Help me out here

soulcakeduck · 2013-12-06T20:25:43+00:00

Early on I tried to do a larger submission to condense the big-picture repeating problems I see with TRP and rape.

A few perceptions I've had since then:

in a bit of irony, I am frequently accused of a "rape crusade" by the very red pillians who (by insisting on this characterization, and insisting that I answer to it) are actually the ones responsible for re-opening the topic, time and again. I can think of at least three users and four large discussions that fit this description.
people on all sides express that the topic is tiring... and this discussion also slightly extends the life of the topic.
red pillians often feel strongly that evidence of these problems is out of context (they're free to argue that), and often feel this is intentional (it's not; and they should be held to high standards of evidence for that), so they frequently express that they feel the subreddit has been unfair to them by hosting that discussion.

I cant imagine people disagree that rape is bad

Yes. Rape is a value-word. By definition everyone agrees it is bad.

People disagree about what constitutes rape though. The question isn't "is rape bad" but "are, X, Y, Z cases of rape?" EG, Someone from just a few decades earlier might argue that sex within a marriage that one partner does not "consent" to is nevertheless not rape; they might say the "nonconsenting" person actually did consent (by getting married). All sides agree rape is bad, but is spousal rape an oxymoron?

That's not meant to be an exact description of a TRP belief (though the problem of "perpetual consent contracts" does come up).

Whisper · 2013-12-09T22:00:25+00:00

Because TRP regulars are sick and tired of being accused of being rapists. And asking "do you think rape is bad" to these people every 27 seconds is doing that by implication.

Most black people agree that dealing drugs and murdering people is bad, but if you keep asking them whether they think that, then they are quickly going to (rightly) discern that you have an ulterior implication (that dealing drugs and murdering people has something to do with being black), and react to that.

It's what the opposite side of the political spectrum would call a "microaggression". We just call it "rudeness".

simplepill · 2013-12-06T21:20:37+00:00

My understanding is this:

RPS discussed the history of rape specifically in the case of marriage as being a crime against chastity, not a crime of consent, which meant that marital rape wasn't defined.

He then goes on to say, but culturally most westernized cultures changed rape to be an issue of bodily autonomy. Which caused an issue since marital rape wasn't defined.

So in the 1970s basically all states in the USA gave definition to marriage not to include perpetual consent for marriage.

He then posited an intesting thought experiement- could you have rape if you made an agreement with somebody for perpetual consent?

While some people argued you could still "rape" them, he asked, how could this be if we define rape as sex without consent and allowed for a perpetual consent contract?

Of course he asked this in the context of a thought experiement, because obviously no such contract does or can exist under current law. But he did add that he didn't see anything morally wrong with two or more people knowingly entering into such a contract if they so pleased because he was a strong supporter of personal freedom and the right of contracts. He also added that he personally wouldn't enter into such a contract himself because it sounded stupid.

I think the question broached on the idea of whether somebody should have the right to remove their own autonomy for a period of time via contract, since this in itself would be an exercise in their own autonomy. He likened it to the army, where currently by contract people are legally allowed to surrender autonomy for a period of time with the chance and understanding of potential injury or death.

I think the difficulty was in reconciling the idea of somebody saying "I consent to sex tomorrow with you, no matter what I say" and then claiming rape tomorrow.. wouldn't be rape because they had consented to it, even if they didn't want it immediately. It's a crazy scenario that simply wouldn't really happen naturally unless you wanted to try out a thought experiment in the legality of contract law.. in some sort of anarchist dimension that currently doesn't exist right now.

From what I've seen, blue pillers have taken this as a wholesale endorsement of rape by rps or see it as evidence that rps has a skewed moral compass because he would rape if it were legal, and the only reason he doesn't is because it isn't.

He has stated on more than one occasion that he things having sex with somebody against their immediate will is morally wrong, and bad for the romance business in general, so I don't think he really condones the act in spite of its legality. I think it's worth noting that taking your money might be considered morally wrong, but if we have a contract it could be considered morally right, so I get what he's saying.

Now the only other isssues are:

zion just denies marital rape, which i think is why he stepped down or was kicked out or whatever
Sexual Utopia in Power linked on the sidebar appears to say that date rape doesn't exist, but following the context of the entire chapter, you see the author is talking about regret-sex from an awkward sexual encounter and doesn't really address drugged/alcohol related rape. Nor does it really say anything about just plain old rape, other than talk about the old definition. I don't think anybody reads it walking away saying we need to go back to that definition, I think he was illustrating a point.

angatar_ · 2013-12-06T19:57:30+00:00

If you go back in the subs history you'll find several threads on it. That should provide enough context for you to understand what's going on.

regtopolous · 2013-12-06T20:03:29+00:00

There's are a lot of different definitions of what is rape and what is not, and there's no consensus.

In arguing what counts or what doesn't, people get attacked ad hominem.

Title	Help me out here
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	5
Comments	48
Date	December 6, 2013 7:55 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1s9j84/help_me_out_here/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/help-me-out-here.286525 https://theredarchive.com/post/286525

Comments