Terminology

2022, terminology was a mess, and becoming messier.

July 21, a facebook friend share (in a public post) the image of a letter to the editor, pro-sex, pro-abortion-rights, shortly after Roe vs. Wade was voted away by the Supreme Court.

Her intro to the image:

This is not bad from a man... There are a few details he didn't quite get right, but I appreciate the effort.

Does "a few details he got wrong" mean "I don't agree with all of it"?

The main part he got wrong, was leaving out how men fail to get consent for impregnating women -- the part where men take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. Not having consent to impregnate means that "oops" is actually a rape. This is the part that men are going to have to hear about now.

Your understanding doesn't match mine, or his, and yet we're all old enough to share what we have learned from experience, from others' experiences and from years of consideration, what we think sex is "about."

Your ideas aren't more "right" than others. They're yours.

His aren't "wrong," and you don't get to say mine are.

People are replacing "I believe..." or "I think..." with false dichotomies and stark politics, in which others are WRONG, and there is an us vs. them.

It's tiring. It's counterproductive to consideration of others' opinions, of different ideas, of freedom of speech and of thought and of expression, it seems to me.

I don't think he was wrong to express his own views.

Sandra Dodd, What are your views?

I don't consider it an opinion, but rather a matter of understanding consent. Consent to do any specific sex act doesn't mean consent to another. That's how women have been trampled on by men all through the ages. If a woman says yes to kissing, that doesn't mean a man can assume she would do more, right? This is the part that is missing from his article. A woman's consent to getting pregnant should be clearly communicated before a man ejaculates into her body.

BTW -- my words were "not quite right", which you then changed to "wrong", just so you could have that argument with me. I find that a little weird.

Sorry. I did misquote; sorry.

Still "Not quite right," on a sweet and positive opinion, seemed argumentative and they guy wasn't there to defend himself 🙂

Sex is MANY things, and cherrypicking the worst aspects for political purposes seemed to be happening.

Redefining terms is beyond "not quite right."

-=-A woman's consent to getting pregnant should be clearly communicated before a man ejaculates into her body.-=-

I don't think that's true, fair, or sensible. Accidents happen even with the best of doubled up birth control, and that doesn't make it solely the man's doing.

Lots of people have discussed such things with me. Many women have had unprotected sex, knowingly, unplanned but passionately, in most accounts, and accepted the risk. Texas and other places messing with rights to abortion still... it shouldn't (and doesn't) change the definition of rape.

Consent shouldn't need to be given ten times all along the way, either. I know some universities have created such advice and policies, but it's QUITE a bit too invasive of people's rights. There are lots of relationships and couples and situations in which "yes" was understood way in advance. People DO have the right to do that, beyond the policies of some university or another.

The term "consent" has a meaning beyond those politics, too.

"What are your views?"

I gave them. People's opinions can (do, can't help but) vary without one person being "not quite right" or wrong.

I was defending someone's freedom of expression. Also defending mine.

If women are to have rights, they should have the right to consent in ways they want to, not by someone else's script. They should not be told that they are victims of trampling, or that impregnation in a passionate (or even just fun) exchange was NOT fun or passionate, but was (in retrospect) rape.

I have a grown daughter and two grown sons. This new definition of "rape" is political, and I don't like it. Never heard of it until you explained your objection.

Then my post did its job. I have also spoken to many women and they would find it empowering to realize that their men simply violated their need for "not getting pregnant". It isn't me that is creating the danger and lack of privacy for them. If you find the word "rape" offensive and his lack of understanding of "consent" to be sweet and old-fashioned, perhaps you are also defending your own lack of thought/awareness to the idea that men impregnate women all the time without their permission. That's a rape, whenever you go beyond what a woman is okay with. If you put yourself in her butt when she said okay to vaginal, then that's a rape. If you try to undress her when she only wants a kiss, that's a rape. EVEN IF YOU ARE MARRIED AND SHE IS LYING NAKED NEXT TO YOU. This has certainly happened to BOTH OF MY MOMS and numerous other women who have had their lives devastated by pregnancies that sweet men like this one probably thought was just a little mistake in the service of that delicious orgasm.

But your 20 second enjoyment, which would be only slightly less enjoyable with a $1 condom or whatever, could have prevented a 19 year negative income contract and forced labor for the woman, or the tragic harms that occur to a woman who gets an abortion. This is not just politics. It is half a lifetime of servitude to the child or bodily and psychological injury.

-=-But your 20 second enjoyment, which would be only slightly less enjoyable with a $1 condom or whatever-=- I've never had an orgasm that only lasted 20 seconds. 🙂

Women DO have sex, and often enjoy it, and often initiate it.

Every form of birth control can, and does sometimes, fail. It seems, by your definition, if a condom holds and there is no pregnancy, that is not rape. If it leaks, that's rape. If it leaks, but does not impregnate, not rape?

I don't find the word "rape" offensive when used as it has been used since it has been used, or as current law (in whatever jurisdiction), but you're calling attempted clothing removal "rape," and accidental pregnancy "rape."

