I Don’t Want to Rape You or Your Kid, Nor Does That Guy, or That Guy…

I was browsing reddit today, and came across this story about a 14 year old boy being charged with unlawful imprisonment for trying to help a lost 3 year old in a department store find her mother. I advise anyone to read the comments on that story, as they paint an accurate portrayal of society’s view of adult males.

Turn on the TV, watch Oprah, watch Nancy Grace, watch the six o’clock news.  They make it rather clear that every guy out there wants nothing more than to rape and kill you and your kids. Be afraid.

I cannot count the women I know who have bought into this, who won’t go outside after dark, won’t go to the mall alone, who live their lives in fear and hiding because if they don’t they’ll be raped and murdered.

I cannot count the number of parents I know who won’t let their kid play in the driveway by themselves, won’t let their kids ride their bikes down the street, won’t take photos of their kids lest they end up on the internet, because if they do their kid is going to get kidnapped and raped and murdered.

I also cannot count the number of men who will cross the street if there is a woman walking by herself on the same side of the road, who will act as though they didn’t see the lost child alone in the mall, who will not stop to help the stranded female motorist, because if they do, there’s a chance they’ll get in legal trouble, as the paranoid society will have him convicted in a his word vs her word situation. I, regrettably, am amongst those men.

I cannot count the number of women who have quickened their pace and clutched their purse as I caught up to them walking down the street. I cannot count the number of dirty looks I have gotten from mothers because their child walked up to me.

Now this is a travesty, especially when you realize the odds are far better of being murdered, raped, or kidnapped by someone you know and trust than a stranger.

So here’s the deal. If you really want to “think of the children” or to empower women, stop treating every single male out there as though they are a murderous pedophile rapist. Otherwise, expect things like this to play out again and again.

Definitions and Semantics

I am going to end my little logic thing rather short, I’ll address further fallacies as they come up. This topic does still tie in a little bit.

Many times, arguments come down to definitions and semantics.  Often we try to work around that, avoid arguing semantics, but it is a significant enough issue that I think it needs to be addressed. I will discuss the problems I see with definitions in three issues that have come up in my own life recently, spanning the categories of sex, politics, and religion.  In the realm of sex, there’s the semantics of the “rape fantasy.” In the realm of politics, the use of the terms “life” and “murder” in the abortion debate, and on the religion front, the very definition of the words “atheism” and “agnosticism.”  In each of these situations, I will refrain from stating my opinion on the actual issue, as that is not the purpose of this post.

 

Starting with the issue of the rape fantasy. Some will consider this normal, while others are opposed to even the thought. Of all the arguments I have seen with regards to this issue, all problems revolve around the word “rape.”

Let me take a moment to say that rape is something I am vehemently opposed to. It is not something to be taken lightly.

That being said, in terms of the rape fantasy, in most situations I have encountered, the term “rape” could easily be replaced with the term “control” or “power.” When in the head, it exists entirely in the realm of fantasy, and in my opinion is not really worth addressing here. Where the issue comes up is in the physical. When it is a role-played or simulated rape. In this case, the act is a consensual power-play act,  generally discussed and planned out beforehand, wherein the dominated has the power to continue with or end the scenario as they see fit. It fits rather nicely into the realm of dominance and submission, a series of acts wherein the phrase “Safe, Sane, Consensual” takes precedence over all aspects.

As stated before, the actual act of rape is not something to be taken lightly. Non-consensual sex harms people both physically and mentally. To many, the act is on par with, perhaps even worse than murder.

Considering the vile nature of actual rape, it is not difficult to see why such opposition to “rape fantasies” exists. The rape fantasy could be viewed as desiring, even glamorizing the act of rape. However, very few would be opposed to a simple consensual “control fantasy.” The definitions and connotations of the word “rape” complicate what would otherwise be a simple, consensual act.

 

Moving on, abortion. Anyone who has ever been in an abortion debate can attest that the arguments boil down to “when does life begin.” Life. There is quite a bit of conflict to that word. What’s it mean?

