[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 131 KB, 1259x800, foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13359592 No.13359592 [Reply] [Original]

All heterosexual sex is rape because of the inherent power imbalance between men and women in society.

>> No.13359637

All penetrative sex is rape because of the inherent power imbalance between the top and the bottom
And that's a good thing. Foucault was no dummy

>> No.13359645

>>13359592
Turns out I am a rapist. That’s pretty hot.

>> No.13359648

Indeed. Sexual intercourse ought to be done away with altogether

>> No.13359749

>>13359592
what is she's pegging me?
checkmate Foucault

>> No.13359758

>>13359592
Did he really say anything like that? Rape isn't sex between unequal powers. It's sex between unequal powers without mutual consent.

>> No.13359763

>>13359758

Consent cannot be give when there is an inequality of power

Women who think they possess the agency to have sex and continue to do so are perpetuating rape culture and male supremacy

>> No.13359770

>>13359763
>Consent cannot be give when there is an inequality of power
Bullshit. You can be happy with who you are no matter your stance in life. A woman can enjoy being smaller than a man and physically dominated by him in the bedroom. That enjoyment and want is consent.

>> No.13359771

>>13359592
...and that's a good thing!

>> No.13359779

>>13359770

>that enjoyment and want is consent

Are you retarded? That enjoyment and want is totally socially constructed in accordance with the power relation

>> No.13359787

>>13359779
>That enjoyment and want is totally socially constructed
And? Social constructs are real.

>> No.13359789

>>13359787

It reduces the meaningfulness of the agency and hence consent. In the same way that alcohol or a direct power imbalance (such as in a professional situation) do

It's pervasive and fundamentally immoral and oppressive

>> No.13359806

>>13359789
...and that's a good thing!

>> No.13359810

correct, women have all the power in modern society so all women I've had sex with have been raping me

>> No.13359814

>>13359789
>It reduces the meaningfulness of the agency and hence consent.
More bullshit. Language is a social construct. I'm not about to render it meaningless for that and discard it. The psychological also has effects on the physiological; the child that grows up in our society learning a language is adapted to thinking and feeling per that language's grammatical structure and diction. In other words, the woman who takes pleasure in being smaller and dominated by a man (not just any man, a man she admires) may have been socially conditioned to feel that way, but that social conditioning has become physiological; she really feels joy and want.

>> No.13359819

>>13359770
That is perversion and self-degradation...

>> No.13359827

>>13359819
>loving yourself is perversion and self-degradation

>> No.13359833

>>13359814

Lmao, even from a utilitarian perspective, this is retarded. Have you ever heard of local maxima vs. global maxima? You are arguing for some fucked up Sisyphean world where the mere exposure effect justifies oppression.

>> No.13359840

So? Did foucault ever adopt a moral stance? No, he's just stating his observations. But anglos being anglos, they ought to moralize any claims made because they cannot process information otherwise.

>> No.13359842

>>13359833
>oppression
Just a twisted sociopath's word for love.

>> No.13359846

>>13359840

It's not Foucault, it's just a Foucauldian reading of Dworkin

>> No.13359853

>>13359763
This implies the dominant party lacks the power to respect consent, as if he can't consent to only proceeding with consent.

>> No.13359858

>>13359840
All niggers will hang. Am I adopting a moral stance here? Au contraire, you filthy a*glo plebian, I'm simply observing. Hon hon hon, pass the poz loads mon frere.

>> No.13359864

>women are dumb stupid creatures incapable of running their own lives, ergo they need men to dominate and control them to stop them from stepping out of line
>if you don't agree with this you hate women
I love this kind of stuff, no joke. Is there a specific term for this? Completely co-opting an argument and turning it around solely for the point of mocking your opponent?

>> No.13359865

>>13359846
That's like saying "Socrates wasn't ironic he just used Socratic irony".

>> No.13359866

>>13359853

The dominant party plays no role. The dominated cannot give consent and the interaction's consensuality is terminated irrevocably at that point

>> No.13359883

>>13359864
They don't just need it, they want it. Even a clever and independent woman will want a man to dominate her, if she's a woman at all; part of being a woman is being happy with your vagina which is an organ designed to be penetrated and filled, not for penetration and filling. A woman that doesn't want that from a man she admires / respects / thinks is sexy hasn't fully bloomed into a woman yet.

>> No.13359887

>differences between humans exist and are objective
Okay, checks out.
>these differences can impact how humans interact
Alright, make sense, clearly verifiable.
>these differences are always inherently bad for one party
No.
>one party is always maliciously trying to exploit the difference for their own benefit
No.

