He digs swigs, he fancies swoots, he has a passion for those glutes! "Is it Rape?" is the dispute. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
15 ups - 0 downs = 15 votes
71 comments submitted at 01:35:03 on Sep 9, 2014 by rahlgo
He digs swigs, he fancies swoots, he has a passion for those glutes! "Is it Rape?" is the dispute. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
15 ups - 0 downs = 15 votes
71 comments submitted at 01:35:03 on Sep 9, 2014 by rahlgo
This is obvious trolling by /u/Wyboth.
I'm not so sure. Have you checked his/her link?
Well, if that's what you want to believe, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
You're the one claiming that posting an animate GIF is rape, pal.
Alright, let me clear things up. I didn't mean that they had actually raped someone. I meant the entire "swiggity swooty" thing ignores the other person's consent, and that's rapist thinking. It's not asking "Can we have sex?", it's declaring "I am going to have sex with you!" which ignores the others person's consent, or lack of it.
It was an animated GIF with a funny saying on it. No one is getting raped because of it.
You are being ridiculous.
Not directly, but it contributes a small amount to people disregarding consent. In other words, it's a part of rape culture.
I would have to disagree with you on that. Anyone who would read that and disregard content would do so even without reading that GIF.
There are far bigger issues to be tackling than a harmless GIF on the Internet. You have to pick your battles, Wyboth, and this ain't the one to fight.
Just my two cents.
> Anyone who would read that and disregard content would do so even without reading that GIF.
Perhaps Wyboth thinks if he keeps looking at that .gif he'll start disregarding consent. In which I case I wish he wouldn't project his feelings onto the rest of us and that he sees on competent counselor in the near future.
See my reply above.
If you think there's even a small chance you'll start disregarding consent because you see a GIF saying "coming for that booty," (a) please don't speak for rest of us and (b) see your school's guidance counselor ASAP.
Because you seem suspiciously confident that people might start disregarding consent if they see that GIF and you are included in the group "people."
I don't think you're understanding my point. Have you ever heard of something called microaggressions? They're tiny acts of aggression that, when by themselves, are insignificant, but when they build up, become incredibly infuriating. It's the same principle here. Things like this are subconsciously training people to disregard consent. It's just one tiny piece of it, but you have to tackle rape culture one tiny piece at a time, because that's how it shows itself. Does that make sense?
I understand where you're coming from, really, but I don't agree that this is part of it. I do not think this GIF is promoting rape culture, even at a subconscious level.
I do think your heart is in the right place, but if you want to tackle the major issues you need to tackle major issues. The GIF in question is ambiguous anyway; if you want to take a stand against lack of consent then go for images/GIFs that directly deal with the subject. This is not the best use of your time and detracts from what you're trying to accomplish here.
You've gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, okay Wyboth?
>Not directly, but it contributes a small amount to people disregarding consent.
Post evidence or retract.
>In other words, it's a part of rape culture.
>mfw
This paper by Viki, Thomae, Cullen, and Fernandez (2007) argues that "sexist humor provides a local norm that is tolerant to prejudice and discrimination. This in turn leads to men, especially those in acquaintance rape situations, to report higher levels of rape proclivity and victim blame; lower levels of perceived seriousness of the rape and recommend shorter sentence lengths" (123-4).
This paper by Romero-Sanchez et al (2010) affirmed the findings of Viki et al (2007), stating that "exposure to sexist humor (woman disparagement jokes) increases men’s self-reported rape proclivity compared to exposure to neutral humor" (2346). They theorize that "[e]xposure to sexist jokes creates a context in which men feel comfortable expressing negative ideas about women (negative behaviors)."
So, out of curiosity, I decided to follow up on your link to Viki, Thomae, Cullen, and Fernandez (2007). Originally, I was going to follow up more thoroughly on both papers, but investigating crucial aspects of the methodology of this paper ended up taking significantly more time than anticipated.
Almost immediately, I came across the following statement:
> Surprisingly, research has also shown that a number of men report some proclivity towards committing rape (Malamuth, 1981)
I didn't think it was all that surprising given that the number of men in question wasn't specified, and some number of men are rapists (which raises questions about why they phrased things like that, but I digress), but I decided to follow up on the reference to see how they determined this, and what that number was.
