make their own members and followers feel better for having stood up for themselves.
Jeez, your last sentence could have been written by Vladimir Lenin. Shades of vanguard of the revolution.
Oooh, I tried to reply to this before, but it didn't work... anyways...
MiddleagedLiberal, what part of "let us define our own message" is Leninist? I mean, really! That's the most ridiculous stretch I've heard in a long, long time. But, I'm glad to see that "liberals" are still chock full of red fear... (in the distance, Phil Ochs can be heard singing)
Oh, and re: your silly hypothetical situation... think of it this way, John Smith presents a great teachable moment... an opportunity to showcase how young men on campus don't understand how harmful forced intercourse can be and, therefore, there is a need for education of both men and women on campus regarding what constitutes healthy sexual relations. Clearly, Mr Smith demonstrates a weak grasp on what is coerced and what is consensual and the entire university community would be a fair amount more healthy if dialog could be engaged regarding how people can treat one another more respectfully, especially considering the long-term health consequences - and potential damage to the university reputation - if the problem is not addressed.
Lenin? Really? Shifter was simply stating that, given your stated ambivalence about considering that partners can be coerced into sexual contact against their will, you should not be the one determining how we present the problem to other people. Hmmnnn... was that supposed to convince anyone of anything?
"Of course, than the situation would be different because you didn't welcome their attention like you would an attractive woman"
Sorry to pick on you AGAIN. Actually, I'll pick on my own hypocrisy. Let's say an attractive woman approaches me in a certain way and grabs my butt. An unattractive woman does the same thing. I would find the unattractive one repulsive while willingly accepting the attractive one. Hypothetically, they have done the same thing. I don't know these women at all and it's the first encounter.
How is it fair for me to charge the unattractive woman with assault for the sole reason of not being attractive. I asked myself this question and came to the conclusion that I should reject the attractive one the same way. Otherwise, I'm just a big hypocrite!!
Maybe it's some kind of animal instinct choosing a desirable mate. But, instinct is not necessarily proportional to logic. Is it?
TLS, whether instinct, societal conditioning or whatever, when a physically attractive man grabs my ass, he immediately becomes unattractive and creepy. You can actually see it happening. The attractive face melts into a leer, and the eyes start to look a little "off."
Is this the intended reaction when guys grab my ass?
I mean, there are a lot of ways to engage in flirtation without resorting to uninvited fondling. So, that's sending a clear message of proprietary interest in your ass. Not an interest in getting to know each other, in the hopes of mutual ass grabbing at an appropriate time.
How is that not creepy? If I was a guy, I think I'd be just as creeped out by a girl doing it, no matter what she looked like.
"Jeez, your last sentence could have been written by Vladimir Lenin. Shades of vanguard of the revolution."
Okay, now you are officially reaching. Or perhaps you aren't even trying to be taken seriously anymore.
"The Women's Center supporters made colossal tactical blunders there and damaged their credibility and the credibility of their cause..."
So we should take credibility advice from someone who pulls Lenin out of his ass? No thanks.
TLS, you're forgetting a few things.
First of all, your average male is a lot bigger than your average female, and much more accustomed to fighting.
Second, we're part of a culture which pushes the idea, subtly or blatantly, that women's bodies are a sort of commodity. This idea is not nearly as pervasive in regards to men's bodies.
Because of these factors, there is a strong element of threat to a man groping a woman that is simply not present when a woman gropes a man, or even when a man gropes another man. Despite many advances, the sexes still aren't on a level playing field.
Since you seem to be new here, and don't seem to mean any harm, I'd suggest you peruse Feminism 101.
"Is this the intended reaction when guys grab my ass?"
Yours is the more environmental conditioning reaction where you take the safer approach to a stranger.
Mine would be more instinctive reaction where my safety takes a back seat to me and the strange mate.
At least, that's my opinion.
"Since you seem to be new here, and don't seem to mean any harm, I'd suggest you peruse Feminism 101."
Ha? I wasn't aware my opinion was harming anyone. :O
"Despite many advances, the sexes still aren't on a level playing field."
I think a woman with a 9mm can put my lights out really easy. Technology levels it out pretty even if you ask me.
"I think a woman with a 9mm can put my lights out really easy. Technology levels it out pretty even if you ask me."
Look, I'm not going to get into the zillion reasons why technology does not do much to level the playing field because it would turn into a fucking essay. Just go read the link I posted, OK?
...Although I will mention that bringing a gun into a nightclub just to be treated with respect is pretty ridiculous. Not to mention illegal in most places.
"Just go read the link I posted, OK?"
If you asked nicely, I would have looked at it. Since, you seem to have some issues with my opinion. I will not bother with your link. OK?
