Warwick student rejects consent lessons.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Jesus Christ.
No, nothing hyperbolic about any of that. Not even a hint of shrieking hysteria.

I sometimes wonder how people function. I live without any of this in the actual real world. Where men and women get along, there isn't a feminist or Redpiller under every bed and behind every door, and my boss calls me Pet and I call him Squishy and nobody has even thought of a tribunal, and when we see something stupid on the internet we roll our eyes, ignore it, and it goes away.

I recommend it.

Candie if a university has decided that mandatory "consent classes" are necessary, that means they're buying into the feminist-promoted "rape culture" hysteria.
This is not something that happened on the internet, it happened in real life, to this person.
So I'm not sure how you can laugh it off as if it's some kind of joke. The mass presumption of male dickheadedness is a very real phenomenon.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Candie if a university has decided that mandatory "consent classes" are necessary, that means they're buying into the feminist-promoted "rape culture" hysteria.
This is not something that happened on the internet, it happened in real life, to this person.
So I'm not sure how you can laugh it off as if it's some kind of joke. The mass presumption of male dickheadedness is a very real phenomenon.

Except, of course, that hasn't happened in the OP.

People were 'invited' to take classes. We don't know if it was everyone, but I suspect it was class reps and such.

I got an invitation to check out some double glazing. It doesn't make it mandatory for me to change my windows.

zeffabelli

Candie wrote: »

Jesus Christ.
No, nothing hyperbolic about any of that. Not even a hint of shrieking hysteria.

I sometimes wonder how people function. I live without any of this in the actual real world. Where men and women get along, there isn't a feminist or Redpiller under every bed and behind every door, and my boss calls me Pet and I call him Squishy and nobody has even thought of a tribunal, and when we see something stupid on the internet we roll our eyes, ignore it, and it goes away.

I recommend it.

Count your blessings.

Because stuff dies happen to others and yes it is surprising how they life through it.

Wait till you have a false accusation thrown at you.

Wait till you have a male subordinate and he yells at you all the time even though your Hus joss.

Wait till you know a father who kills himself as a result of the stress of family court.

Wait till your son goes to college and ends up in one of their bull**** fake courts.

Just because it never happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Except, of course, that hasn't happened in the OP.

Not in this particular case, but it has happened - and is promoted, not objected to, by feminists - and I will happily dig up articles to that effect if you've been lucky enough not to encounter them yourself.

People were 'invited' to take classes. We don't know if it was everyone, but I suspect it was class reps and such.

I got an invitation to check out some double glazing. It doesn't make it mandatory for me to change my windows.

You cannot compare something like this to advertising. Issuing such invitations involves a basic assumption that people need these classes, which further involves the assumption that people do not understand consent. That's the problem. And I highly suspect that these workshops would have followed the moronic definition of consent I outlined in my previous post, which involves so many ridiculous caveats that at the end of the day, yes still doesn't actually mean yes.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yeah, we know, but so what? People always come out with this sort of crap, and it is crap, whenever it is pointed out that the potential for wrongful convictions might be being raised for one reason or another. What you cite shouldn't happen, nobody thinks it should, but is no argument against having laws in place which make sense and reflect how people interact with one another, especially when drunk. This 'But a whole town shook hands with a rapist..' nonsense is absurd and totally irrelevant.

But there's no arguing about whether it should or shouldn't happen, when the fact is that it has already happened, and even today, similar incidents continue to happen, in Ireland. You don't even have to go as far as the UK or the US.

How many times have you seen it posted on this site "Ireland has a drink problem, etc, etc?". We don't IMO. What we do have a problem with, is grown adults behaving like immature teenagers, because they know they have the protection of the community behind them, a star GAA player, oh sure he was at mass every Sunday, etc, etc, and it's just a constant feed of excuses and explanations for why so many men aren't rapists, they're just "havin' the craic", sure the bants, all the rest of that bollocks.

The fact that a whole town on a small island nation shook hands with a convicted rapist says it is indicative of an attitude problem with regard to rape in Ireland, and even though Ireland criminalised spousal rape in 1990 thereabouts, that still goes on today and all.

