New affirmative consent + anti-stealthing laws in Australia (in Victoria)

[Guest]

11 hours ago, on2thenxt87 said:

I definitely appreciate where you're coming from though and your perspective.

Thank you. And my apologies for the enormous amount of type-o's in my contribution which are - in part - because although I can talk about my experiences fairly easily, it does tend to make me more emotional. 

 

11 hours ago, on2thenxt87 said:

So do you not think that there are any differences between gay culture and straight culture? I not only think that there are differences, but that these differences impact the ways we navigate sex. Furthermore, both straight and gay culture each have various subcultures (including sexual subcultures) that have their own structure including norms and roles. Acknowledging that these subcultures exist and that they have their own norms does not equal dehumanization, like not even close. If I had implied that the reasons these differences exist are because homosexuals are intrinsically immoral and thereby less than heterosexuals, then that would be an example of dehumanization, but I don't say that (nor would I). Gay people are not a monolith, which the very existence of this site clearly demonstrates.

It's not what I said - although questioned - but I do see them both as invented constructs that totally disregard a lot of people (women more so than men) are not on one of the far ends of the scale between homosexual and heterosexual (e.g. bisexual, homo-flexible and straight-flexible, pansexual, omnisexual, Queer, etc.) I don't really appreciate it when myself or someone else gets disregarded, excluded in stead of included or when norms and roles are strongly imposed socially, not respecting our human emotions which only differ because of the gender or sex of the one of the people we are drawn to. 
Than it dehumanises us.

There's a huge benefit to being part of a community - which of course inevitably causes aspects of a (sub-) culture to develop - but wherever we live: we are still also part of the larger culture of that place which alas is always predominantly 'straight' although all of those dominant cultures also exaggerate it's 'straightness', just as you exaggerate the differences by using this binary construct of two cultures based on who we have romantic or sexual feelings for.
It's - with all due respect to your cause - senseless. 

The only difference I experience between the gay (and lesbian) community and the overall Western-European culture I'm part of is a tendency to be more open and honest about sexual preferences and I also see this embraced more in the committed relationships between men , than in most gender-discordant (male - female) relationships I know personally. Like you yourself conclude: "Gay people are not a monolith". Let's keep it that way.

 

11 hours ago, on2thenxt87 said:

The concept of rape, how it is understood and defined, is not the same across time, space and culture. An example of this is how when a man forced his wife to have sex with him it was not considered rape; however, by the 1980s this changed and our conceptualization of rape expanded, yet still would not be considered a crime nationwide until 1993. Sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual battery were all created to describe various forms of sexual mistreatment that people experience, but are considered relatively new terms when compared with the concept of rape. Moreover, these terms are subjective even to the people who experience them. One early study found that many women who had experiences that fit the definition of sexual assault did not consider the experience to be assault. I know that I have had similar experiences like this myself. Specifically, I had a friend who tried to rape me once after a party. I was really lucky that I was able to fight him off, but since I was able to fight him off I don't really feel like I was sexually assaulted even though my experience fits into the definition of sexual assault. Maybe rape shouldn't be that difficult to define, but the reality is that sometimes it is for many of these reasons.

Thank you for sharing your experience as well. 
In line with the objective I think you share (having read your contributions) I feel very strongly that our Western Society / Culture just needs to simplify things, disregarding differences in gender, sex and sexuality. That starts with defining the value at stake, which is - of course - consensual sex between adults.
When someone is made to endure or engage in sexual acts against their will: we can then  just label it what it is:  Rape; because that's when the opposite happens. 

There of numerous other threads on the age-of-consent and what constitutes or should constitute statutory rape. That's a difficult choice for lawmakers to make if you both want to protect minors / children and still allow them to discover their sexuality freely when they grow into adulthood. Because of that unique and delicate aspects I suggest we let that discussion out of our current conversation for now.
But just the same there is also a more grey area between consent and rape, where we could label things as assault, harassment etc., which can be verbal or physical. 

Legally because your former 'friend' tried to rape you it was attempted rape, not (just) assault wasn't it? 

 

6 hours ago, on2thenxt87 said:

I literally do not have the time or the energy to keep going around with you, so you win lol.

Try again when you're rested.
It's healthy for @BootmanLA to have people disagree with him, there are even instances where he changes his mind or allows for more nuance in his thinking.

