It seems that men can't do anything right?

When is sexual assault ever right?

As someone once remarked, there are lies; damned lies; and statistics. Rape can be defined in any number of ways - perhaps the definition should be clearly deliniated before emotive statistics such as the ones offered in this article become entrenched in the annals of urban myth.

"In bedrooms all over the country, women are still subjected to sexual violence from their spouses."

And in kitchens across the country, many men are subject to a continual tirade of verbal assaults by their spouses too.

So what.

If someone cannot deal with expectations of the partner in a relationship, then end it, get out of it. Stop blaming the partner for an unwillingness to act.

I must say this sort of generalist article really makes me want to vomit. It demeans men collectively for the shortcomings of an individual few, whilst completely ignoring the complicity of some women in creating such problems for themselves.

Ah yes the old "It her fault she got raped" argument.

Once again for the hard of thinking, "No means No", doesn't matter whether you are married or not, you do not have the "right" to force your partner.

As to whether the women and men involved in domestic violence situations can just get out, those who say "Well why don't they just leave?" show a real lack of understanding of the human condition.

Its tough isn’t it fellas? When it’s not all about you, when a woman has the temerity to complain about rape, and not just any rape either; rape, sexual assault in the ‘safety’ of the home by a ‘trusted’ companion, her partner.

Just to write on this topic brings out the whinging torrents of those hard done by blokes.

Rape is the same as verbal abuse, according to Col Rouge whose charm never exceeds his vitriol with little vignettes like this, “And in kitchens across the country, many men are subject to a continual tirade of verbal assaults by their spouses too.”

One thing that can be said in favour of these downtrodden men is that they prove why it is so hard for women to even bring assault charges against their partner, let alone find the courage when attitudes like Col's, HRS and Gymfish's sprout like fungus at the mere drop of the words 'domestic violence'.

It seems that the 21st century offers no more equality of rights than the 19th did.

Guys, it is not always about all of you - just a pathetic few. Women are still forced to provide sex even in trusted relationships and are still not being heard while outdated attitudes like those above prevail.

Where is the factual basis for this article? Its bordering on hysterical.

It states "In Australia today, one in every five female friends of mine will at some time in their lives be forced into having sex." Where is the proof for this statement? This morning I emailed five of my female friends.. all of them said they'd never been raped.

I find it very hard to believe that 4 out of 5 women in Australia are raped. It does nothing but heap further shame on the vast, vast, vast majority of men who have never done wrong.

Duncan

In actual fact if we evolved from animals their is no such thing as rape!

runner- Are you coming around? Of course we evolved, and over millions of generations. Australopithecus africanus, a 1.2 m high small brained hominid went around armed a million years ago. I suggest the male was capable of rape. There is substantial evidence they were guilty of murder. I cannot think of any species other than primates, who have the gripping and enfolding capability which make rape possible but there may be others.
Duncan- The claim was one in five not four in five.
Foyle

I think the biggest issue is with evidence. Essentially in many cases it will be a he-said she-said argument, which is really insufficient evidence to convict someone. Given the clear potential for an alterer motive (divorce settlement, child custody) one cannot automatically side with the woman.

While I agree that "No, means No" even within a marriage, I think that a marriage provides a certain level of implied consent, in that a woman would need to actively say "No", and there be hard evidence of the fact for the law to come into effect.

The authors criticisms of the historical argument: that forced sex within a marriage is bad for the man, fails to take in to account the context and serves to highlight her biased and excessively feminist (as opposed to equalist/balanced) view point. The argument is aimed at men who obviously did not respect their wives, and framed to point out the benefits to the men of such respect to change the actions of the men (to ultimately benefit women). The fact that it doesn't directly address the view point of the woman does not mean it is flawed, especially considering the male orientated culture of the time.

Rape can be viewed as a power play involving a combination of the organs of reproduction and elimination. Depending on your psyche and the actual context the deeds are conducted under it can be a serious sexual assualt or something less serious.

The question is how can a court define the context. You can't go to court saying the act left a nasty taste in my mouth. I worked with a 22 year old Turkish woman who had black rings under her eyes, very heavy periods and she said "My husband he gets it every night", the rest of us shuddered.

So is Joanna trying to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour? After all, the term "rule of thumb" refers to the diameter of the switch with which a husband can lawfully beat his wife. Its no longer acceptable to beat your wife. Nor as a South Australian pastor found out is it lawful to have sex with your teenage daughters although folklore has it that it used to be common in Tasmania.

Foyle

Your absurd unscientific comments (not unusual for evolutionist) just highlight my point. Unless we can establish a basis for morality then it is just one opinion against another. The treatment of one another with respect comes from our Creator. Rape is often a power play. Women are just as good at this play as men. No better advice for husbands than to love their wives like Christ loved the church ( be prepared to die for her)and for wives to respect and submit to their husbands. Now that will get a few hackles up!

While I think that this is a poorly argued article that has plenty of shortcomings for our resident misogynists to exploit, its overall thesis - that women are still far too frequently suffering sexual assaults by intimate male acquaintances - is probably quite valid.

I also think that Col Rouge's comparison of sexual violence by men with "verbal assaults" by women indicates an essential misogyny in his view of male-female relationships. Show me anyone who would rather be raped than yelled at.

As for runner's weird comment that "if we evolved from animals their (sic) is no such thing as rape!", I can only conclude that his experience of sex - whether between animals or humans - is very limited indeed. Rape is sex without consent. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom and all too frequently among humans.

While it's quite laughable to read the woefully ignorant runner's assessment of someone else's scientific understanding, it's no surprise that he trots out the old fundy patriarchal admonition "for wives to respect and submit to their husbands".

Its like some type of automatic programming.

As soon as an accusation is made about the male gender, and someone questions that accusation, then out come the words “patriarchal” and “misogynist”.

This month will probably be rape month with the release of this book. Last month it was men carry out domestic violence. I think the month before that it was that there hasn’t been a female Prime Minister, and the month before that it was that men are denying women their right to have an abortion.