You'll never begin to address an issue while you're still unwilling to acknowledge that the issue exists, and that's why cases like the one in Kerry are absolutely relevant, because they show a community with an unwillingness to accept that one of their own did wrong.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Count your blessings.

Because stuff dies happen to others and yes it is surprising how they life through it.

Wait till you have a false accusation thrown at you.

Wait till you have a male subordinate and he yells at you all the time even though your Hus joss.

Wait till you know a father who kills himself as a result of the stress of family court.

Wait till your son goes to college and ends up in one of their bull**** fake courts.

Just because it never happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Just because you don't have ebolavirus, it doesn't mean that doesn't happen either.

Just because you can type, it doesn't mean a terrible accident won't take your fingers.

Just because you wore your seatbelt, it doesn't mean you won't die in a crash.

Perspective, it's a useful device.

Medusa22

Anyone else think that we could resolve this over a couple of dozen bottles of vodka and an orgy? I'll bring the heart-shaped consent forms :pac:

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Just because you don't have ebolavirus, it doesn't mean that doesn't happen either.

Just because you can type, it doesn't mean a terrible accident won't take your fingers.

Just because you wore your seatbelt, it doesn't mean you won't die in a crash.

Perspective, it's a useful device.

I genuinely don't understand how any of the above is relevant.
Everything you describe is something accidental, which nobody can do anything about. False accusations and a bizarre, f*cked up definition of consent are artificially created by humans, so we can actually do something about them.

meeeeh

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yeah, we know, but so what? People always come out with this sort of crap, and it is crap, whenever it is pointed out that the potential for wrongful convictions might be being raised for one reason or another. What you cite shouldn't happen, nobody thinks it should, but is no argument against having laws in place which make sense and reflect how people interact with one another, especially when drunk. This 'But a whole town shook hands with a rapist..' nonsense is absurd and totally irrelevant.

What are you on about? You can have potentially wrongful accusations for anything. Are you saying men are especially targeted with rape accusations?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how any of the above is relevant.
Everything you describe is something accidental, which nobody can do anything about. False accusations and a bizarre, f*cked up definition of consent are artificially created by humans, so we can actually do something about them.

The post it was replying to, if you read it, was telling me to wait for various things, as though inevitable.

I posted something equally hyperbolic in response (although ebola isn't an accident). It's not that hard to see the connection.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

The post it was replying to, if you read it, was telling me to wait for various things, as though inevitable.

I posted something equally hyperbolic in response (although ebola isn't an accident). It's not that hard to see the connection.

Zeffa wasn't implying that they were inevitable, she was implying that until they actually happen to you, it's easy to dismiss them as non-issues.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

The post it was replying to, if you read it, was telling me to wait for various things, as though inevitable.

I posted something equally hyperbolic in response (although ebola isn't an accident). It's not that hard to see the connection.

Candie in fairness the expression "wait for x to happen" doesn't have to be taken literally. It implies that parties to the current discussion are ignorant of the effects and trauma false accusations can cause. This is a discussion about consenting to sex it's not really relevant posting about seatbelts.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Zeffa wasn't implying that they were inevitable, she was implying that until they actually happen to you, it's easy to dismiss them as non-issues.

If you think discrimination is something I've never experience, you're mistaken.

I spend my life working in a tiny corner of my professional field, one that is devoted to the most disenfranchised and overlooked men in the world, so don't tell me I don't care enough about men in trouble either. All this upset over an 'invite' that should be ignored is bizarre.

What would happen if no one responded and everyone ignored it? It would stick a pin in the balloon, it would stop it from being promoted again, and it would just die.

But no, lets all give it attention, oxygen, and let the fires blaze. That way people will think the whole thing is actually important.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie in fairness the expression "wait for x to happen" doesn't have to be taken literally. It implies that parties to the current discussion are ignorant of the effects and trauma false accusations can cause. This is a discussion about consenting to sex it's not really relevant posting about seatbelts.

Eddy in your honest opinion, would you say the chap in the OP is ignorant of the effects and trauma that false accusations can cause? Would you say that if he were to have a real accusation of rape levelled against him, that he might find out just how much he does, or indeed doesn't know about consent in relation to sexual intercourse and rape, even leaving aside the drunken aspect of it?

