Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:23 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:07 AM
Olavus Olavus is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Keep pants on while in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lindberg
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:48 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default left wingers really are different

why is the left so interested in this story? Nothing better to do, maybe? There are interesting aspects to this story. Is it true that so many in government had access to these documents? And only 1 person leaked them? Both assertions are hard to believe. Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.

When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-27-2010, 11:17 AM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: left wingers really are different

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
why is the left so interested in this story? Nothing better to do, maybe? There are interesting aspects to this story. Is it true that so many in government had access to these documents? And only 1 person leaked them? Both assertions are hard to believe. Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.

When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.
To be fair, there are plenty of people on the right who would also rather focus on what a sleazy character he might be than any government misbehavior which comes to light as the story develops. It seems only we libertarian crackpots care at all about anything beyond the celebrity gossip angle.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:47 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: left wingers really are different

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara Davis View Post
To be fair, there are plenty of people on the right who would also rather focus on what a sleazy character he might be than any government misbehavior which comes to light as the story develops.
We could be talking about Bill Clinton, here.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-30-2010, 11:54 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: left wingers really are different

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Yet the focus of the left is date rape and leg humping.
Well there was some valuable discourse on the probabilities of the accusers being part of a conspiracy and such but yeah most of the diavlog was around sexual assault and it's cultural context. What these women, who have some firsthand knowledge of the subject, think about an issue that concerns only 1/2 the population of the world and a hopefully large portion of the other 1/2 is of great value to me. I found the diavlog quite interesting and would suggest it be seen/heard by a larger audience ( it was a bit rambling and repetitive at times but that is the price one pays for an authentic conversation )


Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
When the country splits apart, I worry the democrat states will be so dysfunctional they will be a threat to the republican states.
Ah we might be rats but we are a diverse group of rodents. Better a broad swath of breeds that flourish in rat-states as opposed the the old white shrew-states that require constant pruning of the population and obsessive consumption of it's resources. ;-)
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:51 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

A big red flag
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2010, 12:32 PM
Peter Twieg Peter Twieg is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 81
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

The juxtaposition of Marcotte's assertion that PUA-types are motivated by anger towards women against Tkacik's annoyance at being accused of hating America was amusing.

I actually thought the last minute or so was pretty interesting, however. I've had friends express guilt over "sexually assaulting" their boyfriends with oral sex while they're asleep. Tkacik's apparently not knowing the Proper Sexual Manners here could have easily put her on the on the wrong side of the law. But, of course, this is used as a strawman because Proper Sexual Manners of the kind that Marcotte wants to push does deem it as sexual assault (unless it was explicitly raised and consented to beforehand), but anyone who would actually press that sort of charge would be emasculating himself, and also would inconvenience the millions of guys who would certainly not mind this sort of transgression.

More broadly, taking a purely consent-base approach to resolving sexual disputes seems about as naive as libertarians who want to use contracts to govern the proper scope of all social interactions. This isn't to say that consent isn't important, but that consent only works as a concept insofar as it's mutually-understood, and there's no way that the allowed scope of a sexual interaction will ever be made explicit, and so we have to have social norms and - failing that - common-law principles that adjudicate the grey areas of what each act of consent should have been understood to mean. I think feminists are unwilling to engage this battle because there will be a lot of "no means yes" norms accepted that they'd find frustrating, but the alternative explicit-consent approach is pretty limited, and it'll be extremely problematic if it's at odds with actual sexual mores (such as the "good morning" blowjob being perfectly acceptable and possibly even awesome.) The key, in my opinion, is changing the norms of what's acceptable in a bottom-up manner.

Anyways, it would have been nice to have someone like Cathy Young feature who could make a stronger case regarding the problems with using criminal law to adjudicate these kinds of cases, but.. perhaps another day.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:51 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Twieg View Post
The key, in my opinion, is changing the norms of what's acceptable in a bottom-up manner.

hmmmm...

...and Cathy Young is a good read.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-27-2010, 01:53 PM
epiphanius epiphanius is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Amanda said that "having sex with an unconscious person is still rape, even if consent is given afterwards"

I can't believe an adult said this. Waking up to lovemaking is a perfectly normal adult behaviour in an atmosphere of mutual trust. To say this is always rape is to devalue the idea of rape completely.

Good discussion though...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:53 PM
Jay J Jay J is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 436
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Not positive about this, but I thought Amanda Marcotte said that in the U.S., it's deemed rape by the law (without commenting on whether that's good or not). Can you do a dingalink or tell me the point in the diavlog where she said it should be considered rape?

