continuing comment reading in lawyers, guns, and money
I went back to read the comments in Lawyers, Guns, and Money: Further Thoughts from Anne Applebaum because it was sane and that was nice.
The comment, to me, is a surprisingly good expression of what makes this confusing to a lot of people, especially men.
Warning: mention and thoughts about the concept of rape.
I can't find a way to directly link to comments, so I'm reproducing it here, which includes text Yeah Yeah used in his response that is attributed to 'It' ('It's' comments are in italics):
It,
And frankly, you may find it counterintuitive to think that something is good if you consent to and not if you don't it's pretty simple to me, and it shouldn't be that hard if you can empathisize with someone in that situation.
Not sure if that's intended as a backhanded insult or not, but taking it on faith...
Yes, we can understand it. It's still counterintuitive to immediately equate sex with crime. Which is why I said when people understand it as violence, it's much easier to resolve.
Example: If Bob says "I got a 30% pay raise at work" most people would intuit that as something positive. It's possible that it was actually something Bob found unpleasant - there could be reasons involved that would explain why. But the customary immediate intuition is "oh, that's a good thing".
The point is, our culture views rape as in its own category all its own, but that says something about us, not rape.
Agreed. Rape is made a disgrace and shame to the victim - something that can result in death of its own in extreme cases (honor killings, etc.). It instills mistrust and fear that sometimes doesn't go away in a lifetime. It's a terrible, terrible act.
Today, 12:51:38 PM
First--his example with Bob is hideous, but I'm assuming Yeah Yeah is a man, and he was working on the fly, because it would be quite hard to be more offensive while actually agreeing with the argument.
It's still counterintuitive to immediately equate sex with crime. Which is why I said when people understand it as violence, it's much easier to resolve.
That's probably the best single statement of male privilege; very, very few women hit puberty without knowing about not going down an alley alone at night, even when they aren't taught about sex itself. Or in fact, about alleys. You wouldn't really think that was possible, but trust me when I say, girls are taught this. We may be hazy on vaginas and penises, and sex still involves something that happens in beds somewhere but no idea what, but we know something will happen to us that will not to boys in our position.
I am saying when I was ten and I was dropped off at a party at a friend's house where only the father and two elder brothers were there in a very rural location. They asked about the mother and got a vague answer. An hour later, they picked me back up and took me home. I didn't know about sex in more than the vague mechanics and function; I also knew why they were afraid. There were three men (two were below eighteen but teenagers) and five young girls, and I knew even then that those were not odds my parents were willing to risk.
This is not an isolated incident in my childhood. And once we do have a working knowledge of sex, it's reinforced regularly. Which--and I've been thinking about this--I'm not sure boys are ever given an explicit--and I do mean explicit--explanation on sex that includes the idea that girls refuse.
[The thing that weirds me out is, they do understand the idea of "false rape allegation" fairly quickly. I can't really use Child to judge; he's been having personal space and consent lectures slowly gaining in sophistication since he started walking and thought all laps were his lap to lie on.]
I'm still thinking on his comment--and ignoring the example, because holy God, I see what he was doing and now that I think about it, it's kind of a fantastic example in a way from the perspective of someone who has never lived with rape as an inevitable thing to be guarded against. I'm trying to think of one from a woman's perspective now.
The comment, to me, is a surprisingly good expression of what makes this confusing to a lot of people, especially men.
Warning: mention and thoughts about the concept of rape.
I can't find a way to directly link to comments, so I'm reproducing it here, which includes text Yeah Yeah used in his response that is attributed to 'It' ('It's' comments are in italics):
It,
And frankly, you may find it counterintuitive to think that something is good if you consent to and not if you don't it's pretty simple to me, and it shouldn't be that hard if you can empathisize with someone in that situation.
Not sure if that's intended as a backhanded insult or not, but taking it on faith...
Yes, we can understand it. It's still counterintuitive to immediately equate sex with crime. Which is why I said when people understand it as violence, it's much easier to resolve.
Example: If Bob says "I got a 30% pay raise at work" most people would intuit that as something positive. It's possible that it was actually something Bob found unpleasant - there could be reasons involved that would explain why. But the customary immediate intuition is "oh, that's a good thing".
The point is, our culture views rape as in its own category all its own, but that says something about us, not rape.
Agreed. Rape is made a disgrace and shame to the victim - something that can result in death of its own in extreme cases (honor killings, etc.). It instills mistrust and fear that sometimes doesn't go away in a lifetime. It's a terrible, terrible act.
Today, 12:51:38 PM
First--his example with Bob is hideous, but I'm assuming Yeah Yeah is a man, and he was working on the fly, because it would be quite hard to be more offensive while actually agreeing with the argument.
It's still counterintuitive to immediately equate sex with crime. Which is why I said when people understand it as violence, it's much easier to resolve.
That's probably the best single statement of male privilege; very, very few women hit puberty without knowing about not going down an alley alone at night, even when they aren't taught about sex itself. Or in fact, about alleys. You wouldn't really think that was possible, but trust me when I say, girls are taught this. We may be hazy on vaginas and penises, and sex still involves something that happens in beds somewhere but no idea what, but we know something will happen to us that will not to boys in our position.
I am saying when I was ten and I was dropped off at a party at a friend's house where only the father and two elder brothers were there in a very rural location. They asked about the mother and got a vague answer. An hour later, they picked me back up and took me home. I didn't know about sex in more than the vague mechanics and function; I also knew why they were afraid. There were three men (two were below eighteen but teenagers) and five young girls, and I knew even then that those were not odds my parents were willing to risk.
This is not an isolated incident in my childhood. And once we do have a working knowledge of sex, it's reinforced regularly. Which--and I've been thinking about this--I'm not sure boys are ever given an explicit--and I do mean explicit--explanation on sex that includes the idea that girls refuse.
[The thing that weirds me out is, they do understand the idea of "false rape allegation" fairly quickly. I can't really use Child to judge; he's been having personal space and consent lectures slowly gaining in sophistication since he started walking and thought all laps were his lap to lie on.]
I'm still thinking on his comment--and ignoring the example, because holy God, I see what he was doing and now that I think about it, it's kind of a fantastic example in a way from the perspective of someone who has never lived with rape as an inevitable thing to be guarded against. I'm trying to think of one from a woman's perspective now.