Survey on sexual harassment and sexual assault in climbing

This is a link to an interview with Jordan Peterson, whose work was discussed up-thread. This is a man who thinks he can use lobsters to explain human society. This is surely a case of false  equivalence. He argues for "forced monogamy" (a concept that seems to involve sexual assault) and the redistribution of sex as a way of preventing violence by men. 
​https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html?action=click&module=Editors+Picks&pgtype=Homepage

What he does is to take simple stories about a mythical past,wraps them up in some bs about lobsters so they sound sciency and sells them to credulous people.

Unfortunately, Peterson's tripe can have dangerous consequences. I had to deal with an MRA, a member of the group to which Peterson appeals. The guy disagreed with something in a class that I taught. He posted threatening flyers on my office door, and behind my lectern, as well as the office doors of other female professors and the Women's Center. He would hang out in the small lounge that was by my office so I would have to walk by him. My last class ended at 9 pm and my husband was afraid the kid might shoot me in the parking lot. I was worried enough that I carried modified brass knuckles with me all the time. Waiting most of a semester for the campus police and the university to take action was extremely stressful. This guy's goal was to create fear among the women on campus, not to have a reasonable discussion over statistics on sexual assault.

After that experience I began monitoring MRA websites and message boards. The discourse is largely about the desire to control women's actions and bodies. Women are seen as less than human. Peterson is simply a more erudite version of this dressed in a retro suit. 

In the context of the article and Peterson's whole statement, it seems clear he is talking about forced monogamy, not systems of enforcing monogamy in a relationship. Emphasis is mine.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this.

By definition, this is a redistribution of sex.

andyD123 wrote:

FosterK, it only seems clear to you because you WANT it to be that way, he says "that is why monogamy emerges" why do you think he adds that in there. Do you think he means, "2000 years ago, at the dawn of the Patriarchy, men decided it would be in the best interest of men if they could only have sex with one partner. So they made it law" no, he is clearly refrwncing the biological underpinnings of monogamy. Seriously, it doesn't interest you at all why males of certain species would decide to be monogamous at all? Seems like a very interesting biological question to ask and many bioligists do research it as evidenced by my link.

No, it is not. Because the way he is saying it, it would be women deciding to enforce monogamy (female-enforced monogamy from the link) because they decide that it is in their best interest for parental investment reasons. 

Let's say we agree that Peterson is referring to enforced monogamy, i.e. a system of social behaviours and biological underpinnings which keep partners committed (which include a wide variety of behaviors - from the benevolent to the violent). How then, does this contribute to society ensuring that these desperate young men are married? In what way would that system differ from from enslavement and socially condoned sexual assault? His solution to the "problem" does not follow.

Pepe Climbs Rocks wrote: 

His solution to the problem is marriage a/k/a lifetime pair bonding.  He also suggests that women should be more selective of their partners prior to marriage (OH THE CONSERVATIVE HORROR!!)  You should consider how the Pareto distribution plays into sexual selection in humans.  Without enforced monogamy, Pareto comes into play and a majority of women are sleeping with a small minority of men.  In short, it appears that the "sexual revolution" may be having some undesirable, unintended consequences in western societies.  

Enforced monogamy pairs the most desirable men with the most desirable women and on down the line.  With enforced monogamy, lower status men are able to compete with each other as the high status men are selected by women.  Without enforced monogamy, the high status men remain free to pair with multiple women, leaving lower status men to fight for status and women.  Enforced monogamy doesn't guarantee everyone a mate, but it does allow for more effective pairing down the dominance hierarchy.  

Okay so Peterson is advocating that we create a sexual caste system. That's much more palatable.