Just askin, cuz my immediate impression is different than yours.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:21 PM
epiphanius epiphanius is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Well, it's here http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/331...6:14&out=16:27,
but this is the section you refer to.

I got a lot out of this diavlog, though it was a little chaotic, and I had some criticisms as well. I posted that before I had heard the whole thing, and I might not have posted if I had waited to hear the whole thing.

In fact these two have convinced me that it is unlikely that a conspiracy involving these women existed prior to Cablegate. Amanda also presented a plausible chain of events regarding how the two women decided to proceed with a police complaint. Julian's reaction to the Guardian article has not persuaded me otherwise.

I learned quite a bit about rape from the diavlog, and my thinking about the subject has been changed by watching it. Amanda put the remarks she made in better context by the end of it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-30-2010, 04:35 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by epiphanius View Post
I learned quite a bit about rape from the diavlog, and my thinking about the subject has been changed by watching it. Amanda put the remarks she made in better context by the end of it.
First let me pat myself on the back for not selectively quoting here. More importantly what was one or two of the things where your thinking changed ?

I found the diavlog fascinating and while it didn't change my thinking per se it did make me think more deeply about the issue. The candid nature of their discussion was great, had this discussion happened a decade ago it would have been accompanied by a melancholy soundtrack and little nuance. It was actually a bit disconcerting for me at first even though I do know and are friends with women who have had similar histories. I tend not to bring up the subject or ask questions about it. I mean it really isn't my business to begin with so...
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-30-2010, 05:38 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
... It was actually a bit disconcerting for me at first even though I do know and are friends with women who have had similar histories. I tend not to bring up the subject or ask questions about it. I mean it really isn't my business to begin with so...
If you have the kind of relationship with a woman (or a man for that matter) where talking about a past incident of this nature is important, there's always a gentle way to bring it up. You can always start the conversation by testing the waters. You can say something like: "you told me once that X happened..." or "I was told that X happened..." "and I'm aware that some women don't want to talk about issues like that while others do. I don't know how you feel about this, but if you want to talk about it, I'll be glad to listen and try to help if I can."

That's something that can be really helpful and increase trust in a relationship. I'm not talking about a romantic relationship. The woman could be your sister, or a friend. As sexuality has become more open, women tend to be more comfortable talking about these issues because they're not as hidden as they used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:36 PM
db63 db63 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 117
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Amanda's view of human nature is pretty much right on, while Moe's is a bit naive and odd.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:44 PM
Graybeard Graybeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 62
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-27-2010, 02:54 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard View Post
Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?
A "loon?" Because she still believes a woman was raped by the Duke lacrosse team? I doubt that that counts as a diagnosis.

(And, btw, when does feminism become "radical?" Is there some particular aspect of belief in inequality that crosses the line from plain old feminism to radical feminism, or does anybody who believes that women deserve the same treatment as men qualify?)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 12-27-2010 at 02:57 PM.. Reason: added parenthetical addendum
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:17 PM
Jay J Jay J is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 436
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Hey Jeff,

It's been too long since we've mixed it up, so here goes:

I'm not sure why Maureen Tkacik counts, but in Amanda Marcotte's case, we have a good example of someone who can illustrate the difference between plain old feminism and radical feminism.

Marcotte had no qualms about referring to God giving Mary his "hot, white, sticky, holy spirit." In order to be a feminist, one need not hold the idea that religion and ideas like the Virgin Birth have primarily served to reinforce the patriarchy.

As for the Duke Lacrosse case, she was cocksure that the accused were guilty, and she didn't mind using very emotionally charged ways of characterizing the state of affairs as she saw it.

In the diavlog, she said we should have a conversation about possibly making "condom slips" illegal (this isn't that big a deal, it just seems like if you listen to her for very long, her concerns seems to be manifested in a way that leans in one direction).

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed. I don't think that. But I don't see how anyone familiar with Marcotte's views and style would object to someone seeing her as radical, at least at first glance. I don't know exactly where she resides on the political spectrum (although I know it's left of center) so maybe at the end of the day she's not actually radical. But her underlying view of the world motivates her to downgrade concerns about how some might actually get some emotional comfort out of the figure of Mary in favor of highly charged rhetoric, and downgrade concerns about how we should speak about the accused in cases where the facts seem very fuzzy, in favor of asserting with cocksure confidence that they held her down and "f*cked her against her will."

