I guess simply bringing this up will make me an "MRA type"

Weird stuff, perhaps one of a kind stuff, happens. Not commenting about this occurrence.

No doubt he will get one.

where to start. I'm not sure what your goal was in posting this, but it's not going to work out well. I'm certain of that. Consider self-deletion. Really.

...not an Onion headline. That the Onion has clever parodies that parallel many real stories isn't something I think you can derive much significance from.

And what "outrage"? That's the kind of rhetorical game playing this thread is more about than anything else. In order to call me "an MRA type", it's necessary to call my post an expression of "outrage", even though it has about the same level of outrage and Andy Rooney riffing on things that bother him.

I'll just copy and paste:

A huge amount of what humans say to other humans, under all circumstances, is stating some degree of displeasure about some issue. We humans do a lot of complaining, most of it mild and merely conversational, however.

Actual "whining" requires quite a bit of distress and self-pity, a lot of "oh, whoa is me!"... but the cheap rhetorical trick is the throw out the word "whiner" for any degree of expressed displeasure whatsoever, so long as that suits one person's agenda to cast what another person says in the worst possible light.

because if you can't see it you are destined to have much turmoil from within.

if it's forced then it's not acceptable, regardless of the gender of the person who was forced.

it's not very complicated. you must not read very carefully if you think it is.

My OP is more about where people are likely to spot force and call it out, or considering alcohol in the equation, and how issues of gender affect what people see and the intensity with which they see it.

to condemn prison rape, and any jokes pertaining to it, as well as pushing back against all the men on DU who think the rape of young teenage boys is a-ok as long as the rapist is a woman, I believe you should look to your own gender for these hypotheticals you claim we would have no problem with if they happen to men and not women. It has consistently been men on DU who have had problems believing that men can be raped, not women, (with one notable exception, and she received so much flack for it that the thread exploded. I can pm you the link if you want.)

And it fits with my recollection of DU history. Credit where it is due, and DU's HoF Group deserves credit here.

-Laelth

What a trainwreck.

and that I think blocked her ability to think rationally at first. If you do read the thread, though, you will see that at the end, she opened up for the possibility that she might be mistaken.

The OP raises an important issue regarding double standards in our society.

-Laelth

Please, if the OP can't come up with a court case involving a woman suing a man for 'forcing her to receive oral sex', I invite you to.

Believe it or not, feminists and their allies are against sexual assault no matter the gender.

of a woman who has a little bit to drink, gives consent, and then regrets it and 'cries rape'

See, e.g., the noxious "don't be that girl" stuff from the misogynistosphere.

Because that's not the act that men employ to attack women, your attempted thought experiment is a fail.

...is unwanted sexual contact, correct?

Women don't get attacked with oral sex. Rapists don't stalk women so they can give women oral sex. Men don't slip roofies into women's drinks so they can give women oral sex.

You wanted us to consider what our reaction to the case would be if it had been about a man and a woman. We did, and the scenario is unrealistic. It's not what happens in reality. So the analogy as you posit it in your OP fails.

If you want to talk about a larger issue, you'll have to find a court case that better fits what it is you want to say, then start a different thread.

...forced his head between her legs, and she didn't want him there. I don't see whether that's a common form of forced sexual contact as being at all relevant.

And if the contact isn't "forced" because of drunkenness, then the same issues of proper consent apply.

Actually, all you're making is a fool of yourself. You picked a stupid example to begin with; getting more fanciful, with things that do not happen in real life, is not making you & your thought processes look any better.

I think you've decided I'm trying to make a point that's your own straw man.

I can understand your forgetting what your original point was, since you've spent the rest of this thread running away from it. So there you are, your own words, from your last sentence.

...and will gladly stand by it. Apparently, however, in your mind unless I accept your way of interpreting those words I'm "running away from it".

There is no way to reverse the genders in that court case, because men don't assault women by forcing oral sex on them. They just don't. So you backed away from what the court case actually was about by asking "does the particular sex act matter that much?" Why yes, yes it does, because we are talking about reality here. But you didn't want to talk about reality. So you moved the goalposts again, by introducing a goofy hypothetical: IF a man assaulted a woman by forcing oral sex on her, she'd be upset. Again you have to be reminded, THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Women are NOT assaulted by means of oral sex. What on earth is the point of arguing about something that does not happen?

