So after studying this a bit, I suspect you're actually being optimistic when you argue that a better compromise is possible.
Before addressing your specific position, my sense is that tradeoffs in the sociocultural world are usually complex, involving something like three times the variables that are actually visible. This "three times" is only a rule of thumb, but reported rape rates do vary enormously across cultures, and a broad array of social factors such as wealth, individualism, social mobility, contraception, and secularism correlate with national rape rates. So while another compromise is definitely possible, that such a compromise would be broadly regarded as better is hard to establish.
> In the light of history and anthropology, the idea that sex should be entirely up to spontaneous feelings is an extreme opinion.
This may be the case, but *prehistorically* promiscuity seems to been rather common, particularly before the advent of plow agriculture.
Moreover, it isn't really the case that sex being up to feelings is an extreme option *historically* - it's been part of Western society off and on again for centuries. For example, medieval marriage was often little more than a shrug that occurred after consent:
"for the marriage to be valid it did not matter if there were any witnesses or not. Witnesses only made it easier to prove. It did not matter if a priest was present or not. It did not matter if the marriage was blessed, or a mass followed, or not. It did not matter if banns had been posted in advance or not... It was the late medieval Christian church that was telling secular authorities that couples who married in [sic] clandestinely against the wishes of their parents were, nevertheless, validly and bindingly married."
For another historical example, recall the illicit affairs in Montaillou.
> Instead, I think good guys should make life difficult for bad guys by behaving differently. If good guys set an example and always arrange a first and second and third date in a neutral place like a coffee shop, it will be easier for women to think twice before accompanying unknown men into places where men have the upper hand.
Given the way sexuality has been decoupled from familial interests, dowries, household businesses, childbearing, and virtually anything besides pleasure, this is going to be a hard sell. "Hey rather than living a carefree existence with your date, why don't you think carefully about how she might behave after you break up? Thing of the benefits! If you sacrifice some feeling of spontaneity and pleasure now, you could spare your future ex-lover from making foolish mistakes with another guy in the future!" If things like this reduce the chance for a relationship working to begin with, what young man would actually be well advised to do it?
But ultimately, I would probably have shaken my head at anything you suggested, no matter what it was. There are some social problems that still can be solved or improved because the problems are new, or technology has created new possible solutions. But sexuality is an old, old problem, and the space of solutions has been very well explored by now. In a way, you and Aella both seem interested in trying to find solutions to problems that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. If the two of you find a solution you can agree on, perhaps that might be a genuinely good idea! But frankly I really don't think there is a tradeoff that effectively addresses this problem that doesn't either overturn human nature or the foundational values of Western culture.
I think you are spot on here: Yes, I'm being unrealistic. I actually had a draft called "The insoluble rape question" lying around for a few months. The message was, more or less: rape is inevitable so just deal with it. But I thought it sounded so negative and cynical, so I open for something provocative instead when it came to me.
Still, I think that rather small adjustments in expectations could alter the risk of rape rather significantly. I mean, you say that rates of date rape differ a lot between societies and social groups. Then only small differences in attitudes can have big effects. Not that I can make them happen through social engineering, but if many people for some reason get a certain idea, it can have big effects on risks of sexual coercion.
>>In a way, you and Aella both seem interested in trying to find solutions to problems that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. If the two of you find a solution you can agree on, perhaps that might be a genuinely good idea.
Yes! If Aella wanted to discuss things with a small fish like me, I think it could result in a really interesting vision. Utopia according to Aella and Tove!
>>But frankly I really don't think there is a tradeoff that effectively addresses this problem that doesn't either overturn human nature or the foundational values of Western culture.
The last one is very interesting. What is the foundational values of Western culture? I think very small adjustments in behavior could have big effects. For example, if there were a norm not to have sex on a first date, I think that could reduce rape rates quite a bit. I don't think that is against either Western culture or human nature (only a little, for some).
Whatever word one uses to describe these values, "Postmaterialism" is the term used by Ronald Inglehart, the sociologist who has been producing those graphs over the last few decades:
It's a good article, and I was going to quote from it, but if you haven't read about it before, I'd recommend just reading it. If not, suffice it to say that the Pursuit of Happiness Shall Not be Infringed (unless you have the wrong politics in which case everything is infringable--sorry urban conservatives and rural liberals).
> Yes! If Aella wanted to discuss things with a small fish like me, I think it could result in a really interesting vision. Utopia according to Aella and Tove!
Well... on second thought I may have some doubt about what the two of you would cook up. But she won't be able to ignore you forever.
> The message was, more or less: rape is inevitable so just deal with it. But I thought it sounded so negative and cynical, so I open for something provocative instead when it came to me.
I never have enough time to say all the Things To Read, but this kind of fatalistic acceptance of reality characterizes most of my experience on Earth. One *can* move mountains, but that requires so much time, understanding, and devotion that for most people it's flatly impossible. For the most dedicated and most unreasonable, one may have a shot - but only one.
I guessed you would have a precise, scientific definition of Western values! (And I read the article, at least it wasn't long).
>>One *can* move mountains, but that requires so much time, understanding, and devotion that for most people it's flatly impossible. For the most dedicated and most unreasonable, one may have a shot - but only one.
The idea that words can change things is the opium of intellectuals. Mostly, I talk about things as changeable only because it heightens the ambience of the discussion.
WOOOOO--
Wait it's another post on Wood from Eden, but it's about rape. Like I was excited at first... but then.
Also if I like this post, doesn't that sortof get interpreted as liking rape? What am I supposed to do here, Tove?