EDIT. Incidentally, the stuff about the 'hot white sticky holy spirit' goes back to Marcotte being removed from some sort of communications position for the John Edwards campaign (he caught a lot of flack from the Feminist Law Professors blog for removing her). I'm not sure how common that knowledge is, or if I have to link to it. For now, I'll leave it here.

Last edited by Jay J; 12-27-2010 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:54 PM
Graybeard Graybeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 62
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay J View Post

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed.
What a straw man.

Not only did I imply no such thing, I explicitly supported a radical feminist viewpoint being represented.

I'm a fairly hardcore libertarian, and I would describe myself as 'radical'. I don't think the word itself is at all pejorative.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:37 PM
Jay J Jay J is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 436
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Fair enough. My bad. What I should have said was the "perceived" implication. I think, based on his response, and getting to know Jeff's concerns over the years, that Jeff is sensitive to certain world-views being de-legitimized based on giving them certain labels (in this case, then, perhaps the argument is over whether someone is unserious, and how much mileage that label should get). I think that's part of Jeff's concern here, though I may be wrong and I'll let him speak for himself. In any case, that's what I was trying to get at, and I should have been more careful to avoid characterizing your post; I was really just trying to pinpoint Jeff's concern.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:37 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay J View Post
Hey Jeff,

It's been too long since we've mixed it up, so here goes:

I'm not sure why Maureen Tkacik counts, but in Amanda Marcotte's case, we have a good example of someone who can illustrate the difference between plain old feminism and radical feminism.

Marcotte had no qualms about referring to God giving Mary his "hot, white, sticky, holy spirit." In order to be a feminist, one need not hold the idea that religion and ideas like the Virgin Birth have primarily served to reinforce the patriarchy.

As for the Duke Lacrosse case, she was cocksure that the accused were guilty, and she didn't mind using very emotionally charged ways of characterizing the state of affairs as she saw it.

In the diavlog, she said we should have a conversation about possibly making "condom slips" illegal (this isn't that big a deal, it just seems like if you listen to her for very long, her concerns seems to be manifested in a way that leans in one direction).

Now, perhaps some of what you're pushing back against is the implication that anyone who can rightly be called a "radical" should be dismissed. I don't think that. But I don't see how anyone familiar with Marcotte's views and style would object to someone seeing her as radical, at least at first glance. I don't know exactly where she resides on the political spectrum (although I know it's left of center) so maybe at the end of the day she's not actually radical. But her underlying view of the world motivates her to downgrade concerns about how some might actually get some emotional comfort out of the figure of Mary in favor of highly charged rhetoric, and downgrade concerns about how we should speak about the accused in cases where the facts seem very fuzzy, in favor of asserting with cocksure confidence that they held her down and "f*cked her against her will."

EDIT. Incidentally, the stuff about the 'hot white sticky holy spirit' goes back to Marcotte being removed from some sort of communications position for the John Edwards campaign (he caught a lot of flack from the Feminist Law Professors blog for removing her). I'm not sure how common that knowledge is, or if I have to link to it. For now, I'll leave it here.
Hey, Jay! I probably don't really disagree with you that much here. I can think of some "feminists" I've known whose lack of of humor, or single-mindedness, was seriously off-putting and even ridiculous. I've also known some terribly damaged women who seemed to me to have justifiable reasons for feeling something like that. My real complaint here was just irritation with the idea that all somebody really needs to do is insert an adjective as shorthand for some (I think) hackneyed, stereotypical caricature in lieu of an argument and expect to be treated as if they've made an argument worthy of consideration. (Argumentum ad adjectivum ) I have no problem with "radical" as a modifier, and I'm pretty sure there are feminists who deserve to be called that; but I think that Marcotte presents a more nuanced target than that, and I really don't think Tkacik deserves any such label.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-28-2010, 01:54 AM
Graybeard Graybeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 62
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
My real complaint here was just irritation with the idea that all somebody really needs to do is insert an adjective as shorthand for some (I think) hackneyed, stereotypical caricature in lieu of an argument and expect to be treated as if they've made an argument worthy of consideration. (Argumentum ad adjectivum )
You and your adjectives again.

I reiterate my conviction that all parts of speech can contribute to effective communication.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-28-2010, 09:32 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard View Post
You and your adjectives again.

I reiterate my conviction that all parts of speech can contribute to effective communication.
Adjectives are great, beautiful, useful things - you can't get along without them; but they're not a substitute for argument, and they can conceal more than they illuminate.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:16 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
btw, when does feminism become "radical?"
when they say waking your partner with a morning BJ is "wrong" (and implies that it is rape).
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:26 PM
Graybeard Graybeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 62
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
A "loon?" Because she still believes a woman was raped by the Duke lacrosse team?
Did you follow the link I posted? That might answer your question. That's what it's there for.

