On this thing called "rape culture"

Axon wrote:

I have to say well done everyone for debating a tough topic in a enlightening and interesting fashion. Thanks.

For real, cookies for everyone!

Kier's posts, for instance, have been good in not destroying any faith in humanity. If everyone involved in the dickwolves debacle—or hell, if at least Mike Krahulik—had stopped to think through something unfamiliar and controversial or reflected a bit first, the way Kier has in this thread, before blindly reacting, then maybe things could have fallen out a bit differently.

Story time:

This happened a couple weeks ago, but it didn't occur to me that it fits here until I was re-telling it this weekend. So we've got construction going on next door, the house was torn down and a new one is being built. We've had some trouble with the builders leaving their equipment in our yard, but it eventually got moved so whatever. But one day my wife was coming from her car in the alley when she heard wolf-whistling—and then clued in that it was the workers whistling at her. Well she brushed it off, thinking that's just what construction workers do, and "I still got it!" But that's not it yet.

A couple days later her sister comes over, and as she's getting her 8-month-old baby out of the car, she hears the workers: "Oh yeah! Oh yeah!" Really? Lewd comments to a new mom with her baby? But that's still not it yet.

So finally Mrs. Gravey tells me about both incidents, and I'm mad. It's uncalled for, it makes them feel unsafe, and we're going to complain. I get the number to the design group from their signs on the lot—naturally, everyone involved in the construction has their signs up to advertise. So I call the design group and complain about the behaviour of the workers, the guy apologizes, says it's not right, asks which side of the house we're on (don't know why, just said "east"), calls the owner of the house and relays the complaint. I thank him and will let him know if anything else happens. I'm pleased, my wife is pleased, her sister is pleased, her husband—says he wouldn't have complained. What if the workers retaliate?

Wut.

So that's it: that's perpetuating rape culture, which I didn't clue in to until the other day. If they retaliate, we call the design firm back and the call goddamned police, problem solved. But they would have to be monumentally stupid to do something like, and I mean even more stupid than simply being pigs. But my sister-in-law's husband would have let them off the hook for something wrong they did, out of fear? So we just brush it off as construction workers being construction workers? (And Jesus, guys, aren't you interested in breaking the stereotype?)

So there's that. Let construction workers harass women because, um, they might key your car if you complain. Or: complain, because you don't want to feel unsafe around your own goddamned home.

I'm curious to see if the numbers continue to break a lot of misconceptions that people have here. If you feel comfortable sharing, out of everyone here who has been sexually assaulted in one way or another, did you report the incident?

Edwin wrote:

I'm curious to see if the numbers continue to break a lot of misconceptions that people have here. If you feel comfortable sharing, out of everyone here who has been sexually assaulted in one way or another, did you report the incident?

No. Didn't know I should have at the time because I was too young and stupid. Also, too many grey areas, it seemed like kind of a lost cause at the time.

Depends on which perpetrator you're talking about. But mostly no. It's all tangled up with stuff from my family of origin.

Gravey wrote:

So there's that. Let construction workers harass women because, um, they might key your car if you complain. Or: complain, because you don't want to feel unsafe around your own goddamned home.

It's a lot less black and white than that, but you're absolutely right in pointing out that there was perpetuation of rape culture there. The fear from your sister-in-law's husband was pretty justified, because while you're absolutely correct that any retaliation from the construction workers could've been met with police, it won't unrape someone.

And I am not saying it would come to that -- but due to some sh*t I've dealt with personally I probably would've had a thought process very similar to the other guy. Which just keeps the cycle going. It's very pervasive.

Anyway I'm glad you spoke up about those workers, it was the right decision. I just think for many people it's a hard choice to make.

Seth wrote:
Gravey wrote:

So there's that. Let construction workers harass women because, um, they might key your car if you complain. Or: complain, because you don't want to feel unsafe around your own goddamned home.

It's a lot less black and white than that, but you're absolutely right in pointing out that there was perpetuation of rape culture there. The fear from your sister-in-law's husband was pretty justified, because while you're absolutely correct that any retaliation from the construction workers could've been met with police, it won't unrape someone.

