Rape culture and the crisis of intimacy
Article here. Excerpt:
'When spiked’s law editor Luke Gittos decided to write a book on ‘rape culture’ he must have known it was likely to cause him a lot of trouble. Gittos is a privileged, white, London-based, (possibly cis-gender) male lawyer who claims no experience of forced sex. His book could not be more of a challenge to the current zeitgeist.
Hence, there will be those who say his privileged, white maleness disqualifies him from speaking out on the issue of rape, and that this book, Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth: From Steubenville to Ched Evans, is a ‘mansplaining’ display of insensitive arrogance by someone with no sense of women’s experience. Others will probably be tempted to dismiss any man who writes a book challenging ‘rape culture’ as an attention-seeking controversialist intent on provoking feminist fury. The publisher should probably have issued a Twitterstorm alert.
But such attempts to dismiss the relevance of Gittos’s arguments would be mind-numbingly stupid. Because, despite his gender and background (neither of which are his fault), Gittos has produced a useful and intelligent analysis that clarifies and makes sense of an issue that has become very muddled.
Gittos’s tightly written polemic argues against the accepted view that we live in a society in which misogyny and everyday sexism have created a so-called rape culture, in which rape is pervasive, underreported and ignored. He does not believe that the police and the law courts are failing women by failing to convict rapists. On the contrary, Gittos argues that the obsession with a ‘culture of rape’ has seriously distorted our view of sexual violence, and that the expansion of laws to protect women is eroding areas of privacy and inviting state regulation of our most intimate affairs.
This is dangerous for us all – not just men who may find themselves dragged into court following a sexual encounter they believed was consensual. Gittos holds that the drive to prosecute (and improve conviction rates against) more and more people has dangerous implications for the fundamental principles of justice, and for basic freedoms. The situation as things stand, he maintains, does no one any favours: it undermines society’s ability to deal adequately with extreme assault, and it undermines our ability to live intimately with one another.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
The fix? Sexbots
Don't kid yourselves, sexbots will figure prominently in first world humanity's solution to this bizarre twisting of normalcy by feminists. Trust me, android roboticists know where their market lies, and like the developers of the VCR machines of yore, it was allowing people (men, mostly) the option of meeting unmet sexual wants or needs in some way privately that drove the development. Human-looking and -acting androids have one primary purpose for development at this point: sex partnership. And it isn't women who are driving the unmet market demand.
Today's whacko feminism is leading the charge of idiocy that inspires men's desire for sexual surrogates in the form of humanoid androids. No one should kid themselves about what the future looks like. Feminists are arguing the entire female sex (at least in the first world) into sexual and relational irrelevancy as far as men are concerned. Unless wiser women take it seriously and start fighting the ludicrousness of feminist machinations, this *will* come to pass.
If you've never heard of a UK series called "Humans", Google it and start watching it. Whole episodes can be watched on YouTube.