On that note:

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Criminal law exists primarily to define and punish transgressions against others. To the extent that the penalty provided therein acts as a disincentive to committing those crimes, that's a welcome bonus, but a bonus nonetheless. I think it betrays a certain mindset to say that laws can "also be used to help prosecute individuals that violate" as though all this criminal law stuff was just, you know, an afterthought.

I agree that (criminal) law exists to define transgressions and thus (positively worded) how we should treat one another, but criminal law especially also exists to limit revenge by making crimes not only something that hurts a victim, but also damages the legal order of society / the rule of law.
There are more than one than one way to look at it the benefits of punishment, I think you mean that in the end the primary function of legal (criminal) punishments is to protect society and everyone in it?

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I'm not saying it's not important. I'm saying that at most, what such a small sample can do is provide anecdotes and possible topics for further study.

In a sideline, for several years, I worked as an assistant to an ornithological researcher. At one point, she had trapped and marked an individual bird within a research tract at a national park. Later that day, the marked bird was seen at a feeder at the park headquarters, nearly a mile away from the capture point. The next day, she recaptured the bird about a half mile from the original capture point (opposite direction from the park), and when it was released, it flew to its nest in a nearby tree. What that tells us is that for that particular species of bird, in that habitat (which was fairly arid and barren), individuals can forage for up to a mile and a half from their home territory - a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the evidence. It's also demonstrated that other species in this family of birds have an aptitude for repeatedly visiting multiple feeding sites on a regular basis when they're "resident" in a given area (either breeding season or wintering season).

Unfortunately, she treated this as evidence that all species in this family of birds - which are incredibly diverse - all (and I quote) "know where every source of food within a mile and a half" is from wherever they're residing. And that might be true, but it's not what the evidence shows. One species, in a habitat with limited food sources, ranged over that large distance. Other species, not even particularly closely related but in the same family, demonstrated knowledge of multiple food sources in a much more circumscribed area. But merging the two has zero evidentiary backing whatsoever.

Or there is that old joke: A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are flying over Scotland when they saw a black sheep down below. The engineer thinks "So, Scottish sheep are black." The physicist mentally observes "Some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician jots down a note, "There is, in Scotland, at least one sheep, black on top."

Yeah, I get why @on2thenxt87 didn't bother discussing this bit.
This is another of those slightly annoying instances you're spot on, damn it. 😉 

And it explains perfectly what I strongly worded called dehumanization. 
When you believe the engineer who says Scottish sheep are black, a Scottish white sheep wouldn't be a sheep anymore. Same goes for people.

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The law was restructured precisely because too many sexual assault crimes were going unpunished. You say "many legal scholars and advocates" agree on deficiencies in the law; every citation I've been able to find suggests that Australians are more interested in strengthening affirmative consent laws.

And here's the core of my issue with your approach. I note your acknowledgment that you're an "both an advocate of consent and sexual assault survivors," but the historic problem with sexual assault has been that people were unwilling to punish someone for a sex crime unless there was clear and unequivocal evidence that the victim protested, fought, basically did everything possible to prevent the assault from happening. And even then, if she (and it was almost always a she) wasn't "the right sort" of victim, then conviction was even more unlikely. Rape was effectively not a crime if you were a sex worker. Not a crime if you had previously had sex with more than one man (not at once, just over time). The presumption was that, like wives, such women inherently consented to sex because they hadn't "proven" that they were virtuous. When the sexual revolution hit, instead of giving those women the status that "good" girls had always had, regarding the ability to consent, men used the opportunity to reduce all women down to that level. If it was no longer shameful for a girl to have sex before marriage, then clearly they were all "available" for sex and men didn't have to worry about things like consent because they weren't going to be sullying her reputation if they ignored it.

THAT is the origin of affirmative consent laws: recognizing that sexual liberation does not mean sexual subjugation to the whims of those with power and strength. 

Have we over-corrected? I don't think so. Where we are, basically, is that men are expected to have clear consent established before they start, and to be on the lookout for signs of withdrawal of that consent as they continue. And frankly, I don't have a problem with that, and if a bunch of horny college boys find it harder to get laid because they have to be more careful, so fucking what? 

Part of the problem is that men - speaking in general, and yes there are lots of exceptions - tend to look at the kind of sex they want as the end goal, even if they have to practice deceit to get it. Hence stealthing: men don't like condoms, and they'll do anything to avoid having to use them for the duration of the sex, including lying about intent to use them, slipping them off mid-way, breaking them deliberately in the process, and having a second round of sex unprotected after establishing that they're "willing" to use a condom during the first round. All of that - ALL OF IT - is just crappy rationalization of the guy's desire to fuck unprotected, using any flimsy excuse for why he didn't "this time" or "the entire time" or whatever. Screw that. If the person's rules for having sex aren't acceptable, don't fuck them. And especially don't pretend to accept the rules and then try to evade them mid-way. That's what shitty fuckheads do.