And I am not saying it would come to that -- but due to some sh*t I've dealt with personally I probably would've had a thought process very similar to the other guy. Which just keeps the cycle going. It's very pervasive.

Anyway I'm glad you spoke up about those workers, it was the right decision. I just think for many people it's a hard choice to make.

I never for a second thought any retaliation would go as far as something like assault, either for my wife or me. My s-i-l's husband's fear was that they might f*ck up our car, which I still thought was a little excessive. But it was harassment, probably for their own amusement as that's the best their feeble minds are capable of*, so they can shut the hell up. Above all else, outside the discussion of rape culture: they're professionals, representing their company, at their place of work. That never occurred to them?

And I'm either naive or confrontational enough to consider it black and white (probably a bit of both): how would you say it is less clear-cut?

*Not to disparage the stereotype-defying workers out there. I've even worked construction—for a week. Best part of the job: using a jackhammer. Worst part: everyone I worked with.

Edwin wrote:

I'm curious to see if the numbers continue to break a lot of misconceptions that people have here. If you feel comfortable sharing, out of everyone here who has been sexually assaulted in one way or another, did you report the incident?

I didn't report either incident, but I should have.

The first time I was simply too scared to say anything - I was only a kid. The second time I was very confused and stupidly allowed myself to be talked into believing that everything had been a misunderstanding between and my b/f of over two years.

I found out years later that the guy from the first incident (a neighbour's oldest son) had a record for other incidents involving other girls and, as he got older, women. I wondered for a long time if I could have prevented those by saying something then, but when you're 8, you don't think that way when the older boy you idolize tells you to keep it a secret or you'll get in trouble.

The ex-b/f is very likely in prison by this time given the issues I had with him stalking me in university after I broke up with him. I sure hope he's in prison anyway.

Edwin wrote:

I'm curious to see if the numbers continue to break a lot of misconceptions that people have here. If you feel comfortable sharing, out of everyone here who has been sexually assaulted in one way or another, did you report the incident?

I remember telling my parents about both the assault and the attempted kidnapping/assault. I'm not really sure how I did it. I was 10 years old during the first incident and I remember being in a state of shock for a while. It's a really frightening feeling to try and say something but being completely unable to physically speak. But I somehow convinced myself to say something to them. During the second incident when I was 14, I was walking home from the school bus stop and was followed. Even though they failed, I called my mom at work because I was afraid that they'd come back and try again (they also knew where I lived at that point).

But it turns out that even the people who are suppose to take care of you are more than capable of doing some messed up sh*t instead. Looking back, I wonder if I would've been better off not saying anything.

Mystic Violet wrote:

But it turns out that even the people who are suppose to take care of you are more than capable of doing some messed up sh*t instead. Looking back, I wonder if I would've been better off not saying anything.

Mystic Violet wrote:

But it turns out that even the people who are suppose to take care of you are more than capable of doing some messed up sh*t instead. Looking back, I wonder if I would've been better off not saying anything.

Maybe. Probably not. I didn't notice much of a difference either way. But I have giant extenuating baggage. To quote Alan Shephard, "Sometimes, you just get a pooch that can't be screwed."

I look at it this way. Sometimes people help. Sometimes they don't. You do risk bad reactions if you tell and you have to be very careful to choose who and how to tell. But if you don't tell, there's no chance at all that they'll help. And even if it does go bad, in the greater scheme of things sometimes doing something unhelpful can still be more helpful than trying to do this alone.

I've been up for two days. Does that make any frelling sense at all?

Edwin wrote:

I'm curious to see if the numbers continue to break a lot of misconceptions that people have here. If you feel comfortable sharing, out of everyone here who has been sexually assaulted in one way or another, did you report the incident?

My best friend was raped when he was a kid. I've known him for over 25 years and he only told me recently, after he had some therapy following a traumatic car accident. To be honest, from things he'd told me of his past and some of his attitudes towards sex, I'd suspected that something had happened to him. I think he's a lot happier now he's confronted what happened.