According to the citation, Malamuth (1981), Rape Proclivity Among Males, 35% of males indicated any likelihood of raping (that is, in response to the questions asked, they responded with anything other than 1 ("not at all likely") on a scale of 1 to 5 in response to the questions asked.
So, given the importance of the details of the questions which were responded to on that scale, it raises the question: what were the actual questions asked? Well... this paper doesn't specify. From what I see, it cites Malamuth and Check (1980a); Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach (1980); Tieger (1981); Malamuth, Reisin & Spinner (???); and Malamuth & Check (???) as the source for the claim:
"In an attempt to identify individuals who may possess a relative propensity to rape, males were asked in a series of studies to indicate the likelihood that they personally would rape if they could be assured of not being caught and punished".
So, I moved on to this layer of references. Malamuth & Check (1980a in the aforementioned paper), titled, "Penile Tumescence and Perceptual Responses to Rape as a Function of Victim's Perceived Reactions", didn't specify what these questions asked were, but referenced a work, Malamuth et al (1980a).
This paper, "Testing hypotheses regarding rape: exposure to sexual violence, sex differences, and the "normality" of rape" (which is the previously mentioned Malamuth, Haber, and Feshbach paper) discusses such a questionnaire, but doesn't provide a list of questions. It also doesn't cite a source from which it drew those questions. As far as I can tell, it appears to be the origin for this questionnaire, but fails to provide any details thereof. The results make vague allusions regarding what the questions might be referring to, but are useless in any attempt to recreate the methodology of the paper.
It is difficult to take seriously any paper which cites such work, as it is impossible to verify the applicability of the questions used to assay the "proclivity to rape".
Worse, you find things in the results of Malamuth et al which raise questions about the applicability of the questions and what they say about men (specifically, men who were a subset of a sample of UCLA intro to psych students in 1980 or 1981). Particularly, recreating relevant details of Table 2 of that work, you find no statistically significant (p < .05) difference between men and women in each of the following ratings:
ratings of victim: * responsibility
* trauma
* resistance to rapist
* could have avoided victimization
* percentage of women who would enjoy victimization if no one knew
ratings of rapist:
* identification with
This suggests that the questions used - which were, again, never specified, are likely to be flawed. While many of the questions wouldn't necessarily have been expected to produce differing results on their own, the fact that all of these questions produced statistically insignificant gender differences suggests that there are likely significant problems with the wording of the questions used.
Given that this is the second reference in the linked paper, and the first is to provide a citation for the claim, "Sexual violence has been shown to have negative effects on women's psychological and social lives", and the Malamuth work is repeatedly cited in the paper, I find it hard to justify further investigation into the claims of this particular paper, as the authors appear to have grossly failed to do due diligence. It should be considered an embarrassment to Current Research in Social Psychology that this paper was accepted for publication despite such a glaring flaw, and this was literally the first significant claim in the paper.
If I may make a polite suggestion, in the future you may wish to avoid citing this paper.
Can we please stop with the down voting? They just provided a source of their beliefs.
Whether or not those studies are reliable, accurate, or indicative of what they're saying orwhatever the fuck idk, but they don't deserve to be downvoted for this.
Although there is a paywall so that's kind of a dick move, scientific journals suck like that
I resent that I, and others, seem to be seen as so wishy-washy in my conviction that rape is wrong that an abundance of gifs on the internet that indirectly imply rape could in fact cause me to turn into a rapist.
>It's not asking "Can we have sex?", it's declaring "I am going to have sex with you!"
It quite clearly declares that [subject] is comin' for dat booty. Now, we could argue about the legal precedent involved in comin' for dat booty, but I couldn't find much to support your position.
how people like you are real
I wonder if 'Swiggity Swooty, Comin' over to converse with the owner of dat booty to establish whether they would enthusiastically consent to sexual intercourse' would be a more acceptable caption for that gif?
Oh my god it's Wyboth. I'm... Almost beside myself. The boy (philosopher) king himself.
> Really? You, of all people, should know, then, that it's not okay to just say "I'm coming for that booty." There's no asking for consent there, it's just declaring that you are going to have sex with the other person, whether they like it or not, and that is rape. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you're telling the truth.
lol damn i hope they didn't pull something reaching for this
pick your fights, bro/sis
SnapShot
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
"Honey when I get home we are gonna have sex" - me.
