The invisible men project

[ArmyOfPenguins]

I think it's important that the buyers' choices in prostitution are highlighted and shared. This project was linked to on FB. Thoughts? I think it's a great idea.

the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

Beachcomber: "rape is a female lived experience and we are denied the right to define it."

And there was me thinking that men get raped too.

and sgheuks - knock it off with the personal attacks on me or i will report you.

I think you need a look back over our exchanges, you called me a john indirectly perhaps but it's no less insulting and i said you were nasty for doing so. In contrast haven't called you anything or personally attacked you at all. But if that's your attitude then the answer is simple, I shan't reply to you again either.

johns generally get quite upset and full of male perspective entitled bluster when a woman analyses consent from a female non male centric position. they dont like it because it cuts through the bullshit and firmly links consent and rape in a way that makes them jolly annoyed. plenty of johns are happy to rape - they just dont like it being called that.

Is exactly what beach wrote. She didn't address it directly to you, sg, but if the cap fits...

runningforthebusinheels: I think that some men do think of sex this way yes. Not all men, but some do.

Okay I agree, but I disagree that "all punters think of sex this way" in this context. I know you might not agree but some punters are very desperate men, desperate for a variety of reasons and years ago the same men would have gone to their graves that way. Now, with the Internet and sex being offered to them for a price it is seen as a way out of that misery and desperation. I am not justifying it but I am saying some men do it without thinking about what any of this means, it is just there on offer so they take it not as a right or privilege but more as a "quick fix". How anyone can sort that problem out that I don't know, I imagine you would vote for castration. :)

post at 10.21: is not misogynistic it is just a true fact of life. Some women throw themselves at men, an example at the top of the scale would be groupies and so on. That is why, I imagine, that many 60s-80s rock stars will be panicking right now.

The "no means no" issue, anyone who can't accept that some men don't twist meanings or mess with perspective then again, it's pointless discussing it. Yes means yes would mean the question "can we" being asked to start and that's an awful idea.

runningforthebusinheels: She didn't address it directly to you, sg,

Me: "you called me a john indirectly perhaps but it's no less insulting"

runningforthebusinheels: but if the cap fits...

Can't resist can you, insulting me again for no good reason at all.

Any man worth his salt knows whether a woman is equally and enthusiastically participating in sex. If he is not sure about that one, he shouldn't be out in public imo. There should be no need for a man to ask 'can we?' if he is taking verbal and non-verbal cues from the woman concerned, and if he is not a predator out on the prowl to get sex. Of course saying 'is this ok?' is preferable to the risk of doing something that a woman doesn't want, or just blundering ahead.

I imagine that an awful lot of 60's-80's rock stars (and tv presenters/actors) are quaking in their boots right now after the saville/hall revelations. And rightly so - they don't get to have sex with underage teenagers, even if they do throw themselves at you. No decent man would.

Absolutely, definitely, all punters think of sex as something their privilege can buy. Otherwise they wouldn't go in search of prostitutes, and they wouldn't be handing over their cash. I'll get the world's smallest violin out for your sob-story about sad and desperate men - so women should be subjugated as the sex class so that desperate men can get their end away? No way!

The only people I've insulted on this thread are punters. You say you're not a punter, therefore I haven't insulted you. I haven't called anyone personally on this thread names unlike you but I have given my own opinion that men that pay women for sex are misogynistic scum. That is my opinion, I am entitled to it. And yes, women are allowed to discuss these things without being insulted and belittled by men.

sg is a fantastic example of the power of self-delusion.

Does he not realise that the legal system of any society originated to preserve the prevailing status quo? The defnitions of legal concepts likewise? These are self-evidently political questions; it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise

and that 'men get raped, too' thing
who by?

runningforthebusinheels: Any man worth his salt knows whether a woman is equally and enthusiastically participating in sex

I agree.

Absolutely, definitely, all punters think of sex as something their privilege can buy.

Yes I agree, there is no other way to see it but my reasoning wasn't a sob story it was an explanation.