You could skip the commentary and just read the quotes attributed to Marcotte. (Normally I would link to originals, but Marcotte is said to have deleted them. You'll notice the post I linked to has links that are now dead.)

EDIT: Btw, I don't think anyone believes Crystal Mangum was raped by the entire Duke lacrosse team, or even all of those present at the party, even though Mangum may have implied the latter in one of the many versions of her story.

Last edited by Graybeard; 12-27-2010 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-27-2010, 09:22 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Why? Because BHTV is a Liberaltarian - left-wing echo chamber

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graybeard View Post
Instead of two radical feminists, one of them a well known loon, why not one serious radical feminist and an interlocutor who will challenge her point of view?
C'mon. Haven't you been paying attention? At BHTV, Ann Althouse is a "Right Wing Extremist" and Moderate Democrat Micky Kaus is a "Racist hate-monger". And if you question Evolution - you get banned for six months - ask John McWhorter.

Even assuming Bob would like a more balanced site, he still has to throw Red Meat to his closed-minded Atlantic-New York Times Base. The kind that thinks Kieth Olbermann is a 21st Century Ed Murrow.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:43 PM
Peter Twieg Peter Twieg is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 81
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

I actually thought Marcotte was the more reasonable of this pair. Yes, she might be a "radical feminist", but she's a radical feminist who managed to present her views in a straight-forward, nonsanctimonious manner with minimal references to false consciousness, The Patriarchy, Fox News, and other lefty bogeymen. I'd like to see her back in the future, paired with someone who'll challenge her more.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-27-2010, 03:54 PM
Jay J Jay J is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 436
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

I'm not sure if Maureen Tkacik saw herself as challenging Marcotte as much as having a conversation with her. But, maybe it would be interesting to see someone try to contradict Marcotte in a future discussion. As for this one, I thought it was a pretty reasonable exchange as well.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:04 PM
Peter Twieg Peter Twieg is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 81
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Oh, and this reminds me of a question that maybe someone could take a shot at:

What's the (third-wave) feminist position on whether women should be able to contract to provide sex on some terms, with some penalty attached for non-performance? This isn't merely asking "should prostitution be legal?", it's about asking questions such as whether it's okay for a woman to, say, take gifts in the explicit expectations that she'll provide sexual favors... and then refuse to do so. This isn't merely a legal question, I'm wondering if feminists would say that it's morally wrong to change one's mind in this situation. It strikes me that if the answer is "yes", then you're tip-toeing up to the point to saying that women shouldn't be able to revoke consent once a contract has been entered into (what about implicit contracts..?) If the answer is "no", then you're basically saying that women should not be able to credibly promise to provide sex, which I'd say is infantilizing and - yes - disempowering.

A somewhat-related topic which is fun but not touched on here is whether rape can occur by fraud - that if one, say, makes a promise that induces a woman to have sex with you, but then you break the promise... then a lot of people feel that that's wrong, but that the law shouldn't intervene. Even more surprising is that it seems that most feminist thinkers agree with this. But in most contexts we care whether consent has been obtained under fraudulent terms or not - why should sexual relationships be different? We do recognize that some cases are out of bounds - such as pretending to be a person's spouse in order to obtain sexual access - but how is this different from other cases of obtaining sex by fraud?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:29 PM
db63 db63 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 117
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Has Marcotte every responded to the criticisms rightly leveled at the remarks she made about the Duke lacrosse case? Does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-27-2010, 05:10 PM
Graybeard Graybeard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 62
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

Quote:
Originally Posted by db63 View Post
Has Marcotte ever responded to the criticisms rightly leveled at the remarks she made about the Duke lacrosse case?
In a Salon article, "Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign".
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-27-2010, 07:37 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness. I was glad for one brief moment later on there was some acknowledgement that they are not all the same, but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

It's almost as if they want written documents under oath with a camera recording to make sure consent was in its purest form. And even THEN who knows, what if it was regretted, what if the pretense for sex was false, was the woman raped then too?


What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-27-2010, 08:44 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness. I was glad for one brief moment later on there was some acknowledgement that they are not all the same, but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

It's almost as if they want written documents under oath with a camera recording to make sure consent was in its purest form. And even THEN who knows, what if it was regretted, what if the pretense for sex was false, was the woman raped then too?


