What % of women landing & propositioning other women are actually SGTWOH?

Yes, but I'm less angry at the world now that I have my CEng and huge fat salary.

Any one who tries to tell you money can't buy happiness obviously doesn't have enough money.

Or just doesn't know how to shop.

Scylla, there's much in what you say that I agree with, but where semiotic argument itself is fraught with difficulty is in the fact that there is not one, clearly defined set of meanings. Not only are there cultural differences, there is the issue of interpretation - you would know from your study that the receiver's interpretation may differ wildly from the meaning intended by the sender, despite the existence of a supposedly established language system, in exactly the same way that the author cannot determine how the reader will receive his/her book. There is no dictionary that defines the meaning of each and every nuanced expression or gesture.

Likewise, the point at which consent is withdrawn and in what circumstances plays a huge part. As you agree, human communication is complex; this is so far from a black and white issue that it's very dangerous to generalise about the withdrawal of consent and what that should mean in any given situation.

You forgot about the appointment for the partial lobotomy.

Pep (the bit of the female brain that grows back at about 35 - in some.)

no

How can you be sure?

You are David Cassidy and I claim my 5$L.

Pep ("In a world that's constantly changing"

You make some good points, I think, although a few also with with I simply cannot concur.


I don't think that I have suggested that men are unmitigated predators, and certainly not that women are merely gatekeepers. We have been discussing a particular context -- rape -- and my remarks have pertained to that, rather than to other contexts. The VAST majority of the men I have known are not predators; they are most usually as "at sea" as I am about where a relationship is going, what signals are being sent, and so forth. But these are also men whom I trust to give the woman the benefit of the doubt: if they thought for a moment that they had passed the point for which consent had been obtained, they would immediately back away. And I honestly believe this is true of most men.

But we are talking about rape, which occurs when we are NOT dealing with this kind of man. The reason that men seem the aggressors, and women "passive," in such a context, is that rape makes them so. This is most obvious when brutality is involved, but any rape is by definition violent in some sense because it IMPOSES passivity on the woman. The man who "can't stop himself," or who fails to heed a clear signal that consent has been withdrawn has, by ignoring her right to choice and free will, just transformed the female into an "object," a "thing" that he can simply use for sexual purposes. In such a context, it is not I, but the man who has imposed the roles you accuse me of propagating.


I am far from absolving the woman of responsibility. A woman who has imperiled herself by placing herself in a position where she is especially vulnerable to rape has been, to the say the least, unwise, if not downright stupid.

But that is a far cry from suggesting that she is then herself "responsible" for the rape. A woman cannot initiate her own rape: that requires a conscious decision on the part of the man. Sending the wrong signals IS a foolish or dumb mistake, but it should not be punishable by sexual assault.


I'm afraid that I've never bought into this argument. Men have free will too: to suggest that there is a point at which he simply "can't help himself" is to turn him into automaton, driven only by the chemicals surging through his system. I should also point out that the oldest form of birth control known, "withdrawal," demands precisely that the man know when to "stop," and be capable of doing so. And, to judge by the survival of the practice, men seem to have been capable of doing just that.

I also, for what it is worth, don't buy the flip side of the argument. When I am hormonal, I do hope that people will cut me a bit of slack when I burst into tears for no reason, or bite someone's head off; I DON'T expect them to absolve me of assault.


Here, actually, I am not entirely in disagreement with you. Given that assault and rape are physical crimes (as opposed to harassment and stalking, which need not be), I do agree that there are enormous differences between RL and SL. Virtual assault and rape CAN happen in SL, but it is by no means the same thing as RL rape, and it is, I suspect, very rare indeed. In practice, I'd be inclined to classify virtual rape as a separate category of harassment.

As for the idea that logging off or TPing out constitutes the only response one needs for any situation in SL, I would respond that a) there is no reason why it is the victim, the woman, who should be forced to flee, and b) that not all women are as fortunate as you in being able to simply disassociate themselves once they have done either of these things from any emotional trauma that they may have experienced.


Ok, this is actually the biggest pile of effing bullshit I've ever read in these forums.

Is that unambiguous enough for you? I'm sure I can be more direct and forceful if you like.



Sorry. I'm not REALLY trying to reduce this argument to vulgar name-calling, and I actually DON'T think that what you say is bullshit at all; I think it is an entirely valid and worthwhile point. But I, in my turn, am trying to make a polemical point.

Yes, language can be enormously complex and slippery. Yes, we COULD deconstruct my little rant above, and talk about how my use of "effing" constitutes a simultaneous retreat from meaning even as it seems most forceful, or how my apparently subversive statement is complicit with the very hegemony that it is putatively challenging. Etc.

But the fact is that this would be, had I not complicated it by providing the analysis you are reading right now, a pretty clear and unambiguous message. I HAVE complicated it, I have sent a mixed message, but I have done so very deliberately, and very consciously.