Sorry I took the if the cap fits.. comment to be aimed at me, thank you for clarifying that it wasn't. Also I haven't insulted or belittled anyone and if I did, it wouldn't be done in consideration of gender or even with that in mind. In my opinion we are all equal but if I think something is idiotic I will say so.

JuliaScurr: and that 'men get raped, too' thing who by?

Other men and sometimes, women too.

Not the best example but it'll do uk.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_3800/3838_men-raped-by-women.html

The incidence of men raped by other men world wide is alarming.

i posted some femimist analysis and sgheuks, you have declared that analysis "wrong".

not "wrong in your opinion" but just plain wrong.

and yet you have neither posted a counter argument nor acknowledged that in male dominated society, male centric analysis and perspective prevails.

you have also tried to bluster that the analysis of what is or is not considered rape by society is not political. we live in a society which is founded on sexual oppression, a culture of male violence against women and a rape culture - the notion that how rape is defined is not political is utterly ludicrous.

women have the right to analyse rape culture and come to different conclusions to those of men. we have the right to reject how men define our lived experience.

Well this has been an interesting turn of events. Man comes onto Mumsnet, implies he is a punter, gets all pearl-clutchy when asked if he is a punter, claims we are all wrong because... the Gratton catalogue. Dude, if you bring up "women rape men too" in any argument, you lose.

Unless you are a name changer, having a good old rant on one thread does not an active mumsnetter make. You also said this:

"This is the problem with some of you here and certainly most of the thread. You are making judgements based on what? Do you have and personal information or experience, have you researched the subject at any level beyond "the invisible men" project, do you actually have any idea about this subject whatsoever? Because with all due respect, I think many here do not have a clue and are simply voicing their outrage, which doesn't help the debate much."

This is the problem with men who leap onto MN assuming we're all Boden-wearing, pearl-clutching mummies with no experience of "real life" but luckily for us, he is here with his manly viewpoint to put us straight. But wait, the mummies aren't respecting him! How can that be? He's told them... reasons... and they're not listening. Some of them are even laughing!

This is an anonymous discussion forum. There are people here from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. We disagree with each other frequently and loudly. We are not required to set out our real life experiences or education to be listened to or given (or refused) respect. It is a great leveller in a discussion. Feel free to calm the fuck down, get over yourself and engage in discussion. At the moment, you're just creating a lot of noise.

Beachcomber: The analysis is interesting and believe it or not, despite my thinking it's a bit extreme I see your point and agree with the ideal (from the woman's perspective) right up the part where you cry "rape".

Rape is defined as a word in the English language. It has a meaning and it doesn't matter who thought it up, whether man or woman or where it came from or whether it is derived from Latin or ancient Swahili, the current meaning stands and cannot be redefined unless a new definition is universally accepted. Otherwise my black pants might as well be a red dress in your book. That is my point and in that sense there is no argument, you a wrong and if consent is given "rape" in the absolute literal sense cannot be argued for or claimed.

Perhaps a new word is required to fit with the conclusion of your analysis because I honestly can't think of one that fits.

"Sex that she agreed to, seemed to want and insisted was consensual but really wasn't because she lied or perhaps just wasn't sure", isn't much of a word is it.

Regarding the feminist stance on all this, I found this today much of which I also agree with You can be a feminist and a sex worker

We rightly defend a woman?s right to say ?no?, but we must equally defend her right to say ?yes?. You can be a feminist and like male attention. You can be a feminist and shave your legs. But above all else, you can be a feminist and be a prostitute. And it?s about time we stopped limiting female experience to a set of purist ideals under the guise of feminism, and started empowering women from all walks of life to make their own choices without judgement. By Leanora Volpe (a woman)

Indeed.

well quite FloraFox.

all this multiple posting and whatabouthemenzing looks to me like a men telling women what to think about rape.

which is exactly the fucking point. women have been told by men what to think about rape since forever.

and of course men are the victims of rape too. the point that men are the perpetuators of rape and yet they are also the ones who get to define what rape is and when it is a crime.

Exactly that Beachcomber. I am still mulling over your earlier post about consent which I am really interested in. I want to read the chapter you linked to. Another thread on that would be great.

sg based on your last post, please retract your statement that women rape men. This is not possible under current UK legislation.

