Violence! Rape! Agency! The rapiness that comes before

[Sci-2]

Resisting a Rape Culture

"Women are conditioned to believe the strong cultural message that rape resistance is both futile and dangerous. Despite socialization to the contrary it is surprising to learn that women are more likely to escape a would-be rapist than to be raped by him. According to the Uniform Crime Report only one in four attempted rapes ends in a completed rape. Women may escape rape because of intervention or interruption by others, victim resistance, or other situational factors. It is important to point out however, that even if a woman chooses not to resist she is still not responsible for the rape—the blame is completely with the perpetrator."

ETA: I'm posting this because it seems like in grimdark fantasy women do acquiesce before their attackers.

[Shryke]

You sure? Didn't we just have like a dozen back-and-forth between Contrarius and sologdin where she argued that even though we are saying should, really, the end result will be a legal censure because "should" is the gateway verb to "shall?" Like every kiss begins with Kay, every law begins with should, apparently. I suppose technically she didn't say that the people she's arguing against are clamoring for legal censorship - she just painted a picture to show that when someone says that an author "should" do something it will inevitably lead to laws being enacted. This distinction you're trying to draw is rather meaningless, far as I can tell.

Actually I believe Contrarius' point was that the difference between "should" and "shall" is semantic nonsense at worst and simply a matter of power at best. "should" is used, though not elusively obviously, by people who would like the power to say "shall", but lack it.

But that has been the central argument here all along - the distinction between a group of readers exercising their purchasing power and censorship, where the latter implies and is originally derived from the use of force to enact speech restriction. Conflating the two, as has happened in this discussion when defenders of the Terez-this-is-not-a-rape-because-the-penis-is-not-seen-on-screen-scene, is neither accurate nor helpful.

Saying it's not rape because there was no penis is total bullshit, yes. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion of soft censorship and what does and does not constitute that has to do with that ridiculous assertion though. The two aren't related at all.

Anyway, the point is legal authority is not required for censorship as long as you aren't using an incredibly narrow definition where "censorship" is defined as "legally enforced censorship".

Using speech to convince people not to try X is certainly some form of censorship. What else is a religious banning or condemnation? Or a regional ban? The use of purchasing power can most certainly be seen as censorship, as I mentioned in the post you responded to. Is not market force a force?

:blink:

Wait a minute. What's the "it" referring to, here?

Obviously what was referred to in the last sentence. "Market Forces" and all that.

The marginalization of many minority groups is intimately related to the public's refusal or perceived refusal to spend their money on those things. No legal bans required.

[Grack21]

So during my brief stay on rutha pente(haha sorry watching star trek 6 as I type this) I thought a lot. And i want to apologize for totally flipping my shit like I did. I really have no excuse.The Buffy bit hit a bit of a nerve I was very active in the online community back then when it aired, and bad stuff went down, but that's no reason to take it out on you guys/gals. Also I want to apologize particular to kalbear, I totally lost my shit and you happened to be the person I took it out on. You guys are all cool. I'm going to refrain from posting in this topic again. If I do, for Gods sake someone slap me with a fish or something.

I also apologize if I have drawn...undo attention to this forum. I dun fucked up.

[Horza]

Kalbear,

*hangs head in shame*

I've never read Heinlein.

no. way.

[Sci-2]

You know, I never read the book but was it Friday with bizarre rape issues? I just read the plot summary and part of me wonders if Windup Girl is supposed to echo it or something...

ETA:

Actually I believe Contrarius' point was that the difference between "should" and "shall" is semantic nonsense at worst and simply a matter of power at best. "should" is used, though not elusively obviously, by people who would like the power to say "shall", but lack it.

I disagree. I can say, "You should be faithful to your girlfriend" without believing in a law against adultery.

See also:

"This book shoulda been half as long."

"This movie should have had a sex scene to break the ennui."

"This comic series should not have had so many side characters."

[Kalbear]

Or "this author should really stick to sci-fi novels". It's all censorship or it's not censorship, but the notion that banning books is equivalent to stating your opinion or even trying to convince others that your opinion is right by using facts and references is akin to saying that any form of penetration is rape. It's a dilution of the word that makes it meaningless and absurd. Right now, I'm apparently censoring you because I'm trying to convince you to not post other arguments. Is that true? In the most lenient form of the word. But the connotation for 'censorship' has basically nothing at all to do with what arguing on the internet; if anything, it's more accurate to say that anyone attempting to argue against people's ability to argue is far more censorial than the arguments themselves, as at least that comes from a place of similar power (two users on the internet) vs. a user on the internet and a mass-publication book author.

Another thing is simply that 'should' is the correct grammatical wording for what the intent is. Sciborg pointed out examples we use it with - it is used as condemnation of something, but it conveys very little authority. At best, it's a severe shunning. Shun shun shun.

What's really interesting to me is that all this talk of censorship has effectively and entirely censored any actual talk about violence, rape or agency in sci-fi/fantasy novels. It has entirely derailed the conversation. This is a very common tactic amongst privileged; instead of talking about the issues brought up that might mean something they go and bring something up that's important to them. If you're talking about racism, well, what about all that horrible racism towards white people where they get mocked for dressing like rappers! If you're talking about sexism, look at how horrible it is that men can't be housedads without mockery! Etc, etc. This is a special derailment in that instead of talking about what are good and bad representations of violence and rape, we're now talking about how people shouldn't actually criticize anyone's writing for fear of repressing the writers. That's a really nice touch.

I've asked a couple times now to take the censorship arguments out of this topic if they are at all interesting to people. They have literally nothing to do with violence, rape or agency in books. They barely have anything to do with anything other than a semantic interpretation. It would be great if it could bee continued elsewhere. This is my last word on it.

Grack21, I simply feel bad for not reporting you earlier for the personal attack. I'll not make that mistake again.

[Sci-2]

I've asked a couple times now to take the censorship arguments out of this topic if they are at all interesting to people.

Done:

http://asoiaf.wester...nd-whos-got-it/

ETA:

any form of penetration is rape. It's a dilution of the word that makes it meaningless and absurd.

An ex of mine was physically forced into giving her highschool boyfriend a blowjob. Isn't that rape? As I mentioned before, I had to deal with a situation where one girl molested another - Can't that be considered rape?

I guess it's the "dilution" that gives me pause, implying rape is the nadir of sexual assault but others aren't so as bad? Mind you, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just asking for clarity.

[Galleymac]

Sciborg, you're reading "any form of penetration" as "any form of assault." You shouldn't. Many forms of penetration are consensual. Assault by definition precludes consent.

(ETA, there are indeed schools of thought that have considered all male-female penetration to be assault, political and actual; I believe it is this sort of sweeping generalization that Kalbear Is dismissing with the analogy.)

[Sci-2]

To be clear, wasn't trying to attack Kalbear. But I had forgotten that school of thought that all heterosexual sex, even consensual, is a form of rape. (Which I also disagree with.)

[Kalbear]

Sciborg, you're reading "any form of penetration" as "any form of assault." You shouldn't. Many forms of penetration are consensual. Assault by definition precludes consent.

Exactly. And while the original quote about any time a man penetrates a woman it is rape turned out to be overblown in the first place and is used almost exclusively as an attack on feminists to show how extreme they are, the point about its extremity is still quite valid.

[sologdin]

An ex of mine was physically forced into giving her highschool boyfriend a blowjob. Isn't that rape? As I mentioned before, I had to deal with a situation where one girl molested another - Can't that be considered rape?

not sure about the second scenario, but the first scenario is either an aggravated rape or a forcible rape in the great state of louisiana.

the first is punishable by life imprisonment without benefit of probabtion, parole, or suspension of sentece; the second is punishable by five to forty years, the first two years with out benefits of P/P/SoS. both crimes are imprescriptible, i.e., there is no statute of limitation on the institution of the prosecution.

[Sci-2]

Interesting to note the statute of limitations not expiring. One thing I think would be interesting in genre fiction is to examine the institutional resistance to prosecuting (or for that matter believing) accusations of rape.

One thing we see in fantasy is rape as Hostel type torture porn. Obviously it is bad, and obviously the perpetrator is usually a stranger. This seems to differ from most cases of rape that are egregious and the consequences get muddied.

There's also the whole tie-in with rape and the virginity ideal. Had a friend who was raped at an Ivy-league school by an ex, while getting her Masters in Nursing. Didn't prosecute, no evidence. Decided she was now worthless as a wife so might as well as have lots of unprotected sex. (Note I'm not objecting to her being polyamorous, but rather pointing out her willingness to risk disease and her negative feelings of self-worth)

Thankfully she's happily married now though I think she was lucky to have a support system as well as possess a core of inner strength.

[Larry.]

To be clear, wasn't trying to attack Kalbear. But I had forgotten that school of thought that all heterosexual sex, even consensual, is a form of rape. (Which I also disagree with.)

It was either Andrea Dworkin or Carol Gilligan that claimed that, I believe. It's not a popular view, at least not among third-wave feminists, if I recall.

[Kalbear]

No, Larry - no one stated that. Not Dworkin, not Gilligan, not anyone official. It's been since used both by anti-feminists to discredit the movement and ironically by some very extreme feminists, but the actual quote never happened; it was entirely (and apparently really really successfully) used to slander MacKinnon.

[Larry.]

OK, like I said, I couldn't recall anything other than their names being associated with that, not that I myself believed it. Thanks for clarifying. Amazing how insidious propaganda can be, though.

[sologdin]

the relevant dworkin text is intercourse, which is basically a work of feminist literary criticism. there are statements therein regarding the coerciveness of heterosexual relations as they are represented in various texts that she analyzes. some reviewers drew the inference from those statements taken in isolation, amounting to "all heterosexual sex is rape," and then imputed their inference to dworkin as her implication, rather than imputing the aggregated inference to the textual sources from which dworkin drew the underlying premises, which should render the inference as the implication of no individual person, but simply a synthetic syllogism constructed from multiple writers (stoker, flaubert, and so on).

it is a stunning moment of deceptive antifeminist propaganda. whether it is the result of dishonesty or stupidity on the part of the original propagandists is an open but unimportant question, as far as i'm concerned.

[Larry.]

Thanks for clarifying. I know Moorcock (especially now his surname is an unintentional pun) was friends with Dworkin and I think he cites her as the reason why he changed that scene in Gloriana, so I assumed there had to be something else to the supposed claim. Thanks for clarifying where the anti-feminist propagandists likely derived that calumnious claim.

[Sci-2]

In terms of violence, has anyone seen the anime Now and Then, Here and There? I thought it was just incredible in its portrayal of child soldiers.

Reminds me I should get Grave of the Fireflies.

[Galactus]

In terms of violence, has anyone seen the anime Now and Then, Here and There? I thought it was just incredible in its portrayal of child soldiers.

Reminds me I should get Grave of the Fireflies.

I have. It has some issues, but very, very effective.

[Sci-2]

It's been awhile, what issues did you have? I recall there was a pro-life message in there that I can see rubbing people the wrong way...to put in it mildly given the circumstances in the narrative.