"..Although I will mention that bringing a gun into a nightclub just to be treated with respect is pretty ridiculous. Not to mention illegal in most places."
They have security personnel there. I've seen some of the physically biggest people get abused pretty bad. I didn't see their size earn them much respect.
I asked nicely the first time, but you decided to be willfully obtuse. Now, you're being willfully ignorant.
If there is one attitude I simply cannot abide, it is willful ignorance. Congratulations, TLS, you have just proven that your comments are not worth any further consideration. Goodbye.
"If there is one attitude I simply cannot abide, it is willful ignorance. Congratulations, TLS, you have just proven that your comments are not worth any further consideration. Goodbye."
Thank you, I'm glad that you will not consider them from now on.
TLS, as Shifter and I pointed out the size differential makes a difference, plus the history of men feeling entitled to grab ass whenever the hell they feel like it, yk, women as chattel, puts women and men on a different level. I don't think you are serious in suggesting women who don't want to be groped by strangers should pack heat. Your last several posts appear to be intended to provoke reaction instead of to engage in reasonable discussion. The word for that starts with "t".
Assault is defined as as unwanted touching, intended by the instigator. Almost nobody wants to prosecute grab ass at parties but that doesn't mean it's not an assault.
Shifter, my Lenin crack was hyperbole, of course. But a tenet of vanguard of the revolution was that it was the elite cadre who should lead and make tactical decisions. Suggestions or advice outside the vanguard were not welcome. I started out my participation in this thread by saying I sighed in disappointment in seeing the use of this study because I did not think it would be persuasive, but rather counterproductive to persuasion, to people of good faith outside the movement. Essentially you tell me to stuff a sock in it because "we" (the insiders, the elite cadre) will decide tactics.
Sigh.
By the way, I never regarded Lenin as the monster of the Russian Revolution. Stalin was.
I'll just repost what I stated. Since, things tend to get thrown out of context.
"Sorry to pick on you AGAIN. Actually, I'll pick on my own hypocrisy. Let's say an attractive woman approaches me in a certain way and grabs my butt. An unattractive woman does the same thing. I would find the unattractive one repulsive while willingly accepting the attractive one. Hypothetically, they have done the same thing. I don't know these women at all and it's the first encounter.
How is it fair for me to charge the unattractive woman with assault for the sole reason of not being attractive. I asked myself this question and came to the conclusion that I should reject the attractive one the same way. Otherwise, I'm just a big hypocrite!!
Maybe it's some kind of animal instinct choosing a desirable mate. But, instinct is not necessarily proportional to logic. Is it?"
"TLS, as Shifter and I pointed out the size differential makes a difference, plus the history of men feeling entitled to grab ass whenever the hell they feel like it.."
Now, where did you and shifter READ that MEN are entiteled to grabbing ass where I clearly stated women grabbing ass. How come these women were not intimidated by size? You two have completely missed the point!!!
I guess I did miss your point. I thought your point was that women should not consider grab ass at a party sexual assault because you, as a man, did not consider it so. Here's your first post on it:
I think that this topic can go both ways. Being a college student I have heard about girls who do not know their limits and get so drunk that they wake up the next morning not knowing where they are or what happened the night before. I think that these females need to smarten up in order to better protect themselves. Also men need to realize that its not cool to take advantage of someone especially when that person has no idea what they're doing. In addition, when men see this going on I think they need to be able to step up and say to their friend that they think what theyre doing is wrong.
"I guess I did miss your point. I thought your point was that women should not consider grab ass at a party sexual assault because you, as a man, did not consider it so. Here's your first post on it:"
"Someone grabbing your ass at a party is sexual assault."
My First Post--> It is? This has happened to me a couple times where women grabbed my ass. I didn't feel sexually assaulted at all. If she was attractive to me; I was like: "Hey girl, how you doing?".
Where did you and shifter READ that MEN are entitled to grabbing ass where I clearly stated women grabbing ass. How come these women were not intimidated by size? You two have completely missed the point!!!
Now; I'll re-state my comment about WOMEN grabbing my ass and how I didn't feel sexually assaulted:
"Sorry to pick on you AGAIN. Actually, I'll pick on my own hypocrisy. Let's say an attractive woman approaches me in a certain way and grabs my butt. An unattractive woman does the same thing. I would find the unattractive one repulsive while willingly accepting the attractive one. Hypothetically, they have done the same thing. I don't know these women at all and it's the first encounter.
How is it fair for me to charge the unattractive woman with assault for the sole reason of not being attractive. I asked myself this question and came to the conclusion that I should reject the attractive one the same way. Otherwise, I'm just a big hypocrite!!
