What I wish I had said...

I attended a lecture about infant male genital cutting yesterday and afterward I found myself being asked questions about my interest in the subject by somebody writing an article on it. One of the lines of questioning went something like this:

Interviewer: So, you oppose the practice based on how it violates the child's right to body integrity?

Me: Yes.

Interviewer: Are there any other reasons?

I didn't have a good answer for that one, because there was just too much to say in response. Everything covered throughout the entire lecture was another reason, from myths that clearly have no factual or rational basis forming the foundation of the pro-cutting position, to the attempted imposition of moral "pre-punishment" and sexual control the mutilation represents, to the procedure being in violation of every modern medical ethics measure, to the dishonest way it is marketed, to the shitty way the legal system handles the subject, to the fact that it can be viewed as violation of the child's religious freedom, etc.
However, this is what I wish I had said:

Other reasons?

Isn't that one enough?

A cosmetic surgery which drastically changed the function and appearance of my genitals was forced on me without my consent. The mutilation left me with virtually zero fine touch sensation and greatly, severely diminished erogenous sensation of any type, from what I gather, possibly much less even than many other mutilated men. The mutilation also left me with damage to vital subcutaneous structures resulting in consistent pain and ever-present risk of further, much more severe complications in the future. The only real option I have for resolving the most concerning damage and corresponding pain is additional surgery, which carries risks of its own and is probably as likely to make things worse as it is to improve anything.

I will spend my entire life not knowing what it is like to look down and see my genitals the way they were meant to appear. To feel the sensations I was meant to feel. To experience sex without at least as much pain involved as pleasure. To not have to put substantial effort into the sometimes futile attempt to acheive orgasm, not just within a specific timeframe, but at all.

I will spend my entire life "playing through" the discomfort, disfigurement, disfunction and dysmorphia that I was never given the option to refuse, simply because the people who were supposed to be looking out for my interests apparently thought their perverted aesthetic preferences about a helpless infant's genitals were more important than my right to not have normal, healthy parts of my body crushed, ripped and cut off without my consent.

And the real kicker is, mine was considered a "successful" mutilation, because I was lucky enough not to be one of the victims to bleed to death, or contract a fatal infection, or lose much more of my genitals to the procedure than was intended, or end up with any number of other more severe deformities than I did.

Isn't a person's right to decide for themself whether they want to be subjected to such an unnecessary violation of their body enough reason to oppose the practice, so somebody else has the opportunity to choose whether they risk going through the rest of their life dealing with the same things I do...or worse?

I guess it likely wouldn't have made much difference to say it.
Probably would have been a bit too long of a quote to make it into the article anyway.

"That other place has cheaper gas..."

I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue.  If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."

Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.

Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.

And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price.  For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.



Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.

If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢.  For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)

In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.

If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.

So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.



When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place.  In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Reporting a rape to the police is too traumatic for women.

You've probably seen this argument, right?

"The police don't take them seriously and end up re-victimizing them, so expecting them to be able to report the crime to the police is unrealistic!"

And that's why we need to expedite the process of punishing somebody accused of rape without having to go through that pesky "police report/evidence collection/trial" process, especially since women never just blow things out of proportion, right?






The answer to a system perceived to be dysfunctional isn't to make the system more dysfunctional by trying to remove the checks and balances which keep it from being abused, but to make it less dysfunctional by trying to get it to function more effectively with those checks and balances still in place.

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

How important is redundancy in rigging?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode-island/2014/05/04/report-aerial-performers-fall-during-circus-act-providence/jONRVASHacmTEy106u394M/story.html

"It has been determined that a carabiner in the rigging failed"

The carabiner used in the stunt is rated to hold 10,000 pounds, the statement said, while the total weight of the rigging and performers was less than 1,500 pounds.

The carabiner was the lone piece of equipment between the apparatus and a cable tethering the performers to the rafters.

This is a good excuse to post a rant I wrote a while ago.

How important is redundancy in rigging?

