Following this quick introduction, I am going to reprint a post from M3, but first I want to explore the idea that we are never going to come to any agreement, culturally, about what rape actually IS. All we can agree on is WHOSE version of the truth will be privileged, and that requires us to examine what the consequences are, and who is in the best position to deal with those.
The Continuum Hypothesis in mathematics can be boiled down to essentially this: a mathematical axiom can be absolutely true in one situation, and absolutely false in another. It’s a bit more complicated than that in strictly mathematical terms, having to do with creating sets of real and natural numbers that are not necessarily correspondent with either natural or real numbers and it’s sufficiently complicated that it drove mathematician Georg Cantor crazy.
No, really. He died in a sanatorium, unable to resolve the conundrum he created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
Here is a really quick and dirty demonstration of how the Continuum Hypothesis works in real life. In Grade three you learn some very simple Euclidian geometry:
1. All the angles in a triangle add up to 180°
2. Parallel lines never meet
Easy, peasy, right?
Wrong.
Get in sailboat and sail in a nice big triangle around the Pacific Ocean (or any ocean you like).
Oh dear. Looks like all the angles in a triangle can easily add up to >180°. And ALL of them can be right triangles, too.
Take one run completely around the globe, and have your friends take a parallel course, and you will cross paths. The distance around the globe is finite, but the lines never end.
Everything you learned in Grade Three is true, as long as you are working on a plane. Curve the space, and everything is false.
Mathematical axioms can easily be BOTH true and false at the same time, which is way of saying NEITHER true nor false.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticGeometry.html
And honestly, I think that’s where we are at with rape culture. I sincerely believe that most women who claim they were raped TRULY believe they were. They are operating in Euclidian space. Of course, there are point blank liars and false accusers, and the number of those may actually be pretty high.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/why-would-edmontons-karen-smith-lie/
But the rest of the ladies, the so-called “one in four” really, truly, deeply believe they were raped. And as long as we use their definition of rape, they were.
But an alternate definition is available, and I think it’s one that most men use: every adult human is responsible for their own decisions, no matter how drunk or impaired they are (either by intoxicants or socialization or fear or resignation). Men are operating in non-Euclidian space.
And if we use that definition, then virtually none of the sexual encounters women describe as rape qualify as actual rape.
If we assume that the spaces we operate in are vastly, completely different, then both definitions of rape are TRUE, and both are FALSE at the same time. That leaves us only to consider consequences.
Who pays in terms of real, measurable, economic and social loss? Cupcake who thinks she was raped has some therapy bills to ruck up for, but the accused risks his entire life. He can be jailed. His life can be utterly destroyed. He can be barred from certain occupations for life. Even an allegation later proven to be completely false can have ruinous consequences.
Women demand the right to have their definition, and only their definition of space apply.
It’s like setting sail across the ocean believing plane geometry to be the only truth. When those parallel lines cross (and they WILL cross), you better hope it’s not a Supertanker you erroneously believed would never cross your path.
Following this post is M3, writing in depth about how our perceptions of rape, hinging on agency and responsibility, are just so different.
Different spaces, indeed.
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
EXCELLENT comparison. I am super impressed and will share this on my Facebook!
LikeLike
I like to call it the feminist geometric principles of victimology. The feminist pyramid of patriarchy, rape culture, and shaming. Since a number of men have figured out their bullshit game and have eschewed marriage another marketing campaign had to be created by feminism’s victimologists. So they take rape, which in actual definition is a horrible, brutal and violent crime and turn it into a propaganda campaign against any and all male sexual power. The hardcore radical feminist leaders indoctrinate their snowflakes to the point of a persecution complex along with a deep seated jealously of any woman more attractive than themselves and anyone with a penis is the enemy. Feminist have made a narcissistic art form out of blaming their lack of success, beauty, and sexual market value on the “patriarchy”, society, attractive women, and men in general. In no way does anything equate to some type of short coming to change, embrace, be self-responsible for, or admit to. That is a sin against feminism’s evangelical preaching.
