• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Feminism responsible for Date Rape at College?

Linc

NIMBY
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
62,219
Reaction score
20,702
Location
IL—16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Mona Charen's exact quotes, with spin by Dana Milbank, from WaPo to Salt Lake City:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57757433-219/women-charen-feminism-lean.html.csp

Mr. Obama had a 36% advantage with unmarried women,
so the comments at the sparsely white-male attended Heritage Foundation meeting were certainly political.

I was good with M. Charen on women getting married, just as a way to have enough babies to keep paying for ACA over the decades.
Seriously, are we to procreate the next generation or not?
My two brothers will be up to four grands and my wife has three on her side.
My side isn't done yet .
 
Mona Charen's exact quotes, with spin by Dana Milbank, from WaPo to Salt Lake City:

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57757433-219/women-charen-feminism

Mr. Obama had a 36% advantage with unmarried women,
so the comments at the sparsely white-male attended Heritage Foundation meeting were certainly political.

I was good with M. Charen on women getting married, just as a way to have enough babies to keep paying for ACA over the decades.
Seriously, are we to procreate the next generation or not?
My two brothers will be up to four grands and my wife has three on her side.
My side isn't done yet .

That does it. No more wine for me.
 
I've no idea what the title has to do with the OP.


That does it. No more wine for me.

I think you're ok. I haven't had anything and I'm baffled.
 
I'm sorry you guys.
Did Charen blame feminism for hooking up at College and making it harder to prove Date Rape, or not, by her own quotes ?
 
I don't know about "Feminism" per se, but the Sexual Revolution certainly does seem to have played a role in making the problem more prevalent.

What on Earth do you expect to happen when you toss hordes of horny young men and naive scantily clad young women together and introduce copious amounts of drugs, alcohol, and hyper-aggressive sexual behavior into the mix, as the predominantly "anonymous" bar and club centric courtship model endemic to our current youth culture insists on doing?

Someone (a lot of 'someones,' as a matter of fact) is going to get hurt. It's basically inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure, oh, I dunno, that rapists are responsible for raping women?

Why do people insist on continuing to ask stupid questions for which there is already a well known, well studied answer?

Stop begging the question and get a reality check already.
 
Pretty sure, oh, I dunno, that rapists are responsible for raping women?

Why do people insist on continuing to ask stupid questions for which there is already a well known, well studied answer?

Stop begging the question and get a reality check already.

His reality check came back “NSF”.
 
Here's Charen's quote: "Feminism also, Charen said, creates college campuses "where hooking up is considered normal and date rape is difficult to prevent."

Is any liberal going to step up and disagree with that? The columnist sure didn't. I'm not quite sure what original content he added other than smarminess between the lines. So, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?
 
Here's Charen's quote: "Feminism also, Charen said, creates college campuses "where hooking up is considered normal and date rape is difficult to prevent."

Is any liberal going to step up and disagree with that? The columnist sure didn't. I'm not quite sure what original content he added other than smarminess between the lines. So, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

Feminism doesn't promote "hooking up", at least not any type of feminism I've ever heard of.
 
Here's Charen's quote: "Feminism also, Charen said, creates college campuses "where hooking up is considered normal and date rape is difficult to prevent."

Is any liberal going to step up and disagree with that? The columnist sure didn't. I'm not quite sure what original content he added other than smarminess between the lines. So, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

I miss the days before feminism, when no one ever got away with date rape
 
Feminism doesn't promote "hooking up", at least not any type of feminism I've ever heard of.

Sex-Positive Feminism - THEORY:

Sex-positive feminism centers on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women's freedom. As such, sex-positive feminists oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether these efforts are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution. . . .

There is debate among sex-positive feminists about whether statutory rape laws are a form of sexism.[8] As illustrated by the controversy over "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could" from the Vagina Monologues, some sex-positive feminists do not consider all consensual activity between young adolescents and older people as inherently harmful. There has been debate among feminists about whether statutory rape laws benefit or harm teenage girls,​

APPLICATION:

I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “**** like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.​
 

Equality in sexuality does not mean "hook up".

Perhaps the women was referring to tiny groups of feminists that make wacked out claims; however, as always in such cases, defining a population by a handful of people is not legit.
 
Equality in sexuality does not mean "hook up".

Perhaps the women was referring to tiny groups of feminists that make wacked out claims; however, as always in such cases, defining a population by a handful of people is not legit.

The text in red is conjecture on your part. The text in blue is conclusion. How on Earth are you reaching a conclusion based on fantasy?

