4 ms·

I get what you're saying. But the "second sexual revolution" actually happened in the 80s-90s. I remember it distinctly. You always paused, and clearly asked, a

I get what you're saying. But the "second sexual revolution" actually happened in the 80s-90s. I remember it distinctly. You always paused, and clearly asked, at each stage. But this is different. Now there is no such thing as "consent". Or rather, consent can be withdrawn retroactively. I've never been accused of rape, as far as I know. But many years ago, one girlfriend told me that she had thought I was wealthy. With the implication that we wouldn't be having sex, if she had known that I wasn't. Today, that might well become an accusation of rape. In that I had tricked her.

klipt 7y ago
One way to prevent these things from going too far is to make the standards gender neutral. If men start accusing women of rape by trickery too, I imagine feminists will very quickly back down. The main problem is when it's all in one direction: when people think that defining more things as rape makes them more feminist, more supportive of women, and more deserving of social brownie points, then they have incentive to keep going well beyond the borders of common sense.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I don't have any direct (or indirect) experience. So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. And I don't think the standards will become gender-neutral any faster than they'll become just. I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. And if there's any way to protect oneself against future rape accusations. Perhaps some sort of witnessed contractual agreement? Maybe something like Islamic "temporary marriage"? With penalties for changing ones mind later. Edit: Another thread cites an article about a guy who, paranoid after a "drunken hookup", filed a Title IX complaint.[0] So maybe that's the workable strategy. Have sex, and then be first to file. And research the process ahead of time, so there's no delay. 0) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. This seems to be part of the point of these efforts, and also socially desirable. Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later. Those are all good things to tell young men.
    - klipt 7y ago
      So long as it's framed in a gender neutral way, I agree. There are also young college women having sex with intoxicated men, and their gender shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they get expelled.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Yes, of course. I do get that rape used to be almost accepted. Or getting women intoxicated enough, voluntarily, that they'd want to have sex. Or at least, wouldn't remember that they didn't want to have sex. Or just plain seduction. Getting women excited enough that they'd want to have sex. I recall an intimate conversation with a female friend, who shared that she'd never let a guy touch her breasts, unless she wanted to have sex. Because once she did, and he did, she would. Even that could be borderline, if there's a premeditated intent to seduce. Yet seduction is often a consensual process. But maybe not consensually with the goal of sex. And there's where it gets crazy. Anyway, I was thinking more about being cautious regarding sexual politics. As in researching the potential partner's social media history. Or just introducing the issue in a casual way, and seeing what they say.
  - gm678 7y ago
    " So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. " I do think there is currently a double standard, and I think that misogyny and the view of women as "passive" participants in sex contributes to that. The CDC estimates that 1 in 71 men will be raped in their lifetime, and an analysis by Scientific American found that 79 percent of male victims of rape reported it to police, but unfortunately I cannot find information on how many of those reports led to a trial and potentially a conviction. I think that while some men are likely ignored, and we definitely have a problem with the way we imagine sexual assault as a society, the relatively high reporting rate suggests that many cases are also taken seriously. I'm also not really sure what "strategy" you're referring to; a strategy to protect yourself from Title IX complaints? I really think that what rayiner said is all you need to do: "Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimizat...
gm678 7y ago
Could you show me an example of modern feminists trying to suggest that consent can be withdrawn retroactively? I find your argument that people can now be credibly accused of rape because their partner misjudged their wealth to be unrealistic and in bad faith, and I have not seen any evidence for it.
- mirimir 7y ago
  From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act. This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with the proposition that an arbitration clause in an employment contract with a big company is only theoretically consensual. The concept of "wage slavery" is widely accepted on HN as well. The basis of these ideas is that people may "consent" to something but that is not the same thing as welcoming the thing. In the sexual context, few people would disagree that, for example, someone cannot "consent" to sex with a prison guard or an arresting police officer. What about economic or social coercion? What does consent mean in cultures where women have no way to support themselves or any social standing outside a relationship with a man?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?

klipt 7y ago

One way to prevent these things from going too far is to make the standards gender neutral. If men start accusing women of rape by trickery too, I imagine feminists will very quickly back down. The main problem is when it's all in one direction: when people think that defining more things as rape makes them more feminist, more supportive of women, and more deserving of social brownie points, then they have incentive to keep going well beyond the borders of common sense.

mirimir 7y ago
I don't have any direct (or indirect) experience. So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. And I don't think the standards will become gender-neutral any faster than they'll become just. I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. And if there's any way to protect oneself against future rape accusations. Perhaps some sort of witnessed contractual agreement? Maybe something like Islamic "temporary marriage"? With penalties for changing ones mind later. Edit: Another thread cites an article about a guy who, paranoid after a "drunken hookup", filed a Title IX complaint.[0] So maybe that's the workable strategy. Have sex, and then be first to file. And research the process ahead of time, so there's no delay. 0) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too-easy-to-abuse/561650/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...
- rayiner 7y ago
  > I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. This seems to be part of the point of these efforts, and also socially desirable. Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later. Those are all good things to tell young men.
  - klipt 7y ago
    So long as it's framed in a gender neutral way, I agree. There are also young college women having sex with intoxicated men, and their gender shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they get expelled.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Yes, of course. I do get that rape used to be almost accepted. Or getting women intoxicated enough, voluntarily, that they'd want to have sex. Or at least, wouldn't remember that they didn't want to have sex. Or just plain seduction. Getting women excited enough that they'd want to have sex. I recall an intimate conversation with a female friend, who shared that she'd never let a guy touch her breasts, unless she wanted to have sex. Because once she did, and he did, she would. Even that could be borderline, if there's a premeditated intent to seduce. Yet seduction is often a consensual process. But maybe not consensually with the goal of sex. And there's where it gets crazy. Anyway, I was thinking more about being cautious regarding sexual politics. As in researching the potential partner's social media history. Or just introducing the issue in a casual way, and seeing what they say.
- gm678 7y ago
  " So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. " I do think there is currently a double standard, and I think that misogyny and the view of women as "passive" participants in sex contributes to that. The CDC estimates that 1 in 71 men will be raped in their lifetime, and an analysis by Scientific American found that 79 percent of male victims of rape reported it to police, but unfortunately I cannot find information on how many of those reports led to a trial and potentially a conviction. I think that while some men are likely ignored, and we definitely have a problem with the way we imagine sexual assault as a society, the relatively high reporting rate suggests that many cases are also taken seriously. I'm also not really sure what "strategy" you're referring to; a strategy to protect yourself from Title IX complaints? I really think that what rayiner said is all you need to do: "Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimizat...

gm678 7y ago

Could you show me an example of modern feminists trying to suggest that consent can be withdrawn retroactively? I find your argument that people can now be credibly accused of rape because their partner misjudged their wealth to be unrealistic and in bad faith, and I have not seen any evidence for it.

mirimir 7y ago
From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.
- rayiner 7y ago
  MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act. This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with the proposition that an arbitration clause in an employment contract with a big company is only theoretically consensual. The concept of "wage slavery" is widely accepted on HN as well. The basis of these ideas is that people may "consent" to something but that is not the same thing as welcoming the thing. In the sexual context, few people would disagree that, for example, someone cannot "consent" to sex with a prison guard or an arresting police officer. What about economic or social coercion? What does consent mean in cultures where women have no way to support themselves or any social standing outside a relationship with a man?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?