That depends on what level of risk you're willing to accept. Would you be comfortable with a hypothetical piece of equipment with a 1/1,000,000 chance of failure? If so, that's fine. However, you'd better be damn sure that 1/1,000,000 is accurate and not actually 1/500,000 or even 1/1,000. You'd also better be ready to take full responsibility if you underestimate the risk and end up dropping somebody due to equipment failure.

Is 1/1,000,000 not enough for comfort? A lot of people think doubling equipment doubles the statistical safety margin. Well, I have some good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that doubling equipment doesn't double the safety margin. The good news is that it increases it exponentially.

Let's look at it mathematically.
A 50% failure rate (1/2) with a redundancy can be plotted out to determine the statistical probability that both pieces of equipment will fail at the same time:

• pass/pass
• pass/fail
• fail/pass
• fail/fail

That works out to be 1/2² or 1/4 chance of complete failure. Similarly, a 1/3 chance of failure with a redundancy can be plotted and the statistical redundancy benefit determined:

• pass1/pass1
• pass1/pass2
• pass1/fail
• pass2/pass1
• pass2/pass2
• pass2/fail
• fail/pass1
• fail/pass2
• fail/fail

That works out to be 1/3² or 1/9 chance of complete failure.

Having demonstrated how redundancy in equipment yields an exponential statistical safety benefit, we can calculate for more robust equipment as well:

• 1/4² = 1/16
• 1/6² = 1/36
• 1/8² = 1/64
• 1/10² = 1/100
• 1/100² = 1/10,000

and finally,

• 1/1,000,000² = 1/1,000,000,000,000

which, if you can hit odds like that, you can simply pay for any medical bills with your lottery winnings. Even if you're wrong about that original 1/1,000,000 chance,

• 1/500,000² = 1/250,000,000,000

and

• 1/1,000² = 1/1,000,000

so you're still not exactly tempting fate.

The reason for redundancy isn't necessarily that the risk of equipment failure is unreasonably high, but that it's so easy to reduce the risk of equipment failure so much.

So, how important is redundancy in rigging? You be the judge. Just be ready, whatever you decide, to take responsibility in the unlikely event something breaks and you find the person you're suspending on the floor, instead of in the air where they belong.

Severe sexual violence and genital mutilation without consent is funny, Mkay?

I think it would be really funny to surprise a drunk sorority girl and chop off her genitals so I could fuck them later!  Haha!  Wouldn't that be hilarious!

No?

Well, before you grab the torches and pitchforks, consider this...





















I came across this image posted on a social networking site:

(image censored here due to Blogger's new content policy)

The caption:

I've heard of surprise sex, but I'm pretty sure that even the drunkest frat-boy isn't expecting THIS!!!

It's been up for almost 3 years, several people have "liked" it and not one negative comment has been left about it where it is posted.

However, there were a few supportive comments left under the picture, one of which is particularly interesting:

I think I'd want the male to feel fear and even relive the trauma every time he looked down when he peed. He'd then be afraid to pee. Well to pee is to live so eventually his shit will get backed up and his bladder will have to get cut open and everything would need to be rerouted, which would be yet another possible trauma. I'm really getting ideas here.
Goes to look for "volunteers"

Nobody else seemed to think that was especially offensive, either.

Still think that comment of mine at the beginning wasn't funny?  Yeah, me neither.  The difference is, the one about female genitals is generally recognized as "sexual violence" while the ones about male genitals are "just a joke."

Consent is a binary.

When it comes down to it, "consent" (a.k.a. "permission") is the difference between "sex" and "sexual assault." That "yes" or "no" is the difference between "partner" and "criminal."

 

Sure, how you feel about any particular experience is fluid and non-binary, but you don't "kind of" say "yes" or "kind of" say "no" to something. You can put conditions on that "yes" or "no," but if you don't communicate one or the other, the other person can't know whether or not they have your permission, or "consent" to engage in the activity at all.

If you present "consent" as a universal "in-between yes and no" you automatically make every single person who participates in sex "kind of a rapist" even in the best case.

