Slashragequit

I recently wrote a post on this issue. Propaganda, biased statistics and definitions, and bigoted ideas that women can't rape men (because erection = consent) result in the rape of men being seen as a non-issue. http://pandarchist.tumblr.com/post/94052575328/women-cant-rape-men-at-least-not-with-their-vaginas

America still faces serious problems with the rape and sexual abuse of women and children. Unknown to most people, however, is the extent to which rape and sexual abuse is a serious problem for men too. In 2010 the CDC found that the number men raped by women that year was the same as the number of women raped by men. Historically, women raping men by envelopment has been considered impossible, or highly unlikely. However, the CDC’s 2010 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealed this to be a serious problem by studying forced to penetrate separately from forced to be penetrated. The idea that women can’t rape men, or that this doesn’t happen often enough for it to be considered a serious problem, is still extremely pervasive. It is thus extremely important that when defining rape for scientific or legal purposes that the definitions are clear and unambiguous. Definitions of rape should make it manifest that forcing a man to penetrate does happen (quite often as the CDC found) and is a form of rape. The problem with the Department of Justice definition of rape Q: In 2012, the Department of Justice announced a change to the definition of Rape for the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s (UCR) Summary Reporting System (Summary). How does the new definition differ from the old one? A: The old definition was “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Q: When will the new definition of Rape become effective? A: The new definition of Rape went into effect on January 1, 2013. Frequently Asked Questions about the Change in the UCR Definition of Rape (May 20, 2013). To start with this means all statistics on male rape victims using the Department of Justice’s definition of rape before 2013 are suspect and should be disregarded, or at least used with extreme caution. According to Alison Tieman in her video "Mens’ Rights vs Feminist Rape Culture explained using Puzzle Pieces", ”when women and men are asked if they were raped, the number of male victims is low. But, when women and men are asked if they were physically forced to have sex, the number of male victims skyrockets.” Sources for these findings can be found in the description to her video. The new definition effective from January 1, 2013 is flawed for three main reasons: (1) The first problem with the Department of Justice’s definition is tautological. The phrase “without the consent of the victim” is a tautology. A victim is a person who is harmed. In the case of rape, a victim is harmed due to lack of consent. To say, “without the consent of the victim” is the same as saying “without the consent of the person who was harmed by a lack of consent.” This is a minor point, but I included it to point out that merely mentioning a victim in the definition does not make clear who the victim is. (2) The second problem is that the definition contains two distinct clauses: one that clearly stipulates the perpetrator, and one that does not: The first clause defines rape as “penetration without consent,” and the second clause defines rape as “oral penetration by another person without consent.” The first clause does not expressly stipulate who the perpetrator is, where as the second clause does – it is the person doing the penetrating. Placing these two clauses together and only making clear in one of these clauses, the latter, who the perpetrator is, is highly problematic. This is particularly concerning considering the idea of rape involving a male victim being “made to penetrate” is often not even thought possible, i.e. “if he’s erect he must want it.” This will be argued further in point number (3). To reiterate, the definition of rape as “oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” makes it clear who the perpetrator is by using the word “by” and not “with”. Rape is committed by the person with the sex organ (the perpetrator), and against the person being penetrated (the victim). If rape was intended to also include being made to orally penetrate, this definition would read “oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” I believe this is intentional, as I don’t think a woman forcibly performing oral sex on a man was intended to be included under the definition of rape, as I imagine the FBI would refer to this sort of crime as a different form of sexual assault. However, if the FBI did intend to include a woman forcibly performing oral sex on a man under the definition of rape, then they need to reword their definition to read: (3) The third problem is in combining two distinct definitions of rape into one sentence. The two definitions are as follows: Rape - penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. As argued above, the first clause of the Department of Justice’s definition of rape does not make clear who the perpetrator is, the second clause does. Combining these two definitions makes it read as though the perpetrator is always the penetrator in both cases, and I’ll explain why. 1. Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, without the consent of the victim. 2. Oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Rape The fact that the first definition does not specify the perpetrator, it can thus be interpreted either way—as the penetrator or the person being penetrated. However, this does not take into account the cultural bias of people reading this definition, which assumes men cannot be forced to have sex with a woman. The second definition expressly states that the penetrator is always the perpetrator, meaning only men can commit this form of rape, as they are the only people with penetrative sex organs (thus reinforcing the cultural perception that women can’t rape men). Combining these two definitions into one sentence makes it read as though men are always the rapist. The perpetrator in the entire sentence is interpreted as the penetrator, and therefore “made to penetrate” cannot be considered rape. To avoid the problems argued in points (2) and (3) the Department of Justice’s definition of rape should read: Why does all this matter? Rape - penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by, or with, a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim being penetrated or made to penetrate. What harm do these semantic issues cause? The answer is plenty, as evidenced by the CDC’s The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey revealing rape of men (or as they define it “made to penetrate”) by women being a serious problem. Previous studies with conventional definitions of rape failed to discover this problem. I image the CDC realized how problematic historical definitions of rape were (including those of the Department of Justice), and how use of these definitions could substantially bias their results. Either that or they were intentionally excluding made to penetrate as an act of rape (Edit: it would seem the CDC were intentionally arguing that being made to penetrate does not constitute rape). Either way, the fact is that “made-to-penetrate” is still rape by the common understanding of the term: As well as medical definitions: rape [reyp] noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. rape. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape (accessed: August 08, 2014). Regardless of intention, making “made to penetrate” separate from “rape” in the CDC study resulted in crime statistics that were much less biased by the widely held belief that women cannot rape men by forcing men to penetrate, because men are automatically consenting by virtue of their erection. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey’s new definitions unveiled the number of rapes of men by women as being much higher than previously thought: rape (rāp) n. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. v. raped , rap·ing , rapes To commit rape on. "rape." The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 08 Aug. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape>. View enlarged image. View: The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 EDIT (addendum): The CDC did good, despite ill intentions. The CDC’s press release failed to mention the newly discovered problem of made to penetrate. Additionally, the report itself selectively highlighted the high number of female rape victims, while failing to make a fair comparison. The box below reads like the rape of men is almost a non-issue, especially when compared to the rape of women. Note that the 1 in 71 statistic does not count made to penetrate as rape, therefore highlighting this comparison downplays the degree to which men experience genuine rape - not rape as defined by some bureaucrat with a radical feminist agenda. Also note that this study obviously didn’t include prisoners because, you know, prisoners aren’t people. Had they included prisoners they would have found the number of male rape victims would have been greater than female, even using the CDC’s erroneous definition. One more important detail is the difference between the 12 month and lifetime estimates of men being made to penetrate. The pervasive idea that men cannot be made to penetrate (because their erection proves they consented) might cause men to downplay, and eventually reject, that they were genuinely victimized. As time passes, their memory fades, and the people they talk to will often minimize, make fun of, or dismiss their experience. The more time passes the more men become convinced that what happened to them was not a crime. This is not just a problem unique to the United States either. Here is a post on an even worse definition of rape in the UK.