Look, there has to be some REASON, some JUSTIFICATION for women to move from guarding their virginity in the Sandra Dee social universe to then going out there to saddle up and carve many notches into their bed posts. The slut shaming of the past was maintained for a reason and then it was abandoned for a reason. There are ideologies in back of those reasons. The new ideology is not a manifestation of "the Patriarchy."

We're not dealing with mere randomness of behavior here.
 
The text in red is conjecture on your part. The text in blue is conclusion. How on Earth are you reaching a conclusion based on fantasy?

It's a reasonable conclusion based on an extensive, though not exhaustive, knowledge of feminism. No form of feminism that I'm aware of, and that exists in any quantity promotes "hooking up". Equality in sexuality is not the promotion of "hooking up".

So, given that I'm unaware of any mainstream branch of feminism promoting such, I can only conclude that the woman in the OP is using a small group of people to define an entire population. And we all know that's BS.

Thus, conclusion: she's full of ****.


The slut shaming of the past was maintained for a reason and then it was abandoned for a reason.

It was maintained to subjugate women and it was abandoned in favor of sexual equality. Sexual equality does not promote "hooking up".
 
The text in red is conjecture on your part. The text in blue is conclusion. How on Earth are you reaching a conclusion based on fantasy?

Look, there has to be some REASON, some JUSTIFICATION for women to move from guarding their virginity in the Sandra Dee social universe to then going out there to saddle up and carve many notches into their bed posts. The slut shaming of the past was maintained for a reason and then it was abandoned for a reason. There are ideologies in back of those reasons. The new ideology is not a manifestation of "the Patriarchy."

We're not dealing with mere randomness of behavior here.

Woman have not guarded their virginity since long before there was ever feminism. They simply hid it better. Trends in premarital sex in the Un... [Public Health Rep. 2007 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI

Among those turning 15 between 1954 and 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by age 30, and 88% had done so by age 44.
 
Sex-Positive Feminism - THEORY:
Sex-positive feminism centers on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women's freedom. As such, sex-positive feminists oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether these efforts are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution. . . .

There is debate among sex-positive feminists about whether statutory rape laws are a form of sexism.[8] As illustrated by the controversy over "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could" from the Vagina Monologues, some sex-positive feminists do not consider all consensual activity between young adolescents and older people as inherently harmful. There has been debate among feminists about whether statutory rape laws benefit or harm teenage girls,​

APPLICATION:
I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “**** like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.​

You really do not know much of what you are talking about. Sex Positive feminism, as the wiki article explains "centers on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women's freedom." Simply put, that means that they view a broader range of activity as acceptable. Among the list are some people with widely varying views of what is and is not acceptable(and as much as I adore Susie Bright, she could go a bit too far). The key though is choice, as it always is with feminism. Feminism is, at it;s root, about women being able to choose what is good for them just as men can. Nothing in feminism says that women must play the bar scene, only that it is just as acceptable for women to do it as men. And playing the bar scene is not a license to rape.
 
It's a reasonable conclusion based on an extensive, though not exhaustive, knowledge of feminism. No form of feminism that I'm aware of, and that exists in any quantity promotes "hooking up". Equality in sexuality is not the promotion of "hooking up".

The days of feminism focusing on equality are long gone.

What we're dealing with here are notions of women's sexuality being freed from male control, women exerting their freedom by, and here's the important part, exercising that freedom. This last part isn't radical, it's seen throughout many philosophical movements. How can one have political freedom if one refrains from exercising that freedom? How can one have religious freedom if one is too frightened to exercise one's religious beliefs in public.

Male control of female sexuality arose in order to insure paternal certainty. If a woman is sleeping around then there was no way for her mate to be assured that the child she was carrying/delivering was his, hence strict control was imposed on women to insure that they didn't stray. Even when this was relaxed in terms of enforcement by men, women policed themselves - the reputations that they earned were useful to men when it came time to judge the woman as a potential mate.

Women were dancing to the tune played by men, for men's interests, so that a man could be assured that the child that he was raising was indeed his. Screw all that noise, what do women want? Well, not living their lives to please male agendas for one. What's the best way of doing that? Upending the "reputation" framework and the best way to do that was to foster the notion that a woman needs to sleep around.

Next up was how to tackle female reluctance due to their feeling used by men when they did sleep around. Glorify the "manliness" aspect of scoring with a number of partners and denigrate the female response of feeling used to be one of weakness and succumbing to patriarchal conditioning.