I'm from the Philippines, and we've historically been a very violent nation because of all the anarchy thing. In practice, it's actually somewhat neo-feudal, but the term "feudal" doesn't inspire the most peaceful of visions.

From an outsider's perspective, some thoughts:

Your thoughts on women and women's stuff is downright weird. Women are not the same as men and never will be the same as men. They ought to be treated differently, and that's only right and just. It's a top to bottom thing. Women need to be considered as different in every way that matters (and not different in ways that aren't immediately obvious). As an example, there are locally more women's public bathrooms than there are men's. The reasoning for this is simple and practical: women take longer to pee because of all the cultural constraints around their peeing. If you don't want long lines, make more bathrooms for women.

Likewise, women are generally weaker than men (in a purely bench-press sort of way) because of hormonal makeup. The laws must be made to accommodate a larger pool of potential threats to women, including but not limited to rape.

Some perspective on my situation:

I do not come from a traditionally patriarchal culture. The Philippines has long been subjugated by Spain and then the US but underlying cultural practices die hard. Even today, our gender norms are different from the rest of the world. For instance, while our women change their surnames to accommodate the husband's name, this is seen as mostly a paper thing. A child considers himself equally a part of his mother's family as he does his father's. The new family is generally considered equally shared between grandparent households. Likewise, holdings are transferred to the oldest offspring, regardless of gender.

Traditionally, women are regarded as vital partners and the core of every family. Men come and go, but the women stay (because they tend to like gathering the children around them). As a rice economy without a strong warrior culture, women are widely regarded as equal shareholders in farms and similar stakes. It is common for a man to work and a woman to stay at home, but in such instances, it is also traditional for the man to formally "turn in" his salary (with receipts!) every month on pain of being driven from what is considered the woman's home (not his).

I've known a fair number of women and women friends in my life and I've only ever known one of them to maybe have been raped, though most have been subjected to some form of sexual harassment at one point or another. To be fair, I have seen my own share of harassment, so I may be living in a "harassment" culture. Rape's relatively rare though because of the clan structure. It is mostly done by outliers or powerful heads of households.

That is, a rape perpetrated against a woman is not done against that woman but against her entire clan, and they're not likely to take your word over hers, even if you actually are innocent. Some misunderstandings of this sort have historically been rumored to have started fatal clan wars, but I don't know of any specifics. You don't go around raping women, or even going into a situation where any of her accusations could have any amount of merit whatsoever. Not if you want to go around town freely, anyway. In this case, the chaperone is as much for the guy's protection as it is for the girl's. Broadly, it's also for everyone's peace of mind. Being obligated to order assassinations is expensive and bad for peace and order.

In coming from this perspective, one of my observations is also that the rape culture in North America appears to be tied to the punitive culture around those parts. A girl "deserves" to get raped just like criminals "deserve" to have D&D taken away from them. It's vengeful, cruel, and hateful. In my mind, from my perspective, there is absolutely nothing that makes a girl responsible for her own rape, even if she was a slut who's just slept with the entire hockey team, and she's making out with the guy, and she's naked, and she's just performed totally consensual oral sex. If she doesn't want it, you bug out or people die.

LarryC: What about a woman with no clan to back her up? Presumably there are disenfranchised people somewhere in the Phillipines?

The situation you describe sounds a lot like Victorian-era British attitudes towards rape—but as it turns out, it's not that rape didn't happen, and happen often—it's just that it was very rare for anyone to want to talk about it. Rape was an accepted part of life among the lower classes, while in the upper classes people would not admit to having been raped for fear of their social prospects.

Wikipedia wrote:

Research studies conducted in schools show that for every 3 Filipino children, one child experiences abuse. During the first semester of 1999 alone, there were 2,393 children who fell prey to rape, attempted rape, incest, acts of lasciviousness and prostitution.[4]

The graphs and statistics linked to from [4] above.

Hypatian:

There is no such thing as a woman who has no family. A woman always has a family, if only a adopted one. There are disenfranchised people who are homeless or live in garbage towns. It is highly unlikely for a rich person to even want to be within smelling distance of any such woman, let alone rape her. The very thought is thoroughly repulsive. A wealthy person can get his or her power or sex trips without resorting to such abuse.

Hypatian wrote:

The situation you describe sounds a lot like Victorian-era British attitudes towards rape—but as it turns out, it's not that rape didn't happen, and happen often—it's just that it was very rare for anyone to want to talk about it. Rape was an accepted part of life among the lower classes, while in the upper classes people would not admit to having been raped for fear of their social prospects.

Rape is probably much more common in households that have mixed classes and have no formal living arrangements. I can imagine several such situations off-hand, but you are correct in that in no case is rape a matter for legal recourse. Either the woman puts up with it and bears it, or she establishes retribution through other means, which isn't uncommon.

It is not much like British-era society as I would imagine it. My sister would not be able to keep a rape from me if we happened to live in the same household. We live too close together and know each other too well. She may not admit it in public, but it's pointless to try to keep it from family. We would discover it eventually, one way or another.

Unfortunately, not all families are against rape. Some mothers tolerate fathers raping their daughters. That seems more common because of the power structure - a father can do this without retribution because he is supposedly the guardian of his daughter, though he may come to regret it if he has sons who are not of like mind.

Women generally have no need to fear for society even if they have been raped. Rape is not blamed on them, and people are generally genuinely sympathetic to rape victims. It is not that unusual for a victim of rape to eventually marry and have kids, even if her rape were made public. This is particularly true for men and women who do not wish to have sex with her - being a rape victim is almost a positive in that scenario, because the person is immediately sympathetic to others. Thus, any action to hide a rape experience is made primarily to avoid "complications." One does not want to be typecast as "the rape person" forever, you know.

Edit: regarding the statistics.

Don't believe everything you hear or see. Many such pages exaggerate what's happening for their own agendas. I would expect a 1:3 or greater ratio in depressed neighborhoods. It's not that unusual for parents to sell off every single one of their children to foreigner-traffic for sex services. It's quite disgusting, and it's actually not all that hidden. It's easy to see North Americans around town with four or five young children in tow.

It depends on which part of the country you're surveying and which people come forward.

LarryC wrote:

Hypatian:

There is no such thing as a woman who has no family.

Rape is probably much more common in households that have mixed classes and have no formal living arrangements.
Edit: regarding the statistics.

Don't believe everything you hear or see. Many such pages exaggerate what's happening for their own agendas.

This type of deflection, downplaying, and questioning statistics is exactly what I'm referring to when I use the phrase "perpetuating rape culture."

Seth:

I'd like to be more forthcoming, but I do have a significant number of women friends and I am an MD who's worked in a number of institutions, and even in institutions with a Women's Unit and everything. I'm not just burying my head in the sand here.

I've seen rape reports coming in, and even seen ones involving children. I'm particularly involved with any investigation with children because my services are usually required for any examination of a sort that's necessary for those investigations. Some of these official complaints actually do look like rape, but some actually don't. We don't say - we just record the findings, of course.

That said, there's a gazillion children around the country. Some places, it's hard to move without stepping on a kid. If we restrict rape incidences to mostly lower classes, a general 1:3 ratio would mean that nearly every child (male AND female) below poverty level has been raped at some point in time, and I'm just not getting that kind of information or impression from my lower income friends.

Larry,

I'm coming to this discussion from a strange angle. I don't know much more about Filipino culture other than the fact that my sister is Filipino (adopted), and she was molested by her biological father. A Filipino girl I went to high school with said that type of thing was rampant, normal, and simply not discussed. So keep that in mind: 80% of the people with whom I have interacted that are Filipino have been raped, and never mentioned it to a person of authority.

Now, maybe Filipino culture is a lot more open to discussing rape than American culture, although somehow I doubt it. I think it's a lot more likely your definition of rape is a lot more narrow than mine (you've already said it's legally impossible for a spouse to rape a spouse, which I consider barbaric). I think it's also a situation where you're severely underestimating the comfort level women have telling a (male) person of authority what happened to them. This is especially true in a country made up primarily of Catholics and Muslims, two religions not exactly know for their empathy toward rape victims or women in general.

But I admit I've never been to the Phillipines. I can only go on second source material here.

Seth:

I'm pretty dumbfounded, if that were true. Fathers raping daughters is by far the most common sort of rape situation around here, for exactly the reasons I discussed: no one's going to go after the father, but it's not true that this is rampant, and no one thinks it's frickin normal. Generally speaking, because of the difficulty of prosecuting a father, and the close living situations of nearly all families, these things are known, at least to the immediate family. They may not speak of it to others, but it is absolutely something they think about themselves.

This is not a matter of disclosing information. Rape victims typically have profound personality changes after an incident. It's not something you can keep from a close family member forever.

I have not known rape to be a touchy subject in general. Few rape complainants get villified for being raped that I know of. Even when cases are covered in the media, "She asked for it," is hardly ever given serious thought. Filipinos are Christians, yes, but we're not normal Christians, either. Don't generalize based on what you see in your bailiwick.

Seth wrote:

(you've already said it's legally impossible for a spouse to rape a spouse, which I consider barbaric)

The understanding is that the entire point of a marriage is so you have sex and have children. Not having sex would undermine the very point of such an arrangement, so sex is obligatory - you can't refuse. Don't imagine that this is primarily anti-woman. While it's true that women are not empowered to refuse, men aren't either, and they can neither refuse nor compel their spouses to take birth control. If you're married and don't want to have kids, then you're pretty much out of luck if your partner is dead set on it.

The point underlying this is one of population sustainability. If you want right of refusal, the option is there - don't get married.

Edit: on definitions, rape is pretty strictly one person putting something into another person's orifice. Barring that, it's not rape. It's sexual harassment, but not rape. Harassment is common. I've been the victim of such actions myself, more than once.

LarryC wrote:
Seth wrote:

(you've already said it's legally impossible for a spouse to rape a spouse, which I consider barbaric)

The understanding is that the entire point of a marriage is so you have sex and have children. Not having sex would undermine the very point of such an arrangement, so sex is obligatory - you can't refuse. Don't imagine that this is primarily anti-woman. While it's true that women are not empowered to refuse, men aren't either, and they can neither refuse nor compel their spouses to take birth control. If you're married and don't want to have kids, then you're pretty much out of luck if your partner is dead set on it.

The point underlying this is one of population sustainability. If you want right of refusal, the option is there - don't get married.

Marriage used to be about owning a woman as property, often with the exchange of money. That changed to be about procreation. These days I think it's safe to say marriage is whatever you want it to be. So yeah, I also find that a very barbaric point of view. My wife and I are married and childfree. Like fixed, never going to have children, don't want them. So I couldn't disagree more with this view of what marriage is. Needless to say, someone's opinion of what defines marriage shouldn't be what defines rape within marriage.

LarryC wrote:

Edit: on definitions, rape is pretty strictly one person putting something into another person's orifice. Barring that, it's not rape. It's sexual harassment, but not rape. Harassment is common. I've been the victim of such actions myself, more than once.

I'm not sure where to start with this. In my head I'm thinking of a million humiliating sex acts you could perform on someone and have it not be rape under your definition.

LarryC:

You should find a surgeon in your hospital to have your head extricated from your ass. No one is impressed by your "professional" opinion.

DSGamer:

DSGamer wrote:

Marriage used to be about owning a woman as property, often with the exchange of money. That changed to be about procreation. These days I think it's safe to say marriage is whatever you want it to be. So yeah, I also find that a very barbaric point of view. My wife and I are married and childfree. Like fixed, never going to have children, don't want them. So I couldn't disagree more with this view of what marriage is. Needless to say, someone's opinion of what defines marriage shouldn't be what defines rape within marriage.

You'd find a lot of things barbaric about me, I'm sure. That's me, Larry the Barbarian. My Rages are awesome. Wish I had an axe.

More seriously, marriage in the legal sense is about state interests. What is the state getting in return for all those tax rebates that you're going to receive? What the state wants is for you to have children, and not being able to refuse sex safeguards those state interests. This is so that marriage isn't used as an easy tax-shield, to bypass inheritance concerns and to head off other irregular arrangements.