Fear of male sexual power=phalli phobia=rape culture
Envy of male success and sexual power=penis envy=patriarchy
Little to no sexual market value=persecution complex=fat shaming, slut shaming, other bullshit shaming
LikeLike
Well, firstly, in any comparison you need to have a standard by which you operate. Is it a 2D plane or a 3D space? If you keep changing the definition of rape, upon which the crimes are based, there is never a standard by which normal men and women can operate. Any crime needs to have a definitive point, per its definition, at which the act becomes the intent to breach the standard of the definition.
Not to boil it down too much, but there’s a difference between a standard of legal law, and its understanding and practice within society, and the ideal of mathematical and scientific theories, which change depending on the understanding of current principles and the actual forces and space wherein your experiment takes place…
I don’t know whether you can actually make a correct comparison.
LikeLike
FWIW (and if I recall correctly)- an equilateral triangle on a sphere can have up to 270 degrees, and, as the percentage of surface area occupied decreases, can approach (but never equal) the traditional 180 degrees.
Mind-blowingly, an isosceles triangle on a sphere can have nearly/approaching 540 total degrees (make one vertex the pole – and make that angle nearly 360 degrees…)
LikeLike
Science also tries to deal with absolute truths or at least theories of absolute truth. Law changes, based not on truth or fact, but on the whims of society and morality. In basic terms, there is no truth or false in law. There is either guilt or no guilt.
LikeLike
The problem is that they want the lax definition with the strict (and rightly more harsh) punishment of the actually heinous crime. You can have your “everything is rape” definition if you’re using a “oops, my bad” level of consequence. Or you can have a severe consequence for a severe crime. But no mixing and matching.
Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking they don’t know there’s a switcheroo going on, though. They gave that game away when everyone understood Whoopie’s “rape or rape-rape” comment.
LikeLike
Some other concepts to consider:
Now, this is applied to civil tort law and not criminal law, but it is the root of the concept that if you don’t want to be a victim, don’t act or put yourself in situations where becoming a victim is more likely. I’m not saying that this standard should be applied legally in rape cases. While a woman might have negligently contributed to the circumstance of a rape, rape is still a crime and allowing for no conviction if she is found somewhat negligent is clearly a very harsh outcome and far too high a bar in criminal cases.
But there’s another similar legal doctrine adopted by many states that might be fruitful to consider in rape cases, given the expanded “definition” of rape with no deminishment of the consequences of conviction.
Again, this is applied in civil cases, but I think it could be a good standard to apply in rape cases. The idea is simple: if it can be shown that a woman contributed to the circumstances of the rape such that she could have foreseen the possibility of rape but did nothing, the consequences (given other circumstances of the crime, such as whether violence was used or injuries inflicted) would be different, e.g., lighter sentences, possibility of probation, an no sex-offenders registry.
I’m thinking of a sliding scale:
* she gave in after repeatedly saying “no” just because = citation
* she consensually had sex, but asked him to stop in the middle and he didn’t stop quickly enough = citation
* both man and woman were intoxicated and had sex and she claims later that she didn’t give consent because she was drunk and therefore “incapable” of giving consent = misdemeanor
* she was drunk, he was not, she said no, but then relented = higher class misdemeanor
* she was passed out on a bed and he had sex with her = felony rape
* she was jogging in the park and was dragged into the bushes and raped = felony rape with a long, long sentence.
If feminists want to expand the definition of rape to an ever-wider sliding scale of gray areas, I think it only fair that the legal consequences be on a similar sliding scale of consequences.
Nah, who am I kidding…
LikeLike
Agree 95%. But you assume feminists are not attractive neither femenine. What about the Cosmo feminism? What about feminists pornstars?
Why lot of people assume sluts are not attractive or sluts are easy?
In my country, the seaside gets crowded with all the sluts of Europe every summer, and I tell you: most of them are very hot, and lots of them fuck every day with different man, but I swere not “any” man. They just fuck with the most attractive men or the best PUAs. But not any ramdom man can approach them and get them. They are so divine.
I deeply believe that most of women have envy of sluts. The prudes envy the sluts, the hot housewifes who are not in the game anymore, they feel nostalgia of their sluttie years and sometimes they cheat on hubby. Sluts are in the peak of the Darwinian sexual selection, same like alpha men. Men need to spread the seed, right, but women need to have DNA variety: the handsome could be stupid, the ugly could be tallented… they try to get the best DNA, but the “best” is a quality that is very spread beetwen men. There is not a unified “best” concept. Sluts do their mission in the Evolution. I admire them.
LikeLike
Thank you for advise, Judgybitch. And for the warning about the “Lolita issue”!
LikeLike
The original study by Mary Koss (1985) behind the widespread “1-in-4 over a lifetime” number (unfortunately, behind a paywall) and its critique by Christina Hoff-Sommers.
LikeLike
I think you meant Godel’s Incompleteness Hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
Which says roughly that a logic system is either inconsistent (things are True if I say it but, False if you say it) or there are things that are true and we can not prove that they are true.
Cantor’s Continuum Hypothesis deals with the cardinality (size) of infinite sets. Though, the continuum hypothesis is independent of the other axioms. That is, if you use it you assume it is true you get a valid system and if you assume it is not true then it is a valid system. As defined by Godel.
On a separate note, in mathematics we have this informal policy that basically goes: “You can define what ever you like, but at the end of the day it had better be consistent with the rest of us.” Applying this idea, one could define ‘rape’ as ‘a man’s shadow touched mine’. Then one would get true statements like ‘100% of women have been raped at some point in their lives!’ So you are correct in that it is the definition that seems to be an issue.
LikeLike
I loved M3’s post, but I have to question your points and the comparisons you make. I have an intuition for where you wanted to go with the different frames of references, and that would tie in with M3’s story about the first girl, where we don’t even know if any sex actually happened, but the thought of it is enough to be traumatic (I think this idea should be explored further). But we’re talking here about a word that is used in law and in conversations. It’s the description of a crime, and a crime cannot have two definitions, depending on the frame. The two girls were made to feel taken advantage of, and last I checked, this is not a crime for any other aspect of human life. If I get wasted, and decide it’s a good idea to go to a casino (or, to keep with the parallels, someone who works at a casino lures me in, knowing I’m drunk) and I lose all my money, is it theft? According to the feminist standard of rape, I couldn’t consent since I was intoxicated, so do I have a case against the casino owners? Hardly.
A similar parallel can be devised for the second girl. Let’s say some door-to-door salesman comes to my home, and really, aggressively insists that I buy his knives. Maybe I’ve been exposed to some media that gave me the impression some serial killers are actually door-to-door salesmen, and that me accepting the sale is just simpler than risking maybe, potentially getting a guy who is pointing these knives at me angry. Does that make it theft? Only if the salesman in question actually threatened me with violence would it be, but I didn’t get to that point, as M3 said, I capitulated early.
So unfortunately no, we don’t have one word with two definitions, but two definitions where one word is used inappropriately. M3’s anecdotes were not cases of rape, they were cases of shame.
LikeLike
I think the Continuum Hypothesis applies owing to the negation of the fifth postulate of Euclidian geometry.
LikeLike
Isn’t that just semantics though?
“Rape” means two different things to the two people involved.
In one case it means “I feel violated”. In the other it means “I knowingly forced someone to have sex against their will”.
It’s the “knowingly” that is the sticking point. I find that analogous to curved space, flat space.
It can’t be both.
LikeLike
Not quite, like the continuum hypothesis, the parallel postulate is independent of the others. However, it is not negated. The only issue is that you can not tell if you are in Euclidean Geometry, where the parallel postulate holds, or a Manifold (like Elliptic Geometry) where it does not. If there is any other easy connection between naive set theory and euclidean geometry, I am not familiar with it.
LikeLike
Regarding the “1 in 4”. Exfermal pointed to the links to the Sommers critique.
Koss claims that 15% of women had been raped and 12% victims of attempted rape.
A key point follows:
“According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that “only 27 percent” of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims.[10] Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was “miscommunication,” 14 percent said it was a “crime but not rape,” and 11 percent said they “don’t feel victimized.””
So it isn’t 1 in 4 women truly believe that they had been raped. Koss herself only claims that a little less than 1 in 6 had been raped. And based on respondent’s answers 1 in 24 consider themselves to have been raped.
LikeLike
As long as the first four postulates are true, then the fifth is also true.
So no negation.
Okay, so my math analogy wasn’t quite perfect.
Oh well.
I’m a girl!!!!
What do you expect?
LikeLike
Koss and her associates interviewed slightly more than three thousand college women, randomly selected nationwide.
The women interviewed were college-aged. Extrapolating the results to lifetime prevalence could yield the “1 in 4” percentage you have questioned.
LikeLike
Assuming that annual risk of being raped drops as the woman ages – for various reasons like less reckless behavior and decreasing attractiveness.
LikeLike
Ok, JB, This will be no holds barred. Keep in mind that I am not a mathematician, nor a number theorist, but I did major in Physics, so I know math.
This analogy is painfully useless.
The continuum hypothesis is pure number theory. It relates to the human minds inability to nail down the proper number of elements in any specified set of numbers with infinite possible elements. For instance, if you have a set defined as {1, 1.2, 1.3} you have a set of three numbers. However, if you define your set to include the numbers between 1 and 10, well how do you define exactly how many elements are in that set? You can’t! There’s an infinite number of fractional elements between 1 and 10. Now, integers are the basic numbers we know from grade school, 1,2,3,4..etc.. Those numbers are a sub-set of the rational numbers, which include all fractional numbers, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc…. But those rational numbers are themselves a subset of the real numbers (basically: all numbers that can be added/subtracted/multiplied, etc..) Well, it turns out that if you look at the entire set of integers, and the entire set of rationals, and the entire set of reals, they are all three infinite number sets. Meaning, you can continue counting integers forever, same with fractions, same with all real numbers. Well, this is a problem, because you have sets of numbers, that are subsets of presumably larger sets of numbers (there’s more fractions between 1 and 2 than can be counted, but they are count-able), then you have subordinate sets of numbers with direct correspondence to each other. This means that, in number theory, there are exactly as many integers as there are fractions, because they’re both infinite.
Well, that’s a f-ing problem. More importantly, the theory was declared impossible to prove/disprove. I think that’s what you really meant, the theory is impossible to prove or disprove, not that it can be both true and wrong at the same time.
But none of this has to do with human relations w.r.t. rape and the initiation of force. By comparison it is easy to define rape than to try to explain why two different infinite sets of numbers, one of which is a subset of the other, have the same cardinality.
My personal definition? Rape is the exploitation of unequal power to remove freedom from another for the purposes of extracting that which someone else would be unwilling to give freely. In this way it can easily refer to a woman exploiting her greater SMV power to extract emotional support from supplicating betas who have been conned into thinking they’re doing what’s necessary to get what they desire. It also covers the traditional definition of a male exploiting his superior weight/strength to extract sexual satisfaction that a woman is unwilling to give.
However, when it comes to social situations, situations where women are coerced (not forced, coerced) into sex with words or alcohol, or where a man agrees to commit to a marriage where he has no real power, it is decidedly undefined. This is by design. Those situations cannot be rape because at some point the “victim” had no excuse for not engaging reason to see the situation they were putting themselves into. At some point, we are all responsible for our own critical thinking, our own consideration of the situation we’re creating. This is why raising a child to have critical thought is about the most important part of growing up. Men must be responsible for the commitments they make, so if a man commits to a woman who will use him and cheat on him, well that’s tragic, but it’s not rape anymore (more like slavery). Women must own up to the affect their sexual display has on men, especially if they do such a thing in a mentally vulnerable state. If women get taken advantage of in such situations, well that’s very bad, but ultimately she put herself on display while vulnerable and that was her poor choice, and unless she was physically intimidated or forced, it’s not rape. It can’t be rape if you have the capacity and opportunity to leave the situation without consequences and don’t leave, it cannot be.