Look, this stuff is pretty doctrinaire feminism these days. As I said the days of feminists fighting for equality is long, long gone. When a movement wins an ideological battle it either folds up the tent or it morphs into something new.

All of this "Sex and the City" glorification of promiscuity has roots. Sure, a good part does come from male homosexual culture, but it really is the sex positive feminism which is the driving force here.

It's definitely not coming from men, there are plenty of men who are losers in this game and they're not happy about it. Hooking up is definitely not a creation of "The Patriarchy."
 
The days of feminism focusing on equality are long gone.

False. All the feminists I know, including the profs of the Gender department, are concerned with equal opportunity and not any of the BS motives that you choose to assign to others.


Hooking up is definitely not a creation of "The Patriarchy."

Of course it is.
 
The days of feminism focusing on equality are long gone.

What we're dealing with here are notions of women's sexuality being freed from male control, women exerting their freedom by, and here's the important part, exercising that freedom. This last part isn't radical, it's seen throughout many philosophical movements. How can one have political freedom if one refrains from exercising that freedom? How can one have religious freedom if one is too frightened to exercise one's religious beliefs in public.

Male control of female sexuality arose in order to insure paternal certainty. If a woman is sleeping around then there was no way for her mate to be assured that the child she was carrying/delivering was his, hence strict control was imposed on women to insure that they didn't stray. Even when this was relaxed in terms of enforcement by men, women policed themselves - the reputations that they earned were useful to men when it came time to judge the woman as a potential mate.

Women were dancing to the tune played by men, for men's interests, so that a man could be assured that the child that he was raising was indeed his. Screw all that noise, what do women want? Well, not living their lives to please male agendas for one. What's the best way of doing that? Upending the "reputation" framework and the best way to do that was to foster the notion that a woman needs to sleep around.

Next up was how to tackle female reluctance due to their feeling used by men when they did sleep around. Glorify the "manliness" aspect of scoring with a number of partners and denigrate the female response of feeling used to be one of weakness and succumbing to patriarchal conditioning.

Look, this stuff is pretty doctrinaire feminism these days. As I said the days of feminists fighting for equality is long, long gone. When a movement wins an ideological battle it either folds up the tent or it morphs into something new.

All of this "Sex and the City" glorification of promiscuity has roots. Sure, a good part does come from male homosexual culture, but it really is the sex positive feminism which is the driving force here.

It's definitely not coming from men, there are plenty of men who are losers in this game and they're not happy about it. Hooking up is definitely not a creation of "The Patriarchy."

I love it when some one explains a view they dislike, and they always just make **** up. Your crazy notions of what you think feminists want are of no real merit. I can make **** up too if I wanted, but I would at least make it somewhat believable.
 
Don't tell me you're foolish enough to doubt the fact that college age males are unanimously opposed to casual sex.

Or that patriarchy set the standards, including hooking up, for thousands of years.
 
I love it when some one explains a view they dislike, and they always just make **** up. Your crazy notions of what you think feminists want are of no real merit. I can make **** up too if I wanted, but I would at least make it somewhat believable.

I really wonder how old you guys are, you're talking ancient **** here. When was the last time you were on a college campus, like 1975 or something? Hanna Rosin, tool of the patriarchy and author of the feminist bible "The End of Men" addressing the critics of hook-up culture:

It’s a sexual culture lamented by, among others, Caitlin Flanagan, in the pages of this magazine as well as in her nostalgia-*drenched new book, Girl Land. Like many other critics, Flanagan pines for an earlier time, when fathers protected “innocent” girls from “punks” and predators, and when girls understood it was their role to also protect themselves.

Girl Land, like so much writing about young women and sexuality, concentrates on what has been lost. The central argument holds that women have effectively been duped by a sexual revolution that persuaded them to trade away the protections of (and from) young men. In return, they were left even more vulnerable and exploited than before. Sexual liberation, goes the argument, primarily liberated men—to act as cads, using women for their own pleasures and taking no responsibility for the emotional wreckage that their behavior created. The men hold all the cards, and the women put up with it because now it’s too late to zip it back up, so they don’t have a choice.

But this analysis downplays the unbelievable gains women have lately made, and, more important, it forgets how much those gains depend on sexual liberation. Single young women in their sexual prime—that is, their 20s and early 30s, the same age as the women at the business-school party—are for the first time in history more success*ful, on average, than the single young men around them. They are more likely to have a college degree and, in aggregate, they make more money. What makes this remarkable development possible is not just the pill or legal abortion but the whole new landscape of sexual freedom—the ability to delay marriage and have temporary relationships that don’t derail education or career. To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture. And to a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture, especially in school, cannily manipulating it to make space for their success, always keeping their own ends in mind. For college girls these days, an overly serious suitor fills the same role an accidental pregnancy did in the 19th century: a danger to be avoided at all costs, lest it get in the way of a promising future. . . .