The pro-life crowd will say that “life” starts at conception. Common arguments revolve around the religious concept of the soul and the potential for the fetus to become a full grown person. To them, the soul and the potential, the simple fact that the cells are “alive” means it has “life,” and to end that is indeed “murder.”

On the other end of the spectrum, “life” doesn’t start the instant the sperm penetrates the egg. To the pro-choice crowd, “life” doesn’t begin until much later. Definitions on this side vary, from the development of nerves, to the brain, even as far as brain wave activity, which doesn’t start until 26 weeks. Further arguments on this side ask why it is ok to kill an insect or small animal, which have brains, central nervous systems, perhaps even self awareness, while it is “murder” to kill the homogeneous clump of cells that exists shortly after conception? Apparently killing what is “alive” isn’t always “murder,” so what defines having “life” as opposed to merely being “alive,” and what defines “murder.”

Until these terms can be agreed upon, no real productive argument can be had between the two sides.

 

Lastly, there’s the atheists and the agnostics. Unlike the previous, this pertains more so to perception of the groups rather than any arguments between the two.

In my experience, the definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism” differ between the self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics and society. Within the community, there is a differentiation between the gnostic and agnostic atheist; the gnostic atheist believes there is no god, while the agnostic atheist lacks belief in god. The overwhelming majority of atheists I have met, myself included, fall into the agnostic atheist category. Furthermore, within the community, agnostics are considered those who either unwilling to commit to to a specific belief or lack thereof.

Amongst society, however, the definition of the agnostic atheist is applied to the agnostic, while the definition of the gnostic atheist is applied to all atheists.

The problems caused by this tend to manifest in discussion and perception of atheists and agnostics both inside and outside the atheist community. The self-identified agnostic is often viewed as a lazy thinker or one still grasping onto their faith by atheists, while society in general vies the agnostic as being more logical or “safer” than the atheist, and easier to relate to. The self-identified atheist is generally more readily welcomed into the atheist community, but society in general tends to view the atheist as being a “god-hater,” someone to keep your children away from.

Until the two groups can reconcile these differences, there will continue to be problems between the theist and atheist communities, and furthermore problems within the atheist community itself.

Dissecting the Traditional Relationship

From as early as I can remember, it was instilled in me that I would grow up, get married, and have children. Here I am, age 24, and I’ve never even dated, nor do I really have the desire to. Some may say I am missing out, others may go so far as to say I am broken, but I am happy as I am. That being said, as someone on the outside, I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking in, trying to understand. What makes friendships and capitol R Relationships different? Are they really that different? Is this distinction even necessary?

Full disclosure, I have no qualms with polyamory, and based on behaviors that commonly mark the distinction between a friendship and a relationship, some might say that I am involved in multiple romantic relationships. I would disagree with the latter part, which will make sense as I go.

So, where is the line between friendship and “something more” actually defined? Ask a million different people and you’ll get a million different answers. Some will cite a feeling that apparently defies description. Others will draw the line at physical affection. I’ve heard answers that span everywhere inbetween.

Once the line is established, it is accepted that people distinctly fall on one side or the other. For the monogamous majority, only one person can fall on the relationship side, but even amongst the polyamorous, the line still exists. What I find most interesting about this line is the limitations and expectations it sets up. Several behaviors are considered exclusive to the Relationship; these behaviors are expected of those in a Relationship, and expressly forbidden for those outside of one. Much like the definition, these behaviors vary from person to person. Use of pet names, purchase of gifts or meals, frequent conversation, especially via phone, IM, or email, and extensive travel for visitation tend to fall on the Relationship side for most people. These things are just not done outside the Relationship, and especially not with “just friends” while in a Relationship. They are considered disrespectful at best and may be considered cheating at worst. Furthermore, once one officially enters a Relationship, these activites are expected. It is as though the act of dating instantly changes the whole relationship.

But why establish these limits and expectations? As far as I can tell, they only serve to limit friendships, and break relationships. Gestures of affection in a friendship bring rise to questions of motive. Failure to meet the expectations, even in a young relationship, bring question to the depth of feeling. The line breaks the natural growth of feelings of love and trust amongst people.

