Another Skepchick War! Dr. Marty Klein crossed the line!

[fretmeister]

Seth, it is clear we are not going to agree so I shall leave it there. I do apologise for the personal insult.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion and I am very grateful that my entirely opposing opinion is supported by statute and precedent.

And as it happens by the Rape Crisis Centre.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php


Just as a final point - in my professional capacity I was once involved in a rape prosecution. The woman was very very drunk and the defence was one of consent (and this was before the new Act so a "Morgan" defence where a genuinely held but wrong assumption of consent was a valid defence). Perhaps she did consent to some old fashioned missionary sex, but I don't think she consented to having a claw hammer inserted. I'm also sure she didn't consent to being defecated on either.

Of course I realise that your jurisdiction is different and I have no idea if you have engaged in sexual activity the likes of which we are discussing. But at least now you know what would happen to people under UK law, and in fact most of EU law.

[laklak]

"Freethinkng" in this context means "free to agree with me or get fucking banned".

On the issue of implied consent:

[Audley Strange]

Rationalia kicks the ass out of "freethought blogs", "Pharyngula" and, of course, "Skepchick" because here even the most extreme views, honestly or dishonestly held by their proponents, are allowed to be aired.

THIS!!!!

Very This.

Which goes to show how little stones most people actually have in the "larger community" when it comes to their thinking, they want an echo chamber with the occassional tame "other" to berate and feel better about themselves , but nothing that is too challenging, because just like every other group of humans because deep down, most people don't ever consider their beliefs as separate to them. People's beliefs are what make up their self identity and so to confront their nonsense an affront to the person's ego.

Yeah they might parrot "attack the idea not the man" but really don't we all know that's actually just humanese for "Alien Chimp! Kill!!!"

[Pappa]

Rationalia kicks the ass out of "freethought blogs", "Pharyngula" and, of course, "Skepchick" because here even the most extreme views, honestly or dishonestly held by their proponents, are allowed to be aired.

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD YOU'RE BANNED!!!!1!

[Robert_S]

I have not really kept up with this whole issue, but am I correct to say that the major fuck-up has been framing this as a Problem at Skeptic Conventions rather than a Problem at Conventions including Skeptic ones.

[Gallstones]

Rationalia kicks the ass out of "freethought blogs", "Pharyngula" and, of course, "Skepchick" because here even the most extreme views, honestly or dishonestly held by their proponents, are allowed to be aired.

THIS!!!!

Very This.

Which goes to show how little stones most people actually have in the "larger community" when it comes to their thinking, they want an echo chamber with the occassional tame "other" to berate and feel better about themselves , but nothing that is too challenging, because just like every other group of humans because deep down, most people don't ever consider their beliefs as separate to them. People's beliefs are what make up their self identity and so to confront their nonsense an affront to the person's ego.

Yeah they might parrot "attack the idea not the man" but really don't we all know that's actually just humanese for "Alien Chimp! Kill!!!"

I have heard this before, someone else used to say this, or try to........Hmmmmmmmmmm, who was that?

[Gallstones]

.

[Jason]

Like the avatar. I made a pipe from .308 and .243 casings.

I don't bite bullets, I smoke em.

[JimC]

Like the avatar. I made a pipe from .308 and .243 casings.

I don't bite bullets, I smoke em.

You could have made a rather larger pipe from what my Dad brought home from WW2 - an empty 25 pounder shell... We used it as a door stop...

(he was a sergeant-major in an Australian artillery regiment in the middle east...)

He also brought home a Luger, but that's another story...

[Coito ergo sum]

Rationalia kicks the ass out of "freethought blogs", "Pharyngula" and, of course, "Skepchick" because here even the most extreme views, honestly or dishonestly held by their proponents, are allowed to be aired.

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD YOU'RE BANNED!!!!1!

[Coito ergo sum]

I have not really kept up with this whole issue, but am I correct to say that the major fuck-up has been framing this as a Problem at Skeptic Conventions rather than a Problem at Conventions including Skeptic ones.