Great points everyone, cheers. You're right it was just a statement. I'll try to devise an argument, but thanks to these replies realize I will have to be very clear with the language I use - or give clear definitions of the important terms, such as "give" and "obligations" etc. Feedback was very much appreciated.

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft." What do people think of this argument?

My interpretation of the NAP is that it is only permissible to use the level of force necessary to prevent a violation of property. Therefore shooting someone for trespassing would be highly immoral, and itself an initiation of force, if simply asking them to leave would suffice.If someone flicks me do I have the right to shoot them? No. I have the right to prevent them from flicking me again. In which case would simply be to verbally object and walk away. Flicking them back might seen fair, but it isn't preventing the use of force, in fact it is more likely to do the opposite and result in escalation. If they go to flick me do I have a right to grab their hand. Sure. But this is not mandated by the NAP, it is simply permissible.The NAP is not 'an eye for an eye.' It is 'if you try to take my eye, I have a right to stop you.' You have the right to defend yourself with any force necessary. The key word being necessary. If the force is unnecessary then it is impermissible.When it comes to claiming reparations for damages done I would argue that it isn't necessary to use force. If reparations can be enforced through things like economic sanctions and social ostracism then I would argue the use of force is not permissible. The use of force in response to violations of property is only permitted in so far as it is necessary.If someone breaks into my home it is permissible for me to shoot them. Not because they are trespassing, but because I do not know their intentions. It is reasonable for me to assume that the person is either there specifically to harm me, or will likely harm me if they discover I am home. If I catch someone making off with my property, I have the right to do what is necessary to prevent the theft, and if I had a gun this would likely be to tell them to freeze and put down what they stole. If they then run however, I don't think it's okay to shoot them in the back. I really wish Australian could own non-lethal weapons like tazers and pepperspray.

What if I push a person out of the way of oncoming traffic. Is that unequivocally violent? In order to establish whether something is violent or not you must determine the intention. The same goes for attack and defence. Perhaps you are caught up on the word aggression? The NAP doesn't say that you HAVE to defend yourself, only that defence is permissible if you are being attacked. It doesn't condone aggression, it prohibits aggression. Violence - behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.Self defence - the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.The act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.Tell me how these two things are the same? Violence is the use of force to cause harm. Defence is the use of force to prevent harm. Unless you define violence as the use of force. In which case I commit a violent act every time I move a piece of furniture. And a father commits a violent act against his child every time he pushes her on the swing. By what objective standard do you gauge the morality of any given situation. If the ethical system I ascribe to is flawed as you have stated (although I am yet to hear a cogent argument from you supporting this) I would like to hear a better alternative. I assume you have one. What is it?Violence is not permissible.Therefore, if someone initiates violence against you it is not permissible to use violence in return.I call this the LDATI (Lay Down And Take It) principle. It realise on conflating violence with defence.Or we could go with the NV principle:No violence.'But what if people choose to ignore this principle?'What did I just say?The NAP is merely NV with consequences.I await your ill-throughout three word rely.

How can someone seriously not distinguish between aggression and defence. For someone like that the sentence "I didn't aggress against you, I defended myself against you" would be a tautology. The NAP states you can attack someone to defend yourself. What would that even mean, attack and defence are polar opposites.

What do you mean by "your" life and property. What does it mean for something to be yours? What rights do you have when it comes to what is yours?Dwain. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to murder? Is wrong to rape, kidnap, or enslave. If you don't agree with the NAP that's fine. But, what do you believe? Is there such thing as right and wrong. If so, how do you determine this?

I own you.I own Dwain Dibley and I am free to do with him as a please. If you deny the principle of self ownership what argument can you make against me claiming ownership over you. Unless you deny the very principle of ownership. If that is the case, what argument can you make against me taking all your stuff. After all if you do not own anything how can it be "your" stuff. I guess I am free to come to the house in which you live and take all the stuff inside.And you cannot appeal to consequentialism. For instance, that I will be arrested because what I did was a crime. Without the principle of ownership there is no such thing as the crime of theft. You cannot steal something that is unowned.

Okay little boy. Ethics is a means of navigating the world and getting what we want. It is a negotiation between people. We argue for ethical principles that we think will benefit people in their pursuit of happiness. We talk to one another and discover that part of what we want in life is to not be violently assaulted or stolen from. We realize that if we use violence against others then we have no justification to argue that people should not use violence against us. We look for universals because universals are fair. If violence is permissible for some, it is permissible for all. Those who would use violence against others tend not to want violence used against themselves. If you agree to not use violence against me, then I have a reason to not use violence against you. If you insist on using violence against me and others then we have no reason not to respond in kind. Ethics will not appeal to everyone. Some people enjoy violence and/or are willing to risk using violence to get what they want, and part of what they want clearly does not include the well-being of others. Fortunately, we are a largely social and cooperative species and most of us do value the well-being of others. Most of us are therefore open to ethical arguments and adherence to ethical principles. The NAP: We will not use violence against you if you agree to not use violence against us. If you use violence against us we will respond in kind. Dwain Dibley: The NAP doesn't exist! Me: Then why the hell are we having a peaceful argument of words. Let's fist fight. The principle exists, doesn't mean adherence to it is mandatory. You want to use force to get what you want, that's fine. Just please give me an argument as to why I shouldn't use force against you. Again I am asking you for arguments. I'm still waiting on an argument as to why slavery is wrong and why people should have rights at all. Do you believe slavery is wrong? If so, why?

