I admit that that’s rapey behavior. But I am not a rapist.

[tookish]

I think it's easier than one might think. I'm actually currently negotiating some talks with the college, and one of them is on consent, which will be going into the alleged 'grey areas'.

[chand]

From your article.

Right here I go:

Rapists are only rapists AFTER the rape has occurred.  Even a man that "feels the sense of entitlement to a woman's body" isn't a rapist, unless they commit the act. If we go down this route then everyone is a potential "something" - sure people can fire some stats about men and rape (I not a rapist sympathiser and i think there are can be lots of things done regarding the issue) but then we can throw around a whole other load of stats and get embroiled  in some shitty whining MRAs vs RadFem bollocks.

I think you've taken that one sentence over-literally. He's not really saying that simply feeling entitlement makes someone a rapist.

Rapists, as Meagher notes, aren't just masked predators who suddenly emerge from the dark. Most, often, they are everyday men who feel an sense of entitlement to a woman's body and any sexual gratification that they can derive from it, regardless of her consent.

This comes in the context of an article about a man who seems to have quite literally physically committed a rape, but doesn't think he has. Meagher and Okwonga are suggesting that this is because of underlying attitudes about what rape is and isn't. There are men out there who, like Choe, seem to have reasoned that they couldn't have raped someone because they don't feel like a rapist, because they don't fit the profile of what they think a rapist is. All Okwonga is saying here is that you don't have to be an archetypal hockey-mask-wearing thug dragging a woman into a bush in a park to be a rapist, you simply have to be someone who disregards the other person's consent. It's pretty clearly implied from the context that "everyday men who feel an sense of entitlement to a woman's body and any sexual gratification that they can derive from it, regardless of her consent" appears in, that he's talking about men who actually go on to disregard that consent.

There was an infamous Good Men Project article a while back written by a guy who'd raped a drunk woman at a party and didn't realise it. He made a load of excuses for what he'd done and couldn't accept it when years later he was confronted by the woman in question. He didn't feel like the word 'rapist' should apply to him just because one time he didn't get "good consent" (his words). What Meagher and Okwonga are talking about is simply the danger of confining the word to the most violent rapes, because by setting a rare, cartoonishly monstrous standard of violence and aggression for what constitutes a rape, it discourages society from taking things like spousal rape and 'date rape' as seriously as they should be.

But I digress, fundamentally I don't think Okwonga is trying to imply that merely thinking about disregarding consent makes you a rapist, just that going through with sex without consent does. He's just saying that all it takes to be a rapist is to be an otherwise normal person who, even once, has sex that isn't fully consensual, no matter what excuses you make.

[TrenterPercenter]

I think it's easier than one might think. I'm actually currently negotiating some talks with the college, and one of them is on consent, which will be going into the alleged 'grey areas'.

Good on ya and I hope it goes well. I would be interested to hear what your topics were, your approach and response as I often work with schools on the mental health side of thing.

[TrenterPercenter]

I think you've taken that one sentence over-literally. He's not really saying that simply feeling entitlement makes someone a rapist.

.

Chand, you are a good fellow, but you did yourself no favours in the last dingdong you got yourself into.  In this case can see your point so I don't really need to argue with you but.......................i'm bored, so lets shoot the breeze.

So you agree a sense of entitlement does not equal a rapist then?  Can't help but think that he could have written this more clearly, if he wanted to write an analysis into the mindset of rapists then I think he could have actually written something a bit more insightful.  Rapists don't wear hockey masks and feel entitled to other peoples bodies regardless of consent - whodathunkit?

I think what Meagher actually wrote regarding his own intellectual evasiveness is more compelling.

What Meagher and Okwonga are talking about is simply the danger of confining the word to the most violent rapes, because by setting a rare, cartoonishly monstrous standard of violence and aggression for what constitutes a rape, it discourages society from taking things like spousal rape and 'date rape' as seriously as they should be.

Who thinks that spousal rape and date rape are not serious? Are you talking about rapists now or the general public, men?  Is it not that these cases by their nature are just harder to prove.  I'm a bit lost in the fact that the author is talking about rape and rapists so simplistically and your defending them but having to explain the much more complicated issue of convicting an actual rapist when the situations, which are more likely, are not cartoonish.  That is an issue is about whether the person actually consented or not and is why we have cross examinations, juries and courts to decide.

Who do you know or think believes that raping your wife or raping a someone you are on date with is not serious rape? Who are these people?  Do you think Choe represents everyday men?

Also who is confining rape to the most violent? I think my point is that rape is a legal term that pertains to that act regardless of whether it was violent or not.

[Replies From View]

Choe is a stupid man's name anyway.  No man was ever not a rapist by being called Choe.