But each time such accusations are questioned, then out comes the “patriarchal” and “misogynist” card.

What do the words “patriarchal” and “misogynist” now mean.

“Patriarchal” and “misogynist” are words used to stop someone from questioning the myriad of accusations made by feminists about the male gender.

I found this article to be both truthful and sad. I am sure that rape happens in marriage extensively, my difficulty is trying to figure out what to do about it.

Perhaps raising boys to be more respectful of women would be a good start. Perhaps women being more understanding that men do not have the same sex drives that women do would also help.

Perhaps the entire idea of romantic marriage needs to be more closely examined, and the idea that sex is not a right indoctrinated into men rather that it is something joyful to be shared.

Unfortunately a lot of men (and probably some women) have heard and laughed at the old jokes: "How do you cure a nymphomaniac? - Marry her", "What food turns a woman off sex? - wedding cake". And the old bean jar principle: that if a couple put a bean in a jar every time they make love during courtship and the first year of marriage, and take one out every time after that the jar will never be empty. Whilst jokes, they are sad jokes for many men.

But men have to realise that women are not just there for sex, if that is all they want women for they would be better off getting themselves neutered.

Women should realise that men, in general, want sex and that their desires are different, so maybe women should not be volunteering for marriage at the rate that they do.

From all the articles and postings on OLO I get the very strong feeling that women get nothing out of marriage except violence and sexual assault.

Well ladies - start raising your girls to avoid marriage completely, to stop thinking of brides as princesses and to start understanding that romance doesn't work, and maybe we would have less marriage and less violence and rape in marriage: The message is that men cannot control themselves - so don't partner with them.

It's like some type of automatic programming.

As soon as an article is published at OLO about male violence, then out come the usual misogynist suspects from under their rocks.

Col's comment is misogynist because it callously equates the violence of sexual assault by men with that of verbal abuse by women. As if any person who didn't hate women at some deep level would make such a comparison.

Runner's comment that wives should respect and submit to their husbands is patriarchal because that's exactly what it means.

I'd like to see the definitions which the claims the article makes are based on.

- Are we talking about violent sexual assault?
- Could they in fact be talking about a wide range of experience from women feeling some pressure witin a monogamous relationship to have intercourse when they don't feel like it through to violent sexual assault?

My suspicion is the latter but I'd be interested to know if anybody has definitive information on the source of the claims.

R0bert

Runner,
re: Foyle your absurd unscienticic comments..
Aren't you aware of Raymond Dart's "The Predatoty Transition from Ape to Man"? Dart was an Australian born head anatomist at Witwatersrand University, SA, who investigated the Taungs skull in 1924 and many other major fossil finds in the limestone caves of that area. And maybe you are also not aware of the 24 parallel lines of evidence used by Robert Ardrey, in 'African Genesis' and largely derived from Dart's roomful of bones, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that australopithecus africanus went around armed and hunted for a living using using the distal end of the humerous bone of a medium antelope as a club (and the partial jaws and teeth of animals as knives and scrapers). And this was about 50-60 thousand human generations ago. Both Dart and Ardrey were convinced that africanus committed murder so I wouldn't argue that africanus wasn't capable of rape. As an ancient science graduate I don't make statements unless I am aware of significant evidence in support. Our capacity for violence and our capacity for amity come from our evolutionary heredity not from some supposed original sin or from religion, respectively.

I don't know the background of this author (although I can guess). The article is up there with so many of these fake claims and 'articles' and often the 'give away' is in the quotes:

“He raped me”, stammered one woman recently, “he ripped off my pyjamas, he beat me up”.

Bull. No woman who had been subjected to such a terrible experience would express it like that.

The lie is further compounded with the claim that "In Australia today, one in every five female friends of mine..." blah blah.

She is trying to blend the fake stats from Government Departments (and I work in one and know how fake the stats are) with so called personal experience.

Grow up Joanna, the fake tricks aren't working anymore. My partner is a victim of real abuse (from her former husband) and one of the things that saddens her so much is how many women are faking it (or writers like you faking it) to spin the 'all men are bastards yarn'.

The world is waking up to this crap and all you are doing is making it harder for genuine abuse victims to be believed.

OLO seems to be a favourite place for spinning these yarns.

QKay

Rape used to coexist with paternity fraud in marriage. Now only the latter remains legal. Why marry?

The politics of abuse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430702

Thanks for the link aqvaruis. The article makes some interesting observations.

Society has changed its attitudes to violent behaviour from banning public executions, not hitting kids across the knuckles with a ruler, not hitting kids, not beating your wife. There will always be individuals who will successfully play the victim card for their own ends while other victims remain silent and get on with life and yet others will suffer the consequences of their assault.

Australian courts did not accept the "but she asked for it" defence put forward by the muslim youths who raped Sydney women going home from work.

Very few rapes are reported to police and even fewer are prosecuted. Because the victim's sexual history will be aired in court only victims with unblemished records who look as pure as driven snow bother to complain to the police.

Many people in abusive situations have been so abused their self confidence is eroded to the point they are unable to function outside the relationship. This can be a child whose choices are remaining in the family or going into care or a woman who has to hide from her husband and her family and friends because he will come looking for her. Or the abuse might be in the workplace where although the victim is being pressured into leaving they are so lacking in self confidence they are unable to perform well at a job interview.

Men will always be self serving, sexually aggressive, pigs. At best a man can only ever repress that tendency by learning self restraint and the outward pretext of civility and empathy.

Man is fundamentally flawed and so too is the illusion of 'relationship.' He develops resentment toward the world. He wallows in original sin, the guilt of his existence and the ultimate sacrifices imposed upon and endured by woman to bring man into existence and to civilise him into society. That women start the process, is her guilt. That man is the process is his. They take it out on each other, but as usual, man is more ruthless about it.

Ladies, spare yourselves the indignity of man.

Dont marry them.

CJ Morgan “our resident misogynists to exploit,”

I will tell my daughters and partner that. They will have a laugh, it looks like your analytical prowess is about as persuasive as your charm.

Robert “Could they in fact be talking about a wide range of experience from women feeling some pressure within a monogamous relationship to have intercourse when they don't feel like it through to violent sexual assault?”

I suspect you are right Robert.

When I consider some aspects of relationships, I would say any woman who expects “monogamy” must bear the consequences or price being her “availability” which “monogamy” implies.

The alternative, a response to her unilateral withdraw or denial of sexual services, will basically force her partner to seek satisfaction elsewhere.

Now I suspect pursuing the services of a consummate paid professional, compared to the fumblings of a reluctant amateur, operating under some duress, would be seen as an encouragement to promiscuity and the breakdown of the marital unit.

This, the author could blame on the dilletant demands of the husband, whereas the real cause were the monopolist and controlling exploitation by the wife to access for sexual congress.

Now, am I being “misogynistic”, as the official OLO village idiot, CJ Morgan, would claim or am I simply analysing and describing the rights and obligations which come from being in a relationship?

Trade215 “Men will always be self serving, sexually aggressive, pigs.”

Oh your misandry is showing.

Re “Ladies, spare yourselves the indignity of man. Dont marry them.”

Maybe you are right, maybe men and women should stay single.

From a (tongue in cheek) male perspective, it might well be cheaper to buy the services of one of a range of experienced and technically dextrous good whores, whenever the urge comes, in pursuit of “satisfaction”,

than to buy a house and all the trimmings, to bring a wife back to for endless nights of frustrating “headaches” in pursuit of “monogamy”.

I can see how that works from the make perspective, I wonder how well it works from trade215’s perspective?

HRS,

Patriarchal means... father ruler. If you are not a father you cannot be a patriarch. Wrong bait.

Misogynist means... hatred of women. One need not be a man to hate a woman. There is a beast known as self loathing in the human condition. Its universal and not gender specific.

Based on the tone of these articles of 'woman=victim/man=victimizer', one could conclude that there is much misandry amongst women. Frued would call it projection. A 7 yr old would say 'takes one to know one.' Some(many?) men and women hate each other, what can ya do. Blame adam, eve, the apple, the serpeant, god, evolution, biology... blame, blame, B-LAME.

If a woman hates man, because of her experiences or due to an ideologically validating rendition of woman's history at the hands of evil, oppressive, war-mongering, pig-dog-bastard-rapist man... so be it. Hatred is a huge burden to drag thru life. Dont help the hateful carry their baggage. Dont live in that shadow.

The victim paradigm is politically expedient, in this rabidly touchy-feely world of non-reason and disdain for logic. It is widely used and extremely effective. This is the modern political landscape... fear, loathing, paranoia and hatred, fueled by emotionally laden ignorance.

Deal with people decently and humanely. Live by the golden rule.

l doubt that those who peddle the victim paradigm actually want to overcome the injustices they speak of. They certainly do not want to unite people. Politics divides. Fear solidifies the division, keeping them perpetually mired and thus dependent on politicians and their rhetoric.

Unplug from these people and they wither away. They need us, we have no use for them. They know it.

The author doesnt want to liberate women from their fear, she wants to stir it up. If she was serious she wouldnt waste her time with hypocritical forum blowhards like us, she would drop the spin, speak honestly and directly and lobby the law makers for actual change. But that sort of action would be too hard. She prolly thinks the pen is mightier than the sword.

trade215,

In this case, whats required isn't a change to the laws, we already have laws that forbid sexual assault.

Instead what is required is a change in certain sections of society that still hold onto the thought that a man is "entitled" to certain "rights".

In order to enact this change we need to discuss the problem. Thats what I think the author is trying to do, get a discussion going so that we as a community can sort out the issue.

To those who still hold on to the outmoded ideals of a wife being subservient and meek, umm get over yourselves. A marriage or relationship is a partnership, not a dictatorship.

James

I suspect that those who hold to the view that they 'have certain rights' feed on porn which portrays women as sex objects. It is possible to have a senior partner without being a dictatorship. Many women I know are more than content when their husband takes up their leadership role. In actual fact many women don't want whimps who refuse to lead their families.

Mmmmm … I’m really starting to get suspicious.

We’ve had about four OLO essays in the last month or so dealing with violent male dysfunctionality towards women. Definitely a case of overkill … but then that’s the whole point. This has been the 'set-up phase'.

Expect now to see a whole heap of OLO essays in the coming weeks and months that set out to smash the credibility of this outrageous feminist onslaught against men. This will be the 'knock em down phase'. And, of course, these essays are sure to be written mostly by women – for that nice Uncle Tom touch.

Pardon the cynicism but, as a long-term feminist, I’ve seen it all before. The backlash process is mathematical in its consistency.

Runner you really are stuck on the idea that the man is the head of the household. Some women are in violent relationships when they are more capable than their husbands who turn their resentment into violence. I like the Hindu wedding custom of getting the newly married couple to fish a piece of jewelry out of a pot filled with dyed water 7 times. The partner who extracts the jewelery the most is the lead partner.

Possession of a penis does not confer automatic wisdom nor does possession of a vagina confer incredulity.

Thanks for the link Aqvarivs. That was a much more interesting article that would make for an interesting discussion on OLO.

MLK makes a very valid point. Nothing like articles with emotive language to get the juices going for an 'opposing' view.

Feminism is a movement with many different streams of thought. Not all admirable. Just like any philosophical stream really.

In regards to violence, whether domestic or societal, why is it that it must become mainly a gender issue? Women against men, men against women. To my mind this perpetrates violence.

Col Rouge got a bit of a caning with his rape-verbal abuse remark. But in a way he does make a point. Are some forms of violence OK? How grave a victim experiences a violent act surely is a personally subjective experience. Like pain. What some of us accept as 'allowable' violence is generally determined by the norms of the times maybe modified by your own values. Just look back on what society once thought was acceptable, even necessary violence, that would not be tolerated today.

