Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[Reginald Ret]

This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.

[hooplala]

This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.

How would one do that?  I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five.  Maybe I was a perv.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.

And I think you'd fuck people up to no end.

But that's a small price to pay, right?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.

How would one do that?  I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five.  Maybe I was a perv.

I'd rather we taught that respect for your partner and their boundaries is paramount, and is not trumped by your boner/panties wet patch.

[Freeky]

This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.

How would one do that?  I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about sex-related things before the age of five.  Maybe I was a perv.

I don't think so.  I was looking for and at internet porn by age 10, so... Or

[Triple Zero]

Rat, as for your assertion here

ETA: Oh and I have a simple opinion on 'trigger warnings'. If people want to post them they should, if they don't then they shouldn't.

This, to me, is overly simplistic. Personally I think that here, on PeeDee, knowing that THIS discussion has triggered one member's PTSD, that we should put some kind of trigger warning (hell, you could just have a "this link contains [insert possibly triggering subject here] so be aware", rather than the specific phrase "trigger warning" on this type of thread.  We edit posts or put content warnings in for Suu's spider phobia, which to ME seems silly, but to Suu, her arachnophobia is real, and produces a visceral response. Maybe Suu's response to spiders isn't as visceral as something that may trigger someone's PTSD, but I'm not going to be arrogant about it and make an assumption.

Just a quick question, but I'm in the habit of *generally* writing a descriptive topic title for any thread that I'd like to get some serious discussion on.

So if I were to start a thread about rape, it'd probably feature the word "rape" in the title.

That would be enough, right? Or do I have to explicitly say "A few questions about rape [WARNING: QUESTIONS ABOUT RAPE]"?
I mean a person with PTSD can know what to expect also without the warning?

I like descriptive titles because it also works when I don't really think about it. And I don't have to put tags "Trigger warning: Oranges" so Net doesn't get PTSD flashbacks from his heroic Orange ulcer explosion. Or something.

(hey and, looking at our emoticon popup, there's quite a few rape-themed ones that would require trigger warnings all by themselves! though I do believe that the one featuring the two bananas could very well be consensual ...)

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I'd just mention in the OP that it was graphic or incredibly squicky/rage inducing and talks about rape if you don't want to put a content notice or a trigger warning...

I just use "Trigger Warning" out of a habit I picked up elsewhere and because I'm a lazy typist.

[Triple Zero]

BTW sorry I'm still only just halfway reading the thread and now I see that my question was already pretty much answered in the posts that came after.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

s'okay Trip.

As for Net, and his oranges, he did it with agency and full consent.

[Triple Zero]

OK done with reading BTW that poster, I was reading with a zoomed in browser (easier on the eyes as it's nearly 1am here), so I didn't see the whole image at once:





Anyway, in full, I agree that it's darkly funny. I think I've heard or seen it before, or maybe something very similar. In what way did it cause a shitstorm?

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks".  He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

The one thing PD IS a good recipe for is feminism the way I understand it¹:  All humans have all the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of gender, orientation, race, or anything else.

Agreed. Equal is Equal and should be Equal for everyone. Anything else is bullshit.

No, not "or anything else": age, health and probably some other things are exceptions that can give different humans a different set of rights and responsibilities.

Interestingly enough, yesterday somebody told me about a difference in point of view in the US versus here (not sure if they meant Europe or NL in particular) that kind of ties in with that sentiment: In the US "freedom" is stated in terms of "freedom of/to X" (freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc) while here we consider our freedoms to be (mostly) "freedom from X" (freedom from illness, freedom from poverty, etc).

But that's getting a bit off-topic for this thread.

I have to say I find tarring and feathering fascinating.

I wonder if tarring on its own was a thing for a while, and then some cruel bastard with a strange streak of humor was like "Hey, it would be really fucking awesome if we added feathers to this, while the pitch is still hot and sticky."

It's really horrible, and yet there is a hint of whimsy... or am I the only one who sees this?

No. In fact, there's a Franco-Belgian comic Lucky Luke, quite popular in Europe (at least when I was a kid), about a cowboy in the wild west, and the criminals in that cartoon are generally tarred-and-feathered to comedic effect.

[Pæs]

Follow up from the AskARapist thread on reddit- a psychiatrist steps up, and considers the thread potentially dangerous.

Wat

I can't see reddit from here.

Basically it could encourage existing rapists because they're going to be encouraged by the attention they get from having an audience.

I haven't really looked through the Reddit thread in detail but I do have doubts just in that from what I've seen, there's mostly repentant self-loathing guys who want to get something off their chest. Not men who want to shock with their exploits. So I don't know if the type of guys who she's afraid of encouraging are the type who are actually sharing their stories.

The fact that this conversation is being held, in its whole complexity, i think this is good. Our society needs to talk about sex, rape, consent. ECH fucking nailed it with our weird sexual culture. Repression repression SIXTY FOOT BOOBS ON BILLBOARD repression repression.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty skeptical of his rationale. Repression and secrecy haven't ever helped anything before, why would it now?

This edit pretty much answered my feels about his suggesting repression and secrecy... as well as addressing the fact that rape is more complex than sadism.

Fourth edit, 2:09 pm 31 July: My point is that speech has power, and it can be dangerous. I wanted to outline why it might be dangerous in this instance. Is censorship the answer? No. Responsible and accountable speech is the answer. I don't know what the answer is. That question is in the domains of law and philosophy, for it is a question of values, a question about how the world ought to be. My point is about how the world is, and it stands whether or not there is free speech. Also, yes, I fully agree that rape is a complex phenomenon with multiple motives. I'm speaking specifically about sadistic, serial rape, which can indeed involve euphoria and the triggering of cravings.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.

[Reginald Ret]

I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.

And I think you'd fuck people up to no end.

But that's a small price to pay, right?

Nevermind, i used the wrong word. Everything. I was thinking of the social pressure to do X and Y before you're age whatever because otherwise you are a loser.
Sometimes I am amazed by how badly i word things.
Apologies.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.

Obviously, talking to lots of people is exactly the same as "forcing the kiss" or whatever the fuck they call it.

[Placid Dingo]

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.

It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.

I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.