Well, that was fun, case closed.

>> No.13359897

>>13359864

I'm not fucking joking dude. I'm hardcore into this anti-sex feminism shit. I think Foucault would agree too if he were still alive in the era of #metoo.

All sex is rape, to varying extents. We have to accept that any line we draw is arbitrary, and perhaps the most logical one is to simply label all instances of heterosexual intercourse as rape

>> No.13359900

>>13359592
This is true, if only in particular instances. How do you tell the difference, for example between Stockholm syndrome and genuine love? The pyschological experience of these phenomena is functionally the same, the only difference is the dynamic of the relationship. We should use Stockholm syndrome to describe two people who marry for convenience or desperation imo

>> No.13359903

>>13359897
Are you a whiteoid? God I hate whiteoids. You lot deserve going extinct.

>> No.13359906

>>13359789
Agency is also a social and psychological construct. You can live your whole life without developing it, sometimes even happily so, depening on circumstances.

>> No.13359917

>>13359864
Caricature, sarcasm, satire or reductio ad absurdum depending on the logical mechanic and tone used.

>> No.13359921

>>13359883
You misunderstand: I'm talking about the fact that the argument OP, and feminists like Dworkin and Friedan, put forth is basically Puritanism 2.0: Women are inherently pure, virginal, wholesome creatures free of sin or moral fallibility because they're ultimately unintelligent and incapable of making moral decisions. Men, however, are cursed with the ability to think and as such can engage in wrongdoing. A woman is only capable of doing something wrong if she's been lead to it by a man. To prevent men from corrupting women, we have to tightly control women's lives to ensure their rigid conformity to moral standards. Women must be stripped of any and all agency in order to accomplish this.

But right there, you've basically justified Shariah law, which (in this aspect, yes fucking obviously Shariah law is about more than just gender interactions) is ultimately just a way to justify and control slaves. At least Shariah law is open about this and doesn't cloak itself in this "defending women" bullshit. In defending women from men, you make them slaves to men. At least Shariah just says
>girls are property, god said so
here you're saying that women cannot be allowed to make their own decisions or else it will result in inherently immoral behavior.

But that's what I love about this type of garbage: It completely subverts the entire argument and spins it on its head. We need to enslave women to PROTECT them, only an evil MISOGYNIST who HATES WOMEN wouldn't want to enslave them!

>> No.13359937

>>13359921
holy shit the autism is hurting my brain what the FUCK white people just what the FUCK

>> No.13359940

>>13359592
Either power is bad, and then the postmodern hypocrisy of pushing a morality and claiming to be amoral follows, or rape is not bad, and then the saying has as much relevance and wisdom as a phrase like "hunger is murder".

>> No.13359951

>>13359937
He's kinda right. Hypocritical infantilization of women "for their own good" is a hallmark of the puritan mindset.

>> No.13359976

>>13359951
the reason why nonwhites don't do the 'muh sexual liberation' thing is because we don't want to go extinct you dumb whiteoid american, enjoy becoming a minority in your own country while falsely jailed for rape LMAO

>> No.13359984

>>13359921
>here you're saying that women cannot be allowed to make their own decisions or else it will result in inherently immoral behavior.
Change "immoral" to "unaesthetic" and you're spot on. I don't give a crap about morality, I care about beauty. Masculine women are ugly.

>> No.13359991

>>13359984
Morality is literally just an expression of aesthetics

>> No.13359993
File: 33 KB, 500x500, 1540181693369.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13359993

>dude im so deep i can deconstruct things people take it for granted with a shock idea


fuck off foucault

>> No.13359994
File: 69 KB, 748x748, 1539412820522.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13359994

You can argue anything you want when ignoring practicality, this is pretty basic stuff guys.

>> No.13360011

>>13359976
I'm not american and I don't care about you, your whites and your minorities. I wonder what led you to assume the opposite.

>> No.13360018

>>13360011
Only whitoids and their slave-races obsess over retarded please-god-extinct-me philosophies

>> No.13360022

>>13359991
It's a codification of aesthetics that turns into shit like Shariah law. The law should only preserve the ideal, not make the ideal law.

>> No.13360026

Is this implying there is no piwer imbalance between indivdual males and females?

>> No.13360031
File: 427 KB, 958x662, 1547301173610.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13360031

>>13360022
>The law should only preserve the ideal, not make the ideal law.