Setting a standard for behavior (you must get "consent") and then not allowing people to know what that standard is ("consent" is somewhere on this scale...) is about as reasonable as posting a speed limit sign with no numbers on it.

Speed Limit: ?

Violators will be ticketed.


While participating in a recent discussion about whether consent should be a "scaled" thing, these quotes came up:

so many students tell me so many stories about when sex "wasn't a good idea" or "didn't go well" or "was not really rape but still felt awful..." or "i gave him a blow job cuz it seemed like the best way to get out of the situation." the attitude we're encouraged to take is to remind them all that it was sexual assault and a violation of their consent, no matter what. and i do think that is true.

I wasn't thinking about this as a scale I'd use with a partner to discuss sex, like "I'm a 3 on the kinsey-consent scale about this upcoming scene." more as a way to talk to other people after the fact - like "i was about a 3 on the kinsey consent scale that night"

This really bothers me.

For there to be a sexual assault - a criminal act, there has to be a perpetrator of a crime. That means every single time somebody is sexually assaulted, somebody else has to have perpetrated criminal actions against them.

For it to be possible to criminalize the actions of a person after the fact, who had been purposefully given a clearly communicated understanding that they were not committing a criminal act at the time, is simply unreasonable. (and could be argued as unconscionable)

sex "wasn't a good idea" or "didn't go well" or "was not really rape but still felt awful..." or "i gave him a blow job cuz it seemed like the best way to get out of the situation." the attitude we're encouraged to take is to remind them all that it was sexual assault and a violation of their consent, no matter what.

more as a way to talk to other people after the fact - like "i was about a 3 on the kinsey consent scale that night"

If you operate under that "consent" ideology, where regret about a bad decision and misleading communication on your part is twisted into the criminal liability of somebody else, you literally criminalize sex even when consent is given.

If you operate under that "consent" ideology, when somebody says "yes" to a well-intentioned partner, but they don't really mean yes, they are literally making the other person unknowingly commit what is considered a form of violent crime.

I'm sorry, but I'm just never going to believe that's a reasonable position on the subject of "consent." If what you communicate doesn't match what you feel, or even how you feel about it later, that's on you, not them. It may suck big-time to realize you should have said "no" instead of "yes," but your regret about your own decision doesn't make somebody else a criminal.

And despite the victim politics buzzing around the "social justice" sphere lately, feeling bad about something you do doesn't automatically mean somebody else should be punished, even if they weren't doing anything wrong. If they follow the rules in the way any reasonable person would expect them to, they are not "assaulting" you, or "violating" you, or "perpetrating" any sort of criminal activity against you. You may be traumatized by the experience, but you are not victimized by that person.

---

And just because I'm sure it's going to come up if I don't specifically address it, No, I'm not talking about circumstances where threat or reasonably defined intimidation are being used to coerce* a "yes" from somebody.

* "coerce" according to the actual definition, not the convoluted "social justice" definition

No, coercion is not "the same thing" as rape.

Now, why do I say this?
Am I "being ignorant"?
Am I "demonstrating my privilege"?
Am I "supporting the patriarchy/rape culture"?

No. Those are simply the claims of people who prefer to view the issue of sexual assault through ridiculous gender-political rhetoric instead of from a reality-based perspective.

Let me clarify.  This is one of the "coercions" I'm talking about.  I've also seen simple harassment and even just asking more than once referred to as "coercion."  That means I'm talking about the "popular usage" definition, rather than the "dictionary" definition.

Of course, any time you address "coercion" in that context and claim that it is not the same thing as rape, you'll be met with the same people who use the word that way quoting definitions like this (actual examples I've encountered):

co·er·cion [koh-ur-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

and

Coercion is not harassment.
Coercion is forcing someone to through direct force or intimidation.

and

 Coersion can include threats like "I'll kill your family"

and

1. to restrain or dominate by force
2 to compel to perform an act or choice
3 to achieve by force or threat

and

Someone intimidated into not saying no...is being coerced, and as such it is rape.

and

If you say yes ONLY because you're afraid saying no may get you hurt very very badly, YOU ARE STILL BEING RAPED.

and

Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

and

Coercing someone into having sex with you is rape.

and

Rape is penetration without consent. Coercion, like violence, is one of the methods used to commit rape. If non-consexual penetration happens through coercion, it is still rape.

while they absolutely ignore the fact that you're responding to how they themself are using the word and exclaim "that's not the definition of coercion!" when "coercion" is being linked with "rape" so they can try to sneak harassment, asking more than once, even just being a woman under the "rape victim" umbrella at the expense of actual rape victims.