Until you can cite us a newspaper story where it has happened and the man was brought up on charges, your position that there are "predictable biases" in how people would react to it is rightly to be ridiculed, because the scenario is not based in reality. And that's not anybody's interpretation, it just is.

My not agreeing with that importance you place on it in no way constitutes "moving the goalposts".

on any part of your post, including the MRA disclaimer.

...anyway.

your attempt to pit GLBT and feminist DUers against each other here is a great big fail.

Check.

But, to whatever minimal value spouting off in an internet forum ever has, I think it might rarely have some value to point out that when people produce predictable, knee-jerk responses to some things, then maybe they should examine those knee-jerk responses.

A huge amount of what humans say to other humans, under all circumstances, is stating some degree of displeasure about some issue. We humans do a lot of complaining, most of it mild and merely conversational, however.

Actual "whining" requires quite a bit of distress and self-pity, a lot of "oh, whoa is me!"... but the cheap rhetorical trick is the throw out the word "whiner" for any degree of expressed displeasure whatsoever, so long as that suits one person's agenda to cast what another person says in the worst possible light.

"much more often than not, a cheap rhetorical trick...


Much as is prophesying what other people may or may not say in any given hypothetical situation, which was actually the fundamental premise of the OP.

However, I'm quite certain you will rationalize your use of it whilst indicting others for the same... as holding others to a higher standard than we may hold ourselves to seems to be part of the human condition.

And I've seen how stories like this and reactions to them go many times before. One, of course, gets different results when you anticipate or call out expected responses.

You constructed some straw men a few stories high, lit them on fire, fanned the flames and then "complain" when you get a little scorched in the process?

I agree with the poster above that suggested you take your flames on over to discussionist where you can be guaranteed a more welcoming response to this OP.

In the mean time, thank you for being so transparent in your OP.

I'm merely commenting back on what I considered expected responses.

And that you think there's something "transparent" that you've oh-so-cleverly seen through is part of what I'm commenting on. You're so sure you're "on to me" and my little tricks, and you're going to show me how nothing slips by you!

You'd give yourself that pat on the back for vigilantly patrolling the discussion all by yourself.

Credit where credit due and all.

Your comment does and yes that comment does imply you are an MRA.

Firstly, the normal way of acting is that the woman is forced to give oral sex to the man, not have it performed on her. Secondly you seem completely unaware of outstanding physiological differences between males and females in respect of receiving blow jobs in a car. Thirdly the guy giving the blow job stopped as son as consent was withdrawn, funny that.

Start thinking instead of acting as Paul Elam's water boy.

...there are a lot of people who would call it rape, but with the frequency of that characterization dependent on gender, because even when consent was originally given, the recipient was drunk.

was posted last year, some of the responses here (even from at least one feminist) were "can't rape the willing" and other dismissive remarks.

Indicative of many things, few - if any - good.

Not sure how many people besides themselves would agree the label applies to them.

Can't put my finger on it, but it's her (I think it's a her) take on not just that one story, but elsewhere.

Anyway, cheers.

...so you better go sign up at Paul Elam's web site (I didn't even know who he was until someone else here just mentioned him) and move along.

...not doing it at all myself. So your response confuses me.

I will delete. Can be hard to sense sarcasm online. Cheers.

I have no idea how reliable the source is reporting on a court case in New Zealand, but it seems a few posters here might be thinking you made up the whole thing.

And then there's that crew assuming you have some agenda in posting this. It is, of course, a misogynistic, anti-gay, and whatever other evil agenda so you should delete the post and run away and hide before the swarm. I assume the alerts have been fast and furious but the post still stands so there is some sanity left.

The unwritten rules around here for discussing any sex acts under any circumstances are extremely strict but ever changing, so best not to bring it up at all lest you get caught in the most recent invisible web of hairfire starting.

about your agenda.

poor straight white males, constantly oppressed by the double standards that they imagine feminsts have but can never substantiate

there's this great site called discussionist where there's a whole bunch of fellow straight men who feel similarly oppressed, y'all should compare notes

it would be to simply cut the bullshit. I don't feel oppressed in the slightest and don't appreciate your inventing the idea.