What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.
Jon,

I didn't like this diavlog and found it difficult to relate to some parts of it, but for different reasons than you.

If you're not a woman and can't relate to the topic of rape, or if you can't bridge the gap from a man's psychology to a woman's, or don't have much motivation to do it, there's nothing that these women or anybody else can say that will reach you.

It's really simple. Having sex with a woman that hasn't given her consent, or waiting until she's unconscious or in an altered state of consciousness to have sex in a way that the woman hasn't given consent to, is considered rape. There's probably different "degrees" of violence or forceful action depending on the circumstances. But it isn't really all that hard to understand. Men who are unconcerned with women's well-being may be oblivious to their response to such actions. Otherwise, I would say it's understandable if you can't, as a man, relate to the way they feel, but you should at least be able to respect those feelings.

The example you gave at the end of your post of a woman flirting with a man even when she has no intention of having a relationship with him, has nothing to do with rape. Those kinds of flirting games can go both ways and belong to a different category of topics.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-30-2010, 04:20 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE


So many things are called rape it RAPES the meaning of the word to uselessness.
I still find the word valuable although it seems sexual assault is often used as opposed to the Woopi "Rape Rape" line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
but the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.
Well as has been said before it probably isn't to difficult to discern when to stop. Eyes unfocused, slurred speech, inability to walk unaided. If this is too much of a problem then I guess inability for your "partner" to move, let alone declare Yes or No, will have to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy? Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form, and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.
This is more of a cry for help than a properly thought out retort. A 15 year old might bang his head against the high-school locker in response to the unrequited "love" you are railing against here but seriously
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-03-2011, 02:20 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
the practice of calling something like having sex with a women who is drunk "RAPE" is too damn far.

It's almost as if they want written documents under oath with a camera recording to make sure consent was in its purest form. And even THEN who knows, what if it was regretted, what if the pretense for sex was false, was the woman raped then too?
i agree with this part. its like labeling an 18 yr old having sex with his 16 yr old girlfriend a "pedophile", it is a category error and eventually reduces the emotional valence of the word because it is being applied to horrible things and perfectly ordinary things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
What do you call it when a woman strings some guy along, flirting, attracting attention with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he wants (some sort of relationship) and ZERO intention of every going there with the guy?
i call that perfectly ordinary and probably to be expected. I usually see it more as going on a date and finding out that the chemistry didn't happen, rather than as a deliberate and diabolical plot to spend time with me that doesn't lead to a relationship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
Unethical right? Should we call that female RAPE? How about we just call it wrong, or unsavory or bad form,
this is just craziness.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
and leave terms like rape for physical coercion or close to it.
that would be my preference. but with the example above of a woman that is drunk - i think it makes a big difference if both parties are intoxicated or not and whether they got that way together, etc. So a stone cold sober guy cruising the bar at 2:30 a.m. for drunk chicks is walking a narrow line and will probably end up crossing that line and being a rapist if that his usual modus operendi. Whereas if i go on a date with a girl and we both get pretty tipsy and have sex - her regret the next morning does not make it rape.

The problems come in trying to disentangle the gray areas and figuring out how more innocent people will be hurt - by not prosecuting the marginal case or by prosecuting the marginal case. My preference is for the power of the state to only apply to individual relationships when it is an absolute necessity.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-03-2011, 05:45 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

"Drunk" is a pretty broad territory. Someone might be what you call "tipsy", perhaps over the legal driving limit, but seem alert, engaged, generally unimpaired and not slurring speech or stumbling around bumping into things, and so on. People also get semi-comatose, barely aware of their surroundings, unable to focus and maintain a conversation or coherent thought. And every state of intoxication between.

It's pretty easy to see, at least for most of us, that a guy engaging in sex with a woman who is so out of it that she has trouble figuring out what he is doing as he pulls her clothes off is engaging in rape. There is no way a reasonable person can consider the woman to be capable of consenting in any meaningful sense, even if she is not actively resisting. How and where exactly to draw the line legally is a problem. People react differently to various amounts of alcohol or other intoxicants. As with all legal lines, that decision will be somewhat arbitrary and unjust in many cases.