This is semantics, not argumentation. Just stating that the NAP is an imposition and that abolitionism or suffrage were not does not an argument make. Abolitionists imposed the dictum that owning people is unethical onto those who wanted to own slaves.The abolition of slavery was not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it was a fight against those that were preventing black people from living a life according to their conscience, a life that they desired. A fight for inclusion is a fight against those that seek to exclude, however the fact that part of their desire was to be included into a political process and for equal standing is irrelevant. You do not have to be a part of a political process to not be a slave. Abolitionist and civil rights activists fought against state sanctioned violence against blacks. Libertarians fight against state sanctioned violence against people - the state.The NAP is not the imposition of a set of dictums upon society, it is a fight against those that prevent peaceful, non-violent citizens from living a life according to their conscience, a life that they desire. Fuck the political process, I want no part of it.What you are saying is that blacks and women fought for inclusion into the society, the political process and for equal standing, but had no ethical basis for doing so. I guess philosophical arguments are simply irrelevant and what we are doing is not making moral progress as a society but simply fighting for arbitrary preferences.Okay cool, that's fine. Screw the NAP then. Libertarians are simply fighting to be left alone. They would prefer not to have to bend to the arbitrary whims of amoral relativists like yourself. Americans said fuck off Brits, leave me alone, stop forcing me to do things I don't want to do and preventing me from doing what I desire. Blacks said the same to whites and women said the same to men. I'm glad to continue on in this tradition of telling stupid assholes to fuck off and stop forcing us to live under the oppressive rule of their retarded opinions. Is it wrong to own slaves? If so why? Use logic please. Yep, because I admit ethical principles do not have to be followed and can be nuanced I have thus demonstrated that ethics has no basis for belief.I guess I don't believe women should have the vote anymore because what differentiates women from girls is nuanced and open to interpretation.I guess I don't believe drink driving should be illegal anymore, because what differentiates drunk from sober is nuanced and open to interpretation.Damn, I thought I lived in a world of black and white, turns out it is actually composed of many subtle shades of grey. I guess I'll have to become a nihilist now.