"Woo hoo!" - honey
Rapist thoughts as per Mr KnowsNotOfWhatHeSpeaks.
/u/Wyboth here. Ask me anything serious.
Edit: If your question turns into a debate, we will both have to follow these rules. This is to ensure that I don't debate someone ridiculous.
Edit 2: I'm going to sleep. I'll get back to the reasonable ones of you in the morning.
You... oh my gosh, you really do have your own rules.
Do you get into debates that frequently to where that's really necessary?
Imagine being a teenager with a smattering of reading on a few subjects. Now imagine coming to really solidified positions on issues. Then imagine being challenged on them.
You can react by either (a) saying "wow, there is some legitimate disagreement", or (b) developing your own rules for debate to insulate your positions against being challenged.
It turns out that it's easy to "win" every debate when you can create a false dichotomy of either "they were persuaded" or "they didn't listen/check their privilege/meet their burden of proof."
I suggest you check your privilege before asking a question like that.
Excuse me, you are not following the rules.
Please move to the back of the line.
Pretty much. Whenever I express a feminist opinion, there's always someone there to challenge it. A lot of the time they're completely ridiculous or they don't give up trying to prove themselves right, even when they're losing, so I made those to try to avoid debating those types of people. That lead to another drama blowup the first time I linked them, but now they're working very nicely.
Well... I'm just going to be honest that it comes off as rather off-putting to link your own rules for a debate.
I'm not saying they're not fine rules and that they're not well thought out; far from it! But starting off with that statement doesn't really help your case.
But hey, that's just how I see it. Just figured I'd let ya know.
I understand; I've been told that before. It's a simple case of the benefits outweighing the costs, because I've avoided wasting time with a lot of people by using them, and I always regret not linking them. There's a chance that I may turn away a reasonable person by looking self-important when I link to the rules, but there's also a chance that person will understand the usual quality of reddit debates, and understand the need for them.
Also, thanks for actually reading them, and not just scoffing at me for writing them in the first place and calling me an ableist slur, as others have done.
I wonder if the other feminists of reddit realize how badly you're damaging their cause. Your posts only accomplish one thing. To make a mockery of feminism by constructing absurd arguments and just generally coming off as a nutter. Not looking for a debate, just figured I would point it out for you.
Oh, and fuck your rules... And yourself
Fuck your rules.
Have you ever given thought to the fact that constantly throwing around the words 'rape' or 'rapist' actually takes away from their meaning? Misogyny is a great example of this. It gets used so often and with so little regard to its meaning that it's almost completely lost its meaning in many people's minds.
Fuck your rules.
Exactly. When everything is rape, nothing is.
See, this is such a simple, much more concise way of putting it. I've never actually had this conversation before, but I'll remember that.
>Fuck your rules.
Whatever. If this turns into a debate, I still expect you to follow them (unless you meant you're not going to follow them, in which case, don't bother replying).
>Have you ever given thought to the fact that constantly throwing around the words 'rape' or 'rapist' actually takes away from their meaning?
Absolutely. A lot of people throw it around as a synonym for wrecked or destroyed (think DOTA), and I'm opposed to that for the same reason you seem to be. "Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?" Not in my mind, and let me explain why. I called them a rapist because they were promoting part of rape culture (I didn't mean that they had actually raped somebody). If it's actually relevant, and not just being used for edginess, then I don't think it's being misused.
Again, if you're not going to follow the rules, don't reply. If you reply again and say nothing about the rules, I'll assume you're agreeing to follow them, and you meant you just don't like them.
I honestly don't understand, even with your little explanation, how you can justify calling someone a rapist because of a perceived promotion of rape culture. How you can in good conscience call someone a rapist for posting a gif is absolutely despicable. You are not in any way better than someone joking about rape or rape culture. Not by a long shot. You are a terrible person and do more to harm your cause than to advance it.
What I should have said is fuck you and your rules, you fucking looney.
I want to reply, but you're not going to follow the rules, so I won't.
Thing is, I'm not debating you. Your rules don't apply. But fuck them anyway.
