Texas Rape Survivors Billed for Rape Kits

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So I was raped (or at least "disempowered") on the occasions when a woman had to convince me to engage in intercourse after I initially declined? Ridiculous.

There has to be intelligent analysis of the specific situation.

Yes, the situations you describe in which a person (it needn't be a woman) agrees to sex merely to "get it over with" are situations in which the relationship is unhealthy. Those situations, however, are clearly covered when I said the following:

Rational people understand that "no" has many variations and includes such things as "I'm tired" or "I'd rather not" or "I really just want to get some sleep".

Nothing you have said so far offers any evidence to suggest that you are positing any new or groundbreaking theory. You are only further establishing the fact that the concepts are common-sense guidelines that any rational person already understands.

Again, how is this new or revolutionary? No rational or intelligent man today believes that buying a woman dinner (or anything else) entitles him to anything.

That's a common-sense understanding of how to value another individual and is neither new nor groundbreaking. Any gentleman can tell you this.

Ahh, yes. If I don't agree with you, it must be because I am unenlightened and ignorant of the plight of women. It certainly can't have anything to do with the fact that I detest pseudo-academic drivel that attempts to gain notoriety by repackaging common sense ideas.

The double standards (e.g. promiscuous men are admired, promiscuous women are disparaged) that exist in some sections of society are patently absurd and I fully agree with those who are attempting to eradicate such hypocrisy. I agree that it's insane the way female sensuality is suppressed in certain subcultures.

As for myself, I have dated virgins (who remained virgins, in every sense, even after our relationship) and I have dated women whose partnerings numbered well into the triple digits (and joyfully allowed those women to add me as another notch on their bedposts before they moved on). I really don't care what a woman's history is as long as I find her intellectually interesting to be with; sexual activity is no precondition for a relationship in my mind. It is always the individual who is interesting, sex is simply an enjoyable activity that may or may not be presented as an option.

That depends entirely upon whether that theory attempts to lump all members of an "oppressor" race into the same homogeneous mold. I am sympathetic to the idea that we are all molded to some extent by society, but at the same time I resent, as I am certain members of other races likewise resent, being presumed to act a certain way simply because of an accident of birth.

In general, I agree with you. It is, frankly, shameful how prostitutes are treated by society, especially in regards to the perception that it's not possible to rape a prostitute (a perception which shows a disgusting lack of recognition of a prostitute's humanity). However, I resent the use of the Duke Lacrosse case as an exemplar (in the book, I know you are not using it now) because it's a scenario in which it has been proven that the defendants were falsely accused.

I also don't see how it's possible to work as a stripper or prostitute without commodifying one's body, regardless of race. A stripper sells his or her visual image which, in order to be sold, must necessarily become a commodity, that is, a thing with economic value to the purchaser. A prostitute sells the physical act of sexual intercourse, something that is necessarily inextricable from his or her physical body, and therefore his or her physical body again must necessarily become a commodity. Now, a good prostitute may well sell more than just the physical act of sexual intercourse, but to deny that the commodification of his or her body is a necessary part of his or her job is to deny reality.

This commodification does not negate the prostitute's innate humanity, though I admit that there do exist people who allow the commodification to entirely overshadow the prostitute's humanity. I agree that people who allow such overshadowings are shameful.

Still, we come back to my initial argument: the book is a collection of banalities that have been dressed up with pseudo-academic terminology in an attempt to present what are mostly common-sense ideas as something new and revolutionary.

ZV

I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

Maybe I am way off base, but a lot of what I have experienced could have been "I fucked him." I know I am pulling some stuff from out of my ass because I don't know you so please forgive any mistaken assumptions. I believe you said you are a homosexual woman, to me this means you have never felt the attraction for males that a heterosexual woman feels. I know thats an assumption I have no proof of, but if its true, then you may actually be less aware of how women normally act with men in a heterosexual encounter. From my experience, women don't "give it to him." Hell, from what I have seen, and from my friends, they "take it from him." I remember my first roommate telling me, something like "dude you don't have to find a woman who is willing, they want to sleep with you, women actually like and want sex, all you have to do make them comfortable enough." I don't think my experience was that rare, I know a lot of guys who have found the same thing out. Ever since I started college, I have never again thought women were less desiring of sex then men, hell it seems to be the opposite.