If anyone rapes anyone who what where doesn't matter, it is rape. Consensual sex, no matter what the reason given for consent is not rape. That is not me or anyone else telling you how to define rape, it is already defined and accepted. If you don't like the current accepted definition then do something about it, open a petition, get MPs involved and have it made official. Until then, whether you like or not and whether I like it or not, the current definition stands.

oh fuck me he just used the term "cry rape".

i'm not interested in what men on here think of my analysis. im interested in what other women think of it and i would like to discuss it with them. of course men are welcome on MN and can post wherever they like. most seem to understand that it is a good idea to tread a little carefully when it comes to very gendered subjects such as rape and women's right to bodily integrity.

please retract your statement that women rape men. This is not possible under current UK legislation.

And women here claim that men are the oppressors and men are acting unfairly towards women in all this. I think not.

sg you are a hypocrite

you have hijacked this thread and subjected us to dictionary definitions of rape and made it very clear that you are only interested in a very narrow definition of it

by your yardstick, women cannot rape men ....that is one of your "facts", pal

sg you have demonstrated clearly that you don't know what you are talking about. This is the legal definition of rape:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

since women do not possess a penis, a woman cannot commit rape.

The term "consent" is not defined and therefore there is certainly scope for discussion of the meaning of the term "consent" even within the confines of the current laws. Aside from that, we don't need your permission to analyse and discuss the oppression of women in a patriarchal society nor do we need your input on what we should do about it, particularly as you clearly have not the slightest understanding of what oppression means.

You are derailing the thread but perhaps you know that. This thread is primarily discussing the choices men make as punters. It is not to educate you on the basics of feminism or sexual offences legislation.

As Flora has pointed out, it is physically impossible for a woman to rape a man or anyone else, legally, which really is the only definition that matters in this case, given that it's a criminal offence and everything. So to turn your comment back on you sg

That is not me or anyone else telling you how to define rape, it is already defined and accepted. If you don't like the current accepted definition then do something about it, open a petition, get MPs involved and have it made official. Until then, whether you like or not and whether I like it or not, the current definition stands.

The present legal definition of rape also leaves the question of whether a john can ever really be 100% sure that the woman he has just paid/bartered goods with to have sex at is 100% willing (and would be without the money/goods changing hands), if he isn't 100% sure, then by definition, he has just become a rapist.

beachcomber then helped us to further explore the issue of feminist consent within the patriarchy. It was difficult reading, but informative and explained the theory clearly and concisely. It wasn't easy to read, but has given me and a few others a lot of food for thought. No one expects anyone to agree, but to dismiss it out of hand and then send the poster to a sort of 'Coventry' was a little rude and churlish, in my opinion.

A load of none-thinking/no reality going on here.....
"The present legal definition of rape also leaves the question of whether a john can ever really be 100% sure that the woman he has just paid/bartered goods with to have sex at is 100% willing (and would be without the money/goods changing hands), if he isn't 100% sure, then by definition, he has just become a rapist."
I think I'm living in Winston Smithland.
BTW - I've NEVER in twenty years heard a pro refer to a punter as a 'john'....except in crime novels and films. Which perhaps indicates where most of the 'knowledge' expounded here comes from.
FWIW -from reading their posts, I was open minded as to the sex of SG, but there seemed to be an immediate assumption they were male. WHY? I'm female and I find your ignorance breathtaking.

minnie I've known 2 escorts who both used the term "John". Maybe it's a regional thing.

SG had written from a male perspective repeatedly so I don't think it was an ill thought out, immediate assumption that everyone made.

I've heard some very interesting ideas, theory and personal opinions on this thread. I agree that some have come across as very ignorant, but I don't think you're talking about the same ones as I am.

Shrug - I find your arrogance and rudeness breathtaking minnie

But you are not really giving information or analysis or anything like that - is that an option for you, do you think, or would you rather stomp around like an inarticulate ragefilled teenager for a while longer?

You do so remind me of a bolshie teen who thinks they know it all and mums know nothing.