I get what you're saying, but how do we prove consent and it's opposite: not-consent?
We are taling about laws where a judge and/or jury has to make a call when someone has been transgressed against, and based on (proven) facts, aren't we?

If we can't prove the facts and still people can be convicted justice (being blind) would endanger every man and woman of being wrongfully convicted criminally or to pay damages they might not have caused.
 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

Thank you. And my apologies for the enormous amount of type-o's in my contribution which are - in part - because although I can talk about my experiences fairly easily, it does tend to make me more emotional. 

 

It's not what I said - although questioned - but I do see them both as invented constructs that totally disregard a lot of people (women more so than men) are not on one of the far ends of the scale between homosexual and heterosexual (e.g. bisexual, homo-flexible and straight-flexible, pansexual, omnisexual, Queer, etc.) I don't really appreciate it when myself or someone else gets disregarded, excluded in stead of included or when norms and roles are strongly imposed socially, not respecting our human emotions which only differ because of the gender or sex of the one of the people we are drawn to. 
Than it dehumanises us.

There's a huge benefit to being part of a community - which of course inevitably causes aspects of a (sub-) culture to develop - but wherever we live: we are still also part of the larger culture of that place which alas is always predominantly 'straight' although all of those dominant cultures also exaggerate it's 'straightness', just as you exaggerate the differences by using this binary construct of two cultures based on who we have romantic or sexual feelings for.
It's - with all due respect to your cause - senseless. 

The only difference I experience between the gay (and lesbian) community and the overall Western-European culture I'm part of is a tendency to be more open and honest about sexual preferences and I also see this embraced more in the committed relationships between men , than in most gender-discordant (male - female) relationships I know personally. Like you yourself conclude: "Gay people are not a monolith". Let's keep it that way.

 

Thank you for sharing your experience as well. 
In line with the objective I think you share (having read your contributions) I feel very strongly that our Western Society / Culture just needs to simplify things, disregarding differences in gender, sex and sexuality. That starts with defining the value at stake, which is - of course - consensual sex between adults.
When someone is made to endure or engage in sexual acts against their will: we can then  just label it what it is:  Rape; because that's when the opposite happens. 

There of numerous other threads on the age-of-consent and what constitutes or should constitute statutory rape. That's a difficult choice for lawmakers to make if you both want to protect minors / children and still allow them to discover their sexuality freely when they grow into adulthood. Because of that unique and delicate aspects I suggest we let that discussion out of our current conversation for now.
But just the same there is also a more grey area between consent and rape, where we could label things as assault, harassment etc., which can be verbal or physical. 

Legally because your former 'friend' tried to rape you it was attempted rape, not (just) assault wasn't it? 

 

Try again when you're rested.
It's healthy for @BootmanLA to have people disagree with him, there are even instances where he changes his mind or allows for more nuance in his thinking.

On that note:

I agree that (criminal) law exists to define transgressions and thus (positively worded) how we should treat one another, but criminal law especially also exists to limit revenge by making crimes not only something that hurts a victim, but also damages the legal order of society / the rule of law.
There are more than one than one way to look at it the benefits of punishment, I think you mean that in the end the primary function of legal (criminal) punishments is to protect society and everyone in it?

Yeah, I get why @on2thenxt87 didn't bother discussing this bit.
This is another of those slightly annoying instances you're spot on, damn it. 😉 

And it explains perfectly what I strongly worded called dehumanization. 
When you believe the engineer who says Scottish sheep are black, a Scottish white sheep wouldn't be a sheep anymore. Same goes for people.

I get what you're saying, but how do we prove consent and it's opposite: not-consent?
We are taling about laws where a judge and/or jury has to make a call when someone has been transgressed against, and based on (proven) facts, aren't we?

If we can't prove the facts and still people can be convicted justice (being blind) would endanger every man and woman of being wrongfully convicted criminally or to pay damages they might not have caused.
 

Thanks for your comments @BareLover666. I definitely understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the concerns you raise, which I also hold and is why I wanted to do this research. Sometimes we think that a law or policy is neutral when it actually reinforces an existing privilege for the dominate group/culture, which is why I use the extreme ends of the binary to demonstrate this idea, but it nevertheless impacts everyone else who does not neatly fit into those binary categories (maybe even more so since identities that disrupt the binary are often even more stigmatized). In many ways, my paper is much more of a theory paper because I could have made the same theoretical arguments about affirmative consent policies/laws without interviewing gay men, and it would have been just as valid, which I suppose is what BootmanLA keeps missing by obsessing over my sample size. Plus, all his interactions with me and criticisms of my work have been so snarky and self-righteous. I genuinely just wanted to share a resource that I thought guys might find interesting and give some insights about the topic. Just because he doesn't find it relevant to this particular Australian law or this thread doesn't mean he has to be such a snarky jerk, which is why I don't have any desire to engage with him anymore on this topic. I am so busy with school and work that my time is valuable, and I'd rather not waste it fighting with someone like that online, which is why I said he wins cause I give up the fight.

Thanks again for your comments. I really do appreciate your insights and interaction with me. It helps create more productive and beneficial discourse on here. Since I don't want to continue being accused of hijacking this thread, we can always continue this discussion in a private message 😉 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, on2thenxt87 said:

obsessing over my sample size.

In this case size does matter.
But feel free to give arguments why your theories are still valid although not validated by a large enough number of interviews (essentially why size doesn't matter in your case), but as it  is you open your paper and your ideas to being classified / (dis)qualified as journalistic or rather (as is my guess) political iso scientific or even philosophical or ethical. (Sorry).

This:

45 minutes ago, on2thenxt87 said:

I genuinely just wanted to share a resource that I thought guys might find interesting and give some insights about the topic.

does your arguments and theories more harm than good, as it comes down to what we in The Netherlands jokingly refer to as:
"We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck". (see for origin of the frase: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_Duck).

And don't feel bad because you're in the illustrious company of the fabulous Catherine Deneuve who @BootmanLA recently had the gall to disqualify allong with 98 French female intellectuals and artists on their critique of the @MeToo movement in a related thread. Their open letter by the way also shows there's not one 'straight culture' and I'm still hoping you would elaborate on my earlier question:

22 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I would like to put the hypotheses to you that rules and laws about non-nonsexual sex are put into this world not with the victims or perpetrators in mind, but mostly to make the people (and politicians..) who advocate them feel righteous and good about themselves. 

For the input of 99 French women: [think before following links] https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/full-translation-of-french-anti-metoo-manifesto-signed-by-catherine-deneuve

[Guest]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:16 AM, barebackbro said:

I'll post a link to the legislation if I can find it!

Here you go:
[think before following links] https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/justice-legislation-amendment-sexual-offences-and-other-matters-bill-2022
and:
[think before following links] https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/bills/591338bi1.pdf

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

In this case size does matter.
But feel free to give arguments why your theories are still valid although not validated by a large enough number of interviews (essentially why size doesn't matter in your case), but as it  is you open your paper and your ideas to being classified / (dis)qualified as journalistic or rather (as is my guess) political iso scientific or even philosophical or ethical. (Sorry).

This:

does your arguments and theories more harm than good, as it comes down to what we in The Netherlands jokingly refer to as:
"We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck". (see for origin of the frase: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_Duck).

And don't feel bad because you're in the illustrious company of the fabulous Catherine Deneuve who @BootmanLA recently had the gall to disqualify allong with 98 French female intellectuals and artists on their critique of the @MeToo movement in a related thread. Their open letter by the way also shows there's not one 'straight culture' and I'm still hoping you would elaborate on my earlier question:

For the input of 99 French women: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/full-translation-of-french-anti-metoo-manifesto-signed-by-catherine-deneuve

There is a great article that addresses this issue of sample size in which the researchers find that...

"In qualitative research, the determination of sample size is contextual and partially dependent upon the scientific paradigm under which investigation is taking place. For example, qualitative research which is oriented towards positivism, will require larger samples than in-depth qualitative research does, so that a representative picture of the whole population under review can be gained. Nonetheless, the paper also concludes that sample sizes involving one single case can be highly informative and meaningful as demonstrated in examples from management and medical research. Unique examples of research using a single sample or case but involving new areas or findings that are potentially highly relevant, can be worthy of publication. Theoretical saturation can also be useful as a guide in designing qualitative research, with practical research illustrating that samples of 12 may be cases where data saturation occurs among a relatively homogeneous population." ([think before following links] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053/full/html)

I did in-depth qualitative research that is exploring how a small group of gay men perceive affirmative consent policies, and their perceptions support my theoretical argument that such policies reinforce gendered assumptions about sexual assault that has potentially negative implications for LGBTQ+ people, so I technically did not need a large sample size. I could still make the theoretical argument in an academic paper that affirmative consent policies are a form of governmentality that implicitly reinforces gendered and heterosexist conceptions of sexual assault that has negative implications for sexual minorities and it would still be a valid academic paper because that is one thing a social theory paper does, it applies and expands theory to aspects of our everyday lives. Similarly, I've got an autoethnography (a post-modern qualitative method) under review now that utilizes my own experiences to make a theoretical argument and uses queer theory to expand on a classic theory that has been traditionally been conceptualized through a gendered paradigm. This is why I say that I could have written this paper without interviewing anyone, and it still would have been valid. I think that part of the problem is that there is a narrow understanding of what is considered "research" and qualitative research has a history of being delegitimized for not being seen as rigorous enough. You are correct that by putting this out there I am opening it up for criticism, so no need to be sorry. Nevertheless, there are some people who will always feel critical of qualitative research that does not fit into rigid conceptions of what they think "research" should look like regardless of what I say or present, so that is why it's important to know when to walk away from a disagreement over something like this.

I definitely do not think that my argument does more harm than good.

To respond to your earlier question: I think that both things can be true... I think that politicians and advocates of certain laws or policies can think they have the interest of victims and perpetrators in mind, but also support such laws and policies as a way to perform their values because it benefits them somehow. I worked in a rape crisis center for a year, and most of the people I worked with had a very myopic perspective about the issue of sexual violence, which often manifested as reinforcing toxic and problematic narratives and discourses around the issue. For example, we had a male student who was being blackmailed with nude photos someone had gotten their hands on, and while discussing this with some of my co-workers, my supervisor said, "Well, it's really not as bad for him as it would be if this had happened to a girl." I was really shocked that she would minimize this young man's painful and embarrassing experience because of his gender, I wonder if this is similar to some of what those 99 French women were also trying to address when calling out the MeToo movement. I mean MeToo felt very performative in some regards because I don't know how much impact it really had in creating systemic change around the issue of sexual harassment and violence, like maybe it did in Hollywood, but I'm not sure of it's lasting impact on any other industries. Basically, I think it can be both, but I hope that makes sense.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, on2thenxt87 said:

autoethnography (a post-modern qualitative method)

Most people just call that an autobiography or a roman à clef in literature. 

And might I add that your sample size was 10, all of whom where - like yourself - identifying as gay, all from the same age group as yourself (18 to 55 y/o) and finding all of yourselves on a local pride event... Which in my student days when gay bars where still in existence (in provincial towns like where I got my Bachelor's) was called gossiping;
dear.     😆😂🤣 
More seriously I'd like to see more of your research and work on the (straight) majority iso of your own lifestyle, identity or sexuality because an outsider's perspective can see things we miss being part of that group.

 I've just send you a private message, where in my questions about other field of studies you might be interested in, I forgot to include political science. 

 

32 minutes ago, on2thenxt87 said:

I was really shocked that she would minimize this young man's painful and embarrassing experience because of his gender, I wonder if this is similar to some of what those 99 French women were also trying to address when calling out the MeToo movement.

What do you think, you've read their letter haven't you?
My thought is that perhaps these hundred (or at least more than 10...) French women are still fighting being slut-shamed, despite like (the encroyable) Catharine Deneuve having a glorious career, winning numerous awards and living to reach a respectable age. And I  noticed they referencing their daughters and not allowing them to be labeled victims solely on the basis of their sex (or gender).  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, on2thenxt87 said:

Nevertheless, there are some people who will always feel critical of qualitative research that does not fit into rigid conceptions of what they think "research" should look like regardless of what I say or present, so that is why it's important to know when to walk away from a disagreement over something like this.

Perhaps in stead of thinking that imitation is the highest form of flattery - which has crept into the sciences since being referenced has grown into a goal into itself; maybe you could see @BootmanLA's critique a a compliment because he takes your ideas, your work and intelligence serious enough to give it?
It's the opposite of being narrow-minded and it would show your own lack of rigidity and having reached an academic level of thinking, when you can incorporate insights from outside of sociology into your studies to further this (your own) field of expertise in stead of dismissing it or not debating it.

And after reading several of your academic writings and your contributions here on BZ I'd like to hand you a piece of advise from a great humanitarian as well as a ground-breaking theoratical physicist:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". (Albert Einstein)
 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Guest