If we agree that perpetrating a violent act on another is not on, gender is only relevant to try and understand why it happens and how it can be prevented. But it is equally important to try and understand why some persons become victims, not once, but repeatedly, even of different offenders.

The majority of perpetrators of violence do happen to be men, but I suggest that that is because it is societally more acceptable, and often encouraged, for a man to be violent. To use testosterone, or some such thing, is to attempt victimhood for men, they can't help it.

Rape should never be confused with sex. Like a blow to the head is not confused with a caress across a cheek. Rape in marriage is just another form of violence in a domestic setting.

MlK
Your starting to get suspicious. Well its taken a long time.

The author writes of the 1970’s feminists. So what has become of the leaders of the 1970’s feminist movement.

One originally called herself a Marxist, but she has made a lot of money from feminism. She now owns 3 properties. One in England, one in France, and she has recently purchased 50 acres outside of Brisbane. She is also known as one of the most abusive of people in Australia.

2 of the queens have died in recent years. One of those also called herself a Marxist, but she married a capitalist and had her children driven to school in a limousine.

Another said that heterosexual sex was rape, but she liked travelling around the US in buses. So she used to prostitute herself for bus fares.

And so on.

These were the queens of feminism, and it was from these queens that came the notion of patriarchy, the notion that all men are rapists, and the notion that all men carry out oppression of women.

MLK, backlash needs something to lash back at. False accusations, misconstrued, collected, spun and analysed data to further feminist empowerment(?)seems a credible thing to foster backlash. If people and organisations dropped the sexual politicalisation of life and it's issues, and honestly addressed the problems, most would cease to be problems

Col Rouge – “From a tongue in cheek perspective it might well be cheaper to buy the services of one of a range of experienced and technically dextrous whores than buy a house and all the trimmings."

If you buy a house with all the trimmings it is usually because you need a nest if you plan to have children. Usually it’s the woman whose left holding the baby or babies if sex results in pregnancy, therefore sex is a more difficult issue for women. There are a large percentage of women who cannot tolerate the side effects of the contraceptive pill .

You don’t have to subject your body to medications to have sex do you Col.

Women need to get over their romantic ideas about relationships. Unfortunately they have been programmed this way by nature. They seek love not sex because they need a mate to stay around and help with the lifelong task of childrearing.

It is accurately stated- “that men give love because they want sex”
“ Women give sex because they want love”

Men who wish to have children need marriage more than women do because women always know who their children are and could simply mate with lots of the handsomest and strongest males and it wouldn’t really matter to them who the father was because they would still know who their children are.

Just tongue in cheek I think women should forget romance and marriage, become totally polygamous and charge every man for the privilege. There should be no free sex for men because some poor girl thinks that the man is really loving when he’s only pretending to get sex. Wake up girls!! stop wasting your love on men, they’re not like you imagine them to be. They are biologically programmed to be sexual hunters. They only pretend to be monogomas to con some poor woman into having their children so they can make sure there are no other males involved, then they are inclined to go hunting again.

Col Rouge: " 'In bedrooms all over the country, women are still subjected to sexual violence from their spouses.'

And in kitchens across the country, many men are subject to a continual tirade of verbal assaults by their spouses too.

So what. "

Until Col wrote that, my impression from his comments was that he is a more generalised misanthrope than a hardcore misogynist like some around here. While he probably thought he was being clever and provocative, the equation of 'sexual violence' by men with 'verbal assaults' by women is too offensive to common decency for it to be excused as 'making a point'.

Yvonne asks, "Are some forms of violence OK?". The answer could only be in the affirmative if it's explicitly assented to, as in sadomasochistic sex or whatever. However, under the kind of implied sexual contract with which Col tries to rescue his hopeless ethical position, the answer must be that sexual violence is most definitely not OK. I'm surprised that you'd consider that it might be.

As he usually does when bereft of an argument, Col resorts to personal insult. In this case, if I'm the village idiot, Col appears to be one of the resident rock apes. At least I'm harmless :)

yvonne, very well put - thank you.

I'd been trying to find a phrasing to make similar points and not coming up with anything which I was happy with. It is an emotive discussion with both valid points and spin.

At the heart of the topic should be what people are in committed relationships for anyway. The trouble seems to come when one or both parties see it in terms of control over another, of getting as much as they can while giving as little as they can.

There will be times when we all do things we would rather not for the sake of our partner, when that is a choice and done from love that is a good thing, when it is forced it is abuse.

R0bert

Yvonne “Col Rouge got a bit of a caning…. he does make a point.”

thankyou for your understanding.

Men and women deal with issues differently. Men tend more toward physical action but women can be equally corrosive to a relationship in different ways.

Billie “Possession of a penis..”

And “possessing a vagina does not confer automatic wisdom nor possession of a penis convey incredulity”

What a stupid line billie, individuals are individuals. No gender has a monopoly.

I am lucky, I have a partner with compatible values to mine.

However, I went through some dirt to find the diamond (which she is).

It is important to decide who you are NOT prepared to partner with as it is who you partner with.

Sharkfin “therefore sex is a more difficult issue for women.”

In an intimate context, I ensure I discuss my expectations etc. first.

Anyone one who enters a relationship, I can only presume, deploys similar investigation beforehand and thus any potential ‘difficulties’ are out in the open and avoidable before the “relationship” commences.

Re "contraceptives", I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago after my second daughter was born.

“You don’t have to subject your body to medications to have sex”

No.

Do you?

“Women…become totally polygamous and charge every man for the privilege.”

So you believe it is “cheaper to buy the services of one of a range of experienced and technically dextrous whores”?

From my own experience, like most men, I am not in the “charge for services” league but I have, frequently and repeatedly, experienced a willingness on the part of ladies to readily offer “free samples” of their wares.

CJ Morgan “As he usually does when bereft of an argument, Col resorts to personal insult. In this case, if I'm the village idiot..”

In hindesight, more the village hypocrite,

when I consider the amount of low life insults, gratuitous sniping and sly innuendo which is posted by you.