Which is why, I think, it is SO important that we, as the speakers of language, have to be clear about exactly what IS being said in a sexual context. "No means no" is more than just a PR campaign slogan: it is an attempt to establish, to the best degree that human language allows, an unambiguous communication. Men AND women have to come to this mutual agreement: in this particular context, "no" means stop. Men have to understand it as unambiguous, women, for their part, have to USE it unambiguously. (Again, part of the woman's responsibility.)

This is one of the reasons why rape RP and, to a lesser degree, general BDSM disturbs me so much: because it muddies the waters of communication, and introduces deliberate ambiguity. In rape RP, "no" actually DOES mean "yes." And the way in which this usage contaminates the relative unambiguity of the word is why it is so dangerous. And, of course, why BDSM has introduced the concept of the "safe word," which functions in the stead of "no" to stop the RP immediately.

What "no means no" is doing, then, is establishing that, for "normal" sexual relations, the word "no" is the "safe word." Don't use it unless you mean it, and if it is used, obey it immediately.

So yes, language is slippery; human communication is always problematic. Yet, we most of us manage to get along with it fairly well in our day to day lives: ambiguity is always relative. In the context of sex, and unless another "safe word" has been agreed upon, "no" should be treated as unambiguously as it sounds.

And so. We now have this thread, originally about cross-gender come-ons, but now about depictions of consensual rape in virtual worlds. We also have an active thread about viewer features which is now about depictions of consensual rape in virtual worlds. Last week, of course, there was the land policy thread, which became about depictions of consensual rape in virtual worlds. I agree, it IS shocking that rape so pervades our existence here in SL and, particularly, here in the forums.

Scylla, there is a thread about the beta grid that appears to be in need of your polemical attention.
.

Perhaps if someone starts a thread on consensual rape we can use it to discuss cross-gender come-ons, viewer features, and land policy?

Thanks Nika, I'll get on to that.

Actually, far be it for me to point this out, but it was not just I who introduced these subjects into this thread. Nor it is only I who am engaged in them.

I should also note that NEITHER discussion, in either thread, is actually about "depictions of consensual rape in virtual worlds" at all, as even a cursory reading would demonstrate. The discussion in this thread is really about language and "nonconsensual rape" (a tautology if ever there was one), with a focus on RL. The discussion in the other thread is about "nonconsensual rape" in SL, as distinct from consensual rape simulations.

Details, details, details . . .

Possibly, but a cursory reading also reveals that the "details" are merely facets of the broader "physical violence against women" subject; a favorite of yours which we've already established cannot occur in SL without willful participation. There's nothing but pulp left of that old beaten horse.

Sorry to be boring you Dana!

I do note, however, that there is a fascinating thread on the subject of textures for stair bannisters. I'm sure that is much more likely to hold your attention.

Have fun with that!

Sarcasm can be pretty unbecoming, you know - and it's a lot harder to see any possible tongue in the cheek when you only have words and no visuals.

Unfortunately, you still don't get it Scylla - for many of us, textures for stair bannisters very likely ARE a whole lot more interesting, because we come to SL for entertainment and escape, not to fight the good fight that already takes up enough time in FL. Then when textures are not enough, there's building, and poseballs, and experiment, and - well, you see where I'm heading, right through to the dirty, sticky, sometimes violent end.

And you know what? I roleplay stuff in SL that I wouldn't dream of doing in FL - my limits in SL know virtually no bounds and certainly have no bearing whatsoever on my beliefs in FL. That doesn't make me any less of a feminist or responsible citizen, nor is it an indication of psychopathology in the people I engage with. It means we understand it's PLAY.

Does everyone understand that? Probably not, and frankly, I don't care, because one of the joys of this place is that they can do their thing and I can do mine - as long as their thing doesn’t include curtailing my free choice of how and what I play, we’ll all get along just fine.

In my FL, I can and do get all the academic debate I could possibly want on your favourite hobbyhorse, and I’m kicking myself for taking the bait in these forums. I apologise to everyone for contributing to the derailment - I should have known that even the smallest response would simply encourage the continuation of the crusade.

For those of you that have siglines off:

Somewhere in this world; there is someone having some good clean fun doing the one thing you hate the most. (^_^)y

TO light another candle in this thread....

I wonder if fully bisexual RL persons have an advantage in SL. For them the gender of their Mate/spouse/lover/friend is not particularly relevant. They CAN say I don't care what the reality behind the avatar is and mean it.

(RL male,SL male,RL Bisexual saying this)

I can't believe it's a disadvantage (works for me!).

... and me!

You have my consent to rape me.

I have some vague idea to post "The Rape of the Lock" (I'm probably wrong with the spelling of lock), which was a poem. About someone cutting hair from someone without permission. Violating them.

You don't owe anyone an apology.