I hope you aren't paying off a student loan for having been told those things at some university, because it's nonsense.

Oh no, I'm taking about forced pregnancy a rape.

Are you telling me that any amount of orgasmic bliss sacrificed by not using a condom will justify a woman being forced to get pregnant against her will? Change it to 40 minutes. Does that warrant an unwanted pregnancy?

I guess you will have to stop Universities from educating men and women on consent. If your boys don't understand it, they will easily get into trouble. That's what you are afraid of, right?

Of course real problems happen with condoms or birth control pills. I'm for the right to abort, and you act like I'm arguing against it. You are looking for an argument. Unless you can prove to me that there are women out there who stole a man's semen, impregnated herself artificially, then decided to go get an abortion, there was an irresponsible man ejaculating into a woman who didn't want to get pregnant.

Except for the cases where the woman has medical issues or there was a problem with contraception. There is a term for this and it is already rape in the UK -- "stealthing" Having sex with drunk women and with sleeping women and with underage women are all rape, even if women and men enjoy consensual play with control, non-consent is a violation.

Stealthing is rape - but women won't report it unless they're believed
METRO.CO.UK

-=- I'm for the right to abort, and you act like I'm arguing against it. You are looking for an argument.-=-

I'm for clarity of language and thought.

I'm for freedom of speech, of expression, of thought.

-=-I guess you will have to stop Universities from educating men and women on consent.-=-

Unfortunately, increasingly, what universities are teaching regarding sex and gender are departing from biological truths.

-=-If your boys don't understand it, they will easily get into trouble. That's what you are afraid of, right?-=-

I'm not afraid of anything.

I thought the original writing was fine, and that you don't own the topic.

You've weasled away from your initial "definitions" now, so that's fine.

Sandra Dodd, No, you just play games of semantics. I have enjoyed your writings about homeschooling and unschooling, but I often see you pick arguments about semantics. If something is unclear to you, that doesn't mean that anyone else is unclear. Sometimes you can't understand because you are argumentative.

I'm not playing any games.
https://sandradodd.com/semantics

Faye Ku, You should read the Metro.co.uk article you linked above. It refuted this:

"Unless you can prove to me that there are women out there who stole a man's semen, impregnated herself artificially, then decided to go get an abortion, there was an irresponsible man ejaculating into a woman who didn't want to get pregnant."

Sandra Dodd Your link doesn't work. My article says the following:

"‘Stealthing’ is when a sexual partner removes a condom during sex non-consensually, and is considered rape by UK law."

Sandra Dodd I have read your same article before, which is how I know that you think semantics are very important and you constantly play these same games, contrary to everyone else's opinions. I shall defend my opinion that arguing about semantics is typically just you not meeting other people halfway and insisting that everyone else use language exactly the way that you do.

If you feel that article isn't clear enough that stealthing is a rape from either man or woman, a violation of the highest order, then here is another article. Stealthing: 'I didn't realise it's rape until it happened to me', BBC.COM

-=-Your link doesn't work. My article says the following-=-

Mine was just the name of the site. (I edited it so that it didn't try to link up anymore.)

The article you brought (had you read the whole thing) talks about a woman guilty of stealthing. You didn't really read it. 🙂

-=-"Unless you can prove to me that there are women out there who stole a man's semen, impregnated herself artificially,...."

I don't have to prove anything to you.

".... then decided to go get an abortion, there was an irresponsible man ejaculating into a woman who didn't want to get pregnant."

-=- The article you brought above does not prove your point.

Of course I did. Did that woman need an abortion? Because her stealthing didn't result in an "unwanted" pregnancy, did it?

You're in Texas. British laws don't apply. People on Facebook are from all over most of the world, and English (the language) doesn't recognize that particular English use, I don't think. It's a stretch, but thank you for the back-up references.

From your second-linked article:

----------quote----------

"She also believes the term "stealthing" isn't that helpful.

"It's a relatively new phrase, and in some ways it's useful to have a term so people know what it is, but in other ways it can be a bit misleading."

-------------end quote------------------

So the man who was quoted in your original post was VERY unlikely to know about this new phrase in the UK, and so maybe his letter was NOT getting some things "not quite right," as to Baton Rouge, and English, and his own age and experience.

Was it language that he didn't "quite get right"? or was it the lack of understanding of the need for total consent before ejaculating into a woman?

There are many other ways in which a woman can be violated. The man promises to pull out, which has a 78% chance of effectiveness, but he doesn't. The man lies about the effectiveness of certain methods like the rhythm method or that he has had a vasectomy or he thinks he is infertile. These are violations of trust that are all rape. They lie or pressure even women that they are married to.

When Does Consensual Sex Become Rape?, REFINERY29.COM

-=- The man lies about the effectiveness of certain methods like the rhythm method-=- By no real definition is it rape if a women depends on a man for information about the rhythm method.

Women should get and use their own birth control, and stop trying to blame and incriminate men for things women should learn and do, know and control.

From the National Health site in the UK:

"When used correctly every time you have sex, male condoms are 98% effective. This means 2 out of 100 people will become pregnant in 1 year when male condoms are used as contraception. You can get free condoms from contraception clinics, sexual health clinics and some GP surgeries."