Rape does not exist where agency does, as M3 clearly stated, it cannot exist there. Rape only exists when there is no choice other than between self-destruction and acquiescence. The beta with terrible one-itis who is led around by his high-SMV-value girlfriend while she cheats on him is being raped. He’s being raped because he has the lesser power in the relationship, and he is giving up something that if he knew the truth of the matter, he wouldn’t give. He is given no choice but continued acquiescence to her greater power because he is deceived as to her virtuous nature. Dumping her is tantamount to social and emotional suicide for him, something he wouldn’t do without ironclad proof of his own folly. Before you say that this man has full agency, please explain how a man who is deliberately deceived by someone he trusts has his critical thinking skills available. That’s a sirens song, no other word for it, and many women are capable of it.
LIKEWISE, the woman at the bar, who even though she is not entirely sober, is forced into a quiet alley corner despite her clear protests and forced to give sexual access at the threat of lethal violence is being raped. She is being raped because she was given no choice other than relenting or bleeding out. The woman who gets coaxed into a building that is locked shut and forced to service men before she leaves is raped. Cut and dry.
The definition of rape, to me, is quite clear, and valid from both perspectives.
No more math analogies! Math has sooo little to do with human interaction. Besides which, I’m certain that the set of all possible human interaction has greater cardinality than all number sets.
LikeLike
Bullshit.
The CT is not just pure “number theory:. Anyone with a modicum of sense sees that angles in a triangle can easily add to up to more than 180 degrees if the space is curved.
But if the space DOESN’T CURVE, it’s easy to deny that reality.
That doesn’t change reality. But it DOES depend upon whose reality takes precedence. One reality negates another.
Are we in space that curves or not?
You can champion planar geometry all you want, but we are on a round planet in an elliptical orbit.
At some point, the rubber has to hit the road, no?
LikeLike
It was no Greg Cantor the one who prooved the existence of God with an equation?
LikeLike
JB, I too come from a physics background and not a strictly pure maths one so a mathematician should feel free to correct me, but I think you’ve muddled your hypothesises.
The continuum hypothesis, as I understand, is the conjecture that there exists no set whose cardinal number (size) is in between the set of real numbers (all numbers including fractions, and irrational numbers like e) and the set of integers (1, 2, 3). Godel showed that this cannot be disproved under conventional Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (showing that things can’t be proved/disproved was kind of his thing, and he of course went insane). However, under a set of different axioms for your set theory it can be disproved. So, whether or not the CH is true depends on which set theory axiom you are using.
What you’re describing is something similar, in that all the angles in a triangle can be shown to add up to 180 degrees under Euclid’s axioms (flat space), but if you change the axioms then this is no longer the case (i.e. use a non-euclidean space).
The continuum hypothesis, at least the one I’m aware of, is entirely a set theory/number theory thing, and has nothing to do with geometry – Euclidean or not.
LikeLike
I think you’re thinking of Godel. Cantor was a wacko who believed God had chosen him to reveal his “mathematical truths” to the world, but I don’t think he ever tried to prove his existence. Godel did a “proof” for God, which was essentially a long winded version of Descartes ontological argument for the existence of God. Both are wrong.
It just goes to show that believing in God has nothing to do with being clever, and everything to do with being insane.
Godel was a genius, even Einstein bowed to his intellect, but was paranoid and delusional and clearly mad – he believed in God.
The other great example is Newton; Complete genius, completely insane, believed in God.
LikeLike
I think it is possible an intuition of God, but following logics. Well, maybe adding some intuition and personal experience to logics.
I do not know if you believe in Destiny. I mean, in a scientific way (Laplace) I do. Maybe if you are into quatum mechanics or Sartrean (talking about Simone de Beauvoir) philosophy you do not.
Well, now starts the intuition: in the case that you believe in Destiny, have you ever had the feeling that, in your personal Destiny, there is a kind of “intention”? Destiny + intention, or said in other words: “Destiny has intention”. I had that feeling lot of times.
So, if there is an “intention” in Destiny, means Destiny is not a blind force, but an intelligent one.
Intelligent Destiny = God?
