Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    4,954 link karma
    11,138 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    It's possible I misspoke, or just wasn't clear enough.

    The usual argument against this is a slippery slope one to the effect that "if this is rape, what about if someone says they're a doctor?"

    My cliff is asking them "are you really saying that you wouldn't have consented to sex with him if he weren't a doctor? And if so, did you make that clear to him?"

    There is a slope, but that slope ends the moment someone makes their consent or lack thereof (including conditional consent) clear. Then, it's suddenly a cliff.

    So, if a guy makes it clear that he's only consenting to sex on the condition that she's on the pill or they use a condom, that's over the cliff. Either she honors that or she commits what should logically be considered a crime, if anything else in my list of examples is one.

    Implied consent (any time it isn't communicated clearly- including if consent is clear but conditions are implied) is the grey area, because it makes it at least plausible that someone misread the situation, which means that the person violating consent thought they were honoring it. Maybe it was malicious, but maybe not, and good luck proving it. Without intent, there is no crime... so this is a grey area for consent, conditional consent, withdrawn consent, alien abductions, the works.

    Jokes notwithstanding, I see no reason to treat any of those differently that eachother. Great all the cliff cases the same... and treat all the grey/slope cases the same.

    For me personally, legal handling of the grey/slope cases isn't a primary concern. Our support and therapeutic handling is, because even the worst case scenario (that the trauma is entirely manufactured) speaks to someone that needs therapy and support (just of a subtly different kind).

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    And you'll accomplish nothing, except to support my point.

    I said from the beginning that the cliff is when consent is clearly laid out. If that consent is conditional, violating the conditions violates the consent and is rape. Full. Stop.

    The grey areas are when consent is implied.

    But guess what? Those are already grey areas, so you're not really proving anything. He said/she said rape cases already exist, but you're fine with rape being illegal. What makes conditional consent grey areas any different than consent grey areas?

    If we enforce conditional consent the same way we enforce consent, then we create no new problems, and maintain consistency necessary to good laws.

    If we treat them differently, then we'd better have a damn fine reason for the inconsistency. (At least, if you want me to take it seriously.)

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    So, based on the premise that consent can be conditional, I would call that a dark grey case.

    The condition (and for that matter, the consent) are both implied. If neither are outright stated, then it becomes very difficult for any legal claim one way or the other.

    I see something wrong with it, yes- the condition isn't any murkier than the consent, so implied consent is sufficient, an implied condition should be.

    But it would be borderline impossible to take to criminal court. (But, as I said, civil court would still be a valid option, and that's probably a good thing.)

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    If no one is bothering to specify these things, then that also answers the question... so... I still think it's a pretty clear cliff.

    If just that some people chose to risk driving off it, and want to complain afterwards; meanwhile those demanding care and caution near it and getting ignored.... acknowledging the cliff doesn't change anything for the first cliff who don't care... but it sets a standard for the second that matters so I'm all for it.

    (If that's not pushing the metaphor too far)

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    Valid point, but it kind of applies to 80-90% of all sex anyway... and most rape cases already anyway. A tough burden of proof isn't a reason to make a thing legal.

    Plus, failure to sufficiently prove a criminal case isn't the end of the story. Having this acknowledged as a violation of consent on the books provides a civil outlet as well, where the victim could pursue, for example, legal paternal surrender in the existing court system. If it's not, then the civil case is almost impossible to make.

    [–] Circumcision Problems ARedthorn 6 points ago in OneY

    Actually, it may have. There's limited evidence (4 or 5 small studies) that suggest that infant circumcision (male or female) causes brain damage, as the new, highly sensitive brain shuts down in response to the massive overload stimulus of having 40% of your most sensitive patch of skin cut off.

    Specifically, the regions of the brain that seem to get dimmer on scans are the ones associated with emotional processing, risk management and communication.

    Another recently publicized 10-year long, 342,000-sample strong study found a correlation between autism and infant circumcision, with those circumcised as babies having autism at over 2x the rate as those who did not. Of course, correlations with autism are something of a joke these days (and for good reason), but combined with the other research I mentioned, there may prove to be truth to this one.

    [–] Should lying about being on birth control be considered to be rape if one's consent to sex was contingent on this information? ARedthorn 3 points ago * (lasted edited 10 days ago) in FeMRADebates

    The usual problem with this is that people will argue some pretty petty slippery slope stuff... along the lines of the girl who cries rape because she thought he was a doctor or something like it.

    For me, that slope has a cliff- namely, when one of them specifies the conditions of their consent in advance, and those conditions are actively ignored.

    Let's ask the question a bit differently. A few times. Not because I want to prove a point, but because it gets you thinking- if you have different answers to each of them... why?

    Say a girl consents to vaginal sex, but the guy changes lanes without signaling. If she specified no anal at the beginning of the encounter, and he did this on purpose.

    Is it rape? How about more generally sexual assault?