Who is guilty of rape in those 2% failure cases? The condom manufacturer? The person who told the woman that condoms were 100% effective (which they have never been)?

As you want me to meet your info halfway, and I don't think you're being sensible or honest, I would rather unfollow and unfriend and then you won't need to accuse me of playing games with semantics when I ask you to clarify your public statements.

Thanks for trying to clarify your understanding of that odd new UK law. Please don't stretch it to all pregnancies in all jurisdictions, as you seem first to have been trying to do.

Sandra Dodd If you want to be unreasonable, of course, then you would build straw men to knock down. What does fault have to do with condom failure? If there was a high percentage of failures with a condom, then yes, a manufacturing problem probably happened or sizing or some other issue.

Sandra Dodd Is there some reason you don't acknowledge the REAL rape cases where a husband knowingly impregnates his wife, because he doesn't respect her body? Through deception? Through force, because force doesn't always look like physical violence. It can be by the threat of financial or other means. You are not aware of any abuse? But rather your "proofs" have something to do with finding the most unreasonable possibility and then saying, "see? No rape here!"

Let's put it in perspective. Retired computer programmer feels strongly about abortion and writes local paper expressing his opinion that abortion should be allowed to keep youngsters of both sexes from being tied down by responsibility for their babies. A fair opinion, and popular with grandparents in Western countries.

The letter likely influenced some men, or would have if the web hadn't gotten a hold of it. Nowadays, everyone has to comment on everything, and this heartfelt letter to the local paper in favor of abortion rights is skewered on socials by Faye Ku as partially wrong, even though acting in favor of women's rights is what she wishes every man would do.

So everybody on Twitter learns about this nice letter that would have done good, and it becomes a subject of debate. Was it wrong or was it alright, in your opinion? What degree of wrong was it?

I'd rather you say what you think than posting a negative comment on anything.

Colin J Marcus, I did. In the other comment thread with Sandra Dodd. If all it took was for men to be sweet and old-fashioned then indeed women look whiney and complaining about little to nothing. Except old-fashioned sweetness believes that it is merely a little error that could be corrected with abortion.

How about men shouldn't ejaculate into a woman without her express consent that she is ready to get pregnant? Because doing so without consent is a violation of the most troubling kind, a willingness to prioritize even 20 seconds of slightly happier orgasm over a woman's 19 year forced labor and negative income contract, affecting her body and mind in a tragic manner, even if she were to get that abortion.

If there was a hint of the man taking full responsibility for what should be rightfully considered rape - forced impregnation is what we are talking about - then he would be spot on.

-=-If there was a hint of the man taking full responsibility for what should be rightfully considered rape - forced impregnation is what we are talking about...-=-

It's what YOU are talking about. Not sure who's included in your "we."

I don't agree that an accidental pregnancy is rape, and you've wiggled away from your original position, so you're not being clear either.

Faye Ku Sandra Dodd It is rape if the women didn't want to get pregnant before the man went ahead and ejaculated in her.

Please show the definition you're using, from law, or a dictionary, or anything besides your own assertion.

If the definition is changing in hopes of political leverage, say so. I wrote yesterday (above) "Many women have had unprotected sex, knowingly, unplanned but passionately, in most accounts, and accepted the risk. Texas and other places messing with rights to abortion still... it shouldn't (and doesn't) change the definition of rape."

That's why I used "political."

Can you document that this pregnancy-related definition of rape exists outside this discussion?

Sandra Dodd Why would only a legal definition be acceptable? If you want to classify my usage as political then go ahead. I classify my use of the word as being clear and not wishy washy. Women just aren't speaking loudly and clearly about what they have to go through.

If you don't like the term rape, feel free to pick a different one from the lists anywhere on the internet where abuse is discussed. But as a netizen of social media, rape is the correct 4 letter word that is needed in this context.

https://www.womenslaw.org/about-abuse/forms-abuse/reproductive-abuse-and-coercion

Sandra Dodd The law also makes it clear that it is rape if: Someone removes a condom without the other person’s permission – or lies about putting one on in the first place. This is commonly known as ‘stealthing’.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-rape

Your thinking is very unclear. The term "The law" doesn't even make political sense. "The law also makes it clear that it is rape if:...."

One new law in one jurisdiction in a different hemisphere.

There is no one single law to be referred to as "the law" unless people in the same jurisdiction are discussing a law particular to where they live.

-=- Why would only a legal definition be acceptable?-=-

Because you're claiming criminal action and criminal intent.

I hope you sometimes live in such a way that you're not viewing the world so negatively. The degree of negativity you're displaying is harmful, especially for the mother of a child.

Perhaps you will only say you've already read this, too, but as with the link above about semantics, it has had additions, and will continue to have.

It would help your child, to have a softer, less agitated mom.

https://sandradodd.com/negativity

Please don't tag me in here anymore. If you want to respond for the record, on your page, then you should, but if you would delete my name, if it comes up automatically, I would appreciate it.

---

Semantics Clarity Sex