Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
Yeah no. Teaching kids consent and that they have the ability to say 'no' is a far more important lesson to be learned than the complexities of social obligation.
You contend that a social event with a well understood obligation is so antithetical to this teaching that the two cannot co-exist, that the social event would be so damaging as to make any other teachings on consent invalid in the eyes of participants?

I think such treatment of children as fragile, unable to grasp complex social topics is actively harmful to them.[DOUBLEPOST=1518540386,1518540201][/DOUBLEPOST]
"If you don't want to get raped, stay home all the time."
I hate the idea that society has so watered down the idea of rape that dancing is considered a form of rape. It really does a disservice to all those who have suffered sexual assault.

But keep shining on, @blotsfan, the world truly is coming around to the idea that even looking at another person without their consent in public will soon be considered rape.
 
I never said it's equivalent to rape. It's an analogy. I don't know what you're imagining a bunch of 6th graders dancing to be, but I remember bar mitzvahs. It's not ballroom dancing. What if a guy starts grinding* on a girl and she feels that he's got a boner? She's just gotta suck it up and take it? Or now they just can't go the event they wanted to go to with their friends unless they might be in that situation?

*I don't know if kids still grind but if they don't, I can't imagine it was replaced with something less sexual.
 

Adam

Forum Madoff
You contend that a social event with a well understood obligation is so antithetical to this teaching that the two cannot co-exist, that the social event would be so damaging as to make any other teachings on consent invalid in the eyes of participants?

I think such treatment of children as fragile, unable to grasp complex social topics is actively harmful to them.
I think the solution proposed by the school is the treatment of children as fragile - the very thought they would hear a 'no' would cause unbearable emotional harm. I contend that me (or my children's) rights to social autonomy trump the feelings of others. I would agree that if they can't agree to the terms of the dance, they shouldn't go.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
What if a guy starts grinding
Why are you bringing that up? Does it matter how much contact is involved? Because if it does, and if the dance doesn't allow such contact, then would you be ok with the social obligation?[DOUBLEPOST=1518541486,1518541333][/DOUBLEPOST]
I would agree that if they can't agree to the terms of the dance, they shouldn't go.
So everything works out in the end for everyone.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
Assange's (wikileaks founder) request that the UK drop charges against him for skipping bail was denied:

Handing down her judgment at Westminster magistrates court, the senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot said she was not persuaded by the argument from Assange’s legal team that it was not in the public interest to pursue him for skipping bail.

She said: “I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.

“Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do the same. It is certainly not against the public interest to proceed.”

Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies.

Though Swedish prosecutors dropped the investigation against him, he faces arrest if he leaves the building in Knightsbridge, west London, for breaching his former bail conditions in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant
 
Why are you bringing that up? Does it matter how much contact is involved? Because if it does, and if the dance doesn't allow such contact, then would you be ok with the social obligation?
I mean theoretically that'd be not as bad. Still doesn't seem like as good of a solution as letting the kids figure stuff out for themselves.

So everything works out in the end for everyone.
Except the kids who can no longer go to an event they'd be looking forward to otherwise.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
I mean theoretically that'd be not as bad. Still doesn't seem like as good of a solution as letting the kids figure stuff out for themselves.



Except the kids who can no longer go to an event they'd be looking forward to otherwise.
You just described the event as "not as bad as rape," so I'd say "Dodged a bullet!"

Seriously - if they don't feel comfortable dancing with anyone and everyone, they shouldn't be going to this type of a dance.

As it is, there's a pretty fool-proof way to attend such an event and with few exceptions only dance with people you want to dance with - always ask others to dance first, and always stick to the dance floor. If you dance the entire time, and you proactively ask your preferred partners to dance you'll provide little to no opportunity for others to ask you when you're free.

But again, if your definition if rape includes non consensual dancing, I think you should probably stay away from every dance floor, regardless of the rules and social moors. That would be very dangerous, and there's not going to be much legal recourse if someone starts dancing near you, facing you - you'll be raped with no ability to prosecute the assailant, and what's worse if you strike out to protect yourself you may get charged with assault.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
It is not literal rape. It is not as bad as rape. That doesn't make it ok.
When is it ok, though? When you're assigned to a group project, absent an extraordinary reason, you don't get to refuse who your partner(s) is.

Why is this different? Just because it's a social event? Because it's one element that many people consider important in a romantic relationship? If so, isn't doing taxes/paperwork/bills just as important an aspect of a successful romantic relationship, and if so why would forced group work not also be covered under this reason?

We can go all the way down the rabbit hole and pull extremes out of thin air on each side all day.