Regardless of where a legal line might be drawn, there is also the question of what constitutes moral and ethical behavior. Cases in which legal action may not be applied but which still constitute sleazy exploitation of someone's intoxication seem like events in which social sanctions should take over for legal sanctions.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-04-2011, 11:44 AM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Anyone else get a headache listening to this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
Regardless of where a legal line might be drawn, there is also the question of what constitutes moral and ethical behavior. Cases in which legal action may not be applied but which still constitute sleazy exploitation of someone's intoxication seem like events in which social sanctions should take over for legal sanctions.
I agree with that. This seems like one of those areas where to allow the state to be the arbiter of the gray areas requires relinquishing far too much power to the state, but clearly there is a lot of injustice and abuse that should be addressed by the community.

the problem there is the concept of "community" and whether it still exists in our society in a way that would make the social sanctions effective.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:24 PM
basman basman is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 648
Default Re: Is It Just Me?

So much time wasting blah blah blah here. I could not listen to more than few minutes of this. Nice ladies, not unclever, but nothing for me worth devoting even a fraction of +/- 82 minutes to, I'm sorry to say.

Itzik Basman

Last edited by basman; 12-29-2010 at 05:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-28-2010, 12:59 AM
T.G.G.P T.G.G.P is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 278
Default Re: WikiLeaks and Condom Slips (Amanda Marcotte & Moe Tkacik)

At the remark about defining rape as non-consensual sex the first thought that popped in my head was "What the hell have we been defining as instead?".

The point about police questioning scaring offenders makes some sense and may be true for the archetypical frat boy who thinks it's no big deal, but I'd be wary: Mark Kleiman reported in "When Brute Force Fails" that arrest often EMBOLDENS offenders by letting them know the consequences aren't that bad. It's also the case that the bad equilibrium with most crimes going unpunished (and those few being punished rather severely) is a troublesome dynamic which Kleiman spends most of his time trying to solve. Just something to keep in mind I guess.

Is it actually the case that 95% of the time there are no fights over child custody? It was my impression that it occurred in a higher percentages of divorces, although often the children function as props in a squabble between parents.

Judith Harris would argue that people who get divorced tend to be disagreeable in the first place.

The Onion would beg to disagree with Marcotte's parting joke.

I feel stupid responding to DenvilleSteve, but if you don't care, fine. Watch another diavlog. Watch some tv, read a book, take a nap, whatever. People are interested in different things for a variety of reasons and when they are discussing it one doesn't normally butt in to ask why anyone cares. Have that conversation with other people who aren't already discussing the topic at hand.

Last edited by T.G.G.P; 12-28-2010 at 01:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-28-2010, 04:13 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Definitions of Rape

I haven't watched this diavlog yet, because I am visiting the land of slow internet connections for the holidays, and given the comments so far I may not ever watch it. But in the comments I see a lot of talk and disagreement about what "rape" means, and I thought I might be able to add some historical context that some might find useful. In the United States, the law of rape is a messy topic, and it varies considerably between jurisdictions and over time. In many places, it operates differently than any other crime, probably owing to its history.

At early common law, sex outside of marriage (fornication) was always a crime for both male and female. The rapist and the seducer were on relatively equal ground. So it is almost more appropriate to think of there being a defense of rape than there being a crime of rape. A woman accused of fornication could plead that it had been rape, and she would be asked to negative the elements of her offense, showing that she had not committed the culpable act, and showing she had no culpable mind state. Such proof generally required showing actual resistance.

(Common law also made rape an important legal fiction. Lords could exercise some veto power over marriage by their subjects, but the law of ravagement provided an out. The couple would have sex, the woman would acuse the man of rape, he would not contest it, and the law would give the woman the choice of either condemning the man or marrying him.)

Even as fornication became legal and rape was solely a crime, not a defense, the same legal elements were kept. Rape was sex accomplished despite of physical resistance by the woman. Subsequent developments lessened the victim's burden and changed this to sex accomplished by force or sex against the the will of the woman. With these developments, rape law became idiosyncratic in its focus on the actions and mental state of the victim rather than the perpetrator. If I kill you in mistaken self-defense, the question at trial will be whether my actions were reasonable, not whether your actions were. If I rape you, under the laws just described, the question at trial will be whether your actions constituted reasonably resistance, not whether my actions reflected reasonable mistake.

In some, but not all, jurisdictions, statutes have been changed or caselaw has evolved, so that the legal definition of rape is sex in absence of consent by the woman. In some jurisdictions there has also been a move to require a culpable mental state by the rapist. One way to think about current law, though, is not that sex in the absence of consent is rape per se, but that the absence of explicit consent creates culpability for rape per se. That is, if you have sex with someone against her will, without knowing it was against her will, you can't claim you made an innocent mistake unless you had explicit consent. (Some caselaw validates this way of thinking, some doesn't.)
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.