Thank you for presenting thoughts for the levelheaded woman's population.

From the conclusion of Canto IV of Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock (1712/1714):

See the poor Remnants of these slighted Hairs!
My hands shall rend what ev'n thy Rapine spares:
These, in two sable Ringlets taught to break,
Once gave new Beauties to the snowie Neck.
The Sister-Lock now sits uncouth, alone,
And in its Fellow's Fate foresees its own;
Uncurl'd it hangs, the fatal Sheers demands;
And tempts once more thy sacrilegious Hands.
Oh hadst thou, Cruel! been content to seize
Hairs less in sight, or any Hairs but these!

It is indeed a satire on "violation" and "rape," although the primary meaning of "rape" in the title is really from the older meaning of the word (as derived from the Latin "rapio", in the sense of "to seize." Part of what the poem is about is "much ado about nothing" in the context of "polite society," but the poem's meanings are also somewhat more complicated than such a simple summary suggests: in fact, there IS a real sense in which Belinda (the aggrieved heroine) HAS been "violated."

ETA: I might add that there is also a proto-feminist sub theme to the poem, in that Pope laments that, if the genteel women of his age ARE fluffy-headed Barbie dolls, it is because men have never permitted them to aspire to anything better. A theme that is somewhat like Virginia Woolf's in A Room of Own's One: if there was never a female Shakespeare, it was because women were denied the education and social advantages necessary to produce one.

One of the really attractive things about the Resident Answers forum is the enormous variety of topics that get covered here. I have read, and participated in, threads on subjects that range from good places to hang out in SL, to the Canadian medicare system and the political culture of the United States. Currently, the first page of the forum holds threads on (inevitably) Zindra, but also on a RL case of poison ivy, and another on internet access in Iran. I think all of these subjects are entirely valid. So apparently do you, as none of them has come under fire from you yet.

It is clear, however, that anything to do with women's issues in the context of SL is hot-button issue for you, and for a number of others. I'm not going to speculate (publicly) as to why this should be so, but I am going to insist that this subject matter belongs in this forum every bit as much as any other that I have named. Nor am I simply going to accede to the implication made by you, Dana, Nika, and all of the other “level-headed” people out there, that I am hijacking threads and railing alone to the dismay of everyone else here. The various facets of the topic which I have attempted to explore in these threads all arise quite logically and organically from the discussion or the theme of the thread. I also find it interesting that it is only I, personally, whom you target, despite the self-evident fact that other people ARE engaging me, and sometimes even agreeing with me, in discussion on these subjects. Or perhaps you are hard at work even as I write this on your rebuke to Ephraim for his essay-length posting on the subject?

You have expressed before your personal vision of SL as a sort of escapist VW Lite. That's wonderful: I hope you are enjoying it. And you have every right to either critique my views or ignore them. I am, in fact, sorry that you have chosen to ignore rather than critique them: I don't agree with your postings, but I find them interesting and stimulating. But the fact that you apparently do not feel the same about mine does not give you the right to silence me, either directly, or through the social dynamic of ostracism (“I apologize to everyone for ...”) towards which you and others are gesturing. I'm afraid that I reserve the right to take SL very seriously indeed, and to comment upon it in the way that I might upon any interesting and popular social phenomenon.

As for your rebuke of my use of sarcasm, I can only say that I have been on this forum long enough to have a pretty good sense of where along the spectrum of general nastiness my fairly mild quip at Dana's expense falls; I'm afraid for that reason that your application of school-marmish gravitas here abashes me not at all. Nor, given the prevalence in some people's posts of outright invective, ad hominem attacks, and the like, do I see sarcasm as a particularly outrageous way of responding to what was, after all, a fairly personal attack by Dana.

Strangely, I don't recall having seen you “correct” anyone else's tone in these threads, but perhaps I am a “special project”? If so, I am, of course, flattered. Otherwise, I wish you joy in your new self-appointed role as Ms. Manners of the SL forums; if my modest little nip at Dana was enough to draw your ire, I can only imagine how very very busy you are going to be in the future. Why, Pep's posts alone should provide you with useful employment for years to come!

The trick is to get them to do it *here*, 'cause these floors really do need vacuuming.

You portray women as sniveling, groveling, weak, victimized lost souls that can't think clearly and rationally, and have to educate men on how to approach them, because of their neurotic, over-emotional and helpless frame of mind, which lacks the ability to judge reality from pretend, and lacks the ability to act accordingly, using their brains.

Yes....there is a feature here to ignore that.

There is also a feature that allows those who do not wish to be portrayed as such an opportunity to speak their mind now and then, without having to write a 10 paragraph diatribe.



Suggesting that levelheaded women consider discussing women's issues as a "hot-button"....just enforces my first paragraph of how you choose to portray women.

As far as "speculating publicly" as to why this is so (which it is not)....why stop now?