Would you say his perspective seems a bit... lacking, given what he wrote in the first two paragraphs alone -

Ah, the special feeling you get when logging into Facebook and find someone thinks you’re cool enough to invite to their event. Is it a house party? Is it a social? All the possibilities race through your mind. Then it hits you. You tap the red notification and find you’ve been summoned to this year’s “I Heart Consent Training Sessions”. Your crushing disappointment quickly melts away and is overcome by anger.

Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.

Had to laugh at the bit in the end paragraph -

Self-appointed teachers of consent: get off your ****ing high horse. I don’t need your help to understand basic human interaction. Secondly, go and do something. Real people need your help and they deserve better than you. Next time you consider inviting me or anyone else to another bull**** event like this, have a little respect for the intelligence and decency of your peers. You might find that’s a more effective solution than accusing them of being vile rapists-in-waiting who can only be taught otherwise by a smug, righteous, self-congratulatory intervention.

Clearly, he does need help to understand basic human interaction. Does it come as a surprise to anyone that he doesn't see that for himself?

zeffabelli

Candie wrote: »

The post it was replying to, if you read it, was telling me to wait for various things, as though inevitable.

I posted something equally hyperbolic in response (although ebola isn't an accident). It's not that hard to see the connection.

It's because your perspective is parochial, narcissistic, and without compassion.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

If you think discrimination is something I've never experience, you're mistaken.

I spend my life working in a tiny corner of my professional field, one that is devoted to the most disenfranchised and overlooked men in the world, so don't tell me I don't care enough about men in trouble either.

None of us implied any such thing. What we implied is that your dismissive reaction to the ever-broadening definition of "rape" to include all kinds of non-rape scenarios is possibly heightened by the fact that you're not on the wrong end of it.

All this upset over an 'invite' that should be ignored is bizarre.

It's not. People are upset because this is another example of how healthy attitudes to sex are being eroded by a movement which seeks to promote the idea that rape is both more widespread than it is, that it applies to more scenarios than it actually does, and that many innocent people engaging in normal behaviour are actually rapists.

What would happen if no one responded and everyone ignored it? It would stick a pin in the balloon, it would stop it from being promoted again, and it would just die.

And without any kind of public condemnation, those who promote these attitudes would continue to promote them and find other ways to do so. They have to be opposed, not just ignored. Ignoring toxic ideologies is a sure-fire way to allow them to gather steam.

But no, lets all give it attention, oxygen, and let the fires blaze. That way people will think the whole thing is actually important.

BEcause it is important. Someone has to take a stand against toxic ideologies which are being shoved down the throats of young men all over the western world.

Kev W

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not in this particular case, but it has happened - and is promoted, not objected to, by feminists - and I will happily dig up articles to that effect if you've been lucky enough not to encounter them yourself.

Please do. I for one would be very interested.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

BEcause it is important. Someone has to take a stand against toxic ideologies which are being shoved down the throats of young men all over the western world.

Ahh jesus patrick stop. Please.

There's only one toxic ideology I can see being shoved down the throats of young men here and it's that they are always "the victims", and they are always going to be "the victim", and it's an absolutely ludicrous stance. It's simply nuts.

I would never want any man nor woman to feel that they have to shroud themselves in this ugly, dank, wet cloak of victimhood. Quite frankly I find it a disgusting mentality, and when you talk about people taking a stand against something - take a stand against constantly making men out to be victims, take a stand against constantly making women out to be victims.

Stop constantly pissing and moaning and racing to the bottom of the victimhood pile, inviting the world to kick you when you're down. Nobody appreciates a martyr. It's just tiresome and it gets nobody anywhere!


Hillary for President! :pac:

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh jesus patrick stop. Please.

There's only one toxic ideology I can see being shoved down the throats of young men here and it's that they are always "the victims", and they are always going to be "the victim", and it's an absolutely ludicrous stance. It's simply nuts.

I would never want any man nor woman to feel that they have to shroud themselves in this ugly, dank, wet cloak of victimhood. Quite frankly I find it a disgusting mentality, and when you talk about people taking a stand against something - take a stand against constantly making men out to be victims, take a stand against constantly making women out to be victims.

