Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax

[Low C Sharp]

So I think it means something bad and unhealthy about everyone involved, but not exactly the same bad and unhealthy thing.

I agree with you. We live in a culture with different mores for men and women. The woman in this consensual scenario went much further outside the rules of culturally sanctioned behavior than did the men. That doesn't mean she's right or wrong, crazy or sane...it just means we have to look at her behavior in that context when we try to understand what happened.

Consider a non-sexual example. My sister, a social worker, was trying to help a family in the projects. One very troubled child in the family was eating the cockroaches in the apartment. Now it turns out that cockroaches are edible, they are considered food in some cultures, and the child wasn't in immediate physical danger from eating them. But that's not really the issue. Our culture says that cockroaches are disgusting vermin, not food. This child's violation of the cultural taboo was a strong signal that something was terribly wrong -- that the child viewed herself as lowly like vermin, or that she was going to extremes to disgust and offend her family. You couldn't understand what was going on in that family in the absence of the cultural taboo.
________
red headed Cam

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I agree with you. We live in a culture with different mores for men and women. The woman in this consensual scenario went much further outside the rules of culturally sanctioned behavior than did the men. That doesn't mean she's right or wrong, crazy or sane...it just means we have to look at her behavior in that context when we try to understand what happened.

Consider a non-sexual example. My sister, a social worker, was trying to help a family in the projects. One very troubled child in the family was eating the cockroaches in the apartment. Now it turns out that cockroaches are edible, they are considered food in some cultures, and the child wasn't in immediate physical danger from eating them. But that's not really the issue. Our culture says that cockroaches are disgusting vermin, not food. This child's violation of the cultural taboo was a strong signal that something was terribly wrong -- that the child viewed herself as lowly like vermin, or that she was going to extremes to disgust and offend her family. You couldn't understand what was going on in that family in the absence of the cultural taboo.

I see what you're trying to do here, because I tend to use extreme analogies, but it's really not comparable to what UGA was trying to say.

When most people talk about differences between men and women and what women "should and shouldn't do," they are typically not talking about socially created subjective norms. People are often coming from the "it's not acceptable because it isn't what women tend to DO (read: it isn't natural for women)" standpoint, which is complete crap of course.

If this woman chose to defy socially constructed gender norms and have a train run on her, that's her business and, like KSig said, we wouldn't know had those fools not taped her and she had not accused them of rape. There's a difference between analyzing the notion that she's defying gender norms/the men are conforming gender norms versus appearing to say "SOMETHING IS WRONNNNNNNG...maybe it wasn't consensual because women don't DO this...or maybe it was consensual but only because she's craaaaaaaaaaaazy...but either way the men are at fault for either raping her or taking advantage of a crazy woman."

ETA: And on that note, most of the women on this board are defying gender norms in their personal and professional lives. We do it because WE CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL WE WANT TO. It is both a conscious defiance and a subconscious defiance. But, instead of questioning why we defy them, it makes more sense to challenge why these garbage gender norms (for men and women) are taught, in the first place, and work on tearing them down. That is one of my life's purposes. Amen.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I agree with you. We live in a culture with different mores for men and women. The woman in this consensual scenario went much further outside the rules of culturally sanctioned behavior than did the men. That doesn't mean she's right or wrong, crazy or sane...it just means we have to look at her behavior in that context when we try to understand what happened.

Consider a non-sexual example. My sister, a social worker, was trying to help a family in the projects. One very troubled child in the family was eating the cockroaches in the apartment. Now it turns out that cockroaches are edible, they are considered food in some cultures, and the child wasn't in immediate physical danger from eating them. But that's not really the issue. Our culture says that cockroaches are disgusting vermin, not food. This child's violation of the cultural taboo was a strong signal that something was terribly wrong -- that the child viewed herself as lowly like vermin, or that she was going to extremes to disgust and offend her family. You couldn't understand what was going on in that family in the absence of the cultural taboo.

Yep.

If I were trying to evaluate the woman's behavior morally, I don't see a whole lot different in the initial sex than had the women had sex with each of the five men over a people of five days, five weeks, five months, whatever. You're/I'm either hung up on lasting monogamy or we're not.

But because having sex with five guys on one occasion is, as best as I can tell based on the limited info. available, so far out of what's socially normal with such a high price for the woman to pay in reputation or esteem, her willingness to engage in it points to something being seriously wrong.

Because something, IMO, is seriously wrong, it becomes unethical for those guys to pursue that kind of sex with her.

In some theoretical universe where sexual mores are different, this wouldn't necessarily be the case, but in 2009 America, I think it is the case.

On a practical level, I suspect that the "something being wrong with her" is closely tied to her willingness to claim she was raped and that's all the more reason for guys not to pursue this kind of encounter.

[DrPhil]

UGA's initial point about something being wrong didn't seem to be about her bogus rape claim. It seemed to be about her (alleged) willingness to participate.

Are women fragile flowers who absolutely never have control over their own minds and bodies? Can't men and women just be (prepare for gratuitous morality slap) careless whoresluts just for shits and giggles? (rhetoricals) She wanted to be the hole in the wall and they wanted to stick it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

UGA's initial point about something being wrong didn't seem to be about her bogus rape claim. It seemed to be about her (alleged) willingness to participate.

Are women fragile flowers who absolutely never have control over their own minds and bodies? Can't men and women just be (prepare for gratuitous morality slap) careless whoresluts just for shits and giggles? (rhetoricals) She wanted to be the hole in the wall and they wanted to stick it.

Most of my comments about her were about her willingness to participate.

While in a social vacuum, women might be free to be careless whoresluts, we're not living in a social vacuum.

Assuming that there aren't biological forces that push most women toward monogamy (and I kind of think there are: I'll try to find a link), the social consequences of being a careless whoreslut if you are female are serious enough that most healthy women decide that it isn't worth it IF the thought even makes it to that level of conscious thought.

Women who don't see the risk or don't care about the risk are atypical, and, while I'm not sure which comes first, are likely to be socially and emotionally atypical too.

We can wonder if having no sexual mores would result in a flowering of sexual pleasure for women, but the women on the forefront of this moment might pay a pretty high social price.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

While in a social vacuum, women might be free to be careless whoresluts, we're not living in a social vacuum.

What does this sentence mean as it pertains to your posts in this thread?

Your posts in this thread aren't an analysis of the normative behaviors of men and women. They are attempting to attribute meaning where there may be none in this specific instance; and attempting to attribute blame where there may be none, beyond opinions of morality.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Assuming that there aren't biological forces that push most women toward monogamy (and I kind of think there are: I'll try to find a link)

Don't bother finding that link with that easily dismissed research. There has been little to no reliable research on the "nature" of monogamy in humans. It is most likely a combination of the social, cultural, and biological. Social scientists know that these things can be learned but there has been no concrete proof that these things are biological.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

the social consequences of being a careless whoreslut if you are female are serious enough that most healthy women decide that it isn't worth it IF the thought even makes it to that level of conscious thought.

Decide. Exactly.

Other women may decide differently. There is nothing inherently deviant about that nor ascriptive about the former decision.

[KSig RC]

UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.

The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.

You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:

1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.

I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.

[DrPhil]

Women were also exorcised, placed in counseling, given inappropriate medical procedures, incarcerated, and placed in mental institutions for defying gender norms.

A woman who liked to have sex (God forbid a woman sought an orgasm rather than a baby) or who was considered "loose" was considered a sign of spiritual turmoil or social problems.

That still occurs to an extent in this society (i.e. girls who are truant or run away from home are more likely to alarm parents and get arrested than boys); and I have no doubt that there are segments of this society where archaic social controls are still in place. They certainly exist in some other societies.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.

The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.

You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:

1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.

I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.

My points about biology were to note that some of our typical social gender expectations or desires may be rooted in differences in biology, rather than merely being sort of arbitrary limits places on women or being purely socially derived. I didn't intend to carry that out to suggest that being partially biological made them permanent or especially desirable.

I think it's kind of odd that you think the temporal nature of social norms has some effect on whether a behavior in the present is regarded in the present as normal and healthy (for the woman in question) and/or ethically good ( for the guys).

I don't claim to judge for all time that a women who has an encounter like this is risking so much that her mental health is suspect; I simply think it was true right now when she did it. I have a hard time imagining that it will ever seem entirely ethical to have sex with someone whose ability to fully consent is compromised, but it certainly seems to be the case right now.

As far as the numbered list, this particular case didn't happen behind closed doors. I also don't know that I agree that "we don't and have no right to know what drives behavior that we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of." I agree that we shouldn't try to compel people engaging in private, harmless acts to disclose their own behavior simply to pass judgment or restrict it, but I think human behavior is worth knowing about, and the motivations behind callous, deviant, disgusting behavior are as interesting and important as the motivation behind loving, normal, healthy and admirable behavior. We shouldn't force people to present themselves for study, but it it worth studying. And 3, so?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My points about biology were to note that some of our typical social gender expectations or desires may be rooted in differences in biology, rather than merely being sort of arbitrary limits places on women or being purely socially derived. I didn't intend to carry that out to suggest that being partially biological made them permanent or especially desirable.

I think it's kind of odd that you think the temporal nature of social norms has some effect on whether a behavior in the present is regarded in the present as normal and healthy (for the woman in question) and/or ethically good ( for the guys).

I don't claim to judge for all time that a women who has an encounter like this is risking so much that her mental health is suspect; I simply think it was true right now when she did it. I have a hard time imagining that it will ever seem entirely ethical to have sex with someone whose ability to fully consent is compromised, but it certainly seems to be the case right now.

As far as the numbered list, this particular case didn't happen behind closed doors. I also don't know that I agree that "we don't and have no right to know what drives behavior that we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of." I agree that we shouldn't try to compel people engaging in private, harmless acts to disclose their own behavior simply to pass judgment or restrict it, but I think human behavior is worth knowing about, and the motivations behind callous, deviant, disgusting behavior are as interesting and important as the motivation behind loving, normal, healthy and admirable behavior. We shouldn't force people to present themselves for study, but it it worth studying. And 3, so?

I really, truly think you're mistaking causation for correlation here - I guess that's my main point.

[DrPhil]

Correlation is not causation and, more than that, UGA is positing a stronger correlation than can be substantiated.

And she started off with a discussion of social norms and then went into biological explanations for these social norms. It's a classic case of trying to make a point using "everything but the kitchen sink."

[Senusret I]

This thread is kinky and titillating.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

This thread is kinky and titillating.

Are you tickling your nipples?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

This thread is kinky and titillating.

haha, you said "tit"

[Senusret I]

And then some!