You obviously cannot take it, so stop trying to hand it out.

Col,

l was being sarcastic. Have spent time bogged down in the slurry of gender politics rhetoric, from both sides. Becomes simple to see the devices. Same sh.., different buckets. Was throwing up the usual trite dross, for effect.

The issue in gender politics is not equality. May have been at the moment of the big bang of feminism, long since faded. Everyone knows that equality is a gradiose and delusional ideal, wholey unattainable, so everyone gave up and just settled for the facade of changing the rules and giving everyone a blue ribbon from first to last. Thing is ya cant make people follow the rules. Especially when one set of rules based on double standards are replaced with another set based on double standards. Compounding the problem doesnt fix it.

Everyone knows whats going on and NO ONE wants to do the real tuff work, which requires enourmous self examination. Its too easy to blame others, thats the politics of modernity. B-LAME.

The whole thing has broken down into a power struggle, zero-sum game. This is where the political blowhards took the philosphy. They turned it into a 'battle' of the sexes, a gender 'war'. Men arent stoopud. We dont say that much, why bother, talk is cheap and behaviour is self evident. We do understand, very deeply, exactly whats going on. It serves us well to play our cards close, shut up, learn to 'read' their 'tells' and let people show their hand. 99.9% are bluffing.

The power struggle means that everyone point scores. One end throws up their concerns, the other more or less ignores, evades and invalidates by throwing up their own. Its politics. You dont engage opposition on their terms, you set your own agenda. Hence men throw back the idea that women are emotional/psychological abusers. Its not in the least bit relative to rape. Its a case of one side saying l want a back rub and the other saying l want tuesday off.

Back rubs have nothing to do with tuesdays. But compromise is the essence of a political trade.

Something quite amusing happens in these discussions. Men and women are accused of being haters for playing this rhetorical game hard, not pulling punches. Every now and again a man will make that accusation of another man, belliting him(self?), in defence of woman. Its funny. Playing wanna-be knight-in-shinnig-armour to self induced damsels of emotional and rhetorical distress is such an obvious game. One that shows that these types men and women are actually stuck in an old world view of gender relations, more than they care to admit. Its chivallry. Women can defend there own rhetorical postions, they dont need no lance-a-lot on stallion to help. Chivallry is nothing more than benevolent sexism... ergo, misogynistic. Even more amusing, most women prefer chivallry.

Then again, you cant 'know' love if you dont 'know' hate. And everyone hates everything to some extent. Love/hate is but a delusion, very usefully instilled in early childhood and a very useful device for manipulation. Love is a very powerful device for tying a person to thy-self-serving-self in the name of altruistic benevolence. Few people allow themselves to see it, let alone admit it. Pandering to and immersion in the delusional facade is too intoxicating. Its a type of dishonesty or patronage. What the world needs is less romantic, idealised love and more respect for humanity.

Truth and respect renders love obsolete.

Men and women run this little routine on each other all the time. Its dishonest and a major obstacle to making things better for EVERYONE.

ps. There are no free lunches, dinners or drinks. No sex is free. No relationships are free. Money is the cheapest price of all. Nothing of value is ever free.

yes.. women are..but there is only one religion I know which 'institutionalizes' it.

FOUNDATION:
Quran 4:34 As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them, separate them in beds (and last) beat them.

http://larrylivermore.blogspot.com/2006/09/and-beat-them-lightly.html
QUOTE
Having first heard of this via Popbitch, I didn't know how seriously to take a report that Islamic Society of North America's recent convention in New York offered a workshop on the properly Islamic way to beat your wife. But on taking a quick look around the interweb, I discovered that this "Analysis and In-Depth Discussion of Verse 4:34" had been widely reported.

I also discovered a thoughtful commentary by one scholar, Dr Ahmad Shafaat, urging that before using physical violence to discipline recalcitrant wives, husbands first "admonish them," and then "separate them in beds."

ENQUOTE

COMMENT... that kind of says it all....and most Muslim converts are women...what does that say ?

BIBLE: "Husbands...love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her" Ephesians

When 'Faith A' commands/authorizes beating...and 'Faith B' commands sacrificial love... how in Gods name anyone can describe such a comparison as 'Islamophobic' is beyond any rational comprehension.

Col Rouge: "Men and women deal with issues differently. Men tend more toward physical action but women can be equally corrosive to a relationship in different ways."

That's right - almost. However, the article is about rape in intimate relationships not about women verballing men. But you can't resist a good troll can you? Rape is about power, as you well know ole COl, and if, as you so frequently claim on the abortion threads, you support a woman's autonomy over her body, why have you taken such a misogynist stand on this thread? Because you aspire to power without responsibilty?

Boaz:

FYI: rapists occur across all cultures, races, colours, religions, nations, villages, tents, churches, grass huts and so on..... Leave off the Mozzie bashing just for once and focus on the issue.

What is needed is for men to make it very clear to those among us who think that sex is a right within the intimate relationship; that it is not a right.

I cannot understand how anyone could get their jollies with an unwilling partner, yet apparently there are plenty of morons who do. Sex doesn't have to be about love but good sex is about both participants otherwise you may as well just go and jerk off instead.

Posted by HRS, Monday, 10 September 2007 5:12:55 PM

I agree with you on what you are saying.

George Rolph on when men are accused of hating women.
"however, criticising female behaviour is not the same as hating females."

Thomas Ellis "When they call you a 'woman hater' they mean
'how dare you disagree with me!' Don't bother getting upset. why waste the energy."

The author of this article starts with a vivid description of a women being raped within marriage,(this is the emotive hook )

She then uses the "one in five" statistic.

Unusually, this article appeared in OLO the same day it was published in the paper.

Personally I am sick and tired of the sensationalism, of the continous stream of male bashing articles.

We have this constant stream of extremely negative information and no one seems to want really dig down too deeply to discover why this is happening.