Well, if something is not "coercion" and if you care about rape as something other than just a word you can use to inflate sympathy and status for other things, then stop intentionally using words incorrectly to do just that, you dishonest, rhetoric parroting, victim politics pandering, dumbshits.  Because when you use a word like "coercion" for everything, including things which have nothing to do with rape, then no, it's not "the same thing" as rape.

All sex is rape!

So, there's this line, "women as a class are coerced into sex by society and institutional marginalization and blah, blah, blah."

And as we have heard over and over, apparently, "coercion is the same thing as rape."

Well, if "women" are "as a class" incapable of having sex without being raped, "because institutional marginalization = coercion" then wouldn't it follow that any other class of "marginalized" people are subject to the same rules? Homosexuals are "institutionally marginalized" and transgendered people are "institutionally marginalized" and black people are "institutionally marginalized" and Hispanics, Asians, Jews, even disabled and poor people are "institutionally marginalized" according to popular rhetoric, so none of them can be considered to have the proper agency to consent to sex, right?

Turns out, the only people who are actually capable of consenting to sex are rich, straight, white, cis-male, able-bodied people, but since there's nobody else to have sex with, their only option is to have sex with each other. But wait - that would be practicing homosexuality, which means they no longer fall within the narrow class of people who possess enough agency to consent to sex.

I guess if an entire class of people should be considered incapable of meaningfully consenting to sex based on some professional victim politics rhetoric, then it's inescapable that every instance of sex between any demographics should be considered rape and all people everywhere should be prohibited from participating in it.

Is it a coincidence?

On April 14, 2014 Laci Green tweeted:

is it a coincidence that the peace sign looks like a "V" and vagina starts with a "V"? i think not

I've seen/heard countless times, claims like "women are more cooperative than men" and "women are less violent than men" and "there would be no war if women ruled the world."

I have one thing to say in response to that:
About 5,800,000 results.

So, is it a coincidence that "violence" starts with a "V" and "vagina" starts with a "V"?

I happen to think it is, but if Laci Green thinks there's no coincidence between the first letter of "vagina" and the visual appearance of a peace sign, maybe I'm wrong and it's no coincidence those specific two words have the same first letter, either.

So you think you "experienced rapeculture" on the bus?

Some guy bothered you trying to get your attention and the fact that the crowd of people didn't rescue you from arguing with him means "rapeculture"?

I've seen a few rants to that effect lately and it's total bullshit.

Point #1:

People don't like to set themselves apart from the group, especially when it involves conflict or inconvenience.

How often do people go out of their way to get involved in any argument between two strangers?  How often do you?  When two people are screaming at each other about one of them taking the spot the other wanted in a parking lot, how likely is it that people are going to head away so they don't have to deal with it, rather than heading toward the noise to see if they can help?  How often do you see youtube videos where instead of stopping to help somebody getting their ass kicked, people stop to record it instead?  How often do you see people stranded on the side of the road for long periods of time while hundreds of cars pass by, simply because nobody stops to help?  Have you not heard of cases where somebody preventably died from an injury, hear attack, etc. while people were crowded around them, simply because nobody bothered to call 911?

Are people just not aware of the concept of "mob mentality" anymore?  People generally don't want to be the first person to assert themself and get involved in any case where there's a group doing nothing.  That's just the way it is with everything.  When you're yelling at somebody on a crowded bus, don't be surprised when nobody wants to stick their neck out by both asserting themself from the crowd and white-knighting for you.  It's not "rapeculture" that keeps them from doing it.  It's general human social nature.

