Hacker News Reader

Comment by foobarbazqux | Hacker News Reader

Wait, it's sexist to thank God for the physical qualities of the opposite sex?

Thank God for the physical qualities of the opposite sex. (Or evolution, whatever.)

It follows a feminist narrative where woman are asexual beings and sex is something only men like and force upon women. (sex-negative feminism) In such a narrative every statement of attractiveness is ultimately a outing a want-to-be rapist or a predator. If you are in such a narrative it also makes perfect sense to say it's sexist. Outside of that narrative hardly.

The feminist narrative is that women would like a bit of consent with their sex, thank you very much. That includes eye sex.

A substantial part of feminist theory holds that intercourse is rape.

Nope, just that if what you want is consent, and if you don't permit consent to count unless it's genuinely meant - no pressure, no arm twisting, no punishment for a "no" - then it's damn hard to contrive a circumstance where in a patriarchal society, a man can assume a woman is consenting. "Yes" can only be understood as "yes, given the estimated probability of consequences for no". And it takes a whole lot of effort even to blunt that a little.

So if consent is more or less meaningless, why isn't it logical to conclude that intercourse is rape?

It's absolutely not meaningless. The opposite! But it's hard.

And yeah, that means for most people who aren't putting in the unusual effort, most nominally mutual intercourse is somewhere from slightly to heavily contaminated, depending on things like "how abusive is the relationship?". Call that what you will.

But like I don't think consent is hard, and I don't rape people, and I'm not a feminist because I believe unhealthy relationships are equally bad for men (assuming I'm allowed to choose my identity which seems to be a tenet of modern sexual politics). It's obvious if someone wants to have sex with me, usually based only on their body language, and I respect it if they don't. But maybe I'm just one of the lucky and sensitive ones.

This was interesting:

http://www.xojane.com/issues/im-a-sex-negative-feminist

Ok, I'm not even sure if you are sarcastic or serious. Did you seriously just say that looking at somebody can constitute rape?

Nope, but

  as rape is to sex,

  nonconsensual leering is to hot eye sex.

So, looking at somebody consensually is "eye sex" and non-consensually is "eye rape"? I have to say... I can't take this vocabulary serious.

/edit

Looking a somebody and having sex with sombody is as far apart for me as a hand shake and a MMA fight: the polar opposite sides in the spectrum of social interaction.

I'd ask why you're defending nonconsensual leering, but it's clear you're anti-feminist trash, so meh, please disappear.

I think you both make valid points. What does that make me? Unqualified trash?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com