On this thing called "rape culture"

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.

Jonman wrote:
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

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

nel e nel wrote:

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

I think that was an era where people were less critical of Socially Free Speech. In the wake of Twitter abuse and the Kool-Aid point and all that, I think people are now less concerned about Big Daddy Patriarchy coming down from above with laws, and are more concerned about Little Brother Patriarchy making the internet a socially toxic place, even if it's still legally free.

edit: in other words, "games are harmless!" was the more powerful argument (much more powerful than "even if they are harmful and should be socially suppressed, they should still be free of government interference"), but I wonder how many of the people espousing it actually believed it strongly, or were just easily convinced because video games were being attacked by a socially regressive force. Now that video games are being attacked by socially progressive forces, I think your impression is correct--they seem to be much more critical of the dangers of games.

nel e nel wrote:

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

Start your kids out with ResDogs, you monsters.

Jonman wrote:

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

Eh, let's remember that I don't think people will let their 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction even if they think it won't lead to them growing up into stylish hitmen or something.

They don't let 4 year olds watch Pulp Fiction because they can't handle the violence.

There's a difference between "little Timmy will grow up to be a monster" and "little Timmy will be really upset and have nightmares tonight."

nel e nel wrote:
Jonman wrote:
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

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

There's no change of tack. The question before was around legislation. Now it's around parenting.

Does media influence our behaviour? Undoubtably. To what extent? We don't yet know. Should it be legislated against? Absolutely not, that's not the responsibility of government. Should I be concerned as a parent? Absolutely, that's your responsibility as a parent.

It doesn't mean banning Pokemon, and it doesn't have to mean forbidding your own kid from playing Pokemon. It can mean allowing your kid to Pokemon and talking to them about what happens in the game. And that goes for TV and movies, now as when Layton and Yee weren't disgraced morons (just regular morons).

Gravey wrote:

There's no change of tack. The question before was around legislation. Now it's around parenting.

Does media influence our behaviour? Undoubtably. To what extent? We don't yet know.

I'll admit history is a tricky thing to reconstruct from personal memories, but I think nel e nel statement is accurate:

folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior

We did seem to know when it was Layton and Yee and the other disgraced morons. Now we don't seem so sure.

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

This is the point at which I should give up and walk away, but I'm a glutton.

Seriously, cheeze, can you think of no other reason that a parent might refuse a piece of media for their kids? That shows a startling lack of imagination and/or empathy.

Here's the TL:DR version - the results of misogyny do not start and end with sexual violence. Rape culture is a thing that isn't limited to rapists.

I edited out the insults. There's no need for that.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

Here's the TL:DR version - the results of misogyny do not start and end with sexual violence. Rape culture is a thing that isn't limited to rapists.

If that's what MrDeVil909 means, then that's what I also meant back here. What confused me was him following with this comment here.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I edited out the insults. There's no need for that.

Respectfully disagree.

Ask dumb questions, get called out on it.

That's how P&C works.

I don't think watching Pokémon will turn my son into a rapist.

I did see the confusion on my 4 year old son's face when the lessons about consent we've tried to teach since he was one were ignored by the hero of the show. When he's older we'll chat about that. Right now it's just mixed messages.

Wanting to raise good kids and wanting to be a better person can mean we challenge assumptions and talk about things with other people and parents. We can do that without reducing everything to stump-speech binaries.

Maq wrote:

I don't think watching Pokémon will turn my son into a rapist.

I did see the confusion on my 4 year old son's face when the lessons about consent we've tried to teach since he was one were ignored by the hero of the show. When he's older we'll chat about that. Right now it's just mixed messages.

Wanting to raise good kids and wanting to be a better person can mean we challenge assumptions and talk about things with other people and parents. We can do that without reducing everything to stump-speech binaries.

I think it kind of depends on the episode too. I remember one for... I think it was catching Bulbasaur? Bulbasaur wanted to go with Ash, but wanted to do so on its own terms. Ash had to defeat Bulbasaur in combat before Bulbasaur would sent to be a part of his team. It was an intriguing notion of Pokemon autonomy (see also, any episode featuring Charizard, who wasn't putting up with any of Ash's sh*t).

As a teacher who speaks to many (clueless) parents who have no idea what their teenage kids are consuming in any media form...

If you're playing the games with your kids, and discussing them...
If you're watching tv shows and movies with your kids, and discussing them...
If you're listening to music with your kids, and discussing the lyrics...

You are not the clueless parent you feel like you are. It's the whole Finding Nemo analogy. Is your job as a parent to shield your kid from all of life and its dangers, or is it your job as a parent to introduce your kid to life and all of its dangers in the best/most informed way you can?

My wife and kids and I had a long discussion tonight about why people start smoking cigarettes (keep in mind most adults in Greece smoke, and so kids here see smoking the way American teens see drinking). Which led to a discussion about why people start to use more dangerous drugs. My wife used to be a smoker. My son let her know that this was the stupidest decision she ever made. My son, age 7.

The whole point is being the opposite of the dysfunctional sh*t I grew up with in which none of this stuff was ever discussed. Should you screen at what age your kid is exposed to what? Yeah. Also...yeah? One kid I used to tutor in English let me know he was playing GTA at his friend's house at age 9 or 10. So emphasis on the "yeah?" over the "yeah, you can definitely edit/block/screen that sh*t from your kid being exposed."

My son and I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer together. I have in fact told him that many of my American friends might think I'm a bad parent for watching and discussing the show with him at age 7.

Sorry about that.

I, of course, have stopped him from seeing a couple episodes, but they're also episodes *I* don't want to see (was it season 2 or 3 where the boyfriend hulks out to abuse his girl friend? we didn't watch that one, AND we discussed why I didn't want those images in *my* head.)

I had a friend who didn't want his kids to EVER see The Simpsons, so they wouldn't see all that misbehaving. No offense, but his kids were little sh*theads of not respecting adults or boundaries. My kids and I watch, listen, play, and discuss this stuff (including The Simpsons) and we get requests from parents to have our kids over more, so *their* kids can see what nicely respectful kids look like.

(Not at all a humble brag. That was full-on bragging.)

I think it was Maq who floored me once by stating that he was trying to be a better parent, not make better kids. That sums up very well what's generally wrong with parenting that I see in Greece. I'm in the "be a better parent" camp. And the "gradually expose your kid to more and more and have real conversations about this sh*t" camp. Not always comfortable conversations.

It's been a while since I watched Pokémon anime. But the game is devoid of any advanced capture against will concept; they just pop out of the Pokeball and that's the only representation of it. Just explain to your kid that the monster doesn't fit in the ball straight away and is trying to curl up to fit in the ball.

My kids (4 yo girl and 7 yo boy) have no problem with playing gently with animals (or playmates) and playing games that depict simplified violence. Well the 4yo likes non violent games anyway so it isn't an issue.

I posted elsewhere that the boy announced he had a girlfriend earlier. Yesterday's lunch playtime roleplay was him being the owner of "pets" being his friends. I was a bit mortified but all the kids (mix of girls including his gf and boys) wanted him to do it and he said he treated them just like he does with his uncle's tom cat. I asked if they minded and he said everyone enjoyed it. They probably picked him to do it since he's the gentle giant in the grade.

I think so long as you instill concepts of consent and body space (which the schools do as well) the kids will pick it up. As they encounter media which is inconsistent with their upbringing, you need to be there to explain the divergence so they can distinguish the behaviour they shouldn't be emulating.

Jonman wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

We're talking about cartoons, not Tarantino, that's a bullsh*t example.

Since you're all about calling out dumb sh*t in P&C, it's pretty dumb to make assumptions about people you don't know jack sh*t about and take a snarky tone in order to position yourself on higher moral ground. I never questioned anyone's parenting, only started a line of questioning to see where the line was drawn that people think media influences behavior. In the context of video games it seemed a little on the bias confirming side to be defending against legislation using data and research, but when it came to parenting to switch to what "feels right". Which exactly what conservatives do when they call out video games as being a cause of criminal behavior.

Now, as Maq pointed out, he clearly saw confusion in his son's reactions, which is totally fine, but since everyone else decided to chime in before he answered my question this is where we're at.

<3 nel.

nel e nel wrote:

We're talking about cartoons, not Tarantino, that's a bullsh*t example.

Was it bollocks.

Read what you wrote again. You weren't talking about cartoons, pal.

nel e nel wrote:

In the context of video games it seemed a little on the bias confirming side to be defending against legislation using data and research, but when it came to parenting to switch to what "feels right". Which exactly what conservatives do when they call out video games as being a cause of criminal behavior.

Right there. What I was responding to (and apologies for being vague in my quoting) was your allusion to the furore around R-rated games and censorship. The legislation you're referring to wasn't about Pikachu and cartoons, it was about Manhunt and GTA. Tarantino was an apt metaphor, albeit that I should have referenced GTA instead for clarity. My (poorly made) point was that they are two different conversations. Which we apparently stongly agree on.

Speaking of two different conversations, I think you're mistaken in assuming that what's good for society is also what's good for the individual. Data should be used for social legislation where you have a sample size in the millions. Gut should be used for family legislation where you have sample size of one. That's not bias confirming, that's a recognition of the difference in scale.