Stop constantly pissing and moaning and racing to the bottom of the victimhood pile, inviting the world to kick you when you're down. Nobody appreciates a martyr. It's just tiresome and it gets nobody anywhere!


Hillary for President! :pac:

What the hell are you talking about? O_o
I'm simply saying that if nobody opposes this sh!t, it is allowed to grow. The mainstream media loves it. Are you honestly suggesting that if a horrible ideology is gaining mainstream traction, nobody should do anything to try to stop it? Would you say the same about anti-traveller sentiment for example? That it should just be ignored, we should just pretend that it isn't happening and that those who take a stand are "moaning"?

hatrickpatrick

Kev W wrote: »

Please do. I for one would be very interested.

Copying Candie in too as she was asking whether this was mandatory elsewhere:

Candie wrote: »

Except, of course, that hasn't happened in the OP.

These are just from the first two pages of Google, at major universities. How many do people want listed before we're allowed to talk about it as an actual problem and not just something isolated?

Cambridge: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/19/new-cambridge-university-students-attend-compulsory-sexual-consent-workshops

Every UK University: http://thetab.com/uk/oxford/2014/10/01/compulsory-sexual-consent-classes-for-freshers-17897

Demand for it in California schools: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/04/18/a-call-for-mandatory-consent-education-in-california-high-schools/

...and success for the aforementioned, mandatory consent classes for California high schools:
http://www.ischoolguide.com/articles/28325/20151006/california-state-sexual-consent-lessons-mandatory-high.htm

Concordia, Canada: http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/stories/2014/08/06/concordia-workshopstackleissueofsexualconsent.html

All mandatory with one or two exceptions listed in the big article about UK nationwide workshops for college students.

zeffabelli

Candie wrote: »

If you think discrimination is something I've never experience, you're mistaken.

I spend my life working in a tiny corner of my professional field, one that is devoted to the most disenfranchised and overlooked men in the world, so don't tell me I don't care enough about men in trouble either. All this upset over an 'invite' that should be ignored is bizarre.

What would happen if no one responded and everyone ignored it? It would stick a pin in the balloon, it would stop it from being promoted again, and it would just die.

But no, lets all give it attention, oxygen, and let the fires blaze. That way people will think the whole thing is actually important.

No it wouldn't.

US colleges and universities have their own courts.

Family court should need no explanation as it's entirely narrative based with no evidence.

We now have a situation where the definitions of rape and if consent are changing and this is an absolute mine field.

You don't think it's important because the victims of these things get no press, but when you start digging they are a plenty .

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

US colleges and universities have their own courts.

This one alone is an utterly egregious trend which is being actively promoted and defended by feminist student organisations all over the US.

Did you hear about this particular ridiculous case? A guy was banned from attending certain classes because he *looked* like a guy who had raped a woman at the college and she didn't want him in the same room as her.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398852/student-banned-areas-campus-resembling-classmates-rapist-katherine-timpf

zeffabelli

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/02/why-do-high-profile-campus-rape-stories-keep-falling-apart/

The issue is getting attention. Why people think it's a non issue ... That it's just social justice warriors.

The memory wars of the 90s ruined a lot of lives and yeah college age men have to be careful.

Kev W

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Copying Candie in too as she was asking whether this was mandatory elsewhere:



These are just from the first two pages of Google, at major universities. How many do people want listed before we're allowed to talk about it as an actual problem and not just something isolated?

Cambridge: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/19/new-cambridge-university-students-attend-compulsory-sexual-consent-workshops

Every UK University: http://thetab.com/uk/oxford/2014/10/01/compulsory-sexual-consent-classes-for-freshers-17897

Demand for it in California schools: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/04/18/a-call-for-mandatory-consent-education-in-california-high-schools/

...and success for the aforementioned, mandatory consent classes for California high schools:
http://www.ischoolguide.com/articles/28325/20151006/california-state-sexual-consent-lessons-mandatory-high.htm

Concordia, Canada: http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/stories/2014/08/06/concordia-workshopstackleissueofsexualconsent.html

All mandatory with one or two exceptions listed in the big article about UK nationwide workshops for college students.

