The SEX ALLEGATIONS Megathread

[-=SS=-]

What they ‘could’ have done is irrelivent.

I couldn’t care less the motives of the women involved. My only interest is if what they said the guy did is true..

Why should they get a free pass? I think it is very pertinent to be questioning the motives of the women involved. You can't just draw the line of interest purely at the point of criminal culpability - we may actually learn something of benefit if both parties are examined in their motivations.

It seems obvious to me that your motives go far beyond presumption of innocence.

What about my motives. Do tell what you think they are then, because I'm intrigued. I thought I spelled it out pretty well though, that I'm a cynical bastard and don't trust anyone. Just because the context of this discussion is rape, against women, doesn't mean we should be blind to all sides of inquiry. I think the man is most likely a deviant bastard, but I also think the women involved have something to answer for too.

 

[JessFR]

On to the first part of your question. Because their potentially selfish motives don't pose anything like a risk to the public nor are they anywhere in the same league as what is being accused. The truth to that level of detail likely can't be accurately determined from what is publicly known. I see little point. And because even in a worst case scenario their behavior doesn't excuse his. And it just comes off as victim blaming. I could probably think of lots more reasons but this is off the top of my head. There is no need for any inquiry into the victims motives. It's no different than pointing out that a rape victim was a slut or put herself in stupid situations where she might get attacked. Well maybe she was and did, but it's irrelivent. Maybe she did take risks that put herself in harms way, it's no excuse for anyone to have raped her.

As for your motives. Thats a tough one to put into words. Because it's got to do with your whole attitude. It's more how I think you feel than how I think you think. But the fact you care at all about what the women did or didn't do speaks volumes. Because it shouldn't matter. it's got nothing to do with giving them a free pass cause they shouldn't be the ones on trial to start with.

My point about what you think, is that even if you're right, the fact you care and make an issue of it is wrong.

I'm so cynical I don't even bother talking about shit that irritates me half the time because I don't even think even doing that much has any point. I always assume everyone's retarded and it's only a question of how they're retarded. I always think they'll burn me it's just a question of when. I'm extremely cynical and nihilistic. This isn't about what I think the women did or didn't do. It's that I don't think it's relevant and I don't care one way or the other. I care more about the fact that you care than I do about you being right or not.

 

[Scrofula]

, unless she is physically forcibly overpowered, in which case it is clear cut that it is assault, sexual assault or rape.

Right. Like I said. Three times now.

So you admit that is a possibility, but dismiss it cause the greedy sluts didn't go the police. Even though the power imbalance remains, such that even going to trial someone on the jury like yourself would just say she must have stolen the "evidence" and applied it herself. Cause why would a smart adult woman ever put herself in that situation?

And we don't know that it wasn't reported. One thing, like with the dozens of women coming forward about Cosby, the fact that they are now millionaires (the ones who've come forward anyway) or outside the statute limits, means they can only be hurt and stand nothing to gain. That tilts my belief further on their sides, not even knowing any other details.

Yes, it's convenient for them to come forward now that the power of money and reputation is a little more equal, and the damage to their careers won't be as total as it would have at the time (plus they stand a chance of maybe being paid attention to now).

 

[JessFR]

Given how far stacked against sexual assault victims the system and our culture already is. THAT is reason enough that you shouldn't be deliberately looking for something the victims did wrong.

Most people already don't report because of attitudes like yours.

 

[spacejunk]

^ exactly.

but it takes two to tango at the end of the day

These are rape allegations (and other allegations of sexual misconduct). It doesn't "take two to tango". What a ridiculous statement.

You've made your attitudes about sexual politics very clear before, and i shouldn't be surprised to read these sorts of comments from you, but still - there is a term for your sort of blase dismissal of these revelations/allegations; entitlement and male privilege.

Such misogynistic perspectives have no place in this topic anyway, because as there is at least one male victim too, allegedly, this is simply about human dignity and showing a little respect for people who come forward claiming to have been raped or abused by a very rich and powerful man.

I don't know if you've ever known a person that has been raped, but i've known many - and the harm it does to people's lives (male or female - it doesn't matter) in incalculable.
To be so blase about these sorts of topics - and lay blame the victims - is fucking backwards.