One sorority girl, a junior with a beautiful tan, long dark hair, and a great figure, whom I’ll call Tali, told me that freshman year she, like many of her peers, was high on her first taste of the hookup culture and didn’t want a boyfriend. “It was empowering, to have that kind of control,” she recalls. “Guys were texting and calling me all the time, and I was turning them down. I really enjoyed it! I had these options to hook up if I wanted them, and no one would judge me for it.” . . . . . But the soda-fountain nostalgia of this answer quickly dissipated when I asked Tali and her peers a related question: Did they want the hookup culture to go away—might they prefer the mores of an earlier age, with formal dating and slightly more obvious rules? This question, each time, prompted a look of horror. Reform the culture, maybe, teach women to “advocate for themselves”—a phrase I heard many times—but end it? Never. Even one of the women who had initiated the Title IX complaint, Alexandra Brodsky, felt this way. “I would never come down on the hookup culture,” she said. “Plenty of women enjoy having casual sex.” . . . .

The most patient and thorough research about the hookup culture shows that over the long run, women benefit greatly from living in a world where they can have sexual adventure without commitment or all that much shame, and where they can enter into temporary relationships that don’t get in the way of future success.

Women in the dorm complained to the researchers about the double standard, about being called sluts, about not being treated with respect. But what emerged from four years of research was the sense that hooking up was part of a larger romantic strategy, part of what Armstrong came to think of as a “sexual career.” For an upwardly mobile, ambitious young woman, hookups were a way to dip into relationships without disrupting her self-development or schoolwork. Hookups functioned as a “delay tactic,” Armstrong writes, because the immediate priority, for the privileged women at least, was setting themselves up for a career. “If I want to maintain the lifestyle that I’ve grown up with,” one woman told Armstrong, “I have to work. I just don’t see myself being someone who marries young and lives off of some boy’s money.” Or from another woman: “I want to get secure in a city and in a job … I’m not in any hurry at all. As long as I’m married by 30, I’m good.”

The women still had to deal with the old-fashioned burden of protecting their personal reputations, but in the long view, what they really wanted to protect was their future professional reputations. “Rather than struggling to get into relationships,” Armstrong reported, women “had to work to avoid them.” (One woman lied to an interested guy, portraying herself as “extremely conservative” to avoid dating him.) Many did not want a relationship to steal time away from their friendships or studying. . . .

The women described boyfriends as “too greedy” and relation*ships as “too involved.” One woman “with no shortage of admirers” explained, “I know this sounds really pathetic and you probably think I am lying, but there are so many other things going on right now that it’s really not something high up on my list … I know that’s such a lame-ass excuse, but it’s true.” The women wanted to study or hang out with friends or just be “100 percent selfish,” as one said. “I have the rest of my life to devote to a husband or kids or my job.” Some even purposely had what one might think of as fake boyfriends, whom they considered sub–marriage quality, and weren’t genuinely attached to. “He fits my needs now, because I don’t want to get married now,” one said. “I don’t want anyone else to influence what I do after I graduate.” . . .

One of the great crime stories of the past 20 years, meanwhile, is the dramatic decline of rape and sexual assault. Between 1993 and 2008, the rate of those crimes against females dropped by 70 percent nationally. . . .

There is no retreating from the hookup culture to an earlier age, when a young man showed up at the front door with a box of chocolates for his sweetheart, and her father eyed him warily. Even the women most frustrated by the hookup culture don’t really want that. The hookup culture is too bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence, the knowledge that you can always depend on yourself. The only option is what Hannah’s friends always tell her—stop doing what feels awful, and figure out what doesn’t.​

Yeah, I see what you fossils mean, that sure looks like a brilliant invention of old white men to trap women under the thumb of "The Patriarchy." Or something.
 
When some one is reduced to citing editorials, you know it is not going well for them.
 
When some one is reduced to citing editorials, you know it is not going well for them.

That's your response? How about you point to writers and theorists from "The Patriarchy" and show how they hatched this diabolical plan and how they snookered the stupid feminists into supporting it.

I'm giving you the words of a leading feminist. She makes her case well. All of the pieces of the puzzle fit together. She cites young women explaining WHY they find it so empowering.

Come on, bring your best game, old man.
 
Back
Top Bottom