Thank you for actually following through, unlike a great many who claim on this site to have "tons of evidence"! It's honestly appreciated.

However I've read the articles now and I honestly see nothing to be upset about. The classes are for everyone, not just men and they can be useful for giving clarity at what can be a very confusing time in one's life.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? O_o
I'm simply saying that if nobody opposes this sh!t, it is allowed to grow. The mainstream media loves it. Are you honestly suggesting that if a horrible ideology is gaining mainstream traction, nobody should do anything to try to stop it?

The 'horrible ideology' as far as I can see is this idea that you seem to want to paint men in the Western World as some sort of 'victims' of feminism, and that's a toxic ideology IMO, because it's bitter and divisive and it's very much dependent upon a person's perception. That's the ideology that needs to be stopped IMO.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would you say the same about anti-traveller sentiment for example? That it should just be ignored, we should just pretend that it isn't happening and that those who take a stand are "moaning"?

Let's just stick with the issue of consent for now (I'm sure it's an issue that affects travellers too, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation). There are people who are trying to educate college students with regard to consent, and you're talking about taking a stand against those people? The fact of the matter is that your time would be far more productively spent engaging with people rather than constantly playing the world's smallest violin all the time. That's not taking a stand, that's just attempting to criticise people who are taking a stand about an issue that they feel has gone ignored for far too long.

What you're witnessing is a redressing of an imbalance, and naturally if that redressing impacts on you for one reason or another, you're going to take umbrage to it and want to rebel against it. I understand where you're coming from, I've long understood where you're coming from, but I've always disagreed with your methodology of trying to chase what part of feminism you see, for equal victimhood status for men. I'd rather we focused on the positives of being a man, rather than end up like the chap in the OP coming off like he's gotten his over-dramatic knickers in a twist.

That's exactly what happens on these threads - people jumping to over-dramatic scenarios that most people cannot relate to, because they don't scale too well. Look at how you were pulling a handful of cases in your posts there. How many students are enrolled in second and third level educational institutions in the US? And you plucked a handful of cases.

Even if you pulled a thousand cases, you'd still be dealing with a drop in the ocean to try and make some ridiculous point about men being the "real victims" of what you think are these new "funky" consent guidelines fuelled by "feminism". That's a lot of quote unquotes, but the point is that these concepts aren't new at all, and they're not being fuelled by feminism or any of that nonsense. They're being fuelled by a society that simply has zero tolerance for rapists any more. The fact that most of those rapists happen to be men, is a correlation of a wider issue among men, that we can't just take what we want because we saw it first. That, to me at least, is an utterly immature and childish mentality and it is a toxic ideology in an adult's mind.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 'horrible ideology' as far as I can see is this idea that you seem to want to paint men in the Western World as some sort of 'victims' of feminism, and that's a toxic ideology IMO, because it's bitter and divisive and it's very much dependent upon a person's perception. That's the ideology that needs to be stopped IMO.





Let's just stick with the issue of consent for now (I'm sure it's an issue that affects travellers too, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation). There are people who are trying to educate college students with regard to consent, and you're talking about taking a stand against those people? The fact of the matter is that your time would be far more productively spent engaging with people rather than constantly playing the world's smallest violin all the time. That's not taking a stand, that's just attempting to criticise people who are taking a stand about an issue that they feel has gone ignored for far too long.

What you're witnessing is a redressing of an imbalance, and naturally if that redressing impacts on you for one reason or another, you're going to take umbrage to it and want to rebel against it. I understand where you're coming from, I've long understood where you're coming from, but I've always disagreed with your methodology of trying to chase what part of feminism you see, for equal victimhood status for men. I'd rather we focused on the positives of being a man, rather than end up like the chap in the OP coming off like he's gotten his over-dramatic knickers in a twist.

That's exactly what happens on these threads - people jumping to over-dramatic scenarios that most people cannot relate to, because they don't scale too well. Look at how you were pulling a handful of cases in your posts there. How many students are enrolled in second and third level educational institutions in the US? And you plucked a handful of cases.

Even if you pulled a thousand cases, you'd still be dealing with a drop in the ocean to try and make some ridiculous point about men being the "real victims" of what you think are these new "funky" consent guidelines fuelled by "feminism". That's a lot of quote unquotes, but the point is that these concepts aren't new at all, and they're not being fuelled by feminism or any of that nonsense. They're being fuelled by a society that simply has zero tolerance for rapists any more. The fact that most of those rapists happen to be men, is a correlation of a wider issue among men, that we can't just take what we want because we saw it first. That, to me at least, is an utterly immature and childish mentality and it is a toxic ideology in an adult's mind.

I'm sorry but when you start loosening up the definitions and the law you leave it wide open for savvy litigants and dirty lawyers.

And yes these laws are feminist driven.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'm sorry but when you start loosening up the definitions and the law you leave it wide open for savvy litigants and dirty lawyers.

Now I'm open to correction on this, but if I were to take a stab at it, I'd say most of the law-makers and power-brokers in the Western world, are men, including politicians, judges, litigants and indeed lawyers.

(You know what they say about 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean... )

zeffabelli wrote: »

And yes these laws are feminist driven.

Seems kinda strange then that any of these laws at all would be driven by feminism, as tbh I've never seen feminism achieve anything in terms of real power. They've always been more interested in welfare (of both men and women) moreso than any claims that they have any real power.

Perhaps that's just me speaking from my... 'position of privilege' :rolleyes:



Feel all dirty now

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now I'm open to correction on this, but if I were to take a stab at it, I'd say most of the law-makers and power-brokers in the Western world, are men, including politicians, judges, litigants and indeed lawyers.

(You know what they say about 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean... )





Seems kinda strange then that any of these laws at all would be driven by feminism, as tbh I've never seen feminism achieve anything in terms of real power. They've always been more interested in welfare (of both men and women) moreso than any claims that they have any real power.

Perhaps that's just me speaking from my... 'position of privilege' :rolleyes:



Feel all dirty now

I agree it is strange.

It is also strange that a man like Clinton started this ball rolling....

... But then it might not be strange... He had to prove himself didn't he?

Lobbyists,... Voters.... They have muscle.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 'horrible ideology' as far as I can see is this idea that you seem to want to paint men in the Western World as some sort of 'victims' of feminism, and that's a toxic ideology IMO, because it's bitter and divisive and it's very much dependent upon a person's perception. That's the ideology that needs to be stopped IMO.

I'm not trying to paint anyone as victims of anything. I'm suggesting that a particular movement is causing damaging social and political trends and that people should oppose it.

Let's just stick with the issue of consent for now (I'm sure it's an issue that affects travellers too, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation). There are people who are trying to educate college students with regard to consent, and you're talking about taking a stand against those people?

I have nothing against "educating college students with regard to consent". I have an issue with the specific ideologies being pushed. There's a difference.

The fact of the matter is that your time would be far more productively spent engaging with people rather than constantly playing the world's smallest violin all the time. That's not taking a stand, that's just attempting to criticise people who are taking a stand about an issue that they feel has gone ignored for far too long.

I'm not playing any violin. I'm objecting to the re-definition of rape to include all kinds of trivial and consensual issues, and these mandatory workshops which seek to indoctrinate people into this way of thinking.

What you're witnessing is a redressing of an imbalance, and naturally if that redressing impacts on you for one reason or another, you're going to take umbrage to it and want to rebel against it. I understand where you're coming from, I've long understood where you're coming from, but I've always disagreed with your methodology of trying to chase what part of feminism you see, for equal victimhood status for men. I'd rather we focused on the positives of being a man, rather than end up like the chap in the OP coming off like he's gotten his over-dramatic knickers in a twist.

This is not what I am advocating at all. You're clearly not reading the specifics of anything I'm actually posting.

That's exactly what happens on these threads - people jumping to over-dramatic scenarios that most people cannot relate to, because they don't scale too well. Look at how you were pulling a handful of cases in your posts there. How many students are enrolled in second and third level educational institutions in the US? And you plucked a handful of cases.

I picked every case on the first two pages of Google. They are all massive and major universities. Do you literally want me to go through all several hundred thousand search results and list every single example?