    Say someone consents to be in a BDSM scene that will include some whipping, and then sex. The scene specifies, when the laid it out, that the scene will end immediately if there's any blood, for example. The dom notices that one of the strikes has broken skin and is bleeding a fair bit... but the sub hasn't noticed. The dom ignores the blood because they want to finish the scene.

    Is it rape? Sexual assault?

    Say a girl agrees specifically to sex "but only if he wears a condom", and the guy slips the condom off partway through because he enjoys it more.

    Is it rape? Sexual assault?

    Say a guy agrees specifically to sex "but only if he wears a condom or she's on the pill" and she lies about being on the pill because she wants to get pregnant.

    Is it rape? Sexual assault?

    Again. Maybe you've got good reasons why 1, 2, and 3 might all be rape and 4 isn't... but if you can't think of one... maybe that's a problem.

    Edit: note, a few people here have voiced reasons I don't particularly like, but do accept as... at least logical and consistent. So... that's good at least.

    [–] [Spoilers] Small change, big fix to Luke's character? ARedthorn 2 points ago in TheLastJedi

    Right, but that was before Skywalkers... I'm not saying this is a rule of the Force or the Universe... I'm saying, this is a rule of when Skywalkers are around.

    The prophecy wasn't about Anakin, or one man's actions - it was about the Skywalker bloodline having this balancing effect on the Force whether they like it or not.

    If they don't exist, there doesn't have to be balance.

    Yoda mentions very early on in the prequels that the Light side is becoming more and more clouded. This is the early effects of the Skywalker bloodline's unique powers... as he grows in the force, things get worse and worse... the dark rises and light falls to balance.

    Vader kills off the order, but not all of them. There are a handful left. Sidious, Vader on the Dark. Yoda and Obi-Wan on the Light. Yes, there are others - but whether you go with the EU or Disney canon, a lot of them were grey, and the others were pretty split. You've got Ahsoka... but also Maul. You've got Ezra and Kanan, but also the Dathomiri witches.

    Then Luke comes along... but oh, look at that. Obi-Wan dies. Still pretty balanced overall.

    Then Yoda dies... but oh, look at that... Vader turns on Sidious, and they both die.

    If anything, things are imbalanced towards the light. Luke trains students in the light, and oh look at that... Snoke, and Kylo.

    [–] The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy ARedthorn 1 points ago in FeMRADebates

    Did you... you know... actually check those tables, or read my claim?

    I referred to the annual rate, which is Table 2.2. Go look at it.

    Yes, the lifetime numbers in 2.1 show an obvious skew... but that's unusual, when the annual numbers every year since 2010 haven't shown one.

    I mean... how do you have the same number (or close) every year of a decade, but then wildly different numbers for the decade?

    This is a discussion worth having, if you're willing to have it instead of just confirming your own bias by discarding literally half the data that doesn't agree with me so you can call me a liar...?

    [–] Vancouver womens shelter sues the victim ARedthorn 2 points ago in FeMRADebates

    I get it.

    I still think we can, and should make a concerted effort to teach people that healing and justice are two different things... both important, but different.

    [–] Vancouver womens shelter sues the victim ARedthorn 6 points ago in FeMRADebates

    Hence... we need to be clear: justice and healing don't need to have anything to do with each-other.

    When it comes to healing... always believe. ...because whether it happened or not, the way they remember or not- it's real enough to them to be traumatic. When it comes to justice... always doubt. ...because whether it happened or not, the way they remember or not- doesn't matter as much as whether it can be proven.

    [–] New Killer Concept: The Traitor (with lore bits and perks) ARedthorn 2 points ago in deadbydaylight

    Might just be easier (especially from a programming standpoint, with Vigil already a thing) to just make recovery slower within a certain range.

    Vigil causes 10/15/20% faster recovery from all status effects within 8m.

    That's a little close to be viable for a killer though... I'd either make it 16m, or better yet, tie it to Terror Radius, so there's more strategy and perk synergy. (The question then is whether the survivor terror radius from Paranoia counts or not... which could be very neat.)

    If you want to keep it specifically Exhaustion, then 10/15/20 is weak, so 10/20/30 might be better... and has almost exactly the effect you described with an already existing mechanic.

    That said, I like having it affect all the other status effects... makes this more useful for other killers. It would just need a rename - Harrass?

    [–] No one believes me. ARedthorn 1 points ago in MenGetRapedToo

    You're not alone.

    [–] #metoo ARedthorn 5 points ago in FeMRADebates

    Perhaps as some kind of luck combined with having a good circle of friends- the very first time I saw the metoo post, it had been modified to include male victims...

    And caught a half dozen replies by men, and 3 by women that appreciated the modification.

    [–] Rise of the bromance is bad for women ARedthorn 9 points ago in FeMRADebates

    I've been saying it for years.

    Truth is, ladies, if all I cared about were seeing boobs and having orgasms... I don't actually need you. Like. At all.

    So... if I'm interested in a relationship- interested enough for it to be worth the effort, the stress, and difficulty... it must be about something besides f'ing.