You're not replying because you don't have shit to say.
This exact argument, "You're leaving because you're out of replies", is one of the reasons I wrote Rule 7. I'm leaving because I clearly stated that I wouldn't debate who doesn't agree to the rules, and you said just that.
I've already said that we're not debating, so your rules don't apply. Not every exchange of words or ideas is a debate. You wrote that rule for this exact purpose, because you need an out for when you're backed into a corner. The very fact that you try to impose rules of your own is not only absurd, it's narcissistic. It's obvious that you can't stand to be proved wrong and those rules allow you to avoid taking that ego hit. You're going to find out soon that you can't just make up your own rules in life and expect people to follow them. Until then, feel free to prance around in your little dream world as if you actually fucking matter.
hahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Surely you jest. Surely there cannot be a real person whose first "rule" is "be willing to change your mind," all the while be closed minded themselves and shouting the same nonsensical thing over and over again (in this case a person promoting "rape" with a gif of a bird). I just... This cannot be real. Sometimes I have to just stop and ask, "Perhaps I'm just a sentient character in a Christopher Buckley novel."
Rape culture, not rape. The gif promotes not asking for consent, and instead "going for the booty", which, if you don't have consent, is rape. That gif alone won't make someone rape someone else, but it's one of thousands of influences (called rape culture) that do cause otherwise good people to rape other people.
Nothing causes good people to rape other people. Because good people don't rape other people. Bad people rape other people. And they rape them because they are bad, not because they saw a few pictures on the internet that maybe had something to do with rape.
When you think of rape, are you thinking of jumping out of the bushes rape? Because that isn't the most common type of rape. About 2/3 of rape victims knew their abuser, so stranger rape isn't as common as people think. It's also important to note that sexual assault is defined as any sexual act performed without the consent of the other party. As this video explains, some people will take the lack of a no as a yes, when that still isn't consent, and that makes them a rapist (or sexual assaulter). These people wouldn't be evil, just un/misinformed, but their actions would still carry the same consequences.
Why do you assume there is no consent? We do not know whose booty the subject is going after. It could be his girlfriend that just said, "Come over and have sex." Furthermore, the context of the gif in this instance is merely a humorous reference to a cartoon. Your outrage lays on unfounded assumptions you yourself have projected.
Let's also examine the language: "I am coming for that booty." Here the main verb is coming. That is the action. There is no further verb that states what action will be carried out upon arrival to the booty. Furthermore, There is no possession of the booty implied by the action preformed by the subject. It in fact implies less action (and less consent) than a girl saying, "I want to rip his clothes off." Or do you think that also promotes "rape culture?"
lmfao, this may be my favorite comment of all time
> We do not know whose booty the subject is going after
classic
People don't always have to actually ask for consent. People in relationships form their own language and understanding. Even strangers can figure out consent without saying the words sometimes. If someone says what's in the gif, they're likely in a position where the person they're saying it to thinks it's cute and is part of their dynamic. Rapists don't have catch phrases.
I'm always curious about this when you post your rules. Your first rule is about considering the other person's viewpoint, but focuses entirely on someone else considering your viewpoint and conceding after they have been debunked.
How would you seek to prove someone has failed to consider your viewpoint, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it?
How do you ensure objectivity in determining whether a viewpoint has been "roundly debunked"?
How would one go about challenging whether you are following the rules?
Also, on the burden of proof, have you actually spent the time to create a factual basis for your rules themselves? I don't mean to go all Hume on you, but rule #5 demands one "check their privilege", which assume without evidence (a) that privilege exists, (b) that privilege influences people's views, and (c) that privilege makes a "privileged" person's viewpoint on an issue somehow less valid if left "unchecked."
> I'm always curious about this when you post your rules.
Wait, this isn't a one-off gag? This is actually something they do repeatedly? Oh, dear.
Yep. His rules (and everyone else's rejection of them) come up every so often, he gets around when it comes to starting fights and then hiding behind his whole "I'll only continue discussing this if you agree that I win no matter what" shtick.
Their rules are nothing but an out for when a "debate" isn't going their way.
You seem reasonable, so I'll answer your questions.
>How would you seek to prove someone has failed to consider your viewpoint, as opposed to simply disagreeing with it?