It's really easy to knock out an accusation, isn't it. You don't know me, know nothing about my life outside of DU, and little of it here, but one comma outside of generally accepted DU dogma and I'm the bad guy.

And, cheering him on? I think the whole thread is a hilarious waste of time and other than that just don't care one way or the other.

Get a life.

with responses filled with double standards regarding rape and now you're angry about those double standards at DU that you imagined. Check.

Really straight males are the real victims in our society.

Bryant

Did I call what happened a "constant threat"? No. Did I call it anything similar, even a moderate or small threat, which might make the slightest sense to exaggerate to "constant threat"? No, not even that.

But somehow it's necessary for you (probably imagining yourself to be cleverly insightful) to decide that that's my "real" message.

Where in my OP is it even implied that I'm trying to play the game seeing who wins the contest of being "the real victims in our society"?

In fact, if you think I'm considering Man #2 a "victim", you've read your own agenda into my OP.

should have been found guilty for "unlawful sexual connection" because the man was so drunk he couldn't give consent. However, if that wasn't part of the charges, then the jury made the right decision. I don't see how you think most people would be okay with this just because he is a guy.

off of South Park

Oddly, I think some people are taking my OP as me saying, "Where is the outcry for this victim!?", which is hardly the case.

"Oddly, I think some people are taking my OP as me saying, "Where is the outcry for this victim!?", which is hardly the case"

...the idea that I think the news story in the OP is a tragedy not receiving sufficient rending of garments is to overrate their own ability to "read between the line" and divine what they imagine my "true intent" MUST be.

It's not that I don't have an interpretation of the OP that many on DU would find offensive. I find the original OP story, as is, a bit funny, with some allowance that drunkenness makes the behavior a little questionable, possibly a little unfortunate, but far from an earth-shattering tragedy.

What I believe some on DU would find offensive is that I'd feel very much the same way if my hypothetical gender changes to the story were made. I wouldn't feel obligated to be outraged and, with great fervor and indignation, call the story an act of rape. The humor part is lacking, however, in a gender-changed version of the story, because there's no element of some people's hang-ups about gay sex involved.

wouldn't a gender-changed version be a lesbian and straight woman?

I don't think either your original post or this explanation makes very much sense.

You can get rid of the quotation marks and put a period after the word "type".

...of the self-congratulating, "ooh, I've gotcha pegged!" mentality so often seen on DU that makes people think they're geniuses of human nature and stalwart defenders of the oppressed based on their uncanny ability to make superficial snap judgments.

Never said I was a genius or even thought it. Never claimed to be a stalwart defender of the oppressed. Any more assumptions you would like to make?

You're welcome.

...of the way you say what you've said. Oh, you've seen right through it! You're not going to let anything slip by you, nosiree, and you're going to call it out!

No asking questions or asking for qualifications... you don't need that. No contingent wording, no "I think that..." or "it seems that...". Just flat out accusation, instant categorization and dismissal. In your mind, you've "got me pegged".

Genius is not necessary to come to that conclusion.

"No asking for qualifications" This isn't a interview. As you said, "I don't need that."

...gives you all that you need to leap to your conclusions is the obnoxiously, unjustifiably self-assured assessment of your own abilities.

There was no need to try and make an equivalency between men and women. (Yes, you did, even if it was inadvertent ) Rape is rape.

Men are raped every day and it's a serious issue. It's serious in all communities, and I understand your frustration about the story. That Men that are raped also rises from rape culture of which this this is a classic example.

MRA's are designated hate groups. That's not what you sound like. You sound frustrated, and trying to make a very valid point with a somewhat awkward example.

He's not upset or frustrated or anything. He thinks it's funny! Or so he says...

Not funny.

would be met with a double standard. You must have been inundated with DU posters who say that this kind of thing is just fine. Otherwise, why would you make that assumption? So do show us those posts that made assume there is a double standard about these things here. It should be really easy for you.