>> No.13360035

>>13359592
And that's a good thing.
based Foucault would agree

>> No.13360062

>>13360026
Aw, look at the lil individual, he thinks he's people :)

>> No.13360135

>>13359976
Non-whites will start to do it as their society continues adopting white technology and white culture. Or, they will destroy civilization at large in revolt, and set us all back who knows how far into the past technologically speaking.

>> No.13360196

What examples of homosexual sex arent? Wouldnt like a creepy middle aged guy who fucks high school 18 year old twinks abusing their power and "raping"? Would the two guys have to be same exact age, class, physical weight etc

>> No.13360261

>>13360196
Not even sex with your clone would qualify, since, in order for two things to be truly equal, they would have to exist in the same place at the same time. There is a difference in power in all things, no matter how subtle. So, ALL sex is technically rape, but banning all sex as rape would not only be impractical but also extremely retarded, so the observation is somewhat meaningless.

>> No.13360268

>>13360018
Ok keep answering my posts while ignoring their contents, that's actually my fetish.

>> No.13360322

Informed consent solves this problem.

>> No.13360354

>>13360322
The argument from earlier in the thread is that it's not real consent because society has oppressed "the weak" into wanting to provide (read: fake) it.

>> No.13360360

>>13359853
Whoa so really by consenting you’re raping the rapist. Clearly the evil is consent not rape.

>> No.13360366

>>13360354
Which would mean all consent is meaningless by virtue of being nebulous.

>> No.13360376

>>13360196
Doesn't apply to homosexual sex because homosexuals are incapable of power differentials in relationships, they're oppressed by society and cannot oppress each other.

Yes, this entire thing is just about justifying sodomy, ehy do you ask.

>> No.13360504

>>13360366
Correct, but don't expect such arguers to value practicality to any degree.

>> No.13360517

>>13360376
>homosexuals are incapable of power differentials in relationships
I know you aren't advocating this yourself but fucking wat, how does anyone reach such a ridiculous conclusion? There is a power differential in EVERY relationship.

>> No.13360520

>>13360261
You can't stop me from rimming my hot twink clone

>> No.13361068
File: 79 KB, 692x687, 1546241291649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13361068

>>13360504
>dont expect
I don't.

>> No.13361102

>>13359592
Foucault never said this

>> No.13361109

>>13361102
isn't it a Lacan take?

>> No.13361110

>>13361102
He never needed to say that.

>> No.13361181

>>13359592
Foucault never said that, he's not that stupid.
Rape is a pretty well defined notion which entails "sex without consent" even if that consent is the epiphenomenon of power relations.
So no, all heterosexual sex is not rape.
Also if what you say was the case as long as difference exists all sex is rape.

>> No.13361239

>>13359592
>All heterosexual sex is rape
>raping is my fetish
>Fuck my gf daily
>which means I rape her everyday
Well, now I have even more reason to enjoy it.

>> No.13361529

>>13359592
And people wonder why so many faggots exist.

>> No.13361570

>>13359758
Foucault actually thought rape was an arbitrary social construct just like the age of consent(seriously). His whole philosophy is basically a highly contrived rationalisation for fucking underage algerian boys

>> No.13361594

I'm not sure why rape is a separate crime to assault. What is the necessary distinction of sexual assault?

>> No.13361601

>>13361570
>His whole philosophy is basically a highly contrived rationalisation for fucking underage algerian boys
But I thought that was the ultimate teleology of philosophy

>> No.13361609

>>13361594
rape involves direct penetration with a penis, assault can range from anything between a groping on the bus to squeezing a garden gnome into their asshole while they're out of it on xannies

>> No.13361652

>>13359763
>Consent cannot be give when there is an inequality of power
that's the biggest load of bullshit anybody ever came up with and they have no argument that is remotely rooted in reality to back it up

>> No.13361665

>>13359592
Is he really putting women in the same category as retarded animals? lmao

>> No.13361708

>>13359592
But what if rapeplay is my secret fetish?
t. Femanon

>> No.13361714

>>13359814
But language shapes reality.

>> No.13361718

Even if this were true, it would make actual, independent, free sex so much better because you know that the woman is literally trying to give you a good time whilst she is completely free.

There is no sexual pleasure better than this. This is similar to what me and butterfly do emotionally.

>> No.13361719

>>13359846
THIS

>> No.13361722

>>13361609
But why does it matter

>> No.13361723

>>13361718
I am :3 ofc

>> No.13361754

>>13359592
What's wrong with rape?