It is the ultimate narcisism to see people not treating your issue any differently from every other issue simply because it is important to you and you interpret that as "a unique systemic form of oppression."

That's not "rapeculture." That's rape hysteria.

Point #2:

There is no guarantee that sticking your neck out for somebody else will be appreciated.

I've more than once had to put myself in danger to protect somebody and I can tell you, it's a crap shoot whether the person you're trying to help will end up being friend or foe based on your involvement.  Try to break up a fight between two people and they could both just end up fighting you, instead of each other.  There was a particular incident that stands out for me where a single guy, too drunk to stand reliably was about to get jumped by 6 larger, more coordinated guys who thought he was slinging ethnic slurs at them.  I physically had to place myself in front of him and fend off/absorb the brunt of their aggression so they didn't literally beat him to death.  After I'd called the police and they flat out refused to show up or even file a report on the incident (is that "hatecrimeculture"?) the guy who was only still breathing due to my interference on his behalf used that very breath to call me "asshole."

Put yourself first, get called "rape supporter" for not doing anything.  Put the "victim" first, maybe get called a rapist for your trouble.

That's not "rapeculture."  That's rape hysteria.

Point #3:

You were not being raped.

I know, it's super-duper scary with all the hysteria about rape these days, to have a man try to actually get your attention and -gasp- interact with you in some way.  Still, some dude bothering you on a crowded bus is not the same thing as him raping you.  Those people you think were participating in "rapeculture" probably could just see you were not in serious danger by the fact that:

a. you were sitting there arguing with him, instead of trying to get away from him
b. he was not physically attacking you
c. you were in a public setting with other people available to help if things went really bad
d. you were not asking for help from anybody else

If you want to require people to automatically rush to the aid of the damsel in (minor) distress every time some man says something she finds unpleasant, then I suggest you start a social movement to turn the clock back to before "equality" was a goal, because that's the "oppressive" way things used to be.  Men used to duel over stupid shit like "offending a lady."  If, however, you want to be taken seriously as a capable adult human, equal to men, you're going to have to "man up" and fight your own "battles" (to use the term loosely) on occasion.

Throwing a tantrum, because nobody stepped in to keep you from being talked to in a public setting isn't "equality."  That's "sense of entitlement."

And people not going out of their way to rescue you from arguing with somebody isn't "rapeculture."  The fact that you are calling it "rapeculture" is just rape hysteria.

Alison Tieman misrepresents NISVS definitions

In the debut Honey Badger Hangout, Alison Tieman (a.k.a. Typhon Blue) said this:

"Made to Penetrate is actually...apparently more tightly onto what we would consider rape than Rape is.  In other words, it really didn't include situations where men were drunk, because the wording was so ambiguous that it most likely excluded those situations with Made to Penetrate.  The wording about trying to capture sex while drunk was ambiguous and it did not appear to include men who were forced to penetrate while drunk."

"So in other words, the Made To Penetrate stat, if anything, is actually closer to our idea of forced sex than the Rape stat is."

Linkage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cf6SKsxUkQg#t=5355

Now, if you've read my post about Is "Gendered" Crime Really Gendered? you will notice a link to the NISVS study there as well as a truncated version of the definitions for "rape" and for "made to penetrate."  I'll include the full primary descriptions here, so you may see how "different" they really are.

• Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

• Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim's consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

Maybe I'm just not seeing it correctly, but those seem to be basically the same description other than describing either being penetrated, or being made to penetrate.

Assuming I am seeing it correctly, the main difference if both were considered equal violations is actually going to be in the area of oral sex.  The description for Rape does include being forced to perform fellatio, but does not necessarily include being forced to perform or receive cunnilingus.  Made to Penetrate would intuitively include (although not explicitly defined) being forced to receive fellatio, but does not necessarily include being forced to perform or receive cunnilingus.  Either could include forced performing or receiving cunnilingus, but unlike fellatio, cunnilingus including penetration is not generally a given.

The real question is, is that minor gender-unequal consideration potentially responsible for the 3,000 victim difference between the two in the general 12 Month statistics?