Of course, it is something totally subjective, but I think most of people had this feeling several times in life (“I it is not meant to be is not meant to be, but, hell, it seems that TO ME is not meant to be at all, whatever I do” and opposite: “I do no effort at all, and I achieve it! That seems it is meant to be for me”) That kind of thoughts everybody has. To me is very obvious that Destiny has an intention. Therefore: God? Maybe.
LikeLike
“have you ever had the feeling that, in your personal Destiny, there is a kind of “intention”? Destiny + intention, or said in other words: “Destiny has intention”. I had that feeling lot of times.”
Myself, I generally to not equate my feelings with truth. I’ve had too many feelings that were wrong. I’ve felt love for someone who turned out to be vile, hatred for someone who turned out to be lovely, I’ve justified my actions with anger only to then realise my anger was misplaced, I’ve even felt tired but then not been able to sleep!
So even if I did “feel” that destiny had an intent behind it…… still wouldn’t mean anything to me.
But perhaps your feelings have never failed you, like some sort of Jedi knight. You see I understand why a Jedi trusts in her feelings, because they never fail her.
LikeLike
I don’t neither. But… sometimes things are very suspicious. Too much coincidence, too much “insistence” from Destiny. If Destiny is really a blind force should be more “neutral”. I start believing in this “intelligent Destiny” at 40. When enough things has happened like in any 40 year old lifetime. I am not into superstition. The contrary: old school atheist, although Catholic background. I think maybe I am talking about “Karma”. But not the popular hippy stuff about Karma something more sophisticated.
LikeLike
Do some mushrooms, at least 6g dry. It will make a lot more sense.
LikeLike
Come on, Doctor!
I can’t believe you did not experience this.
LikeLike
The CT is not just pure “number theory:. Anyone with a modicum of sense sees that angles in a triangle can easily add to up to more than 180 degrees if the space is curved.
Yes, CT is pure number theory. You are correct that anyone with sense can see that a triangle applied to a surface can now violate what was previously held true for a three-dimensional space. However, this has nothing to do with CT.
…But if the space DOESN’T CURVE, it’s easy to deny that reality.
That doesn’t change reality. But it DOES depend upon whose reality takes precedence. One reality negates another.
Are we in space that curves or not?
You can champion planar geometry all you want, but we are on a round planet in an elliptical orbit.
At some point, the rubber has to hit the road, no?
Your brain is working, but you are still mis-applying your reasoning to the wrong problem. Math theory’s work in many different axiom-spaces. If you change your axioms, your theories don’t translate over, but that doesn’t make them wrong. The point you are trying to make is muddled and has almost nothing to do with CT.
I respect you, your blogging, and your reasoning in most instances, I just think this post needed to remain unpublished or suffer a major re-write.
LikeLike
I’m allergic to re-writes!
Besides, I’m not trying to reach mathematical proofs levels of rigor here. My blog would be one big blank page if I were.
I thought it was a reasonably good analogy to illustrate the point that two realities can exist at the same time, and that one definition can negate another while both being true (or false) under specific conditions.
Close enough is good enough! I’m a film major, for Pete’s sake!
😛
LikeLike
Your mathematical explanation was so simple even I could understand it! With regard to the 1 in 4 statistic, however, it took years to persuade most women of it. The statistic began was 1 in 3 with the Mary Koss-Ms. Magazine Rape Campus Survey, in which Koss and her team decided who was a rape victim and who was not. Most of their participants disagreed they had been raped, though Koss and her team instructed them that they had been raped. Among the most significant factors Koss used to make this determination was their inclusion of reluctant consent in the definition of what constitutes rape. When the survey moved off campus and into the mainstream, their results dropped from 1 in 3 to 1 in 4, but they used the same set of criteria. At the time, academics around the nation condemned the criteria as specious, and while the MSM loved it, because it made for juicy headlines, few people took it seriously. As the years passed and the big lie was repeated ad infinitum ad nauseum, more and more people came to accept it, which is where we find ourselves today with what I think it was you who called it the “rape fantasy” culture.
LikeLike