*...actually reads the post*
Ah, people are too emotional about rape! I'm trying to be coldly rational here.
So after studying this a bit, I suspect you're actually being optimistic when you argue that a better compromise is possible.
Before addressing your specific position, my sense is that tradeoffs in the sociocultural world are usually complex, involving something like three times the variables that are actually visible. This "three times" is only a rule of thumb, but reported rape rates do vary enormously across cultures, and a broad array of social factors such as wealth, individualism, social mobility, contraception, and secularism correlate with national rape rates. So while another compromise is definitely possible, that such a compromise would be broadly regarded as better is hard to establish.
> In the light of history and anthropology, the idea that sex should be entirely up to spontaneous feelings is an extreme opinion.
This may be the case, but *prehistorically* promiscuity seems to been rather common, particularly before the advent of plow agriculture.
Moreover, it isn't really the case that sex being up to feelings is an extreme option *historically* - it's been part of Western society off and on again for centuries. For example, medieval marriage was often little more than a shrug that occurred after consent:
http://medievalscotland.org/history/handfasting.shtml
"for the marriage to be valid it did not matter if there were any witnesses or not. Witnesses only made it easier to prove. It did not matter if a priest was present or not. It did not matter if the marriage was blessed, or a mass followed, or not. It did not matter if banns had been posted in advance or not... It was the late medieval Christian church that was telling secular authorities that couples who married in [sic] clandestinely against the wishes of their parents were, nevertheless, validly and bindingly married."
For another historical example, recall the illicit affairs in Montaillou.
> Instead, I think good guys should make life difficult for bad guys by behaving differently. If good guys set an example and always arrange a first and second and third date in a neutral place like a coffee shop, it will be easier for women to think twice before accompanying unknown men into places where men have the upper hand.
Given the way sexuality has been decoupled from familial interests, dowries, household businesses, childbearing, and virtually anything besides pleasure, this is going to be a hard sell. "Hey rather than living a carefree existence with your date, why don't you think carefully about how she might behave after you break up? Thing of the benefits! If you sacrifice some feeling of spontaneity and pleasure now, you could spare your future ex-lover from making foolish mistakes with another guy in the future!" If things like this reduce the chance for a relationship working to begin with, what young man would actually be well advised to do it?
But ultimately, I would probably have shaken my head at anything you suggested, no matter what it was. There are some social problems that still can be solved or improved because the problems are new, or technology has created new possible solutions. But sexuality is an old, old problem, and the space of solutions has been very well explored by now. In a way, you and Aella both seem interested in trying to find solutions to problems that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. If the two of you find a solution you can agree on, perhaps that might be a genuinely good idea! But frankly I really don't think there is a tradeoff that effectively addresses this problem that doesn't either overturn human nature or the foundational values of Western culture.
I think you are spot on here: Yes, I'm being unrealistic. I actually had a draft called "The insoluble rape question" lying around for a few months. The message was, more or less: rape is inevitable so just deal with it. But I thought it sounded so negative and cynical, so I open for something provocative instead when it came to me.
Still, I think that rather small adjustments in expectations could alter the risk of rape rather significantly. I mean, you say that rates of date rape differ a lot between societies and social groups. Then only small differences in attitudes can have big effects. Not that I can make them happen through social engineering, but if many people for some reason get a certain idea, it can have big effects on risks of sexual coercion.
>>In a way, you and Aella both seem interested in trying to find solutions to problems that have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. If the two of you find a solution you can agree on, perhaps that might be a genuinely good idea.
Yes! If Aella wanted to discuss things with a small fish like me, I think it could result in a really interesting vision. Utopia according to Aella and Tove!
>>But frankly I really don't think there is a tradeoff that effectively addresses this problem that doesn't either overturn human nature or the foundational values of Western culture.
The last one is very interesting. What is the foundational values of Western culture? I think very small adjustments in behavior could have big effects. For example, if there were a norm not to have sex on a first date, I think that could reduce rape rates quite a bit. I don't think that is against either Western culture or human nature (only a little, for some).
The foundational values of Western culture are found on the right-hand side of this graph:
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/photos/EV000190.JPG
Whatever word one uses to describe these values, "Postmaterialism" is the term used by Ronald Inglehart, the sociologist who has been producing those graphs over the last few decades:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmaterialism
It's a good article, and I was going to quote from it, but if you haven't read about it before, I'd recommend just reading it. If not, suffice it to say that the Pursuit of Happiness Shall Not be Infringed (unless you have the wrong politics in which case everything is infringable--sorry urban conservatives and rural liberals).
> Yes! If Aella wanted to discuss things with a small fish like me, I think it could result in a really interesting vision. Utopia according to Aella and Tove!
Well... on second thought I may have some doubt about what the two of you would cook up. But she won't be able to ignore you forever.
> The message was, more or less: rape is inevitable so just deal with it. But I thought it sounded so negative and cynical, so I open for something provocative instead when it came to me.
I never have enough time to say all the Things To Read, but this kind of fatalistic acceptance of reality characterizes most of my experience on Earth. One *can* move mountains, but that requires so much time, understanding, and devotion that for most people it's flatly impossible. For the most dedicated and most unreasonable, one may have a shot - but only one.
I guessed you would have a precise, scientific definition of Western values! (And I read the article, at least it wasn't long).
>>One *can* move mountains, but that requires so much time, understanding, and devotion that for most people it's flatly impossible. For the most dedicated and most unreasonable, one may have a shot - but only one.
The idea that words can change things is the opium of intellectuals. Mostly, I talk about things as changeable only because it heightens the ambience of the discussion.