On this thing called "rape culture"

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

Yeah, there are plenty of sports that involve physical risk, but I haven't heard of anything with the level of long term brain injury that football has. Partly because the protective gear is so good at what it does that there is not need for circumspection by the players when it comes to taking an impact.

It calls to mind boxing and the evidence that boxing gloves have made the sport more dangerous instead of less.

Eleima wrote:

That's just... Appalling. I honestly believes it classifies as hate speech, and they should just be perma-banned. Just revolting...

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

I was kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything. That was the best I could come up with. I don't understand why it's still a thing. Granted, I'm not American or anything, nor am I fascinated with spectator sports in general.

OG_slinger wrote:

Is there honestly anything redeeming about football?

I have pretty much hated American football since around my middle school years when I became familiar with the toxic bullying and tribalist culture that surrounds it (I just didn't have the words to explain it that way). Ever since then, I have been unable to separate the sport itself from the toxicity that surrounds and immerses it. I would be quite happy to see the sport and its surrounding culture simply go away.

Which makes the repugnant "with us or against us" style accusations flung my way a while back in the thread about the Paterno mess that much more ridiculous.

Worse -- that's a "12 month good behavior bond". No jail time, he just has to put up money that he'll get back if he behaves himself for a year. (And considering the judge, that's probably a pretty low threshold.)

Jolly Bill wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:

As for American football... Considering how many medical conditions stems from bashing one guy with another... I'm pretty sure the risks outweigh the benefits of the physical activity, LarryC.

Yeah, there are plenty of sports that involve physical risk, but I haven't heard of anything with the level of long term brain injury that football has. Partly because the protective gear is so good at what it does that there is not need for circumspection by the players when it comes to taking an impact.

It calls to mind boxing and the evidence that boxing gloves have made the sport more dangerous instead of less.

Makes sense.

Katie Nolan had a pretty great response to A&M Chalk Talk story and casual sexism carried out by the PR departments of sports teams.

Just in case you thought that us gay dudes don't know about rape culture: the fact that this shirt A) needed to be made, and B) has actually engendered some SERIOUSLY screwed-up threads on Facebook...

At least it's let me know that there are certain people who maybe I need to un-know.

Based on my personal experience, there are some gropy-ass motherf*ckers in gay bars.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/iUTnqOv.jpg)

NSMike wrote:

Based on my personal experience, there are some gropy-ass motherf*ckers in gay bars.

Ain't that the damn truth.

..

Maq wrote:

I don't think a younger child is going to draw a distinction between pokemon, human, and animal. They're all "friends" and are portrayed as much in the show. The first time Stellan (4) saw a pokémon battle he asked "what are they doing". I said they're having a fight and that they like having play fights together. Then Ash captured said pokémon and it became "his". I had to explain that as well. I was not at all happy with that. It felt contrary to everything I'm trying to teach him about violence and consent. You don't make someone "yours" through violence.

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

nel e nel wrote:
Maq wrote:

I don't think a younger child is going to draw a distinction between pokemon, human, and animal. They're all "friends" and are portrayed as much in the show. The first time Stellan (4) saw a pokémon battle he asked "what are they doing". I said they're having a fight and that they like having play fights together. Then Ash captured said pokémon and it became "his". I had to explain that as well. I was not at all happy with that. It felt contrary to everything I'm trying to teach him about violence and consent. You don't make someone "yours" through violence.

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Furthermore, those studies you reference show that videogames do not have a causal relationship to violent behavior. They say nothing about the game's causal relationship to response to violence.

It's not about how media changes how you act as it is about how media changes how you think.

Jonman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Genuinely curious, where do you stand on claims by legislators and media folks that "video games cause X", and have regularly been shown to not have a causal relationship to X?

X being violence/crime/boogeyman du jour.

One lack of causation is not lack of causation for any future societal ills. Studies proving video games don't cause violent behavior doesn't mean that video games do not also cause sexist behavior (or normalization of either behavior).

Furthermore, those studies you reference show that videogames do not have a causal relationship to violent behavior. They say nothing about the game's causal relationship to response to violence.

