I read the article and noticed the condemnation by the College authorities of the Facebook group, which was not established by the College itself. I understand the offending item has been removed. I notice too that the police made it clear that they would not tolerate such attitudes and gather they are investigating those people named on the Facebook. If, as you say, this culture prevails then it must be removed by redefining the culture, including the establishment of a commonly agreed set of rules about the behaviour of each sex towards the other.

It is for those of us who do not accept pro rape attitudes to ensure we change the culture so it becomes unacceptable in any form. “Boys will be boys” should be excluded as a cultural norm but it will only be so if we exclude it by taking action to ensure that rape is unacceptable in any form.

At the same time may I point you towards a well balanced article by India Knight in the Times of London? You may not agree with her but she makes some valid points about distinguishing between the utopia we would like to live in and the real world we do live in. We have to make the latter more like the former. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article641493.ece

You may also wish to look at this article on a contemporary feminst site which commented on Knight’s article. http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/10/incitement_to_rape

Neither fully solve inherent problems but that will only come about by changes in attitude. The question which remains is how soon this can this be achieved because it must be achieved if we are to have more equal sexual treatment of men and women in society as a whole.

Having attended the same university nearly 30 years ago, I can report that nothing much has changed – the college women are viewed as meat for the college men, and young men encouraging binge drinking and then isolating young women on campus so that they can force them into sex acts was then and is still now presented as the woman not being careful enough to avoid a bad apple (because obviously she should be able to tell) rather than the toxic culture of the residential colleges creating an atmosphere where young men realise that they can get away with just about anything, so why not a bit of recreational rape? As the college cheer says, Yes means Yes and No means Yes, so it’s all just what they are entitled to, no?

A persistent pattern of sexual assault in the same institutions over decades, where the assaults are explained away each and every time as “bad apples” and “boys will be boys” sounds like a cultural norm to me. I agree that they should be taken as an affront to human dignity, but I really do not see that as being the reality.

There are many strong and interesting arguments to complicate or contest theories of “the gaze”. Starting with concepts of identification with subjects of images over gazers, or arguments that take into account the readings of viewers who operate from socio-cultural positions of neither the assumed gazer or the assumed subject etc. etc.
a lot of the responses here are pretty off topic.
Theories of the gaze are not designed for establishing for moral behavioral guidelines for good feminists. They are designed to provide a frameworks for understanding visual media messages and their effects on/roles in our lives.
Also this blog article seems to be more about explicating theories of the gaze in a basic and clear way than about advocating or forwarding the theories of the gaze. Thanks to the blogger for a good basic intro from which to continue onward with our inquiries!

but every one has the right of expression and freedom of speech. This includes expressing rude or inconvenient things.

Having the right to do something does not make doing that thing a moral act. Having the right to do something does not mean that others do not have a right to respond to that action negatively and make a judgement on the character of those who do that action. Freedom of speech does not and has never ever meant freedom from criticism.

People who make lazy/nasty rape jokes just for shock value are self-entitled insensitive jerks, it is right and proper to call them out for being self-entitled insensitive jerks, it does not infringe upon their right of expression or freedom of speech to call them self-entitled insensitive jerks. People being self-entitled insensitive jerks about rape IS rape culture.

Nobody is trying to take away their right to be self-entitled insensitive jerks, they’re just telling them that self-entitled insensitive jerks is what they are.

Oddly enough, many many many people do not like and do not want to be around self-entitled insensitive jerks. It’s a bit rich for the self-entitled insensitive jerks to then moan about being criticised and/or avoided because of their free choice to engage in free expression of speech that others find creepy and/or triggering.

[quote]“No-one demands the right of triggering PTSD, but every one has the right of expression and freedom of speech. This includes expressing rude or inconvenient things.”[/quote]

That’s not the point, Seksualisti. This isn’t a “free speech” issue; it’s about the morality of saying certain things that could have an adverse effect on someone else. And anyone with a modicum of understanding and sensitivity would – or should – exercise care and good judgment when it comes to saying things about rape. And I think tigtog was quite clear under what circumstances a rape joke can be considered funny and they’re quite specific and limited, and a reasonable person should have no problem making the distinction.

[quote]“no-one has the subjective right of avoiding situations that MIGHT trigger PTSD or other negative effects in them. It would be good, if they were warned about situations that might trigger such effects,”[/quote]

And this FAQ is a case in point. You’ll notice some of the very first words at the top here are “Trigger warning”. This a discussion about rape for educational purposes, so it’s a legitimate one. But even so, it still has potential to be a PTSD trigger for someone and any one who thinks it could has the option of not reading further should they not wish too.

And I’m afraid there is more to say about dark humor and the risk of triggering post-traumatic stress disorder. No-one demands the right of triggering PTSD, but every one has the right of expression and freedom of speech. This includes expressing rude or inconvenient things.

Moreover, no-one has the subjective right of avoiding situations that MIGHT trigger PTSD or other negative effects in them. It would be good, if they were warned about situations that might trigger such effects, but it is sometimes practically impossible to consider ALL possible triggers and vulnerabilities.

It is also problematic to compare the RIGHT of expression and POSSIBILITY of triggering. There is no theory of rights, that would accept this kind of violation of someone’s rights, because this kind of structure would be disastrous to the whole concept of rights, if it was applied widely.

I sympathise with the pain of rape victims, but the problems above cannot be skipped in discussion of societal, legal or philosophical matters concerning rape and alleged “rape culture”.

If jokes are deliberately used as tools of hurting or oppressing someone, then these act are immoral. This applies to all jokes, not only to rape jokes.

This is why I call bullshit on the whole “it was just a joke” defence against people offended by “taboo” humour. That’s not to say that taboo humour never has a place, especially when it is used by survivors/minorities to highlight shortcomings in broader society. But when it’s just used for shock value by someone with social privilege it’s hardly challenging those taboos, it’s only reinforcing them. This is particularly true when it’s an oppressor group making jokes where the punchline is someone else’s victimisation.

I’ve heard some funny rape jokes – they do exist. They’ve either been told by someone who was raped and using dark humour effectively in response, or by someone highlighting the deficiencies of rapists (e.g. packs of footballers) instead of making the lazy joke about how damned funny it is that some people get raped and they probably asked for it or are lying about it. Jokes about prison rape of male convicts are the laziest and nastiest ones I can think of in terms of casting the victims as deserving what they get, by the way.

Your second paragraph however? Please don’t tell me you are quoting a religious Just-So story as any sort of valid evidence.

MAYBE THEY ARE MUCH MORE EASILY MANIPULATED? Like eve taking the apple from the serpent.