Even if you pulled a thousand cases, you'd still be dealing with a drop in the ocean to try and make some ridiculous point about men being the "real victims" of what you think are these new "funky" consent guidelines fuelled by "feminism".

Well then how many cases do you want me to cite before you'll agree that this is a widespread phenomenon?

That's a lot of quote unquotes, but the point is that these concepts aren't new at all, and they're not being fuelled by feminism or any of that nonsense. They're being fuelled by a society that simply has zero tolerance for rapists any more.

A huge amount of what these people classify as "rape" is not rape by any sane and sensible interpretation of the word. Hooking up after a few pints, or failing to get repeated consent for an ongoing activity during one night, to take just two obvious examples.

The fact that most of those rapists happen to be men, is a correlation of a wider issue among men, that we can't just take what we want because we saw it first.

They're not rapists. If sex is consensual, then it isn't rape.

That, to me at least, is an utterly immature and childish mentality and it is a toxic ideology in an adult's mind.

And you don't think that broadening rape to include a huge number of trivial or consensual scenarios is immature, childish, and toxic?

Azalea

DivingDuck wrote: »

Firstly, they are profoundly different things. In Europe, "Being a slut" is not a crime. Rape, however, is.

Secondly, there are many places where young people do indeed receive instruction on how not to be a slut. Consider Catholic schools where the contraception discussion is limited to "just abstain from sex", or the Purity Ball concept which continues to exist in the USA.

I can't understand how anyone would be offended by the existence of these classes. Considering the frankly terrifying statistics coming in from the US (which suggest that, at one college at least, nearly 20% of female freshmen have experienced rape or attempted rape during their freshman year), it's unsurprising that UK universities are trying to prevent the same from happening there.

There are numerous examples in the media where the guy in question, who was later found guilty of rape by the court, appeared to genuinely believe that he was not guilty of sexual assault and that the girl had been a willing participant. I think many of those guys could be helped by this seminar. I think girls who would be inclined to give a maybe when they really meant yes (or no) could be helped by it, too.

If someone feels it doesn't apply to them, then don't go. People within their rights to refrain from attending. But it's foolish for someone to assume that just because they don't need something explained to them means that absolutely everyone can grasp the same concept without assistance.

By the sound of things, the class seems to focus on opening a dialogue before there's any action, which can only be a good thing in my book. It doesn't sound like man-bashing. It discusses the unfair and lopsided stereotype that girls can't sexually assault guys, encourages both sides to be direct: not to give mixed messages, and not to interpret a no as a maybe.

How can anybody be offended by that?

Yeah that's fair enough - and I'd just like to clarify: I'm not deeming rape and "being a slut" as comparable in terms of seriousness. I'm referring more to who the "How not to be" events in relation to them are aimed at, intentionally or not. I do realise the guy wasn't forced to go, nobody is forced to go, it's not mandatory that these classes be given, and I know just as there are serial offence-seekers, there are serial "political correctness" or whatever seekers. Both types are serial offence-seekers, just coming from different angles.

However, the existence of these classes (just like the existence of the "How not to be a slut" projects you mention above) make me uncomfortable. And I don't blame men for feeling demonised by them. As I said, this stuff is just toxifying the atmosphere between the genders, whereas that just didn't seem to be there anywhere near as much 15-20 years ago. I'm wary of rose-tinted specs but I honestly don't think it's that big a factor. I think guys and girls got on better back then.

I think the internet and social media have helped create a monster of misogyny and very hardline feminism (misandry really - suspicion of men, victimisation of women) which exacerbates all this stuff in my opinion. It's worrying I think.

"There are numerous examples in the media where the guy in question, who was later found guilty of rape by the court, appeared to genuinely believe that he was not guilty of sexual assault and that the girl had been a willing participant" - I don't know that there are numerous examples in the media?

I also don't think someone who doesn't give a sh-t about consent (rare in fairness) is going to do anything but laugh at such classes, let alone attend them. Instead I think they will be taken seriously by self-doubting young lads lacking in confidence. I also think they'd just be used by guys to meet ladies and show how sensitive they are.