    Well. Just so turns out, I can get most of those things elsewhere with less effort or fear of rejection.

    Not all of them... but most.

    [–] "Unlike male circumcision, female genital mutilation also inhibits sexual pleasure." Sorry, have you ever been a circumcised man? ARedthorn 2 points ago in MensRights

    The breakdown of types of FGM in this article are... only loosely correct.

    Type 1a is removal of the clitoral hood only Type 1b is removal of the clitoris Type 2a is removal of the labia minora Type 2b is removal of the labia minora and clitoris Type 2c is removal of the labia majora and clitoris Type 3a is the sealing of the labia minora Type 3b is the sealing of the labia majora Type 4 is everything else

    1 is nowhere near equivalent to the removal of the testicles- 3 is. 1a is (roughly) equivalent to circumcision, and 1b is roughly equivalent to damaging or cutting the glans off entirely (which happens sometimes by accident during circumcision).

    Basically, they're taking the worst forms of each type and saying that they're the whole thing.

    [–] The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy ARedthorn 59 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago) in FeMRADebates

    Welp... Here we go. (Long post ahead).

    Time Magazine Article on the CDC Numbers, and the actual report itself:

    In 2010:

    1.1% of women reported being raped

    1.1% of men reported being made to penetrate

    In 2011:

    1.6% of women reported being raped

    1.7% of men reported being made to penetrate

    5.6% of women reported other sexual violence

    5.3% of men reported other sexual violence

    4.0% of women reported experiencing partner violence

    4.8% of men reported experiencing partner violence

    14.2% of women reported experiencing partner abuse

    18.0% of men reported experiencing partner abuse

    Time Magazine Article on an APA Study of men age 18-23. Actual Study During the study, men were asked if they had ever been raped, and 1.4% said yes, with 95.5% describing a male aggressor. They were then asked if they had ever had unwanted sexual contact, and 43% reported they had - with 95% reporting a female aggressor.

    17.2% reported sexual touching (aka, sexual assault)

    4.3% reported attempted sex (aka, rape)

    21.5% reported completed sex (aka, rape)

    18% described experiencing sexual coercion by force.

    31% described experiencing sexual coercion by threat.

    26% described experiencing unwanted sexual seduction (aka, harassment).

    Note that they didn't mention these events when asked if they had been raped - only when they were asked if they had ever had sex against their will.

    That study doesn't exist in a vacuum. RAINN and 1-in-6 have neatly compiled a variety of studies, which all show that by age 18:

    A 2005 CDC study found 16% had been sexually abused.

    A 2003 study found 14.2% had been sexually abused.

    A 1996 study found 18% had been sexually abused.

    A 1990 study found that 16% had been sexually abused.

    A 1997 study found that among men and women who had experienced sexual abuse as an adult or child:

    ...16% of men recognized it as abuse.

    ...64% of women recognized it as abuse.

    As if rape isn't bad enough, sexual exploitation and sex trafficking strongly affects boys and men as well... to the tune of a 2008 John Jay College of Criminal Justice study finding that half the sex trafficking victims in NY are male, with many of them exclusively serving female clients... yet, of the 25 shelters to respond to the study, only 4 provide services to male victims. Juvenile Justice article and End Slavery Now fact sheet.

    I have a bunch more links, but these are the oldest, and most strongly peer reviewed. I have several others, primarily focusing on teen and college age males that have been published, but are still too new for me to feel comfortable pushing them out just yet. Generally speaking, any viable data takes years just to properly sort through, plus a year under peer review to be considered valid... hence why the most recent CDC data (just released last month) is for 2013.

    All in all, when we use terms like rape, that tends to come with a lot of social baggage that means men don't report - and often don't even consider themselves victims of the thing... but when we ask them about unwanted sexual acts - rape, just don't call it that - suddenly the numbers equalize between the two genders.

    [–] Swim tricks ARedthorn 9 points ago in funny

    I don't think it's meant to keep your hair dry... but contained, and minimize resistance going through the water.

    [–] How do I say no? ARedthorn 6 points ago in AskMen

    So... there are a couple ways to look at this, as I see it.

    Even if they didn't have the conversation, she says she thought they were exclusive.

    1- Either she didn't think it was exclusive (and what she did was ok, but now she's lying about the relationship status) or she did think it was exclusive (and what she did wasn't ok, and needs a better explanation than she's giving). In either instance, he's justified in thinking something shady is going on, and not being ok with that.

    2- Maybe they weren't officially exclusive, but if they both thought they were exclusive, then one of them behaved differently than exclusive... Saying "but it wasn't official" doesn't cut it.

    If it was exclusive, she's betrayed that trust. If it wasn't exclusive, but that's an option, then it's his choice as much as hers, and this event may affect that choice. If it wasn't exclusive, and she's not interested in making it exclusive, then she didn't do anything wrong, but this isn't what he wants, and he's welcome to walk on that alone.