Col - it was you who suggested it might be a good financial move to have sex for money instead of buying a house and everything. I was just agreeing with you that maybe this is the way that women should go. Why do you think the term whore only applies to women? Given that it is used to suggest that someone is willing to have sex with multiple partners for money, it's also applicable to men as well.

I agree with you that there are some very sexually aggressive women out there. And there are a lot of very loving sweet men.

Well, the gender wars are on again, clouding the issue at hand.

Trade125, it is sad that you can only equate sex with food and drink. Just another commodity to trade. Yes, it is at times but that isn’t really at issue either. The issue is rape, unless you think that men can demand ‘payment’, a bit like a self appointed debt collector. Are you saying a woman who is raped by her husband/partner should have ‘paid up’ willingly?

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many men who actually see rape as just another way to have sex. It also never ceases to amaze me that there would be any man who tries to justify rape by rationalizing about needs and expectations. What did you do when you were teenagers? Forgot about the soap in the long showers and the dirty magazines and the box of tissues? Just a couple of hints for you blokes if you cannot find a willing woman to tend to your ‘needs’. I’ve raised boys, so know about these things :)

Both men and women have a natural need for close and intimate contact with another human. Hate to burst your bubble, but men are not unique in this regard.

Boazy, this thread is NOT about Muslims or Islam. Read the bible, it is chockers with rape and pillage. Some of it justified.

JamesH, I almost agree with you. A man bashing, or woman bashing for that matter, thread is such a waste of emotional energy.

Please bare with me as I try to frame a arguement.

Does anyone remember a story about a palestine father and son hiding behind a wall as bullets flew past them? It was later announce that the child had been shot by the Israeli soldiers.

Highly emotive story.

Having just read a story about how the above story was constucted to make Israel look bad. Basically a lot of people had the wool pulled over their eyes but a very clever propaganda campaign.

The Israeli soldiers did not deliberately shoot or kill that boy.

This story demonstrates how once the emotive part of our brain is engaged, the logical more critical thinking part tends to be put on the back burner. It is a clever trick to use.

The author of this article use the same trick to engage the emotive feelings which then results in the clouding of critical thinking.

note "In bedrooms all over the country, women are still subjected to sexual violence from their spouses."

Even a friendly tap on the bottom can be construed as sexual assault especially if some one is in a bad mood.

Unfortunately the bedroom is the last refuge of the sex/power struggle. Both women and men are 'raped' under these conditions. The idea that men are never compelled to have sex by their wives and are always ready, willing, and able is feminist propaganda. While men will discuss this with a close friend they are not likely to go public.
I know a fellow who is constantly browbeaten by his wife and he told me having sex with her is the utmost trial, Olympian was his word, considering how he must gear himself up to perform. But what is he supposed to do. He has children. He can't afford to just walk away.

Trade 215- your article containing the statement that "Love is a very powerful device for tying a person to thy self-serving-self in the name of altruistic benevolence, few people allow themselves to see it let alone admit it." is a a very perceptive article.

I once read an article that said love was more about co-habitation and the human need to belong to a supportive social group then actual love. I was a bit shocked at the time and felt sad that the notion of romantic love was probably based more on self need than reality. But I knew deep down it was true.
We just become dependent on the support and companionship of those we are partnered with. We are just used to them and familiar with them and it gives us security in a world full of strangers thats all.

Seeker is turning out to be quite enigmatic – he is either a rapist, has had someone close to him rape someone, is a professional defender of rapists, or is after all, a twisted she. If none of the above, then one very sorry dude – perhaps even a reformed rapist himself.

Women need to develop the necessary language to articulate their predicament and establish effective campaigns against male violence. This language currently still reflects the “too scared to speak up” female (and male) attitudes to undesirable male behaviour. Until we change this the one-sided view of violence will remain.

OK, while I’m at it there is one more thing Violence is violence. Muscle mass, size, and other male characteristics have a lot to do with the bullying of women. Defence of violent male behaviour helps perpetuate the prejudice and discrimination that the feminists already endure. Guess none of us are immune to conditioning received through the language of anti-feminism

Very amusing, donald blake.

If regrettable sex can be equated to rape, then surely over time, women could be held equally responsible. If unilateral decisions amount to violence, they are indeed, formidable combatants.

In intractable cases, where experts are called in to conduct evaluations, rates of sexual abuse allegations being declared false or unfounded are 55% (Benedek Schetky, 1985); 36% (Green, 1986); 50% (Thoennes Tjaden, 1990, 160 cases); 75% (Wakefield Underwager, 1991, 500 cases); 77% (Dwyer, 1986).

Aqvarivs,
I find it difficult to believe that there is any spousal rape.

If a husband tears off the wife’s pyjamas (as written in the article), then she will need a new set of pyjamas, and more often that not it will be the husband that has to pay for the new pyjamas.

Also he could get divorced, in which case he will lose nearly everything.

So in the area of spousal rape, I would say that there would be close to 0.00% occurring in this country.

But in feminist literature, it would be 100.0%

Seeker: The people equating regrettable sex to rape are you and a small pack of very sick and callous people who are clearly conditioned and have an apparent underlying hatred of assertive women and women who have enough self-esteem to flick men like you.

You dish your silly baseless assumptions out but find it difficult to respond with anything that doesn't expose you for the disgruntled and irrational divorcees that you are.

The best evidence for this is that you and your crew are obsessed with firing your bullets at women and men who clearly have genuine concern for victims of rapists.

You're getting to the level of web stalkers now. You're dysfunctional and need help.

For other posters who don't get it, Seeker, knows my post was "amusing" because it was a parody of one he's posted to attack a feminist.

