Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[mistermack]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

How does making the women risk-aware change the human nature/behavior of the men? Would you teach your teenage sons about consent?

It wouldn't. That's the point. Nothing except GM will change human nature, and the attempts to affect behaviour are already constantly being made and updated, at education level. There's always scope for improvement, but it's not as if nothing is happening. I would of course discuss consent with my sons, and daughters. For their own benefit, as much as anything else. Any male who doesn't get good advice about consent is being failed by those involved in his upbringing and education. But there are some out there who would still end up attacking women, no matter what help and advice they got. 

[John Cuthber]

58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, I realize this probably isn't what they meant exactly, but between John and iNow, it was pretty close:

 

No

It's not remotely close to what I said.
What I said was that  what a bunch of (mainly if not entirely) men say will have an effect on the actions of other men- especially if what is said is seen as condoning that action by transferring responsibility (at least in part) to the victim.

Somehow, in Zapato's and Mig's  heads, that has become 

"As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change.".

Now, among other things, that's a silly idea because it's what's happened since the dawn of humanity and that status quo never worked yet.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, the "reason" or "precaution" depending on what way you look at it, turns out to be a myth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

 

[iNow]

How about this: Three strikes, you're castrated. Yeah? If after due process, three distinct women have credible claims of harassment/abuse/assault, they get to cut your dick off. Two fondles results in garden shear trimmed digits... that sort of thing. We can call it a "fingers for fondles exchange program."

Thoughts? Just throwing ideas out there to potentially get us out of this horrible series of posts where we all kinda agree yet keep arguing at the margins.

Edited January 8, 2018 by iNow

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It wouldn't. That's the point. Nothing except GM will change human nature, and the attempts to affect behaviour are already constantly being made and updated, at education level.

It's not any burden on me to not be assaulting women, without any GM. 

I'm not aware of these attempts to which you refer. Can you be more specific?

50 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There's always scope for improvement, but it's not as if nothing is happening. I would of course discuss consent with my sons, and daughters. For their own benefit, as much as anything else. Any male who doesn't get good advice about consent is being failed by those involved in his upbringing and education. But there are some out there who would still end up attacking women, no matter what help and advice they got. 

Yes, there would. As with all such things, a goal of zero incidents is not realistic, and not achieving zero would not be failure.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.
It seems likely to me that most women are probably already doing pretty much everything they can to avoid trouble. In that case there's not a lot of scope for improvement.

If we want to reduce the incidence of attacks still further then we should focus on the group who don't seem to be particularly motivated to reduce attacks yet are uniquely placed to do so- the bad men.

iNow's idea  would achieve that.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's not any burden on me to not be assaulting women, without any GM. 

I'm not aware of these attempts to which you refer. Can you be more specific

Me neither. But others do. Maybe with a different upbringing, we would both be more of a threat. In any case, human nature is varied, because our genes are varied.

"Local authority maintained schools in England are obliged to teach sex and relationship education (SRE) from age 11 upwards, and must have regard to the Government's SRE guidance. Academies and free schools are not under this obligation. If they do decide to teach SRE, they also must have regard to the guidance."

https://contact.org.uk/advice-and-support/your-child-and-your-family/growing-up-sex-and-relationships/sex-and-relationship-education-in-school/ 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

How about this: Three strikes, you're castrated. Yeah? If after due process, three distinct women have credible claims of harassment/abuse/assault, they get to cut your dick off. Two fondles results in garden shear trimmed digits... that sort of thing. We can call it a "fingers for fondles exchange program."

Thoughts? Just throwing ideas out there to potentially get us out of this horrible series of posts where we all kinda agree yet keep arguing at the margins.

In the Youth and Government program, that I participate in, this is the case. Minus the fingers for fondles exchange program.

 

However, you should also note, I and quite a few other guys I know have been "fondled"(touching of sexual areas by someone of the opposite sex without direct invitation). Guy's just don't seem to mind as much. Can't imagine a reason....

So be careful about who you're trying to stop there. Age limits?

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

Me neither. But others do. Maybe with a different upbringing, we would both be more of a threat. In any case, human nature is varied, because our genes are varied.

"Local authority maintained schools in England are obliged to teach sex and relationship education (SRE) from age 11 upwards, and must have regard to the Government's SRE guidance. Academies and free schools are not under this obligation. If they do decide to teach SRE, they also must have regard to the guidance."

https://contact.org.uk/advice-and-support/your-child-and-your-family/growing-up-sex-and-relationships/sex-and-relationship-education-in-school/ 

Upbringing is not genetic. Unless you have evidence that sexual assault is some genetically-driven compulsive behavior, we still have the situation that we are all sentient, conscious beings, acting (or not) of our own volition. 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Upbringing is not genetic. Unless you have evidence that sexual assault is some genetically-driven compulsive behavior, we still have the situation that wecare all sentient, conscious beings, acting (or not) of our own volition. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, it's also why I still support the death penalty. And the fingers for fondles program presented by iNow. 

 

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Upbringing is not genetic. Unless you have evidence that sexual assault is some genetically-driven compulsive behavior, we still have the situation that wecare all sentient, conscious beings, acting (or not) of our own volition. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to establish. I've not claimed compulsion. Sexual assault is a latent tendency in most men, the vast majority of whom wouldn't dream of following it or indulging in it. With different upbringing, it might have come to the fore. 

I know a lot of women fantasise about being raped. But they keep it as a fantasy, knowing that the reality would not be what they imagined. One very intelligent girlfriend told me exactly that. Her fantasy was being forced, not too roughly, by someone she fancied anyway. Plenty of men have similar thoughts, about forcing women, without actually going down that road, or getting anywhere close to it.