All-or-Nothing Attitude Toward Risk Most people have a pretty good idea of what the use of force and the violation of property rights constitutes in the private sphere. We could start by going with a common interpretation and then iron out the inconsistencies. For example, is wrong to take peoples property with the threat of violence, and even worse to follow through with that violence if the person does not comply? If so then taxation is wrong. If this is permissible, then armed robbery and extortion are permissible.Prohibits Small Harms for Large Benefits Prevent the destruction of the whole world by lightly scratching my finger? You could always ask. I'm sure I would be okay with that. Or if you weren't able to ask beforehand you could always explain it to me afterwards, and I'm sure anyone would be okay with that. Even if they weren't okay, what would be the reparations for a light scratch on the finger. It's like those prisoner dilemmas in game theory where the participants are unable to communicate with one another. Just allow for some fucking conversation in your hypotheticals and maybe you would reach a more ethical outcome. I suppose he must be talking about scenarios where consent is not given or communication is impossible. Scenario 1:"Hey can I scratch your finger to save the world?""Nup." "Well fuck, I guess we're doomed then."Scenario 2:"Shit the world is about to end if I don't scratch this guy's finger!" "Then scratch it already!""I need his consent.""Then ask him.""I can't, he is blind, deaf and retarded. Fuck you NAP you've failed me once again!" The NAP sure does fall apart at the far edges of stupidity, we should all probably abandon it and go back to keeping slaves and beating women.These greater good sorts of argumentation remind me of this shitty movie Clash of the Titans. Hades gave this city an ultimatum - either sacrifice the king's virgin daughter or he would destroy the whole city. Before I had even studied libertarian philosophy I concluded that those calling for her sacrifice were spineless assholes. Any person that would force a person to sacrifice themselves isn't worth saving anyhow. The choice was up to her whether she was willing to sacrifice herself to save others. Of course in this example you could think of the state as Hades, and we are all caught up arguing about the virgin daughter and the townspeople all the while ignoring who the real evil is.As for the billionaires funding vaccinations, this is ridiculous because it assumes this is the only possible solution to the problem. How about talking to people and making the case for the need to donate to this cause? How's about asking billionaires to help fund this endeavor rather than forcing them at gunpoint to give over a small fraction of their income. It also assumes the rich of today, whose wealth is largely stolen from others through the state, will be the same sorts of people as the rich in a society where the NAP is consistently and universally applied. Either the billionaires pay this tax or the kids die. How fucking imaginative. Force or it won't happen. The implication is that people are so shitty that they won't help others out who are in dire need. Oh, except those people who are willing to use force to help others, they are the only ones who are willing to help. People are not willing to help others. People are willing to help others using force.Therefore, force is the only way to help others.But wait, doesn't the first premise contradict the second?If people are too selfish and greedy to help others willingly and therefore must be forced to do so, then how is it that there are some people willing to use force in order to help others? Yes, it is wrong to steal to help others, but if you truly believe it is the only way of helping, then have some conviction in your beliefs and do it yourself. But first, at least make a decent case and try asking permission. If you truly believe that the only way to save these children is to tax billionaires, then ask them first and if they don't oblige pull out your gun and rob them. If you truly believe the ends justifies the means then at least have the decency to be the one who pulls the trigger. People will voluntarily fund things that they believe in. Not everyone, and not in equal amounts. Some billionaires might be willing to give a lot more than a small tax would demand of them, if you would just ask. And maybe if politicians were willing to enforce the NAP when it came to the rich and powerful we wouldn't have so much of our wealth concentrated in the hands of a few sociopaths. Maybe it wouldn't be mostly greedy assholes who were rich if we stopped letting assholes bribe the state to gain unfair advantage over everyone else. Of course how could we possibly expect that to happen when we can count so many politicians among those sociopaths. If only we could stop believing that those who insist on using force against others are not the same people as those who care about others and actually want to do some good is this world. Prohibits All Pollution I wouldn't consider pollution as a use of force, unless the pollution was intentionally dumped onto another person's property and caused demonstrable harm. If pollution from a single private source could be demonstrated to be causing others harm then I would also consider this worthy of dispute and possible reparations. It comes down to demonstrating direct cause and effect from a source of harm, and investigating whether the harm was due to malicious intent, negligence or an unavoidable happenstance. This article acts like discussions of the NAP can not possibly have any nuance and that the NAP is the only ethical principle libertarians believe in.

Ethics will not work, it's irrational (it's underlined, so it must true) to assume everyone in the world will interpret and hold to ethical principles as you want to believe they should. This line of reasoning leads to moral relativism. Nice to meet you Mr. relativist. Anti-slavery will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to anti-slavery as you want to believe they should. Women's suffrage will not work, it's irrational to assume that everyone in the world will interpret and hold to the equal rights of women as you want to believe they should. I mean what are human rights anyways? What inalienable rights should people have? Are these rights up for interpretation? Why should people have rights at all? Ethics is not physics. I am bound by the laws of gravity whether I believe in them or not. Ethics is open to interpretation and nuance and unlike physics our belief in ethical laws actually alters reality. All we can hope for is that reasoned argument will convince people of the validity of a moral principle and change behavior accordingly.