For some reason I feel bad about basically telling a woman, you don't know how women feel. So I hope you understand, I don't mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way.

Edit: My google-fu is weak, I cannot seem to find the sexual experiences survey, I can find several critiques of it, and a synopsis, but not the actual survey.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef

I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

Maybe I am way off base, but a lot of what I have experienced could have been "I fucked him." I know I am pulling some stuff from out of my ass because I don't know you so please forgive any mistaken assumptions. I believe you said you are a homosexual woman, to me this means you have never felt the attraction for males that a heterosexual woman feels. I know thats an assumption I have no proof of, but if its true, then you may actually be less aware of how women normally act with men in a heterosexual encounter. From my experience, women don't "give it to him." Hell, from what I have seen, and from my friends, they "take it from him." I remember my first roommate telling me, something like "dude you don't have to find a woman who is willing, they want to sleep with you, women actually like and want sex, all you have to do make them comfortable enough." I don't think my experience was that rare, I know a lot of guys who have found the same thing out. Ever since I started college, I have never again thought women were less desiring of sex then men, hell it seems to be the opposite.

For some reason I feel bad about basically telling a woman, you don't know how women feel. So I hope you understand, I don't mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way.

Edit: My google-fu is weak, I cannot seem to find the sexual experiences survey, I can find several critiques of it, and a synopsis, but not the actual survey.

I'm a man who is mostly into other men. I have dated some women. Not all women are alike, so my generalization cannot be totally accurate. Still, I feel that on average, female sexual desire is repressed and and treated as less proper than male sexual desire. This is reflected in how beauty is valued in both genders. One of the greatest compliments for a woman is that she's beautiful; men can comment on their coworker's appearance, and it's no big deal, but it would be very weird and too forward for a woman to call a man attractive in a professional context. For men, handsomeness (not beauty) is not that important, and it's much better to be smart or funny or strong than beautiful. Compare the appearances of male and female TV political analysts. Unattractive women have it really tough in our society, and that is a product of women's value as a function of their appearance.

Some young women are sexually empowered, but this is relatively new. I still hear women say, "I let him fuck me," in person and in media, and I think that is problematic.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: n yusef
I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I guess that because I don't see the language as a cause, or even a large symptom. Changing the language used to describe something doesn't change underlying perceptions; it can mask them, but not change them. Women aren't raped because of how sentences are structured. Granted, the attitudes that lead to rape have also led to the current common sentence structures, but the sentence structure doesn't lead to rape. The attitudes need to change, not the sentence structure.

I think that a lot of debate centers on terminology because it's more visible and more easily changed than the underlying attitudes. Changing attitudes is a long and tedious process that can't be achieved by college professors. Changing terminology, however, is well within the reach of academia and it allows for illusory progress to be made.

Originally posted by: n yusef
I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I understand and concede that the book intentionally limits its scope. That's not my criticism of it. I look at books like this one though and I see something that is never going to convince the sort of person who truly disagrees with it. It's essentially mental masturbation in the same way that Christian Apologetic books are. The only people who are going to read it are people who already agree with the premise.

Originally posted by: n yusef
I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

I can't agree with all of this. Race is absolutely a genetic trait, just like having blond hair or brown eyes. What you are talking about is culture. I completely agree that a man from Thailand is not different because of his race (a trait resultant from his genetic inheritance), but rather because of his culture (the sum of his life experiences). Race does not determine culture. Race is an irrelevant accident of genetics, culture is a collection of experience and ideas that actually has a meaningful affect on who a person is.

ZV

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef

I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

Maybe I am way off base, but a lot of what I have experienced could have been "I fucked him." I know I am pulling some stuff from out of my ass because I don't know you so please forgive any mistaken assumptions. I believe you said you are a homosexual woman, to me this means you have never felt the attraction for males that a heterosexual woman feels. I know thats an assumption I have no proof of, but if its true, then you may actually be less aware of how women normally act with men in a heterosexual encounter. From my experience, women don't "give it to him." Hell, from what I have seen, and from my friends, they "take it from him." I remember my first roommate telling me, something like "dude you don't have to find a woman who is willing, they want to sleep with you, women actually like and want sex, all you have to do make them comfortable enough." I don't think my experience was that rare, I know a lot of guys who have found the same thing out. Ever since I started college, I have never again thought women were less desiring of sex then men, hell it seems to be the opposite.