When we're talking total numbers in excess of 1 million and considering that somebody committing sexual assault is going to be inherently more concerned about their own pleasure than the other person's, I'd personally tend to think it's likely enough to call it about even if you added forced cunnilingus to those numbers.




The other thing that's been bothering me, is considering all the attention being given to these particular statistics, no MRAs seem to have yet noticed and pointed out that especially when it comes to Intimate Partner Violence and the more general sexual assault classifications, like "Unwanted Sexual Contact" (especially Unwanted Sexual Contact within relationships) the percentages for male victims are actually higher than the percentages for female victims.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Table 2.1 (Page 18)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Women:
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.2%        2,600,000 victims

Table 2.2 (Page 19)
12 month prevalence of Sexual Violence - Men: 
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         2.3%        2,565,000 victims

Table 4.1 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Women: 
Physical Violence:                     4.0%        4,741,000 victims

Table 4.2 (Page 38)
12 month prevalence of IPV Physical Violence - Men: 
Physical Violence:                     4.7%        5,365,000 victims

Table 4.5 (page 42)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Women
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.5%        645,000 victims

Table 4.6 (page 43)
12 month prevalence of IPV Sexual Violence - Men
Unwanted Sexual Contact:         0.9%        1,031,000 victims

If you wanted to poke holes in the idea that "sexual assault and domestic violence are crimes primarily against women" there's not a much better way than to point out the fact that the study claims a higher percentage of male victims per year for both types of crime, is there?  Seems to me that should be step #1.

Agency: The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

In response to it being pointed out that the "rape culture" rhetoric is seeking to negate the agency of women, now the rhetoric is being tweaked to include claims of "society taking away my agency!" in an attempt to appropriate the thing being used to discredit the victim politics, for use in the victim politics.

News Flash
Agency is not something that can be taken away.

Using your agency can be discouraged.
Effectiveness of your agency can be obstructed.
And sure as hell, the "rape culture" rhetoric tries to obscure the agency of women.

Women still have every single bit of agency that men do.

The reason is, agency is the ability to speak and act on your own behalf. It is an inherent part of being any capable human. Like integrity, self esteem, etc. nobody has the capability to take away your agency. It is up to you to recognize it and decide whether you want to actually use it, regardless of how hard dimwitted popculture rhetoric tries to convince you that you have none.

And therefore when you claim that women, when exposed to the same influences, pressures and challenges men are, have had their agency taken away, while men haven't, you are suggesting that women are fundamentally inferior to men - that they never had any real agency to begin with. You are seeking to discourage, obstruct and obscure the agency of women. You are refusing to acknowledge the inherent power women have, being the same inherent power men have, to speak and act on their own behalf, a.k.a. "agency."

Trying to twist things around so you get to use a word in your rhetoric instead of other people using it to point out what's wrong with your rhetoric, doesn't make your rhetoric any more credible, or any less ridiculous.

Why Derogatory "Feminist" or "MRA" References Make My Eyes Roll

It has nothing to do with any gender bias or quixotic interpretation of the term(s) on my part, but instead due to the over-generalizing, ad-hominem nature of the argument and the accompanying argument(s), and the nonsensical direction the debate takes from there.

It's one thing to dispute the validity of an argument, or a specific claim, or a prevalent attitude or action, but to lump together and dispute the validity of an entire demographic, regardless of which demographic, isn't actually a defensible position, nor a useful strategy.  When you debate a specific point, your debate is relevant to that point.  You exchange information, logic, and rationality.  When you argue against an entire demographic and/or ideology, your debate degrades into meaningless drivel and propaganda.  You cease to be concerned with an issue and start arguing straw people and stereotypes instead.



I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues."  You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT.  For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well.  I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.

I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues."  You know what that gets you?  NAMALT/NAMRAALT.  There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women.  There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.



And that's the end of any legitimate debate.  Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.

Get a clue.

Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything.  All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic.  You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there?  You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything?  Think again.



So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.

If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.




In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?

Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...

...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?




That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label.  It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue.  It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.