How many times have you caught yourself choosing your words carefully, offering a handshake rather than a hug, or refraining from calling a friend in need, lest your actions be interpreted as romantic advances? I am ashamed to admit that I am guilty of multiple counts of each. It is sad that people feel they must limit the affection they show to people they care about due to silly, rather arbitrary limitations on friendship.

So why follow them? Why not cast off these restrictions? If a friend is feeling down, give them a hug and a phone call later to see how they’re doing. Hell, if they’re a friend, give them a hug and a phone call to see how they’re doing. Feelings are too complex to lump into two neat boxes of “friends” and “relationships.” If a friendship with one person ends up naturally advancing to individual outings, or “dates,” so be it. If that happens with multiple people, that’s cool too (just make sure all of them are cool with it (and honestly, in my opinion, if one of them isn’t, that’s their problem)). I’d even go so far as to say if one or more friendships grow to a point where physical affection is shared, including sex, that’s fine too. No arbitrary limits and no forced expectations, just natural development of the relationship. So long as all people involved are aware and ok with it, I see no reason why one person could not enjoy dinners and movies with person A, dancing with person B, and sex with person C. Or dinner, movies, dancing, and sex with all three.

I see no benifit to keeping with the established system, and no downside to just letting relationships be what they will.

Morality and where it comes from.

As an atheist, I am often asked “if you do not believe in God, where does your morality come from?” I often counter with the question “If it were not for God telling you not to, would you kill people?”

Religion based morality benefits from the convenience of having it’s moral laws clearly written out. Whether it be something as clear as the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars, or something as vague as the Wiccan Rede, the moral code is clearly shown in the texts and traditions. If you look more closely at the moral codes, they generally follow a humanist moral standard. Humanism boils down to “do whatever, so long as you do not cause harm.” Almost the same text as the Rede, and if you look closer at the Commandments, Pillars, and other moral codes, they tend to follow this, though sometimes more hashed out (ie specifically saying not to kill people). Some do have their addendums (no drinking and dancing) and their exceptions (kill people if they eat shellfish), but the based is the same.

Consider also social animals. With the exception of a few religions, most would agree that animals do not have the capacity for religion, and as such have no divinely inspired moral code. None the less, many species work in pack, flocks, colonies, and other groups. In perhaps the most extensive examples, creatures such as bees and ants live in groups numbering into the thousands, and they collaborate, sometimes even self-sacrificing, rather than competing. Contrary to what seems to be the religious consensus on the non-religious, animals seem to have no problem not killing each other sans morality.

From a more simple, logical standpoint, people tend to be fans of not dieing. As such, collaboration rather than competition tends to be better for mutual survival. Admittedly, evolutionary psychology is not my specialty, but it only seems logical that those that developed to favor collaboration would have a survival advantage over those that did not. From there, it seems guilt and pleasure may have developed to correspond with harm and help respectively, and from there, humanist morality is not far off.

So again, if there were no God, would you kill people? I don’t because, well, it’s a rather dick thing to do. If you would, then you need help.

Personal Bias and Beliefs

Bias. It’s a word we here all the time, often with negative connotations. But is it really a bad thing?

Let us be realistic. Everyone has their biases, most of which are rooted in a combination of research and experience leading to a certain belief. It is near impossible to not show these biases, intentionally or inadvertently, in daily life.

Fox news claims to be “fair and balanced,” devoid of bias, but they have an obvious conservative lean. Much the same, MSNBC has a clear liberal bias. Truth be told, I do not believe this is necessarily a bad thing. I personally will often preface statements explaining my position or other circumstances that would affect my position. I place my biases in the open beforehand, allowing listeners or readers to know going in what leaning I will be taking, and to be able to take that into account when drawing their own conclusions. The problem I have is that networks such as Fox or MSNBC attempt to hide their biases behind a false premise of fairness and balance.

In the past, newspapers were often sold with their bias exposed in the very name of the paper, things like the Charlotte Conservative or the Marshall Democrat. Such papers still exist today, but are difficult to find. The thing about these papers is, going in, you already know what leanings the paper will take. If one wanted to be particularly versed, one could pick up both the conservative and liberal leaning papers, and compare stories. Now, people are forced to try to chew through the spin on allegedly “fair and balanced” news stories, without the benifit of upfront honesty.

Again, everyone has their own bias. A person’s beliefs, whether they be religious, political, or concerning the usage of onions in cooking, will often affect their bias. Because I will often be delving into controvercial matters, I believe it is important that I go ahead and expose some of my own biases upfront. I shall start with the tagline items.

Sex: I am a male, genderqueer, and asexual. Male; I suppose that speaks for itself. Genderqueer; I do not get the concept of gender, and as far as I can tell, it is a social construct. Asexual; I don’t experience sexual attraction. That being said, I am still rather sex positive. I believe sex between consenting adults, regardless of sex, number, etc, is fine, so long as all affected parties are fine with it.

Politics: I am a US resident, so most of my political stances are concerning US politics. I do not side with either major party; in fact, I believe both major parties are doing a disservice to the Constitution, the document which they swore to uphold and defend. Of the US political parties, I align closest with the Libertarian party, often referred to as the crazy fringe nutjobs.

Religion: I was raised Christian, but after losing a dear friend and reading the Bible looking for answers, I concluded Christianity, and later faith itself, did not make sense. I now identify as an Atheist (which, by they way, is a lack of belief in God, not a belief in the nonexistence of God. There is a difference). Furthermore, because religion values faith so highly, and because faith is counter to critical thinking, I believe religion, all religion, is a dangerous thing.

I shall go into these further with more specific posts, but I felt it was important to get those out upfront.

Discussing the Controversies…All of Them.

Hello and Welcome. You may have already gathered from the tagline that this blog will deal with issues often considered controversial or taboo. You may ask why I would do so, as frank discussion of taboo tends to be considered impolite at best.

I believe it is very important to consider all things critically. This is often encouraged in daily life, in instances ranging from choosing what to have for dinner to seeing a doctor or not over a cough to deciding whether or not that timeshare really is too good to pass up. We weight the options, look at the pros and cons, trudge through the facts and separate out the misinformation before coming to an informed decision. However, things that are not discussed effectively get a free pass. That free pass allows for views to go unchallenged, whether those views be based on fact or fiction. Those who do not discuss the taboo are prone to remain uneducated as to the actual nature of the issue, which may lead to adoption and endorsement of ideas that a person may not have followed if exposed to the whole picture.

Consider the items in the tagline. Because sex is seldom spoken of, people enter sexual relationships with poor understanding of the risks, responsibilities, and consequences. That lack of understanding is perhaps the main cause of teenage pregnancy and spread of STDs. However, because people refuse to talk about, and thus refuse to think critically about what can be done in regards to this, the problem continues on.

As for politics, I cannot even begin to tell you how many people I know who side with one of the major parties because that’s what their parents did, and that’s what seems right to them, without looking at platforms or policies. Such people are also quick to dismiss third parties and fringe nutjobs, again without looking at platforms or policies. How many people reading this have actually read the text of a bill? How many don’t even know how to find it?

And religion? Here’s where I’ll start really stepping on toes. Religion advocates blind faith and often actively discourages looking at belief systems outside its’ own. It discourages critical thinking. I often find myself wondering if many of the religious folks I know were born under a different faith, would they today be a devout member of their hypothetical birth religion? I believe for the vast majority, that answer would be yes.

That being said, if I have not yet offended you, I likely will at some point in the future. I do intend on discussing a multitude of touchy subjects in a very frank manner. I will end up attacking numerous sacred cows, and in the process offending perhaps most of the people who visit this site. I will probably gain a few enemies. That is something I am willing to risk since, as stated before, I believe these are things that need to be discussed, lest our ignorance perpetuate onto future generations.