It's not about how media changes how you act as it is about how media changes how you think.

I feel that picking and choosing which societal ills are or aren't influenced by media comes across as moving the goal posts in my opinion.

To Jon's point, that's a totally fair distinction to make, and one that I'm inclined to agree with. There are recent studies that show how too much exposure to news - in particular "bad news" (crime, war, etc) - elicits PTSD like symptoms in not only the viewer, but the reporters as well. Does that translate into violent behavior? I haven't seen any studies on that, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior. We all have sh*tty thoughts from time to time, it's how we choose to act - or not act - that defines us. (For a more on topic example, do extreme kink or BDSM communities contribute to rape culture, even if it's between consenting adults and may veer into role play that simulates sexual violence? And the Stanford swimmer, it kinda doesn't matter what he thinks, his actions will forever define/haunt him.)

Ultimately, I think it's a bit of chicken and egg question: do societal attitudes influence our media or vice versa? And which direction of that influence has more impact? I think this also steers back around to the "liking things that have problematic elements" philosophy.

Anyways, sorry for the rambly post, these are some of the questions that have been brought up thinking about this most recent exchange the past day or so.

The breakdown comes in the assumption that the relationship is causal. Catching Pokemon isn't going to turn kids into rapists any more than shooting looters in the Division is going to turn anyone into George Zimmerman. But they can contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized.

do societal attitudes influence our media or vice versa? And which direction of that influence has more impact? I think this also steers back around to the "liking things that have problematic elements" philosophy.

Both. Society has pushed back against casual racism in media and casual racism is less acceptable in most of society. A whole movement has grown up as a response to this to try reclaim public racism, but it's a fight against the tide. Does it matter which is the cause and which is the effect? As long as society at large is moving in a better direction.

*edit* oh and despite the continued existence of rape culture, just look at how sexual violence has been demonized in much of media. Revenge of the Nerds couldn't get made today. It's pretty much pure sexual violence, culminating in the hero raping a woman.

nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

I think there used to be an idea that adults could handle certain media better than kids. That we kept kids away from certain media because they were just too immature to deal with it. This is a different idea. This is the idea that society--neither adults nor children--can handle certain media.

(and nel e nel is right: the goalposts are getting moved. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does change whether these are really answers to the original question about letting your kid play Pokemon Go. The question now is about whether we should discourage the playing of Pokemon Go by anyone.)

edit: I'll spoiler this as Space Is An Issue:

Spoiler:
nel e nel wrote:

(For a more on topic example, do extreme kink or BDSM communities contribute to rape culture, even if it's between consenting adults and may veer into role play that simulates sexual violence? And the Stanford swimmer, it kinda doesn't matter what he thinks, his actions will forever define/haunt him.)

It does feel like this is a topic most fully explored in the conversations between pro-sex and sex-negative branches of feminism.

BDSM and kink are in no way a problem because they are absolutely obsessive about getting consent from all participants. However Fifty Shades of Grey is a problem because it's a manual for manipulative sexual assault and rapey misrepresentation of BDSM and kink.

sorry for all the edits! but just trying to get the concept across as clearly yet completely as possible.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

BDSM and kink are in no way a problem because they are absolutely obsessive about getting consent from all participants.

On the level of individuals, sure, but it's like you said:

Catching Pokemon isn't going to turn kids into rapists any more than shooting looters in the Division is going to turn anyone into George Zimmerman. But they can contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized.

The question is whether BDSM and kink contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized. There's also consent from all the participants in Pokemon Go or The Division, too. They're just games.

(edit) I think the big question here is whether people get that games are just games, and the 'violence' is just part of the consented-to rules of the game, (edit) whether that game is sex games or video games or contact sports games.

(last edit, I think!) The question is whether things that are violence but for that consensual game playing can truly be rendered incapable* of contributing to a broader culture in which violence--with OR without consent--is normalized.

*(or I guess technically: at least rendered less capable enough so that they are a net positive)

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

The conversation arose from talking about making media choices for our kids. That's, like, Parenting 101. Maybe 201 now I think about it, but still.

I'm absolutely comfortable with policing my daughter's thoughts, because that's what raising kids is - teaching them how to think. They have no inbuilt value system and it's your job as a parent to install one.

For adults? The callous answer is Not My Job/Not My Problem. You go ahead and watch all the kitten decapitation videos you want. I do, after all.

Spoiler:

I watch zero kitten decapitations, which is precisely how many I want to watch

MrDeVil909 wrote:

However Fifty Shades of Grey is a problem because it's a manual for manipulative sexual assault and rapey misrepresentation of BDSM and kink.

Also being super vanilla and lame.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

However Fifty Shades of Grey is a problem because it's a manual for manipulative sexual assault and rapey misrepresentation of BDSM and kink.

Also being super vanilla and lame.

Yeah, they didn't even really get into costumes or role play much.

IMAGE(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r60QerujYps/maxresdefault.jpg)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

The question is whether BDSM and kink contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized.

Clarify what you mean by "these actions," please? Do you mean the apparent rape-y ness of subdom relations to those not familiar with the process, or normalizing the practice of actual consent?

(Narrow the scope a bit; "kink" is everything from diaper play to foot fetishism and beyond, it's so broad it's everything and nothing so using it as a descriptor is too vague. You might as well be using the word "sex").

Robear wrote:

I think that traditions of fighting animals still survive in parts of Asia Virginia, don't they?

Fixed.

Amoebic wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

The question is whether BDSM and kink contribute to a broader culture in which these actions are somewhat normalized.

Clarify what you mean by "these actions," please? Do you mean the apparent rape-y ness of subdom relations to those not familiar with the process, or normalizing the practice of actual consent?

Sure, let's go with that example if you think narrowing the scope will help, and yeah, let's go with the apparent rape-y ness of it. But let's leave that "those not familiar with the process" out, because I think people get the "process" of the participants in video games being just actors *at least* as much as they get that about subdom relations. If our understanding of how video games work isn't enough to prevent Pokemon Go from having a negative impact on society, I don't think even a very enlightened understanding of consent will render subdom relations harmless.

That's the short answer, I think: if society can't handle Pokemon Go, they sure can't handle subdom relations.

I think the long answer is:

Spoiler:

about how, because we're only just coming out of a particular stage of feminism, we think of patriarchy as only using the accusation of "slut" to control women, so we think in very pro sex terms. But as one person put it, Patriarchy Evolves and it will *also* latch on to the accusation of "prude" and try and misuse pro sex feminism for it's own purposes. So we think of things like BDSM and kink as being inherently transgressive and revolutionary, but things get their meaning to some extent from their context.

It's just something rattling around in my head after the "Cool Girl" speech in Gone Girl, or Leah Alexander going from arguing with feminists about the GTA series to saying the GTA series never evolved and is now regressive not progressive, or even how ideas about the banning of the burkini are way, way different than I think they would be a couple of years ago.

It's the idea that Feminism isn't the study of reality to make activism possible, Feminism *is* activism, and therefore Feminism is defined by its relationship to Patriarchy. And if Patriarchy Evolves and co-ops the tools that Feminism was using to dismantle it, then Feminism evolves too. It's not so much about the "right" answer as the right tool for the job. Beavis.

In the end, if we say Nay! to Pokemon Go and Yay! to subdom relations, it may be because we can suppress Pokemon Go without slut-shaming anyone, while subdom relations are more like (to go back to the OP) sexy Halloween costumes, so we just leave them be because the chance for collateral damage is too high.

wat

The question was Should I let my four-year-old play Pokemon Go.

The subject is children.

Okay, but who is educating their 4 years olds about bdsm? This whole sidebar makes no sense in this context.

Maq made a point regarding teaching his children, toddlers, about consent, and now we're off in the weeds about people's personal sexual tastes.

Oh goodness, we're in "Boy, I hope this train doesn't go to Cleveland!" territory.