This depends a lot on the situation. I think it'd be better to give you some examples of when someone fails to consider someone else's viewpoint, rather than attempt a comprehensive definition:
Person A: 9/11 was an inside job!
Person B: Here's an article that explains how the towers fell.
Person A: I'm not reading that! That was probably written by an Illuminati shill!
Here, A commits the genetic fallacy, so they're also in violation of rule 6. The author of the article isn't important, it's the content of the article and the evidence it shows that's important. By refusing to look at that, you're refusing to consider the argument.
Another example:
Person A: NSA spying violates my freedoms!
Person B: But you do understand that it helps make you safer, right?
Person A: It goes against what America stands for, and I won't allow it!
If they had said "Yes, but I consider my freedoms to be more important," then it'd be different, but in this case, it's almost as if B never spoke.
Usually, it's pretty obvious when they don't consider your viewpoint. I hope those examples helped.
>How do you ensure objectivity in determining whether a viewpoint has been "roundly debunked"?
Really, there isn't a way to be completely objective, but I try to be as close to that as possible. I consider something to be roundly debunked when every point made has been shown to be false with good evidence. For example:
Person A: The gender wage gap is just bad statistics! It wouldn't exist if they factored in what jobs people chose!
Person B: Here's a report that uses Bureau of Labor Statistics data that splits apart mens' and womens' salaries by occupation, and it still shows that women are paid less.
That'd be a case where they were roundly debunked, so if they continue to make the exact same claim, they'd be violating Rule 1.
>How would one go about challenging whether you are following the rules?
All they have to do is say what part of what I said violates what rule. I'll take their challenge seriously, and evaluate it. However, if I think I didn't violate my rules, that doesn't automatically mean I'm not holding myself to the same standards they are. It's possible their call-out was flawed (and I'll explain why I think so), or that they're just simply trolling, and in that case, they know they're being unreasonable. For example, if someone said "You think this support group should only be for women? That's discrimination! Rule 4! Rule 4!" it's hopefully obvious that their callout is disingenuous.
Regarding your last paragraph, somewhat. I do have some resources that make a compelling argument for the existence of privilege, etc. Whether those actually prove it are up for debate, as is if it can actually be proven to exist in the first place. Aside from Rule 5, I haven't had people challenge the factual basis of the rules themselves, so I haven't bothered too much.
Anyways, I hope that answers your questions well enough.
So, just to clarify, you are both a participant in the debate and the final arbiter of any potential or allege rulebreaking?
Huh.
That sounds an awful lot like a conflict of interests, ya know?
Is it possible for any human to be objective and not abuse that power?
Is it possible for you to not evade even the simplest of questions? For you to actually say something with all these words you've been typing?
Yes, that is correct. I do my absolute best to be objective. People will pre-judge and say I'll be unfair, but they're talking out of their ass, because they haven't even bothered to see if I actually am unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/ExIqChP.gif
You've literally raped someone!!!!
Wow, just wow. This is a whole new level of Reddit I have fallen into. And I've found many many many deep disturbing places here.
This is off topic so I understand if you don't want to answer, but I had a wee duke at your user page and saw that you moderate a sub called adultism. Assuming that institutional discrimination against young people is real, what would you change to address the issues that you perceive to exist?
Good question; I'll answer it. A big problem is stereotyping, specifically of ignorance, apathy, and irresponsibility. I'd change the way youth are represented in movies, TV shows, etc. and also the way they are thought of by non-youth (if that's allowed in this hypothetical scenario). Another problem is treatment under the law. I'm really tired right now, so I don't want to really go into detail here, but I'd want to move back some of the ages at which youth earn rights. I'm probably missing some things, but that's where I'd start.
> I'm really tired right now, so I don't want to really go into detail here,
Yeah, we all know you have school tomorrow.
College.
Doesn't make you any less of a little shit.
Hi Wyboth.
Why do you think only 16% of men and 23% of women in the West identify as feminist? Do you think it's because of misinformation, because people have genuine disagreement with many feminist ideas, or because far too many feminists carelessly throw around words like misogyny, privilege, and rape which is annoying?
Is pokemon rape if the ones you catch aren't consenting to going into your balls?