Others follow up on that tendency. 

You would not exist today, if your ancestors never raped or got raped. Humans are just apes, after all. We haven't been selectively bred to be less violent or sexually aggressive. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to establish. I've not claimed compulsion. Sexual assault is a latent tendency in most men, the vast majority of whom wouldn't dream of following it or indulging in it. With different upbringing, it might have come to the fore. 

First of all, citation needed.

Defecating is also a tendency in humans. We learn to not do it in public, whenever the urge strikes us.

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

I know a lot of women fantasise about being raped. But they keep it as a fantasy, knowing that the reality would not be what they imagined. One very intelligent girlfriend told me exactly that. Her fantasy was being forced, not too roughly, by someone she fancied anyway. Plenty of men have similar thoughts, about forcing women, without actually going down that road, or getting anywhere close to it.

OK, as long as you don't go down that road. People probably fantasize about robbing a bank or jewelry store, or other illegal acts, too. But: so what? This isn't an excuse for actually going through with it.

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

Others follow up on that tendency. 

You would not exist today, if your ancestors never raped or got raped. Humans are just apes, after all. We haven't been selectively bred to be less violent or sexually aggressive. 

And yet we generally don't go around hitting people or killing them, and ones who do are targets of the police.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Defecating is also a tendency in humans. We learn to not do it in public, whenever the urge strikes us.

Well, men DO assault women. That's why we have the thread. Is it your point that the best course of action for the public is to pay no heed to safety precautions, because we shouldn't need them? And instead to educate and campaign more against male sexual violence? Good luck with that.  Violent sexual predators are usually open to persuasion. Especially after a heavy night of drinking, with no success with the women.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, men DO assault women. That's why we have the thread. Is it your point that the best course of action for the public is to pay no heed to safety precautions, because we shouldn't need them?

As with the previous comments about minimising risks or avoiding situations, the problem is defining what these "safety precautions" should be. The biggest risk factor is simply "being female". The problem is not that women engage in risky behaviour or expose themselves to hazardous situations. Unless you think that going to work, walking down the road or getting on public transport are situations to be avoided.

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And instead to educate and campaign more against male sexual violence? Good luck with that.

Boys will be boys, eh. 

This attitude is part of the problem. 

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Boys will be boys, eh. 

This attitude is part of the problem. 

Well, it's a fact.  When facts are part of the problem, I think you need to explain how you can change those facts. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

OK, as long as you don't go down that road. People probably fantasize about robbing a bank or jewelry store, or other illegal acts, too. But: so what? This isn't an excuse for actually going through with it.

 

He didn't say that it was an excuse to go through with it.

He very explicitly said: without actually going down that road, or getting anywhere near it.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, it's a fact.  

Is it?

I must have missed the bit where you provided the evidence of this "fact".

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Well, men DO assault women. That's why we have the thread. Is it your point that the best course of action for the public is to pay no heed to safety precautions, because we shouldn't need them?

No. I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the sort. I can't fathom how one arrives at this conclusion.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And instead to educate and campaign more against male sexual violence?

There is no "instead"

Women have been told about predatory men for a long time. There's no dynamic range to this solution. What we've been missing is the equivalent amount of emphasis aimed toward men.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Good luck with that.  Violent sexual predators are usually open to persuasion. Especially after a heavy night of drinking, with no success with the women.

Again with focus on one particular aspect of the problem (a popular straw man), and not the problem in general.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Is it?

I must have missed the bit where you provided the evidence of this "fact".

Boy will be boys is a self evident fact, if ever I saw one. 

And the boys that we are talking about, those with the potential to assault and rape, are the section of the population who are least likely to respond to persuasion.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He didn't say that it was an excuse to go through with it.

He very explicitly said: without actually going down that road, or getting anywhere near it.

Then why bother bringing it up? These are then people who are specifically NOT engaging in the behavior we are discussing, so it's entirely irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Boy will be boys is a self evident fact, if ever I saw one. 

That sounds an awful lot like an excuse. perhaps you'd like to try again?

Quote

And the boys that we are talking about, those with the potential to assault and rape, are the section of the population who are least likely to respond to persuasion.

And so we should not even try?

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That sounds an awful lot like an excuse. perhaps you'd like to try again?

It doesn't, unless you are trying to twist it. Girls will be girls. Is that an excuse or a fact? 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And the boys that we are talking about, those with the potential to assault and rape, are the section of the population who are least likely to respond to persuasion.

You said this was "most men" earlier.  And that there was little point trying to stop them.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Strange

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

And so we should not even try?

You really do try to twist things. Why not debate the statements made, rather than your own version? I've not only not said that, I've been absolutely clear that we should not stop trying.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said this was "most men" earlier.  And that there was little point trying to stop them.

Most men do have the tendency, and therefore the potential. But most men don't act on it, and don't want to act on it. Most men also have the tendency and potential to act in the opposite way. We have all sorts of tendencies lurking. 

I didn't say the second bit. There is point in trying to stop them. But don't hold your breath. Don't even expect it to happen in your lifetime.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But don't hold your breath. Don't even expect it to happen in your lifetime.

 

42 minutes ago, Strange said:

This attitude is part of the problem. 

 

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Most men do have the tendency, and therefore the potential.

And the evidence for this is where, exactly?

18 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I didn't say the second bit. There is point in trying to stop them. But don't hold your breath. Don't even expect it to happen in your lifetime.

There is a point but you don't think it will work? So what is the point?

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

That sounds an awful lot like an excuse. perhaps you'd like to try again?

 

Here we go again.