One does not need to be married to live together, have sex, and generally be happy. I know of several such couples who have refrained from legal and church marriages and are doing well. If you wanted state sanctions to be "married," then why balk when the state pursues its interests in making the contract?

DSGamer wrote:

I'm not sure where to start with this. In my head I'm thinking of a million humiliating sex acts you could perform on someone and have it not be rape under your definition.

Assuredly. As I said, these are more common. In fact, they're precisely more common because such acts leave no physical mark and are hard to pursue. It's even harder if the sexual intent isn't crystal clear, which is also quite common. Most methods of retribution are extra-legal, so it pays to be vague about what you're doing, if you're of a mind to be doing that sort of thing. Groping is endemic, for instance.

This post is no longer relevant due to Hypatian flashing the law!

"Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:

"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Under the law in the Phillipines:

1) It is possible to rape a wife—the law makes no distinction between married and unmarried women.

2) Any sexual congress with someone under 12 is legally rape.

3) Any sexual congress with someone who is not competent is legally rape.

4) Any male-on-male sexual congress is legally rape.

I do not know if there's an explicit definition of carnal knowledge. It is possible that carnal knowledge legally requires penetration. The argument I just looked at essentially said "The doctor said she was penetrated, and she became pregnant which doesn't happen on its own, therefore there's evidence to show that the man had carnal knowledge of her." But I don't know what the low water mark is.

Ah! Thanks, Hypatian. It seems the penal code I have around the house has been rendered obsolete. That information is very interesting. I'm not sure how this interacts with marriage laws, specifically, since marriage specifically obligates spouses to have sex with each other. Note also that it's not possible for ME to pursue rape against women who take advantage of me, and yes, that is not unheard-of around here.

heavyfeul wrote:

LarryC:

You should find a surgeon in your hospital to have your head extricated from your ass. No one is impressed by your "professional" opinion.

Speak for yourself.

I think it's useful to have some light shone on cultures other than our own, and for all that I may disagree with Larry's positions, it's illuminating to get an outsider's perspective.

(Oh, and note: Of course, as a liberal American, I think the "any gay sex is rape" is a bit overbroad. Really, I was trying to say: "There is no class of people for which unwilling/unknowing sexual intercourse is not rape.")

LarryC: I think that part of the reason people are skeptical of what you are claiming is that all of the things you are saying are *exactly what a doctor, a member of polite society, of a good family would have been said in British society 150 years ago*. All of them. ALL of them. And strangely enough, there was an awful lot of rape going on at the time, and women would become poor marriage prospects if it became known they'd been raped, and it was endemic to the lower classes but not at all uncommon (particularly within the family) in the upper classes.

So, it could be you're absolutely right. Or it could be that you're deluded in exactly the same way.

Well, I guess I'm glad I don't live in the Philippines or have LarryC as my doctor. I would hate to be denied getting snipped because I was denying the state my children. Ridiculous. My marriage == invalid.

LarryC wrote:

Ah! Thanks, Hypatian. It seems the penal code I have around the house has been rendered obsolete. That information is very interesting. I'm not sure how this interacts with marriage laws, specifically, since marriage specifically obligates spouses to have sex with each other. Note also that it's not possible for ME to pursue rape against women who take advantage of me, and yes, that is not unheard-of around here.

"Having sex with each other" and "rape" are two completely different things. One does not own a spouse's body after marriage. Marital sex happens by request and agreement by both parties. Sex by force is rape regardless of the parties involved or any ridiculous "purpose." Being impregnated or impregnating another against one's will still flippin' counts as rape.

Apparently some people still see women as chattel. Kind of sickening, even if it's a different culture.

Jonman wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

LarryC:

You should find a surgeon in your hospital to have your head extricated from your ass. No one is impressed by your "professional" opinion.

Speak for yourself.

I think it's useful to have some light shone on cultures other than our own, and for all that I may disagree with Larry's positions, it's illuminating to get an outsider's perspective.

Cultural relativism is no excuse for violence.