>> No.13361850

>>13361722
is gross negligence the same crime as murder?

>> No.13362610

All life is rape because of the inherent power imbalances between all living beings.

And it’s all okay by me.

>> No.13362653

>>13362610

They're not structural or meaningful between two men of similar background

>> No.13362688

Did Foucault really say that?
Are you 100% sure?

>> No.13362722

This is an excellent thread.

>> No.13362850

>>13359592
>fisting another dude is rape because of the inherent power imbalance between the hand-puppet and the hand.

>> No.13362909

>>13361652
I'm sure this will be all resolved once we put consent on bitcoin blockchain where everyone is an equal.

>> No.13362958
File: 194 KB, 768x1024, thai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13362958

>>13360135
It's not a culture thing, but market thing. Once you get industrialized past certain point, you need to shift focus of women from family to consumption because "mature" economies are addicted to permanently revolving credit.
The outcome is comparable to environmental catastrophe as such a society can no longer self-perpetuate. Exact same thing happened in late Rome. Women were let go from kitchen and get drunk all day, instead of making babies, population crash, barbarian immigration yada yada.
As for infantilization, vast majority of women are herd creatures, far more so than most men and as such will be infantilized in any case, the difference is only to what the meme is, and to what end it goes.

>> No.13364297

Bumo

>> No.13364304

Exactly. Women can't be raped by men.

>> No.13364311

>>13360354
>muh false consciousness
So the same bullshit from the 1860s.
It's all so tiresome.

>> No.13364312

>>13359921
Woman find their purpose in total subjugation to men. You force them to be shitty men who can't compete otherwise. it really is cruel and misogynistic. Even woman inherently know this.

>> No.13364339

>>13362958
>child trafficker
Something for everybody, that’s nice

>> No.13364347

>>13359592
there's nothing wrong with rape

>> No.13364367

>>13359887
sounds like a cuckmie

>> No.13364382

>>13360366
Consent doesn't justify anything in itself. it's purely practical. You see this with the obvious backpeddling to change what consent actually means when children or animals get involved. You'd think the popular story about that gay consensual cannibalism would have shattered the illusion for the masses.

>> No.13364420

>>13359648
Thank you for doing your part

>> No.13364487

>>13359592
but my gf comes from a richer family than me, she has more power

>> No.13364501

>>13364487
Interesting thought, assuming she’s rich enough to hurt you. What about sex with the girl holding a gun to your head? Is it just consensual?

>> No.13364538

>>13364487
>>13364501

The conditioning of the female is not bounded by such concerns

>> No.13364549

>>13362653
>Onedimensional view on identity
>Individuals with "similar background" share all their traits so difference in negligible
Leave your basement, things are more complex in reality than in your head.

>> No.13364595

>>13364382
>Consent doesn't justify anything in itself. it's purely practical
Sure, as discourses, cultures and paradigms are, everything is a doing.
If you acknowledge this you should even be using the term "rape" to begin with as rape rests on consent, as illusory and mundane it might be. If you presume to know anything about Foucault you shouldn't confuse power relations with domination or pure violence.

>> No.13364597

>>13359592
Is that why dudes scream when I peg them?

>> No.13364634

>>13364597
>when I peg them?
What's wrong with your cock? Impotence can be a sign of other more serious health problems, you should probably get a check up

>> No.13364734

>>13364597

Your pegging a man is literally an expression of your satisfying his sexual fetish, he holds power over you even then

>> No.13364744

>>13364549

It's about the transcendental essentialism of the gendered power structure, which exists inalienably when compared to other forms of individual demarcation. Race is an equivalent dynamic.

>> No.13364866

>>13364734
>>13364634
You guys suck at jokes

>> No.13364884

>>13364382
Children and animals can consent, that doesn't mean they can give informed consent. That's pretty well established. There's a reason those two groups don't sign their own names when consenting to a medical procedure.

>> No.13364935
File: 26 KB, 345x504, 1549918530715.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13364935

>>13359789
>It's pervasive and fundamentally immoral and oppressive
Look at this retard moralizing. Morality is also a social construct that people make it out to seem it has a higher essence than any individual.

>> No.13364956

>>13359897
>Im going to stop having sex and supporting the "social constructs" and institutions that give me power so that way i can be more moral.
That's when you know that morality has fucked you up. Here's a protip: Morality isnt objective in anyway and doesnt hold any truth value to it.

>> No.13364967

>>13359779
>That enjoyment and want is totally socially constructed
proofs

>> No.13364975

>>13364935
No man is an island, nigger.