But what is the foundation of the problem? What is the reason that "That doesn't make it ok." is actually relevant?

Is it physical contact? If so, then can we draw a line - is it holding hands? Hands on shoulder/arm, bodies distant? Bodies close? Hugging? Grinding?

Because the pre-teen dances I'm familiar with, and likely what's be held in strongly LDS (Mormon) Utah, there must be space between the bodies - no hugging dancing, no grinding - hands on waist, shoulder, arm, or around neck, and that's it.

So by going to the dance you pre-consent to this level of physical contact, and nothing further. Is it in any way comparable to rape - even to the point of implying there's a comparison by saying, "Well, it's not as bad as rape..."?

If it's not as bad as rape then what is it as bad as? What level of criminal intent or behavior are we encouraging children to commit when we provide (but don't force attendance) these social events that have strings attached?
 

Covar

It's Clobberin' Time!!!
When I took social dance in College we had to rotate partners every two minutes. Only exception was engaged couples who were learning for their wedding. The rest of us had to learn to dance with everyone. It was done for social reasons as well as learning purposes. Of course we weren't taught the Penetrada.
 

GasBandit

Ask me about my Reprehensible Filth
Staff member
It occurs to me, in elementary school, there was a week in Gym glass when they taught us "folk dancing." It was boy/girl, and we were not given the option to decline a partner, and obviously we were not given the option to elect not to attend. Of course, due to the nature of the dance, we also didn't actually select our own partner, the "round" did.

Grooming for eugenics?
 

Denbrought

The Last Dancelord
It occurs to me, in elementary school, there was a week in Gym glass when they taught us "folk dancing." It was boy/girl, and we were not given the option to decline a partner, and obviously we were not given the option to elect not to attend. Of course, due to the nature of the dance, we also didn't actually select our own partner, the "round" did.

Grooming for eugenics?
Likewise, when we did traditional dances in gym class you danced with whomever the teacher said.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
If you audition for a high school play like The Music Man you also don't get to choose your dance partner. My son is very ambivalent towards his dance partner - I guess I should count it as a good thing that he can recall her name...
 
I think there's a tonal difference between "you have to dance with everyone in turn for 2 minutes" or "you get a partner assigned for this class" and "you're not allowed to say no to anyone who wants to dance with you".
Also, it's always fun to go back to "back when I was in school", but, you know, back when @Dave was in school, there were no dances because it'd be ridiculous to dance with yourself and all life on earth was still one cloned single-cellular organism. I mean, err, back when, to take a not-too-polarized-in-the-USA example, I still got taught Leopold II was the greatest Belgian king because he got us Congo, and he brought wealth and fortune to all of the country, and look at all those ig beatiful monuments he had constructed. That's...not what children are taught about him these days. Times and mores change.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
Now that I think about it, I had to participate in a company team building event which involved assigned partners. I was assigned another guy and we had to sing "The Time of My Life" to each other.

But perhaps I'm an artifact of a generation that lacked bodily autonomy, and today's society is trending towards a level of prudishness that would render that unacceptable.

I wonder if my son's son's will receive reparations for the harm inflicted on me.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
I would actually have less problem with random assignment than with the idea of being unable to refuse selective service. If it’s truly random, then both parties know there’s no implied intent nor expectation.

—Patrick
 

figmentPez

Cosplay Czar
Staff member
As long as the social obligations of the invitation to the social event are well understood and accepted beforehand, I see no reason to equate this with rape or suggest that rape acceptance is a lesson that is being taught here.
The fact that rape is the only issue regarding consent that you're talking about speaks volumes. Consent is such a poorly taught concept in our culture, and it goes far far beyond just sex and sexuality in the ways that consent is commonly ignored or violated. However, I don't have the time or energy to explain that today. No, dancing is not rape. However, not all violations of consent are. As much as you bring up important points about social expectations, etiquette should never trump reason or a person's autonomy. Remember that the same etiquette that says "don't eat with your fingers" also says "except for asparagus and fried chicken". There need to be exceptions, and while there probably are unspoken exceptions to this rule, in a society where many violations are perpetrated on the idea that women don't have the right to say "no" in so many other areas, those exceptions cannot be allowed to be unspoken, they must be explicit because they are assumed to not exist in so many other areas.

Moreover, people don't starve because they're terrified to eat without a knife and fork. However, many awful crimes are perpetrated against women because they're too afraid to say "no". It's all well and good to say that we need to teach etiquette, but when a "lesson" is already drilled into women's heads so much that they don't know how to make exceptions for their own self preservation, there's a bigger issue that takes precedence.
 
Last edited: