Many feminists, "children's rights activist" and people of similar mindset have a serious problem when it comes to sexual autonomy and freedom. Perhaps not in general but nearly always when other people freely choose to partake in activities which they have associated with unacceptable abuse.
As an example of this often devastating attitude I'd like to show this article published in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Today's News) entitled "Ignorant judges frees accused in sex crime cases" where she states:
Here her mindset of both infantilizing youths decision making and demonizing consensual sexual behavior becomes apparent.
First of all she is misapplying the relevant stature which is not a general law regulating "what one can consent to" but rather refers to a law which makes it so that one cannot be legally sanctioned for committing a crime against a person if they consented to it. Consequently people taking part in things like boxing or other martial arts and contact sports do not risk being sanctioned for the typical consensual behavior found in such sports. Besides the "child" she mentions was 16 years old at the time and there's nothing illegal about having consensual sex with a 16 year old so the stature is completely irrelevant. He was, despite this law, convicted of abusing her because the court felt that he had not been careful enough to seek her consent for the acts he did and at one point apparently taking too long to remove a nipple clamp after she wanted it removed.
Then comes the more pressing issue: she effectively treats the girl as a victim of rape based upon the notion that, because she had a self-harm problem, she is apparently unable to consent to sex especially when the one she had sex with used her to satisfy his "sadistic sexual drive". She finds the idea of some "little vulnerable 16 year old child" consenting to BDSM sex with a "big bad old man" so appalling and unacceptable that he ought to be convicted of rape. The motivation of the girl is completely inconsequential presumably because she's a victim and thus all the blame for this awful situation lies with the perpetrator.
The same attitude of both ignoring the consent, motivation, self-determination and autonomy of the "victims" in prostitution, pornography, sex and such "awful" sexual exploitative behaviors is in my opinion really common among feminists. I honestly think it's due to the fact that they have more or less accepted that prostitution, porn and general sexual acts where there is a power imbalance is bad by itself, no matter the actual circumstances involved, and thus the "perpetrator" must be punished.
Has anyone else noticed this attitude?
As an example of this often devastating attitude I'd like to show this article published in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (Today's News) entitled "Ignorant judges frees accused in sex crime cases" where she states:
Quote:
|
But what behavior can a 16 year old consent to? A child who is obviously suffering from a self-destructive behavior - and which also received help to pour in alcohol and finally is heavily drunk. The law says that consent is not avoiding liability for an act which in view of the damage, violation or danger that it entails, its purpose and other circumstances, is indefensible. Then isn't this just such an indefensible action? Using a self-harming child (a 16-year-old is a child under the UNCRC), to satisfy his own sadistic sex drive? |
First of all she is misapplying the relevant stature which is not a general law regulating "what one can consent to" but rather refers to a law which makes it so that one cannot be legally sanctioned for committing a crime against a person if they consented to it. Consequently people taking part in things like boxing or other martial arts and contact sports do not risk being sanctioned for the typical consensual behavior found in such sports. Besides the "child" she mentions was 16 years old at the time and there's nothing illegal about having consensual sex with a 16 year old so the stature is completely irrelevant. He was, despite this law, convicted of abusing her because the court felt that he had not been careful enough to seek her consent for the acts he did and at one point apparently taking too long to remove a nipple clamp after she wanted it removed.
Then comes the more pressing issue: she effectively treats the girl as a victim of rape based upon the notion that, because she had a self-harm problem, she is apparently unable to consent to sex especially when the one she had sex with used her to satisfy his "sadistic sexual drive". She finds the idea of some "little vulnerable 16 year old child" consenting to BDSM sex with a "big bad old man" so appalling and unacceptable that he ought to be convicted of rape. The motivation of the girl is completely inconsequential presumably because she's a victim and thus all the blame for this awful situation lies with the perpetrator.
The same attitude of both ignoring the consent, motivation, self-determination and autonomy of the "victims" in prostitution, pornography, sex and such "awful" sexual exploitative behaviors is in my opinion really common among feminists. I honestly think it's due to the fact that they have more or less accepted that prostitution, porn and general sexual acts where there is a power imbalance is bad by itself, no matter the actual circumstances involved, and thus the "perpetrator" must be punished.
Has anyone else noticed this attitude?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1AIGHBa
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire