Nothing really new. - Page 2

Acharis · 10-01-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," he said, referring to conception following a ****. "If it's a legitimate ****, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

All I can say about him and the doctor that fed him that is -
'What We Need More Of Is Science'.

I'm so sick of victim blaming... currently serving up cupfuls of R@pe Culture 101 on Facebook after the r@pe and murder of Jill Meagher in Melbourne has brought the old 'don't walk alone, don't do this, do that' scaremongering advice out in force.

Acharis · 10-01-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

and if you orgasmed, it wasn't really ****, was it, you hussy.

It actually isn't uncommon for orgasm to occur during r@pe as a physiological response (not as an expression of enjoyment or consent), and for it to really mess the victim up psychologically.

* I was going to put a trigger warning, but this whole thread is a trigger warning.

Versus · 10-02-2012, 06:29 AM

Wow. I didn't know that.

Alan · 10-02-2012, 07:02 AM

Zizek wrote a very interesting article on that, and how it is worse, because the woman now feels betrayed by her own body, and has internalized the misogynistic rhetoric that because she orgasmed she 'let it happen' and can't understand how she could do something like that, even though in reality she did nothing wrong.

Acharis · 10-02-2012, 09:07 AM

Yeah. I can imagine the loss of power and control would be profound, and disclosure/reporting/counselling even more difficult.

Edit: Did anyone watch the video? Because it is too epic to be wasted.

Versus · 10-02-2012, 09:29 AM

I'll watch it when I get home.

Miss Absynthe · 10-02-2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acharis

Yeah. I can imagine the loss of power and control would be profound, and disclosure/reporting/counselling even more difficult.

There have been cases where the victim has been asked about this and their answers presented as 'proof' that the incident was consensual by the alleged perpetrator's defence team.

Saya · 10-02-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

There have been cases where the victim has been asked about this and their answers presented as 'proof' that the incident was consensual by the alleged perpetrator's defence team.

It also used to be the case that if a victim got pregnant, it was proof it wasn't rrape because it used to be believed that women can only get pregnant if they orgasm.

This is also really bad for male rrape victims particularly when assaulted by women. I read in a book that rapists often use this against the victims as well.

Miss Absynthe · 10-02-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

It also used to be the case that if a victim got pregnant, it was proof it wasn't rrape because it used to be believed that women can only get pregnant if they orgasm.

This is also really bad for male rrape victims particularly when assaulted by women. I read in a book that rapists often use this against the victims as well.

Yes.. and the idea that if a male victim has an erection then it constitutes consent is still put forward in a lot of cases - problematic on SO many levels, not the least of which is that it doesn't address the fact that an erection is a physiological response to certain physical stimuli.. when you add that a lot of men don't actually realise this about their bodies (because erections are so linked to psychological desire in our view) it can create such a cognitive dissonance for the survivor to have to deal with.

I've had this discussion with a number of patients I've nursed who were incredibly upset and after talking to them it would come out that they had got erections from having suppositories inserted and were struggling with the idea that this might mean that they were queer... to be trying to deal with that on the back of a sexual assault would be unthinkable.

Rrape-culture is fucked, and it's hard to dismantle when it's perpetuated by the very system that is supposed to be protecting the victims.

There is a book called The History of Rrape by Joanna Bourke that you might find interesting. There are some issues with it, but on the whole it's a good read. The statistics in it are quite triggering, though.

Saya · 10-02-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

Yes.. and the idea that if a male victim has an erection then it constitutes consent is still put forward in a lot of cases - problematic on SO many levels, not the least of which is that it doesn't address the fact that an erection is a physiological response to certain physical stimuli.. when you add that a lot of men don't actually realise this about their bodies (because erections are so linked to psychological desire in our view) it can create such a cognitive dissonance for the survivor to have to deal with.

I've had this discussion with a number of patients I've nursed who were incredibly upset and after talking to them it would come out that they had got erections from having suppositories inserted and were struggling with the idea that this might mean that they were queer... to be trying to deal with that on the back of a sexual assault would be unthinkable.

Rrape-culture is fucked, and it's hard to dismantle when it's perpetuated by the very system that is supposed to be protecting the victims.

There is a book called The History of Rrape by Joanna Bourke that you might find interesting. There are some issues with it, but on the whole it's a good read. The statistics in it are quite triggering, though.

Is that Rrape: Sex, Violence, History? I read it a few years ago, actually I was thinking about the chapter on male victims, female rrapists when I posted earlier.

Versus · 10-02-2012, 07:21 PM

Video was not amusing.

Miss Absynthe · 10-02-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Is that Rrape: Sex, Violence, History? I read it a few years ago, actually I was thinking about the chapter on male victims, female rrapists when I posted earlier.

It's called "****: a history from 1860 to the present" and there is an interesting article about it here. Although, It might've been released with a different title in the US and Canada.

Saya · 10-02-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

It's called "****: a history from 1860 to the present" and there is an interesting article about it here. Although, It might've been released with a different title in the US and Canada.

Yeah, its the same book! I tried googling it but I couldn't see the book cover or anything under that title.

Acharis · 10-02-2012, 09:05 PM

Bah. I thought it speared Todd Akin quite well with its reference to fundamentalists and criticism of believing bullshit.

Also it's an awesome song.

Versus · 10-02-2012, 09:14 PM

It's okay for you to like it, you know.

Acharis · 10-02-2012, 09:35 PM

You're just saying that

Anyway, it's regrettable that wicca/new age are targeted as well, otherwise that'd be the perfect meme for religious people who sciencesplain and spew misinformation about reproduction in the terms that suit their agenda.

The war on womens reproductive/bodily rights is fucking scary... mainly because a large number of people repeat and believe what their leaders tell them, and majority rules when it comes to changing laws.

BourbonBoy · 10-03-2012, 07:44 AM

Not always Acharis. In the US "Rode vs Wade" is the case the Supreme Court ruled on that made abortion legal, something that has made the religious right foam at the mouth since it acknowledged and granted the basic right for a woman to have control over her reproductive system. Ever since, they have been fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to have it overturned while making it a simple red and blue issue when it's clearly a purple issue. While it's said that the majority of Americans are Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is the minority, Roe vs Wade has yet to be overturned and I think it has little chance to be further argued for at least another 10 years.

Source: Gallup
On the red vs blue Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

The other stats that go further than just Life vs Choice

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#1

Miss Absynthe · 10-03-2012, 10:16 AM

The really scary aspect about "Legal under certain circumstances" is who gets to decide on what those circumstances are. I bet that the ~50% who checked that box didn't think about that.