HRS, I'm sure there is a minority of incidences of "rape" in the marital bedroom. There are both sexually aggressive men and women who seek to dominate the flesh as there are men and women who seek to dominate the word. Those who feel powerless due to their personal inadequacies strike out in untold ways and by diverse means. We live in a conflicted society of mixed messages. A diffused grey of instability, and only those with a solid moral and ethical foundation are going to come away with out any scars. Very few people are willing to do the right thing and accept their portion of responsibility. For the rest life happens in a vacuum. They never have contributed to their condition. They have only two rules. Who ever calls the police first wins. And a lie isn't a lie. It's strategy.
What I have said here should not be misconstrued to mean I accept any form of rape as tolerable. I don't. But, we very rarely have anyone who is willing to include the number of lies that drive such articles or the sexual-political manipulation and underlying power struggle that led to the rape that led to the article. There is no vacuum that breeds events and just willy-nilly pops them into unsuspecting lives. We effect each others lives. We need to understand that dynamic and take responsibility for our part not just point fingers to escape our participation.

Donald Blake
I think the definition of what is actually rape varies considerably.

When in Australia, the author of the article appeared on Late Night Live with Phillip Adams, and during that program it was mentioned that a survey undertaken of male University students in the US showed that they had considerable confusion regards what is rape.

I would think that feminists are attempting to have the definition of rape broadened as much as possible, like what they did to the definition of domestic violence.

And of course everyone knows that it is only the husband who carries out domestic violence, because he is male.

Johny R, Donald B and James Pursar: -

I expect you've realised by now that any article written by a woman and dealing with women's issues eventually turns into a dialogue between the same group of people who support, congratulate and shore each other up through a series of posts whose content never changes from thread to thread.

Going back over these poster's personal record of responses finds them repeating themselves, using the same phraseology and stolidly ignoring every counter-argument that has ever been used. There is a marked dearth of phrases like "I see your point" "I do apologise" or "I agree" towards anyone other than themselves.

However, please don't give up. One becomes so tired of hitting brick walls and so sickened by the hurtful and vindictive personal retorts that its easier to just give up and leave them in possession of thread after thread - which can also be proved by going back over past threads.

So I have been cheered immensely to find counter arguments continuing so late into a thread - which has prompted this response:

Duncan - do your really expect that a cheery "How r u? Btw, ever suffered spousal rape" would get a truthfull response? Despite the trivialising of the subject here spousal rape is an intimate, shaming and soul destroying experience which women do not often confide even to each other though they have shared sorrows and laughter for years.

And JamesH - to even entertain the idea that women are so stupid they cannot tell the difference between a friendly tap on the bottom and the betrayal of a marriage that is spousal rape is dishounoring the entire female gender.

HRS - in the face of the poster who admitted his partner had suffered spousal rape; I, who have also gone into graphic detail; other posters who have before admitted knowledge of such things - and the author's research - it is demeaning, insulting and a complete slap in the face to accuse us all of lying by suggesting that "0.00% of such crimes occur in this country.

Romany,
It is interesting that you are supportive of the highly articulate and totally impressive Donald Blake when he uses language such as “sick and callous”, “silly baseless assumptions”, “disgruntled and irrational”, “obsessed”, “web stalkers”, “dysfunctional” etc.

Such language could be regarded as being abusive, but of course feminism is highly anti-abusive and no feminist has ever been known to be abusive.

The author writes in glowing terms of the 1970’s feminists and I think the author wants to keep alive the “All men are rapists” slogan from the 1970’s feminist movement.

trade215, someone must have really hurt you in the past. How else can such anti-male bitterness be explained?

‘Men will always be self serving, sexually aggressive, pigs. At best a man can only ever repress that tendency by learning self restraint and the outward pretext of civility and empathy’ - so, if a male acts civilly towards you, it is a sham? Wasn’t your statement ‘aggressive’?

‘Ladies, spare yourselves the indignity of man. Dont marry them.’ - really clever, let’s all become extinct. Or maybe you’ll go for a test-tube pregnancy.

‘evil, oppressive, war-mongering, pig-dog-bastard-rapist man’, - Jeez, you really hate us, don’t you?

‘Deal with people decently and humanely. Live by the golden rule’, - maybe you should practise what you preach.

‘Chivallry is nothing more than benevolent sexism’ - eh? Good manners, honour in battle, loyalty and all that.

‘Truth and respect renders love obsolete’, - so what you believe is that you can’t love and respect someone?

You need to meet a real man. Not one of your imaginery oppresors.

donald blake, I have nothing to say to make you feel better about yourself or your world, and unlike you, I don’t perceive being stalked by the likes of you with such toxic comments after my very short and harmless posting. Why, does anyone care about, or even acknowledge the existence of paternity fraud? Does anyone think it occurs more than something like once per year? Are there any laws against it?

No. Paternity fraud is perfectly OK, The child is simply “a child of the marriage”.

So what else did I say? Essentially, that rape within marriage was legal, just like paternity fraud, but only paternity fraud still remains so. Then I questioned why people would marry at all under those conditions (i.e. the possibility of rape, and paternity fraud).

OLO is an insignificant part of my life, especially so after my child support ended. I still have the 2 children from that marriage as I always have, but no longer do I get harassed for 18% of my gross capacity to earn (way over one third of net income) for the remaining child of the same marriage.

Yes, I am still somewhat passionate about the raw deal that men get without ever apparently realising it. Why else is paternity fraud a non-issue? Because presumably, men are still too busy defending themselves against their brands as bullies and rapists. Men, other than you, of course.

I don’t think this is irrational at all. My conscience is clear and I feel responsible for everything said as Seeker. It is the only pseudonym I have ever used. Unlike some, related to this subtopic … but it doesn’t surprise me that those using multiple OLO accounts and names would feel stalked (or worse). And it doesn’t surprise me that they could hold multiple conflicting positions, or that they would wish to shut down viewpoints different to their own.

ak47,

scroll up a bit. l explained to col rouge (who had the same reaction as you) that l was being sarcastic... purely for effect.

yvonne,

l agree, completely, its is very sad that sex has been commodified and is used as an item of trade. l see it constantly in peoples relationships and as much as l hate to say it, its generally women who do that and its a majority of women who use it as a bargaining chip. Which l find most frustrating indeed. Power struggles doom relationships.