Maybe it's some kind of animal instinct choosing a desirable mate. But, instinct is not necessarily proportional to logic. Is it?"
". I thought your point was that women should not consider grab ass at a party sexual assault because you, as a man, did not consider it so."
You are not getting the drift. Some women will see it as assault and some won't. Some men will see it as assault and some won't. Some might see looking at them as an assault. Those would be like the Taliban and such.
TLS-As fun as your anecdotes about "grab ass at a party" are, the article that the topic refers to is about forced sexual intercourse, otherwise known a rape. Whether or not you consider someone grabbing your ass to be assault is rather irrelevant to that particular topic, don't you think. Maybe if your example was about people trying to fuck you at a party it would be more relevant, although probably also more offensive.
"Maybe if your example was about people trying to fuck you at a party it would be more relevant, although probably also more offensive."
No a simple ass grab that's all. I just have a hard time equating an ass grab to someone that is actually raped. If that's offensive to you then I can't help you out.
"the article that the topic refers to is about forced sexual intercourse, otherwise known a rape."
Ok, make your statement about it and stop dwelling on my irrelevant ass grabbing comments.
Alright, TLS, congratulations on reveling in your troll status. If you had read the entire discussion instead of just hijacking it you would know that I have already made a relevant statement about the study.
As for your statement that you "just have a hard time equating an ass grab to someone that is actually raped," you are actually the only person trying to equate the two. I'm pretty sure the rest of us didn't bring that comparison up and would probably agree that sexual violence is a spectrum that includes both ass grabbing and rape. It looks a little like this:
verbal harassment-----ass grabbing------------rape
Obviously, there are many other things that also fall along this spectrum.
And now, TLS, I'm done feeding you. I hope that everyone else will do the same so we can have a meaningful discussion, goodbye.
"And now, TLS, I'm done feeding you. I hope that everyone else will do the same so we can have a meaningful discussion, goodbye."
Thank you: I'm done feeding you ass well. You can't have a discussion since you take words out of context even after I've repeated them for you 5 times!!! You have made ridiculous assumptions which prompt my response. Hence, the board seems as if it's hijacked by a troll. Which is a matter of perspective.
But, I'll be glad if you just left it alone. I will post your contradictions just on your last post.
statement number 1 by you:
"As for your statement that you "just have a hard time equating an ass grab to someone that is actually raped," you are actually the only person trying to equate the two."
Then you proceed to write:
"I'm pretty sure the rest of us didn't bring that comparison up and would probably agree that sexual violence is a spectrum that includes both ass grabbing and rape. It looks a little like this:
verbal harassment-----ass grabbing------------rape
Obviously, there are many other things that also fall along this spectrum. "
"Most people get it when you tell them to take a hike. What it says a lot about you is that you are completely on a high horse."
Better a high horse than your delusions of grandeur. My ass is private property, and I shouldn't have to tell any guy to take a hike. In other words, HANDS OFF, UNLESS I SAY OTHERWISE.
BTW, how many of these fathers complaining about paying child support for kids they didn't sire already knew the whole time they weren't biologically related (married mothers and became stepfathers, were infertile and went to sperm banks, adopted children from orphanages and/or foster care systems and/or extended family, etc.), formally became these children's official fathers, and now just don't love their daughters and sons anymore now that they lost interest in the mothers?
The WHO recognises two types of abuse. The first is severe and escalates over time. The aggressor gets increasingly possessive and controlling. The second is a moderate form of violence, stemming from frustratation and anger. This is called 'common couple violence.' It is this 2nd type that is commonly found in community-based surveys. Those surveys use the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). It does not include sexual abuse, stalking or homicide. It relies on one person's report of the situation and it omits violence used after separation, a risky time for women, but not for men. Researchers who use CTS reject the idea that women's violence against men is as common or as harmful as men's violence against women, however, many groups make selective use of this data and fail to point out it's shortcomings. Such as IndyKat has done.
But really, all study's aside, the proof is in the pudding. Me, a 46 year old full-time Uni student, having lunch with 4 other female friends, varying in age from mid-30's to mid-50's. One self confessed "viscious rape survivor, raped at age 14", one self confessed "survivor of incest by grandfather who verbally co-erced her at age 13", one self confessed "rape victim" another self confessed "victim domestic violence where she ended up in intensive care at 7 months pregnant". It would appear that I'm the only one that has come through relatively unscathed by such violent acts against the person, but only relatively unscathed, in my past are 3 sexual assaults which may have been prevented from being worse than they were by my forceful fighting back.
So, for me, the proof is in my friends words, that ours is truly a world of male violence against women, that is heavily laced with sexual coercion at all levels.