I think the issue is framing this as a "problem" at all, in the sense that people making impertinent suggestions or overtures ought to be treated in the same vein as assaults and other such things.

The thesis has been: Sexual harassment at skeptic and atheist events is a major problem.

How do we know this? Because lots of women have reported such things.

Like what? Well, a guy asked me for coffee in an elevator, a couple of swingers handed out a "let's be friends" card once, and some British guy had too much to drink and stood too close to a Skepchick. Therefore, we know that sexual harassment is rampant at atheist and skeptic events.

[Seth]

Seth, it is clear we are not going to agree so I shall leave it there. I do apologise for the personal insult.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion and I am very grateful that my entirely opposing opinion is supported by statute and precedent.

And as it happens by the Rape Crisis Centre.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/commonmyths2.php


Just as a final point - in my professional capacity I was once involved in a rape prosecution. The woman was very very drunk and the defence was one of consent (and this was before the new Act so a "Morgan" defence where a genuinely held but wrong assumption of consent was a valid defence). Perhaps she did consent to some old fashioned missionary sex, but I don't think she consented to having a claw hammer inserted. I'm also sure she didn't consent to being defecated on either.

Of course I realise that your jurisdiction is different and I have no idea if you have engaged in sexual activity the likes of which we are discussing. But at least now you know what would happen to people under UK law, and in fact most of EU law.

Well, I understand what the law is, and I respect your opinions regarding this subject. Be assured that I'm merely defending an unpopular position in order to stimulate debate. While I do believe in personal responsibility and accountability, I'm also aware of the distinction between a "coyote date" and a rape, and between getting a buzz on and being comatose.

I merely want to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk.

[Robert_S]

I have not really kept up with this whole issue, but am I correct to say that the major fuck-up has been framing this as a Problem at Skeptic Conventions rather than a Problem at Conventions including Skeptic ones.

I think the issue is framing this as a "problem" at all, in the sense that people making impertinent suggestions or overtures ought to be treated in the same vein as assaults and other such things.

The thesis has been: Sexual harassment at skeptic and atheist events is a major problem.

How do we know this? Because lots of women have reported such things.

Like what? Well, a guy asked me for coffee in an elevator, a couple of swingers handed out a "let's be friends" card once, and some British guy had too much to drink and stood too close to a Skepchick. Therefore, we know that sexual harassment is rampant at atheist and skeptic events.

Yes, and that not every non-smooth sexual overture is sexist, and not every sexist incident is harassment.

Maybe there are issues that need addressed, I've never been to a skeptic convention and I've never been a woman there so I can't say either way.

[Hermit]

I merely want to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk.

Merely? I think you did a bit more than to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk. You also said "women wearing short skirts ARE "asking for it." They are flaunting their sexuality deliberately as an exercise of sexual power." That sounds much like something a Muslim would say. I provided an example here.

[Seth]

I merely want to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk.

Merely? I think you did a bit more than to point out that the simple solution for not being raped while drunk is not to get drunk. You also said "women wearing short skirts ARE "asking for it." They are flaunting their sexuality deliberately as an exercise of sexual power." That sounds much like something a Muslim would say. I provided an example here.

But they are exploiting their sexuality, which means they are "asking for it." Why else would women wear short skirts other than to flaunt their sexuality? I'm not saying that it's wrong for them to do so, or that they don't have a right to be sexually attractive to others, I'm merely pointing out that wearing sexy clothing is about advertising one's sexuality...in other words "asking for it."

This is not to say that they are not in full control of whether they accept or reject a potential sex partner's interest, merely that they cannot argue that its somehow wrong for others to view them as potential sex partners while they are advertising their sexuality.

And, if they do not want to be viewed as sex objects, the obvious thing to do is not wear short skirts or flaunt their sexuality.

The point is that you cannot blame men for responding to a woman's sexual advertisement in a sexual manner. It's a perfectly natural evolved behavior that has the purpose of perpetuating the species.

Woymn who object to being viewed sexually when in public probably ought to wear big black bags if it offends them because men are never, ever going to stop viewing attractive women as potential sex partners, nor should they.