Do you know what sort of indignities people have to go through when they report being raped or sexually assaulted?
They are generally interrogated by police as if they are the criminal.
Then they are often examined by a doctor in ways that are not pleasant for someone that has already been violated sexually.
That's just the beginning - if it goes to trial, your reputation tends to get dragged through the mud by defence lawyers who will do all they can to cast doubt upon what you're saying.

That is why a lot of rapes go unreported - and that is why attitudes like yours stink.

When i say it's "backwards", it's because those sorts of ideas ("it takes two to tango") used to be acceptable when we didn't understand so much about the trauma of rape, and didn't understand the implications of it.

Nowadays though, there is no excuse for such an attitude - you should know better than to blame rape victims.

 

[alasdairm]

i'm sure they were all wearing low-cut tops and basically asking for it, right ss?



alasdair

 

[JessFR]

^ exactly.



These are rape allegations (and other allegations of sexual misconduct). It doesn't "take two to tango". What a ridiculous statement.

You've made your attitudes about sexual politics very clear before, and i shouldn't be surprised to read these sorts of comments from you, but still - there is a term for your sort of blase dismissal of these revelations/allegations; entitlement and male privilege.

Such misogynistic perspectives have no place in this topic anyway, because as there is at least one male victim too, allegedly, this is simply about human dignity and showing a little respect for people who come forward claiming to have been raped or abused by a very rich and powerful man.

I don't know if you've ever known a person that has been raped, but i've known many - and the harm it does to people's lives (male or female - it doesn't matter) in incalculable.
To be so blase about these sorts of topics - and lay blame the victims - is fucking backwards.

Do you know what sort of indignities people have to go through when they report being raped or sexually assaulted?
They are generally interrogated by police as if they are the criminal.
Then they are often examined by a doctor in ways that are not pleasant for someone that has already been violated sexually.
That's just the beginning - if it goes to trial, your reputation tends to get dragged through the mud by defence lawyers who will do all they can to cast doubt upon what you're saying.

That is why a lot of rapes go unreported - and that is why attitudes like yours stink.

When i say it's "backwards", it's because those sorts of ideas ("it takes two to tango") used to be acceptable when we didn't understand so much about the trauma of rape, and didn't understand the implications of it.

Nowadays though, there is no excuse for such an attitude - you should know better than to blame rape victims.

At least now in most jurisdictions in the first world the defense lawyer isn't able to use the victims behavior or promiscuity as a defense tactic anymore.

It shouldn't matter what the victim did or didn't do. All that's relevant is if the perpetrator did the crime or not. If they did, they'll likely do it again. They have no right to use other people for their pleasure. This really isn't complicated.

 

[Scrofula]

It's more pernicious than a legal system that used to favor the defendant in these cases; it's that attitude that assumes that while it's OK and even expected that a boss be a sleazy bastard, the blame lies on the woman if she "decides" it's gone too far. With that on the jury, it doesn't matter what the law says.

 

[JessFR]

You know what sucks? Always feeling caught in the middle of two sides both you're sympathetic too. Neither you're accepted by.

On the one hand, I'm disgusted by the attitudes of victim blaming and the mentality I see from SS and the OP.
On the other hand, while I don't think it should matter if the victims "agreed" or what their motives are. I also feel the need to emphasize that ALL accused have the right to a presumption of innocence. If a man is accused of rape, the courts SHOULD assume their innocence until it is proven that they are guilty. That is the way a just legal system has to work. Unfortunately in practice it is often difficult to prove these kinds of allegations. Which along with other far less forgivable biases makes sexual assault cases where the perpetrator is rightfully found guilty a rare occurrence.

While I as an individual may assume that a rape victim is telling the truth, and assume that if they say a particular individual raped them, Id likely believe them without further proof. At the same time I also believe that the legal system, the courts, MUST presume the rapist is innocent and require the state prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are indeed a rapist.

If that means I'm seen as supporting a legal system that "sides with the rapist" so be it.

So frequently I feel that victims advocates, as pure as their intentions might be and as much as I might agree with and support them. Get outraged by the legal system operating the way it has to operate to ensure no innocent people are deprived of their rights, possessions and Liberty by miscarriages of justice. The rapists often go free as a result is terrible. And the problem goes far beyond that required for the justice system to function and that needs to stop. But some well intentioned go too far with it.