>> No.13364989

>>13364975
>he doesnt know what a union of egoists is
And this is just a reply to what you said. Since that responce has nothing to do with what i frist sayed.

>> No.13365029

>>13364989
>>he doesnt know what a union of egoists is
Yes, I do. I have read and enjoyed TEaIO.
>that responce has nothing to do with what i frist sayed
Yes, it does. Your glib dismissal of 'social constructs' and your individualism has its root in a completely ignorant ontology of the human being. Sociality precedes humanity by a mile. It is absurd to even ponder the individual without reference to or except as part of a social fabric. Our ancestors have not been solitary creatures since long before they stood erect.

>> No.13365094

>>13364744
This is what happens when you take a epistemological point of view instead of a praxiological one, you start seeing a bit too much coherent structures by being blind to associations.
Individuals are not women/men that happen to also be other things, they're many things at the same time.
You're not proving nothing here, men are as subjected as women.

>> No.13365148

>>13359637
> All penetrative sex is rape
search "power bottom" on google and praise me

>> No.13365149

>>13365029
>Your glib dismissal of 'social constructs' and your individualism has its root in a completely ignorant ontology of the human being.
Im not saying to dispose of anything just because it is a social construct, what i do is see the ones that i want and dispose of the others i dont, just like any other moralizing faggot does. The diference is that the "egoist" does it consciously while the moralist doesnt and tries as hard as he can to place his point of view and interest as sacred and above others.

Even Nietzsche knew this
"Atcually, it is the selfishness with which judgement is pronounced that determinates the interpretation; those who judge view an action in relation to their own benefit and harm - or else they view its author in relation to his similarity to, or difference from, themselves."

Despite all this, you still havent told a single point that says that morality has any higher essence than the individual.

>> No.13365157

>>13364744
Even if i agree with most of what you've said, assuming you're OP, i think of rape or direct gender violence as the extreme of a continuum in heterosexual relationships, when men see themselves as losing their subject position or directly exerting it.
Even if there are inherent power imbalances involved in gendered relationships (as in any other relationship) not all heterosexual sex is rape.

>> No.13365169

>>13365148
Which implies that women can do that to. I'm sure quite a lot do that. The "in penetrative sex the dominant one is inherently the top" statement is fucking retarded. Same with implying there's inherently dominance. Of course it can be, but obviously people who state that only had sex with sex dolls.

>> No.13365265

>>13359592
Biology*

Not society

>> No.13365280

>>13365094

>they're many things at the same time

Only certain things lend themselves to institutional discrimination and power imbalances.

>> No.13365607

>>13364884
informed consent has nothing to do with consent. The whole point of consent is having the autonomy to agree to things that might not be in your best interest or that you may regret later, adults are simply assumed (often disingenuously) to be informed when they give consent and the actual reality of is they are does not take priority over their freedom to consent. It's an obvious backpeddling when the concept of consent falls apart and isn't even consistent, as the mentally handicapped are generally seen as being able to consent to things, sexual and otherwise that other groups cannot.

>> No.13365630
File: 74 KB, 1024x683, pimpmyride[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13365630

>>13361239
yo we heard you like rape so we're putting rape in your sex so you can rape while you have sex

>> No.13365652

>>13359592
>>13359758
Foucault didn’t and wouldn’t endorse that position.

>>13359846
It’s not a ‘foucualtian’ reading, it’s just Dworkin’s position as is.

>> No.13365712

>>13365607
Then we should probably define different types of consent. The more suitable in sex as far as I could imagine would be more than a "informed consent", but an "active consent". Like the power should stay all along as balanced as possible, so the two/three/infinite partners would always "consent" at any moment and could aslo refuse and stop at any moment. That doesn't necessarily put absolutely clear boundaries about what is sexually acceptable or not, in a very trivial way, I don't know, it probably requires more in-depth and individual analysis to state that imo.

Generally I feel like the debate here maybe lacks some nuance and most probably some layers. Like, you could imagine that a person with a submissive kink would be able to coerce someone on being the coercitive one in the roleplay. Of course, symbolicaly the roleplay (if it's "the woman submissive the man coercitive", for example), does not come from nowhere and supposedly authorises on a statistical level, more violence on women, and also more rapes. But even if it's massively true on a statistical level, and that we absolutely should notice it, imo it can't sum everything up. You need more layers.

>> No.13365911

>>13365607
Its a legal definition, naturally it does not conform to anything beyond practicality. But would you really argue for a group of people to be impractical?