Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Adder]

So, normally I just ignore this whole "endorsement" crap. But a guy I quite like and respect just endorsed me. That's nice.

Am I obligated to endorse him back? I mean, I certainly would endorse the guy (although he's a competitor, so only if I'm conflicted out), but I don't like to encourage this linkedin crap.

Thoughts?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I recommend Sex at Dawn. It's a great book that nails the problem with sexuality in Western culture: That we make too much of it, and that we have made it a resource to be traded for things. The book's theory is that sex was more of a social thing before we switched to a landowner, agrarian society. That since that point, we have viewed women as property, and accepted a twisted, scientifically incorrect narrative about humans being naturally monogamous, and women and men being engaged in a cynical barter arrangement (she gives sex in return for his provision of resources).

In truth, humans are not monogamous (shocking, I know), and sex was traditionally not a taboo subject, or even a terribly private thing. Group, or sharing, sexual behaviors persisted for millions of years, and people got along fine. Then we decided to view sex as a commodity, and women as opportunistic gatekeepers. This has led to an adversity between the sexes that's not real. Women are called whores for following natural urges naturally, sought to be controlled, and when in vulnerable situations, raped by cretins who see them as deserving of no respect, as an enemy of sorts.

I'm coming late to this and I haven't scrolled, but I just read an account of a woman's rape in Tahrir Square that made my blood run cold. And I've read a lot about the women in India. It's not a Western thing.

And it wasn't sex.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's said all the time. But how has it been established?

ETA: Or to be a little more explicit, one possible way of understanding what these rapists did is to view them as trying to degrade her and using sex (among other things) to do it. But if sex isn't viewed as degrading, then perhaps they wouldn't have raped her.

Obviously, that's severely over-simplified.

There's no way that this is about sex.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She will feel embarrassed and humiliated by those photos. But I highly doubt she will suffer any negative scrutiny from people as a result of them.

She's had death threats.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

There's no way that this is about sex.

I don't know. The author seems to think sex was relevant (e.g., "feed[ing] their sexual cravings"). But she also says that sexual violence is being used for political ends too, so, as I said, I don't know.

But I don't think there is anything particularly uniquely Western about what Sebby and I are saying. It seems like a safe bet that Egypt has even more fucked up attitudes about sex than the U.S. When sex is such a taboo, it's all the more powerful as a weapon.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

She's had death threats.

Rape is a brutal and omnipresent thing in our society. It seems to be accepted by many and excused by more. People try to explain it as power or something else, and it undoubtedly has much to do with exerting not just power but a sick control, but it is more than that, it is not just about having power over someone but also about harming them, destroying them. An act of hate as well as power. Sex seems to come into play only because it makes the act more ruinous and hateful: what's the worst we can do to this person? I think these death threats are part of it, they're more would-be rapists getting their licks in. It's the mob piling on, not wanting to miss the lynching.

But I just find it too horrifying to comprehend or explain.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'll try to be more long winded, like Sebby, who is saying that same things.

Then you'd just be a long-winded dweeb.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

And Atticus's school is on the list, but he was cute back then, so maybe it's valid?

Thanks, I think, but businessinsider.com is unworthy of both halves of its name.

[Atticus Grinch]

Anyone who points to an evolutionary underpinning of the sexual economics of rape (by reference to chimps or bonobos) is selling something. The submission of males and females to promiscuous sex in bands of apes says little about human nature. Until fairly recently women and undersized male humans were subjected to non-consensual sex and other forms of physical helplessness, whether that helplessness was generated by extreme poverty or by some legal bullshit.

The idea that even the average individual could and should DECIDE whom to have sex with is less than 2,000 years old, and in some places still hasn't caught on. The overwhelming majority of people who've ever lived died without ever feeling a sense of bodily autonomy. The fact we even have a culture that sometimes vindicates the objections of the powerless puts us ahead of 80% of the world's current population and 100% of our ancestors on evolutionary timescales.

I used to care what rape was "about," sex or power. I'm not sure it matters to anyone not in a college course. Is there a practical benefit to answering the question? We certainly have more tools for making a person not want more sex than we do to make them not want more power. But I'm still not seeing why the question is ever posed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Anyone who points to an evolutionary underpinning of the sexual economics of rape (by reference to chimps or bonobos) is selling something. The submission of males and females to promiscuous sex in bands of apes says little about human nature. Until fairly recently women and undersized male humans were subjected to non-consensual sex and other forms of physical helplessness, whether that helplessness was generated by extreme poverty or by some legal bullshit.

The idea that even the average individual could and should DECIDE whom to have sex with is less than 2,000 years old, and in some places still hasn't caught on. The overwhelming majority of people who've ever lived died without ever feeling a sense of bodily autonomy. The fact we even have a culture that sometimes vindicates the objections of the powerless puts us ahead of 80% of the world's current population and 100% of our ancestors on evolutionary timescales.

I used to care what rape was "about," sex or power. I'm not sure it matters to anyone not in a college course. Is there a practical benefit to answering the question? We certainly have more tools for making a person not want more sex than we do to make them not want more power. But I'm still not seeing why the question is ever posed.

actually I was just suggesting that our background shows that rape is not the result of how society treats women.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Anyone who points to an evolutionary underpinning of the sexual economics of rape (by reference to chimps or bonobos) is selling something. The submission of males and females to promiscuous sex in bands of apes says little about human nature. Until fairly recently women and undersized male humans were subjected to non-consensual sex and other forms of physical helplessness, whether that helplessness was generated by extreme poverty or by some legal bullshit.

The idea that even the average individual could and should DECIDE whom to have sex with is less than 2,000 years old, and in some places still hasn't caught on. The overwhelming majority of people who've ever lived died without ever feeling a sense of bodily autonomy. The fact we even have a culture that sometimes vindicates the objections of the powerless puts us ahead of 80% of the world's current population and 100% of our ancestors on evolutionary timescales.

I used to care what rape was "about," sex or power. I'm not sure it matters to anyone not in a college course. Is there a practical benefit to answering the question? We certainly have more tools for making a person not want more sex than we do to make them not want more power. But I'm still not seeing why the question is ever posed.

The practical benefit of realizing it is about power is obvious. At my college, there is a hot debate over rape as a result of several recent incidents. There has been a report that identifies the most significant problem on campus as being upperclass men in positions of authority on various college clubs, sports, or organizations raping freshmen women, particularly in their first semester. Power.

Knowing rape is about power and attacking the vulnerable tells you who and where to police and points out who needs maximum protection and maximum education.

One way to lessen rapes in Stubenville (and we all live in Stubenville): publicly shame the bastard rapists, so they lose their power when they rape. Take away the "football star" label and replace it with "violent criminal" and "rapist", which is what they are. There will be football stars in the future who get the lesson.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There will be football stars in the future who get the lesson.

no they won't. people lose sight of reality once in the locker room mentality.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

no there won't. people lose sight of reality once in the locker room mentality.

I'd be happy to jail a few dozen and see.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Knowing rape is about power and attacking the vulnerable tells you who and where to police and points out who needs maximum protection and maximum education.

Doesn't mean I don't like you, but you suffer from one of the most severe and crippling cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd be happy to jail a few dozen and see.

Nahh, cut off their penises and see.