 

[Scrofula]

Yeah, as a man who made sure the door was open during office hours with co-eds and is afraid to teach minors, I get the whole problem of assuming guilt.

But I never said this guy was guilty of anything. It is totally possible to be open to the details and not take this executive as guilty, without dismissing the women as sluts who must've been asking for it. You can take the truth to be somewhere between rape-by-force and simple pervishness, to be determined in court, while admonishing those who acquit the dude right away, based on 1950's views of gender relations.

(Kind of like all those other "sided" issues we've been discussing.)

 

[AloeOne]

But this doesn't really get to the heart of things, for in every situation the woman always has the power to just refuse the situation, get up and walk away. ... If they weren't physically prevented from leaving then I'm saying there was at least a part of them that was culpable in the context of the whole situation.

You (and others) seem to be confused when it comes to power dynamics and sexual consent. The nuances of coercive power are extremely relevant here... Consider this:

Forms of Coercive Power

Coercion can take many forms. I may prevent you from doing something you wish to do, by withholding some resources or by physically constraining you. ... In other cases, I may push you into a behavior in which you would otherwise not engage. ... While not all of these forms are typically categorized as violent, coercion is usually associated with physical violence. ... Coercive power is most effective, however, when the threat of violence or other punishment is sufficient in itself to get the target to accede to the demand. ... "Coercion involves trying to make the other side yield by reason of fear or actual force." ... [W]e feel threatened when we think that force will be applied if we do not accede to the other's demands. ... In many cases, implicit or stated threat is sufficient to affect the behavior of the target. At one extreme no physical force is used, or it is used selectively (e.g., lynching). The tools needed to implement the threat severely and systematically, must be available, however, or the threat will not be credible. Further, if the target does not comply, the demanding party must follow through on the threat or risk losing credibility when making future demands. ... To be effective, coercive power rests on the target's acquiescence. ~ Coercive Power

Right, so, first off: acquiescence to coercive power (even when its exerted without physical violence) is not equivalent to consensual sexual activity. This man had the "tools needed to implement the threat severely and systematically" and was in a position to make good on threats without incurring losses himself. As for how coercive power and consent interact in US law...

From 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally:

(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear;

(7)Threatening or placing that other person in fear.—
The term “threatening or placing that other person in fear” means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to the wrongful action contemplated by the communication or action.

(8 )Consent.—
(A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.

So, to put it bluntly: victims of sexual assault are absolutely not culpable for the crime someone else committed.

What about my motives. Do tell what you think they are then, because I'm intrigued. I thought I spelled it out pretty well though, that I'm a cynical bastard and don't trust anyone. Just because the context of this discussion is rape, against women, doesn't mean we should be blind to all sides of inquiry. I think the man is most likely a deviant bastard, but I also think the women involved have something to answer for too.

A cynical bastard who questions everything and trusts no one eh? Lol, your motivations are much less rugged and individualistic... It is directly in your interests to minimize the harm done by men while attacking women for challenging the structures from which you benefit. Not to defend the social structures that privilege and empower you as a male would involve actively choosing to acknowledge and minimize the structural power you exert. Its really far from questioning everything, being a universal cynic or not trusting anyone... more like the simple, understandable, group-oriented motivation of maintaining your social power. You are simply sticking to the code of the patriarchy: "bros before hoes"

Shoutouts to the people fighting the good (read: reasonable, open minded, empathetic, etc) fight in this thread.

 

[spacejunk]

Solid post.
I like the cut of your jib, AloeOne.

 

[JessFR]

Yeah, as a man who made sure the door was open during office hours with co-eds and is afraid to teach minors, I get the whole problem of assuming guilt.

But I never said this guy was guilty of anything. It is totally possible to be open to the details and not take this executive as guilty, without dismissing the women as sluts who must've been asking for it. You can take the truth to be somewhere between rape-by-force and simple pervishness, to be determined in court, while admonishing those who acquit the dude right away, based on 1950's views of gender relations.

(Kind of like all those other "sided" issues we've been discussing.)

This is where I think I might differ from some people. Many people seem to me to have one set of moral and ethical values that they apply universally. I have two. The one I feel individuals should follow themselves, and the one I feel individuals should expect of the system that society runs under, the law, our system of justice, etc.

And sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don’t. In this case they don’t. if a female friend of mine came to me and told me a male acquaintance had raped her. I would likely believe her outright without evidence. And believe that’s what you should do in that situation. At the same time, I expect the legal system to presume the man is innocent until proven guilty. And I would fight to ensure the system continues to do so. And I don’t see that as contradictory or hypocritical. One reflects my values as a the woman’s friend and us as individuals in a private matter, the other reflects how I feel the cold, impersonal system should run to achieve the fairest and most just outcome for society as a whole.

Likewise, if a parent shot a man whom they knew had raped their daughter but wasn’t convicted. Morally I might well find their action excusable and justifiable. At the same time I would expect the legal system to prosecute them for murder and consider that correct as well. Because while in that situation the parent may privately know of the rapists guilt, society can not tolerate people taking the law into their own hands like that.

And again. I don’t see that as hypocritical or in contradiction.

 

[Scrofula]

The term “threatening or placing that other person in fear” means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to the wrongful action contemplated by the communication or action.

I noticed that the subject of the feared action isn't mentioned. That suggests the law doesn't distinguish between fear for one's life or fear for one's career (or even someone else's). It also doesn't require overt explanation of the consequences of non-compliance, just the contemplation of them by the victim.

Dude doesn't have to say a word, just be who he is, a powerful man who can make or break your career, breathing heavily as he unzips his pants.



ETA: Jess, sure, we all hope for an impartial justice system, hopefully realizing how reactionary individuals are. I don't know what you took my quote up there to mean, but I meant that if I scold SS for his caveman views, that doesn't mean I'm saying the producer's guilty.

The one I feel individuals should follow themselves, and the one I feel individuals should expect of the system that society runs under, the law, our system of justice, etc.

Sounds like your advocating vigilantism there.

 

[Uncadollas]

 

[JessFR]

No I don’t think people should be vigilantis.

What I’m saying is that the law has to work a certain way, because it’s dealing with society as a whole. But that in certain, extreme situations, it can be morally justified to break the same laws you support. In situations where for various reasons the justice system can’t act, but you still know something must be done.

To take an extreme hypothetical. Say I was in a situation where I had children and I got in a situation where someone I know might try and kill them to hurt me.

I would kill them. I wouldn’t go to the cops and get a restraining order, I’d kill them. And I believe such action in that circumstance is morally justified.

But the I also think the law and the system can’t condone that. Because while I know in my case it’s justified. As a society we can’t just assume everyone in such a position is right to do so. The system must take action against me for commiting extrajudicial homicide. I think in the end I should be found innocent because I was defending my children. But broadly speaking it can’t be encouraged.

To take another, probably even more relevant example. Say someone kills my lover. There’s no proof they did it. But I know for a fact they did, cause they told me. I might well kill them for doing that. And I don’t think that’s immoral. But I do think it should be illegal and if caught I should be put in jail because the system can’t show I didn’t simply murder them, so even though for me I’m being punished for something I consider morally justified, I feel that the system doing so is also morally acceptable because it can’t be allowed in the broader case.

These are complex ethical dilemmas. But the point is that what I think is moral for a person in an individual situation can be different to what I think the system must do.

In this case the system must presume innocence. But I as an individual don’t. I can at the same time think the system must do one think while I think individuals should do another.

I think you should have the right to say Jews are Christ killers who had genocide coming. But I also think it’s morally wrong for you to do so.

One rule in one context, another rule in another context.

Is that vigilantism? Maybe. But when I say people shouldn’t be vigilantis I mean that I do NOT think it’s morally ok to do ANY of the illegal things I just said on behalf of someone else. You can’t go killing someone for killing someone else’s kids. Whom you’ve never met because you feel you need to dish out justice when the systems failed. That’s not ok from either the legal context or the individual moral context.

What can I say my moral views can get a little complicated.

 

[Scrofula]

Nah, you're just comparing different things. Civil liberties, jurisprudence, morality, they all overlap but are independent systems.

And then there's epistemology, how you "know" the things you know. It is immoral, I believe, to shoot the guy who you "know" murdered your lover because you don't really "know" that unless you were there (and then it's still immoral).

OK, that might not be exactly the right school of philosophy, but you get the idea, and Weinstein's a raping a bastard.

Oh, a thought I had when someone filled me in on how many accusers there are: a lot of these women aren't actors but involved in production. So it's possible that the star-power rich actors coming forward are in fact doing a solid for the set designers who could never imagine being in a position to share their stories.

 

[-=SS=-]

Right. Like I said. Three times now.... So you admit that is a possibility, but dismiss it cause the greedy sluts didn't go the police...

Yes, it's convenient for them to come forward now that the power of money and reputation is a little more equal, and the damage to their careers won't be as total as it would have at the time (plus they stand a chance of maybe being paid attention to now).

Of course it's a possibility, I never denied that. What I said and implied was that I find it hard to believe it was rape if there were no physical restraints holding them back from leaving, either Weino himself, other people in the room, locked door or whatever. They could just get up and leave if there was nothing to stop them from doing so. He may have grabbed and held them, but we don't know that yet (right?), though from what I gathered none of the victims have suggested or made that accusation yet through details.

And yeah, it is convenient for them to come forward now.. after all having made millions of dollars.. and also allowing many other women to potentially suffer the same experiences by not making a big fuss about it all at the time. Their silence on the matter, the fact that there's so many who all chose to remain silent.. that's worth considering, don't you think? Or is that off limits because it's about rape and that automatically means all criticism, debate and alternate lines of thinking are off limits? Next time someone here says they're open minded I shall refer them back here.

You've made your attitudes about sexual politics very clear before, and i shouldn't be surprised to read these sorts of comments from you, but still - there is a term for your sort of blase dismissal of these revelations/allegations; entitlement and male privilege.

Such misogynistic perspectives have no place in this topic anyway, because as there is at least one male victim too, allegedly, this is simply about human dignity and showing a little respect for people who come forward claiming to have been raped or abused by a very rich and powerful man.

Can we not go down the nonsense route of 'male privilege' and 'misogynistic' please, it's ridiculous. I know you have this image in your head of what you think I'm like as a person but as I've always maintained you are way, way off the mark. It's OK for people to have different attitudes, perspectives and convictions.. just because they don't all immediately fall into the neat little order you have in your head doesn't make them wrong, right-wing, or [insert bashing term here].

Do you know what sort of indignities people have to go through when they report being raped or sexually assaulted?
They are generally interrogated by police as if they are the criminal.
Then they are often examined by a doctor in ways that are not pleasant for someone that has already been violated sexually.
That's just the beginning - if it goes to trial, your reputation tends to get dragged through the mud by defence lawyers who will do all they can to cast doubt upon what you're saying.

That is why a lot of rapes go unreported - and that is why attitudes like yours stink.

Do you know what happens to a person who is convicted of rape, especially one who isn't guilty? It completely fucks their life up, permanently. Even if evidence comes to light that they were falsely accused they're never going to be able to rebuild their life or get that time back, their reputation, their career, house, wife, whatever. It's all done.

Hence why if someone makes the charge they have to take it seriously. What would you rather happen? They just take their word at face value without any sort of process or protocol? If the police and courts are going to ruin a mans life permanently they need good evidence. It's a serious accusation and a serious crime, with a serious penalty if convicted, but even just involving the accused can affect their life greatly before even getting to trial. It's not alright to say that is alright, just because we're talking about rape. Yes rape is horrific, but we have this principle of innocent until proven guilty.. it is the absolute foundation of our legal system and there is nothing that will ever convince me we should abandon or modify it, because it is the one thing standing between the public and a state that becomes all powerful and tyrannical.

I don't know if you've ever known a person that has been raped, but i've known many - and the harm it does to people's lives (male or female - it doesn't matter) in incalculable.

Yeah, I have. My first long term girlfriend, who I helped through it. And every other woman I've been with, except the last but I only met her twice so who knows.. it may be 100%. So yeah, I know. I've seen the damage and tried to help these women. There was also a difference between those who had put themselves in a stupid situation and those who were grabbed physically by a complete stranger, in terms of their mental state. Regardless, I'm aware of what it does to a person and also to those around them, family and friends. It took it out of me trying to help my first long term girlfriend get through it.

So by all means question my motives and slate my attitude as misogynistic or whatever. You don't know me at all.

i'm sure they were all wearing low-cut tops and basically asking for it, right ss?

Well you know what, the kind of clothing that a lot of women choose to wear today would 60 years ago put them straight into the prostitute or slut category. Now you may say "well cultural attitudes have shifted", and they have no question about that, but you know what hasn't shifted? The fact that men have a very close link between vision and sexual arousal. Yes women should be allowed to wear what they like, it doesn't automatically make them a slut, and it doesn't make them fair game or anything like that. But you are still dressing like a whore at the end of the day. You choose to emphasize physical features that men find sexually arousing, you're going to arouse men.. it's pretty straight forward. You can not expect men to change their biological nature to suit your cultural attitudes of what you'd like the world to be like.. it's never going to happen, and it's backwards to even try.

There is no need for any inquiry into the victims motives. It's no different than pointing out that a rape victim was a slut or put herself in stupid situations where she might get attacked. Well maybe she was and did, but it's irrelivent. Maybe she did take risks that put herself in harms way, it's no excuse for anyone to have raped her.

See my point to Alaisdarim. You're right, there is no need for a criminal inquiry into their motives, that's not what I was suggesting and it's a ridiculous assertion. What I meant was a general line of inquiry, from a purely thinking point of view and not a criminal one.

You're also right, there is no excuse for the fact that someone chose to rape her (or him). But that's not the point. If you put yourself in a dangerous situation then whilst that doesn't make you a criminal it should at least get you thinking about your own motivations, attitudes or whatever that led you to be so naive or shortsighted to the dangers.

While I as an individual may assume that a rape victim is telling the truth, and assume that if they say a particular individual raped them, Id likely believe them without further proof. At the same time I also believe that the legal system, the courts, MUST presume the rapist is innocent and require the state prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are indeed a rapist.

If that means I'm seen as supporting a legal system that "sides with the rapist" so be it.

So frequently I feel that victims advocates, as pure as their intentions might be and as much as I might agree with and support them. Get outraged by the legal system operating the way it has to operate to ensure no innocent people are deprived of their rights, possessions and Liberty by miscarriages of justice. The rapists often go free as a result is terrible. And the problem goes far beyond that required for the justice system to function and that needs to stop. But some well intentioned go too far with it.

I'm glad you recognize the point about innocence until proven guilty. For those who are interested I might refer you to this short clip, about free speech but talking specifically about rape and innocent until proven guilty. The point is made, clearly and well, but in the end gets drowned out by hysterical applause for a nonsense point about sexism. And thus I become ever more cynical.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3BL6pbP7FM

 

[JessFR]

Say a woman is raped. And the rapist the. Pays her a few grand to stay quiet. And she takes it. Keeping in mind she would be mentally extremely distressed and likely not thinking clearly when she made the decision. Does the decision to keep the money change anything regarding the rapists guilt or the victims innocence?

I still maintain that even if you're right, it's irrelivent. It shouldn't matter at all.

The only part that I think has ANY merit is the argument that by staying quiet they potentially helped him get away with doing it to subsequent women. It's very common for rape victims to not report their assault, and one of the reasons is fear of being judged by people like you over stupid shit like this. So if you have concerns about women not reporting being sexually assaulted because the perpetrator will likely continue commiting their crimes, that's all the more reason for you to be far more compassionate and understanding toward the victims. Because it's attitudes like yours that are part of why they don't.

Why do you even care about the victims actions? What is it exactly you think they're getting away with and shouldn't? And why does it matter.

 

[-=SS=-]

So, to put it bluntly: victims of sexual assault are absolutely not culpable for the crime someone else committed.

A cynical bastard who questions everything and trusts no one eh? Lol, your motivations are much less rugged and individualistic... It is directly in your interests to minimize the harm done by men while attacking women for challenging the structures from which you benefit. Not to defend the social structures that privilege and empower you as a male would involve actively choosing to acknowledge and minimize the structural power you exert. Its really far from questioning everything, being a universal cynic or not trusting anyone... more like the simple, understandable, group-oriented motivation of maintaining your social power. You are simply sticking to the code of the patriarchy: "bros before hoes"

You almost had a solid post there worthy of debating.. until you started to go down the patriarchy, male privilege route. I refuse to engage on that area because it leads nowhere.

Victims of sexual assault are not culpable for the crime, no. That isn't really disputable, as they haven't committed a crime. However that does not absolve them from potentially putting themselves in a dangerous situation, which isn't a criminal offense of course but is worthy of discussion none the less. Whether it be clothing, state of mind (drunk) or whatever.