For some reason I feel bad about basically telling a woman, you don't know how women feel. So I hope you understand, I don't mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way.

Edit: My google-fu is weak, I cannot seem to find the sexual experiences survey, I can find several critiques of it, and a synopsis, but not the actual survey.

I'm a man who is mostly into other men. I have dated some women. Not all women are alike, so my generalization cannot be totally accurate. Still, I feel that on average, female sexual desire is repressed and and treated as less proper than male sexual desire. This is reflected in how beauty is valued in both genders. One of the greatest compliments for a woman is that she's beautiful; men can comment on their coworker's appearance, and it's no big deal, but it would be very weird and too forward for a woman to call a man attractive in a professional context. For men, handsomeness (not beauty) is not that important, and it's much better to be smart or funny or strong than beautiful. Compare the appearances of male and female TV political analysts. Unattractive women have it really tough in our society, and that is a product of women's value as a function of their appearance.

Some young women are sexually empowered, but this is relatively new. I still hear women say, "I let him fuck me," in person and in media, and I think that is problematic.

Wow, completely missed the boat on that one.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: n yusef
I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I guess that because I don't see the language as a cause, or even a large symptom. Changing the language used to describe something doesn't change underlying perceptions; it can mask them, but not change them. Women aren't raped because of how sentences are structured. Granted, the attitudes that lead to rape have also led to the current common sentence structures, but the sentence structure doesn't lead to rape. The attitudes need to change, not the sentence structure.

I think that a lot of debate centers on terminology because it's more visible and more easily changed than the underlying attitudes. Changing attitudes is a long and tedious process that can't be achieved by college professors. Changing terminology, however, is well within the reach of academia and it allows for illusory progress to be made.

Originally posted by: n yusef
I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I understand and concede that the book intentionally limits its scope. That's not my criticism of it. I look at books like this one though and I see something that is never going to convince the sort of person who truly disagrees with it. It's essentially mental masturbation in the same way that Christian Apologetic books are. The only people who are going to read it are people who already agree with the premise.

Originally posted by: n yusef
I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

I can't agree with all of this. Race is absolutely a genetic trait, just like having blond hair or brown eyes. What you are talking about is culture. I completely agree that a man from Thailand is not different because of his race (a trait resultant from his genetic inheritance), but rather because of his culture (the sum of his life experiences). Race does not determine culture. Race is an irrelevant accident of genetics, culture is a collection of experience and ideas that actually has a meaningful affect on who a person is.

ZV

We can agree to disagree about the effects of language on changing perspectives.

Race, however, is not genetic. The concept of race as skin color, and not other physical features is only a few centuries old. It was created for political reasons, and it has changed for political reasons.

"White" did not originally include Catholics, or Jews, or really anyone outside of England. Gradually it became more inclusive, but we must realize that it is a social construct and a political tool. In America, race and racism were used to prevent poor whites from associating with enslaved blacks, people with whom they had more in common than the white ruling class. In Western and Central Europe, there is a lot of backlash, racism I would argue, against Eastern Europeans. In the US, Eastern Europeans are (for the most part) just as white as everyone else. There is more variation inside of races than between them.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef

I can't speak to your experiences, and I don't think that it's necessary to do so. The idea that Yes Means Yes aims to dispel is that men want sex, and women give it to them. I do not think this is subcultural; in all aspects of society, women are valued for their appearance to a much greater extent than men. The contention of Yes is that female objectification creates sexual entitlement and therefore rape. Thus, the placement of women as subjects in sexual discourse would reduce rape. Man asking woman, "Have sex with me," becomes both parties saying "I would like to have sex with you." Instead of "He fucked me," or, "I let him fuck me," it becomes "I fucked him."

I agree that "Yes Means Yes" is common sense, but I don't think that common sense is all that common. From your posts that I have read, particularly in your thread about relationships when you have a job that requires you to travel, I see that you respect women, and want an independent, equal partner. I do not see this in most other ATOT posters; I think you take the progressiveness of your perspective for granted.

I recognize, and so do many (if not all) of the Yes authors, that it is an incomplete analysis. Yes mostly discusses acquaintance rape in America and other industrialized states. Subjectifying female desire would not likely have an effect on sexual sadism or rape-as-a-war crime. The book does not discuss female or same-sex rapists to any depth.

I can't get into the piece about the Duke Lacrosse case, because I didn't read it, and I'm not very informed on that incident. I'll check it out tonight. However, I would like to make a small point. I wouldn't call race an accident of birth, because it is not a genetic classification. Race is a social construct, and racial identity is cultivated throughout life. Children are not acutely aware of race (although they do pick it up subconsciously, as exemplified in white doll/black doll studies); only as we learn about race does it influence our thoughts and actions. A man from Thailand is not different from you because of his birth, he's different from you because of his lifetime of different experiences. This sounds trivial, but I think it's crucial to acknowledge in this context.

Maybe I am way off base, but a lot of what I have experienced could have been "I fucked him." I know I am pulling some stuff from out of my ass because I don't know you so please forgive any mistaken assumptions. I believe you said you are a homosexual woman, to me this means you have never felt the attraction for males that a heterosexual woman feels. I know thats an assumption I have no proof of, but if its true, then you may actually be less aware of how women normally act with men in a heterosexual encounter. From my experience, women don't "give it to him." Hell, from what I have seen, and from my friends, they "take it from him." I remember my first roommate telling me, something like "dude you don't have to find a woman who is willing, they want to sleep with you, women actually like and want sex, all you have to do make them comfortable enough." I don't think my experience was that rare, I know a lot of guys who have found the same thing out. Ever since I started college, I have never again thought women were less desiring of sex then men, hell it seems to be the opposite.

For some reason I feel bad about basically telling a woman, you don't know how women feel. So I hope you understand, I don't mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way.

Edit: My google-fu is weak, I cannot seem to find the sexual experiences survey, I can find several critiques of it, and a synopsis, but not the actual survey.

I'm a man who is mostly into other men. I have dated some women. Not all women are alike, so my generalization cannot be totally accurate. Still, I feel that on average, female sexual desire is repressed and and treated as less proper than male sexual desire. This is reflected in how beauty is valued in both genders. One of the greatest compliments for a woman is that she's beautiful; men can comment on their coworker's appearance, and it's no big deal, but it would be very weird and too forward for a woman to call a man attractive in a professional context. For men, handsomeness (not beauty) is not that important, and it's much better to be smart or funny or strong than beautiful. Compare the appearances of male and female TV political analysts. Unattractive women have it really tough in our society, and that is a product of women's value as a function of their appearance.

Some young women are sexually empowered, but this is relatively new. I still hear women say, "I let him fuck me," in person and in media, and I think that is problematic.

Wow, completely missed the boat on that one.

How? I have had multiple sexual relationships with women...but I don't think that's important. In the discussion of sociological phenomena, anecdotal evidence is hardly relevant, particularly when mine contradicts yours.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: n yusef
I have had multiple sexual relationships with women...

So, statistically speaking, you're probably a rapist?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: n yusef
I have had multiple sexual relationships with women...

So, statistically speaking, you're probably a rapist?

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[IGBT]

who in the hell makes rape kits?? how's that legal? was it sent thru the mail?

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5
Wow, completely missed the boat on that one.

How? I have had multiple sexual relationships with women...but I don't think that's important. In the discussion of sociological phenomena, anecdotal evidence is hardly relevant, particularly when mine contradicts yours.

I meant I guessed the wrong gender.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: daishi5
Wow, completely missed the boat on that one.

How? I have had multiple sexual relationships with women...but I don't think that's important. In the discussion of sociological phenomena, anecdotal evidence is hardly relevant, particularly when mine contradicts yours.

I meant I guessed the wrong gender.

Oh OK. I thought you meant I missed the boat/misunderstood you. Ironically, I missed the boat about missing the boat.

Sorry.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: