Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[Xantippe]

Being a victim of rape does not entitle you to special moral authority nor does it give you a dispensation to do things like break forum rules.

Furthermore, if anyone discusses it publicly, criticism of the experience and everything and everyone around it is fair game.

PS—it’s not just women who are the victims of rape.

Nobody said that only women are victims of rape. In fact, I’ve made a point of mentioning male victims throughout the thread.

Regarding your point that “Being a victim of rape does not entitle you to special moral authority nor does it give you a dispensation to do things like break forum rules,” I’m responding to what you have said about posters in this thread adopting progressive views in order to impressive progressive friends. I’m pointing out that a) these hypothetical third parties are nowhere near here and b) a number of people are posting because of personal experiences of sexual abuse or rape. That is a much more powerful motivator, you must realize, than getting completely hypothetical brownie points from hypothetical liberal friends.

And, lastly, I would point out that being a victim of sexual abuse or rape does actually provide a lot of insight into such questions as, why don’t victims immediately report or why don’t victims vigorously resist?

 

[SuperLuigi]

why don’t victims immediately report

Some of the time, it’s because they don’t see it as rape. It may or may not have been.

 

[DarkLight]

Some of the time, it’s because they don’t see it as rape. It may or may not have been.

I can tell you when I was growing up, rape pretty much exclusively meant a stranger with a knife type of scenario. Maybe something with a drunk woman, but then good girls didn’t drink (because Baptists). The idea that someone could be raped by a partner was “feminist nonsense”.

Opinions on feminism aside, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m probably the only one who read your link

How would you distill down the quoted paragraph on enthusiasm?

What is consent?

Consent is how we make sure that people feel safe, comfortable and respected! It’s a mutual, ongoing and enthusiastic agreement without threats or head games. Listening when someone says “yes” or “no”…

www.yesmeansyes.com

That’s a really tough request–I think it’s pretty distilled already, and the words are chosen very carefully. I’m actually going to quote more (but I believe the portion you are interested in is in bold):

"Consent is a mutual verbal, physical, and emotional agreement that happens without manipulation, threats, or head games.

"Consent is a whole body experience. It is not just a verbal “yes” or “no” – it involves paying attention to your partner as a person and checking in with physical and emotional cues as well.

"Consent is also mutual (both people have to agree) and must be continuous. You can stop at any time, you can change your mind, and just because you said yes to one thing doesn’t mean you have consented to anything else.

“Consent is enthusiastic
At Project Respect, we believe that everyone has the right to sexuality without violence and as part of that, we believe that positive sexuality begins with enthusiastic consent. This means being as excited and into someone else’s enjoyment as we are excited and into our own enjoyment. Only yes means yes – and yes should come from an engaged and enthusiastic partner.”

I don’t think I can distill the bolded portion further, or even really paraphrase it, but I’ll take a stab at it:

–Healthy, positive sexuality requires enthusiastic consent.
–We ought to devote as much attention to how the other person is doing as to ourselves during sex.
–There’s no substitute for an actual yes.
–The other person needs to be “engaged and enthusiastic” for there to be consent. [sorry–paraphrase fail]

There’s literally no “equal enthusiasm” anywhere on that page. As somebody else mentioned earlier, the equality mentioned is about treating the other person with as much consideration as ourselves.

 

[Xantippe]

Some of the time, it’s because they don’t see it as rape. It may or may not have been.

I can tell you when I was growing up, rape pretty much exclusively meant a stranger with a knife type of scenario. Maybe something with a drunk woman, but then good girls didn’t drink (because Baptists). The idea that someone could be raped by a partner was “feminist nonsense”.

Here’s what I would say in response to SuperLuigi–there are a lot of experiences that don’t come with instant labels and that have to be processed to be understood, because you don’t have the necessary concepts at the time of the incident.

For example, as I’ve mentioned before a number of times on CAF, when I was a tween and teen, when my mom lost her temper, she would break wooden spoons and spatulas on me and my sister and she’d literally chase us around with a horse whip (it had been purchased for horses but had somehow never quite made its way to the barn). I didn’t talk about that with anybody except my sister until I joined CAF, over 20 years later and started participating in threads on spanking and corporal punishment. Suddenly, there were people telling me that that was abuse and that my mom had been abusive when I told them my experiences with spanking (these were spanking parents who were horrified by my stories). I’d literally never thought about it in those terms but–the shoe fits.

Likewise, getting molested or raped is not going to come with subtitles (“YOU ARE BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED”).

Here’s an example from a Christendom student’s story of being sexually assaulted by her college boyfriend:

Are women safe in Christendom’s bubble? Part I – SIMCHA FISHER

“Smith, who was then a sophomore, says she was so naive, she didn’t even know to use the word “rape” until many months later. She told her friends, “He had sex with me, and I didn’t want to.””

“Up until that point, I considered myself fairly knowledgeable,” she said. “But it took me a second to realize what was happening. I remember thinking, ‘Is that what I think it is? Is that what’s happening right now?’”

A woman might be really surprised and shocked by the situation and take a while to understand what just happened, especially when the perpetrator is a previously trusted friend or boyfriend–the person that she would (under normal circumstances) instinctively turn to for support. It can take a long time to process all the different layers of that kind of betrayal.

Edited to add: Another issue is that the mind may not be up to dealing with trauma. It’s shocking and overwhelming and the circuits just shut down. I remember once trying to study for a final exam, and I couldn’t even understand the words in front of me on the page. Granted, I was also just about to get sick with mono, but the trauma was also probably involved–my mind just shut down. That is probably, come to think of it, a coping mechanism, like when a household fuse blows.

 

[DarkLight]

I think a lot of this can be related back to Catholic teaching that one should never be simply using your partner in sex. There’s a certain attitude towards sex popular in modern society that is almost masturbatory in its intent. The pleasure sought may require certain equipment that can only be found on a member of the opposite sex, but the other individual is only of interest insofar as they provide that equipment. There’s no thought of them as a person at all.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Without Catholic teaching, it just doesn’t add up.

 

[Theo520]

It’s all romantic and wishy washy, completely useless if you are trying to set clear traffic rules that will avoid accidents.

Again, we need consent guidance that works for two ships passing in the night, not characters in a romance novel. We need guidance that prevents trauma when both parties have had a few drinks and maybe don’t even remember what the person said their name was.

 

[Theo520]

I think a lot of this can be related back to Catholic teaching that one should never be simply using your partner in sex. There’s a certain attitude towards sex popular in modern society that is almost masturbatory in its intent. The pleasure sought may require certain equipment that can only be found on a member of the opposite sex, but the other individual is only of interest insofar as they provide that equipment. There’s no thought of them as a person at all.

I agree 100%, if Catholic mores were omnipresent we wouldn’t be having a #MeToo movement.

 

[PetraG]

It’s all romantic and wishy washy, completely useless if you are trying to set clear traffic rules that will avoid accidents.

Again, we need consent guidance that works for two ships passing in the night, not characters in a romance novel. We need guidance that prevents trauma when both parties have had a few drinks and maybe don’t even remember what the person said their name was.

When two ships pass in the night, caveat emptor. That goes both ways, now.

There is no way to “prevent trauma” when both parties have had a few drinks and maybe don’t even remember what the person said their name was!!! There isn’t!! That is an extremely foolish situation to allow yourself to get into and you risk doing all sorts of real harm.

Do we try to “prevent trauma” to people who drink and drive? No! We tell people that it is not only foolish but irresponsible to do that, and we put the damage that happens on their heads. We don’t treat the crashes that are going to inevitably happen when someone does that “accidents.” When you drink that much and bad things happen, it is predictable. It is not like getting struck by lightning and no one ought to feel some need to act as if it is. Don’t drink and drive, don’t ride in the same car with people who have been drinking. Call for a ride, everyone you know will come and pick you up, no questions asked.

Would it be so bad to expect people to be just as careful with their chastity as with their cars?

 

[PetraG]

Without Catholic teaching, it just doesn’t add up.

Exactly! Divine law is not arbitrary and it is not prudish or uptight. It is wise.

That truth does not sit well with those who only think about the Divine as giving them a God-given right to as much of the World, the Flesh and the Devil as they can pull in with both hands. The unpopularity of the truth doesn’t make it less true.

 

[Theo520]

Actually ships passing in the night have very clear rules that help prevent a collision, so simple that even a tipsy captain can avoid a collision, no chance of miscommunication with the other boat

http://www.sacdelta.com/safety/rules.html

Would it be so bad to expect people to be just as careful with their chastity as with their cars?

If the expectation is completely disconnected from reality, it is a bad thing to rely upon. I wish everyone had Catholic mores, but they don’t. Thus I lock both my car and house.

 

[ATraveller]

Here’s an example from a Christendom student’s story of being sexually assaulted by her college boyfriend

This is something important to point out.
A lot of people think things like that can’t happen in a Christian community. It can. There are wolves everywhere, we’ve been warned multiple times in the Bible.
That said, we don’t want a witch-hunt but we also don’t want to let our guard down due to some false assumption.
I’m also thinking of Oxfam and what’s happening with them. People assume people like those in the scandal can’t do good works like helping earthquake victims and working for a reputable charity. Well, we know they can and now those in leadership at Oxfam and other aid agencies had learned the hard way and/or have had their false assumptions shattered.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes and no. People can have an idea of morality even if they don’t grasp the full picture. I think most people can understand some concept that it’s not ok to push your partner into something they don’t want to do, simply because you want to do it. It is an imperfect grasp of morality, but it’s not like the nonbeliever is completely incapable of grasping any at all.

And as Catholics we need to figure out how to function in society as it is. There are many men and women who are perfectly ok having casual sex - even many who identify as Catholic. I know that when a man approaches me on the street he knows nothing except what I look like. In theory I suppose I could wear a giant crucifix or something, but honestly that would probably just be tacky. So I’m going to have to deal with the fact that a lot of men out there not only don’t share my morals, but have no idea what they are.

Given that, I would much prefer a world where they at least took me at my word that I’m not interested.

 

[PetraG]

This is something important to point out.

A lot of people think things like that can’t happen in a Christian community. It can. There are wolves everywhere, we’ve been warned multiple times in the Bible.

That said, we don’t want a witch-hunt but we also don’t want to let our guard down due to some false assumption.

I’m also thinking of Oxfam and what’s happening with them. People assume people like those in the scandal can’t do good works like helping earthquake victims and working for a reputable charity. Well, we know they can and now those in leadership at Oxfam and other aid agencies had learned the hard way and/or have had their false assumptions shattered.

There is nothing a manipulator wants more than to be thought of as a “good person who makes mistakes.” Find a nice Christian to constantly forgive you, and you have carte blanche. That’s why all the rest of us have to abide by rules that keep the predators from running amok and acting as if it was all an innocent mistake.

It will not hurt if people have some idea that pushing themselves on someone who has said “no” can get them into some trouble, that there are definite limits on acceptable “persistence.” As for knowing that one can get into trouble by rushing into intimate situations that seem glamorous with people they don’t know have a working set of brakes, I would hope they already have an idea that this can also get one into some trouble. I’m not in any way suggesting that people should no longer have to “look out” for themselves in that way, too. It does need to go both ways.

In the best case, people no longer automatically believe one side or the other. Yes, if everyone complaining their lack of consent was ignored can tell whatever story they want and be automatically believed, that is as unacceptable as the case where those who say everything must have been consensual because their partner walked into the room on his or her own steam are always believed. Neither extreme is tenable. Getting alone in that room with someone puts that other person in a position of trust. There is no getting around that.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Come to think of it, if StarshipTrooper is still around, he’s a Red Pill guy–he ought to be able to show you around.

I don’t think it’s right for anyone to talk about other posters. That was totally unnecessary.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think it’s right for anyone to talk about other posters. That was totally unnecessary.

What was offensive?

StarshipTrooper is a Red Pill guy in good standing–he should be able to give Theo520 a decent summary of the various manosphere groups and their creeds.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes and no. People can have an idea of morality even if they don’t grasp the full picture. I think most people can understand some concept that it’s not ok to push your partner into something they don’t want to do, simply because you want to do it. It is an imperfect grasp of morality, but it’s not like the nonbeliever is completely incapable of grasping any at all.

Right. And remember, the Golden-Rule-ish stuff about sex that I was quoting was from a very secular organization.

There is such a thing as the natural law. As St. Paul says in Romans 2, "14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them "

 

[Xantippe]

It’s all romantic and wishy washy, completely useless if you are trying to set clear traffic rules that will avoid accidents.

Again, we need consent guidance that works for two ships passing in the night, not characters in a romance novel. We need guidance that prevents trauma when both parties have had a few drinks and maybe don’t even remember what the person said their name was.

As PetraG was pointing out, there are going to be accidents and trauma under those circumstances, so giving advice for how to do so safely is like giving pointers for safe drunk driving. It’s simply a matter of time until something bad happens, when not if.

Somewhat related–alcoholism hurts empathy in male alcoholics:

Men Alcoholics Can Hear the Words But Not the Emotions

Male alcoholics appear to have a great deal of difficulty recognizing emotions in written language

www.livescience.com

“Male alcoholics appear to have a great deal of difficulty recognizing emotions in verbal language, a small European study suggests. The researchers also found that the men have a weakened ability to show empathy.”

And I’m sure all of us have had personal experiences with how poor even non-alcoholic people who are drinking are at reading emotions and social situations or understanding the effect of their behavior on bystanders.

The advice about enthusiastic consent is intended for the benefit of people of both sexes primarily so that they don’t hurt others–it’s about avoiding harming others, not about justifying yourself after you do hurt somebody.

I’d also point out that there’s an evangelistic benefit to secular young people absorbing a Golden Rule standard for sexuality, because if you get that far, actual Christian sexual morality isn’t going to look that hard, because they’ve already absorbed the idea of sexuality not being solely about self-gratification, and positive sexuality requiring self-control.

 

[DarkLight]

I’d also point out that there’s an evangelistic benefit to secular young people absorbing a Golden Rule standard for sexuality, because if you get that far, actual Christian sexual morality isn’t going to look that hard, because they’ve already absorbed the idea of sexuality not being solely about self-gratification, and positive sexuality requiring self-control.

Yes - I’ve had some success getting ideas of Christian sexuality across to nonbelievers by focusing on the idea of sex as a giving to your partner. Helps get the idea across that it’s not just about telling people what not to do.