The battle of the sexes thing is very unfortunate indeed. All these things become mere pawns after a while. And its all a bit sad.

trade215

'scroll up a bit. l explained to col rouge (who had the same reaction as you) that l was being sarcastic... purely for effect.'

Maybe so, but I'm sure that if a male poster made similar comments about females, he would be suspended and his post removed. Even if you provoked a response in kind, while your post remained, the reply would be cut off.

It's called 'reverse sexism' and works like 'reverse racism'. It is all a bit sad.

Posted by Romany, Sunday, 16 September 2007 3:57:22 AM

I did not write nor implie women were stupid. That is YOUR interpretation.

I wrote as I have experienced and I am sure that there are many men who experience the full warth of a woman's fury. Try giving someone a cuddle who is experiencing her full rage at you and you are definitely in trouble.

I have seen where women turn things around to make the guy look bad.

No women are definitely not stupid.

So Romany dont use this arguement technique on me

I'm new to this forum. I happened upon the article while researching sexual coercion in relationships and what, if any, relationship the act has to forced sex/marital rape, etc.

I see that the majority of the discussion revolves around assigning blame, name-calling, and labeling, while little is actually said about the acts under scrutiny. I care less about what label is assigned, than what each person actually considers sexual coercion. My interpretation of it includes psychological threats like being left, humiliated, financially impacted or emotionally shunned, as well as the threat of physical violence or force.

I would like to hear what everyone considers sexual coercion and what the effects of it are on relationships and emotional health.

Sexual coercion is a two edge sword, for example a man coerces a woman for sex, or a woman witholds sex in order to get what she wants.

Casstastrophe another thought that I had is "when does an attempt of seduction become coercion?"

One thing that really is apparent though is that human behaviour is extremely complicated.

JamesH...

Seduction becomes coercion when some form of power is used to force a person to have sex for any reason other than their own desire. It is complex, but common sense always prevails. Someone withholding sex as a bargaining tool can be a problem, but my question pertains to forcing complicity to another person's sexual demands, which is another topic entirely. You appear to want to debate on a defensive level which, while interesting, doesn't really give me the information I need. Coercion does exist. I'm looking specifically for people who have experienced coercion as I describe in the first sentence of this post. I may need to write an article that would clarify my request a bit better to get the type of response that would help me. Thanks for your reply, though.

Cass

James H...

I'm going to immediately correct myself here. I should have checked my own question before responding to you. I did ask what people consider coercion, so I will note your response. I am, however, looking more for answers pertaining to the forcing of sex, not the withholding of it, which I believe to be another topic.

Cass

So what is so special about sexual coercion? If we accept that such coercion is not as desirable as seduction (is every seduction always desirable, and any coercion always unwanted?), but less violent than rape (typically lacking in physical violence, but with potential for emotional violence), then why would it be any more deserving of observation or discussion, than the multitudes of coercion tactics experienced daily by married men?

Surprisingly, women also see themselves as financially coerced (presumably by real or imagined threats of withdrawal of financial support, some of which may feed into feelings of sexual coercion). Men who are more often than not, the actual victims of financial coercion, are not only denied a hearing, but are derided for it.

This could only occur in a disconnected self-centrist women’s forum, where it would appear most believe that paternity fraud is non-violent and quite OK, especially if well hidden.

Seeker,

did you consider complaining to the moderators about Donald Blake?

His comments were at least slanderous.

Cass,

have you ever read "The Morning After" Katie Rophie, or "Heterophobia" Daphne Patai ?

Typically advocacy researchers operate from the position of the female victim and the male perpetrator.

it is unfortunately not politically correct to explore issues where women are the perpetrators. For example women (some, maybe all) will use sexual coercion to get what they want, either by withholding sex or giving sex.

Now the hordes of Greer with descend on me and accuse me of being a heretic and try an make me feel bad about writing this.

The truth is human behaviour is extremely complicated.

If you are really a fair dickum researcher/psychologist/sociologist then you would explore both issues of sexual coercion and not just the one that sits within your comfort zone.

However if you are uni student then expect a D- if you step outside the boundaries of political correctness.

Two other books of interest are

"the Manipulated Man" Esther Villar
"The Rantings of a Single Male" Thomas Ellis.

Ellis's book contains details how his girl friend Petra would reward him with sex when he agreed with her and withhold sex when he didn't agree with her.

Casstastrophe,

the concept of 'coercion' is a very subtle, slippery and incredibly pervasive phenomenon in all types of human interaction.

Coercion is anything short of outright physical force. It appeals essentially to the mind of the party being coerced. To that extent the coerced person essentially sanctions the power exercised over them, by submitting. So, if someone appeals to my emotions as a way of manipulating (coercing) me to act against my volition, then l have fundamentally sanctioned their power. For their apparent power relies on my mental submission. In fact, this type of power is a very, er, powerful illusion.

The minute l REFUSE to sanction their manipulation of me, they are infact, powerless.

Thus, when a loved one use's emotional, pshychological, logical trickery on me to do something l dont wanna do, l have handed them the whip that they thrash me with. In fact, l have given them the whip, that they hand me with, to whip myself.

This type of coersive force is rampant in the world. People play eqach other all the time and do not fundamentally take resposibility. The issue of unaccountability is why the whole thing decends into a blame game. It goes to a fundamental lack of maturity.

As to sexual coercion, or any form of coercion for that matter... setting the terms of engagement, unilaterally, can be a form of subtle coercion. Defining what, when, how, in a vacuum, is coercive. It denies the other persons needs, wants, preferences. Therefore, with holding, or unilateral rule making, or 'tit-for-tat' trade-offs, of sex, finances, affection, contact and so on are all coercive in nature. In a reverse psychology sort of a way.

All of which is underpinned by insecurity, vanity, ego, lack of respect, poor communication and incompatibility. Effectively all the things that make two people unsuited to each other.

In a relationship, fundamentally defined by sexual union, compatibility of sexual appetite is critical. People need to sort this stuff out BEFORE getting hitched.