andyD123 wrote:
Just because we keep a keen eye to biology and what it tells us about human behavior does not mean that we have to accept its implications wholesale. For instance, we may as a society begin to value individuals who remain monogamous and only choose one partner while still abhorring violent behavior.
I think the solution may follow this way, and it stems from a fundamental assymetry between the sexes that causes ( or should say caused it in the biological past) women to have the most reproductive success if they have focus on investing in the children they have, where as men are benifitted evolutionarily the most if the focus on having as many children as possible and not caring for any of them, leaving the woman to dot it. There were controls for this in some biological species, as you can see in the link I provided but the split still remains.
It seems clear that women value partners who show they would make good fathers and stick around for the long term, and are not as interested in fast sex as men ( although I'm certainly willing to be challenged here, since I am a man and can't really know for sure. Please note that I'm not talking about anyone specifically though and am instead talking about the populations.)  So if we live in a society that doesn't value monogamy or committed relationships, we end up with women not having the committed relationships they desire and a large swath of men as losers never having a sexual relationship. Where as, if we value monogamy, members of both groups would have to compromise their best strategy, to a mostly good strategy. For women, "from I should be in a committed relationship to the biologically fittest male in society, to I should be in a committed in a relationship with the biologically fittest male that will be in a committed relationship to me" and for men " from I should have sex with as many women as possible, to I should have sex with one woman in a committed relationship." 

I'm not sure you've really addressed the question and I think there are a number of incorrect assumptions or overstated effects (that relationship preferences are biologically drive not socially driven; "fast sex" preferences of men and women, etc.). But fundamentally - how would an increase in societal value of committed heterosexual relationships (an already very privileged position in American and Canadian societies)  make violent young, desperate men, feel less entitled to sex and acts of horrific violence? Especially given that such a change would not be a direct solution to their perceived problem? Or do you agree with Pepe that enforced monogamy is actually a sexual caste system.

Pepe Climbs Rocks wrote:

Enforced monogamy pairs the most desirable men with the most desirable women and on down the line.  With enforced monogamy, lower status men are able to compete with each other as the high status men are selected by women.  Without enforced monogamy, the high status men remain free to pair with multiple women, leaving lower status men to fight for status and women.  Enforced monogamy doesn't guarantee everyone a mate, but it does allow for more effective pairing down the dominance hierarchy.  

I'm far from being an idealist who talks about "no difference" between men and women (I mean, it was actually an area of academic study for me, and I ascribe to reaction range theory when it comes to nature Vs Nurture) but...
The talk here seems a bit strange to me.  I't not really what I believe I observe.  Even in polyamory, there is a "pairing" as you put it down the line in terms of 'desirability' (That whole "in my league' thing).  Furthermore, the idea that high status men are free to pair with multiple women (as if women in general do not pair with multiple men int eh dating world) seems a bit myopic.
I think the social aspects of this are a bit less simple than presented.  From what I've seen, if you flip the genders above, it is no less true.  Perhaps what makes someone 'high status' varies between the genders if you want to generalize, but in my observations the 'economics' of the situation don't seem to be as coupled to gender as you seem to state, nor does monogamy dominate that dynamic so much.  IE: Is casual dating (sex maybe, but not looking for LTR) monogamous? What about the poly community?  If not, and the 'economics' are still observable, then perhaps this is not quite what you make of it.

Nate Tastic wrote: I thought this guy was supposed to be Hilter and Milo Yiannopoulos the incarnate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GcU9LjuVOo&t=5511s 

(specifically talking about the 1:31:51 mark. It's linked in video comments for easy access if the mark happens to be removed here; Note to Nick, please fix time marks being removed if not already fixed; I'll add a bug report later. Okay, it's not "auto projecting" itself so fixed.)

I'm not sure I want him as my ally when I take over the world. He has no backbone. Ah! Maybe that's where the lobster idea comes from?

Seriously though, I've been enjoying him along with Rubin (guests), Rogan (guests), Weinstein, Haight and many of the other "conservatives."

I honestly never knew politics could be so interesting. I must be really privileged now to be able to enjoy such things. Or maybe I just have high-speed internet like the rest of you.

P.s. does this mean I'm not a "California Liberal" anymore?

Interesting, maybe he's not really temperamentally suited to fame and things really have gone downhill for him emotionally since the Newman interview and the jump in exposure since then.

andyD123 wrote: "Sexual caste system"..... you were doing so good FosterK. Clearly non of this hinges upon any system of deciding who is the best mate, individuals would of course do that themselves as they do today. 

Being assigned to a caste does not necessarily limits your choices within that caste. Pepe above seems to interpret Peterson as advocating desirability hierarchy we all adhere to find partners. Call it what you will, but that is, functionally, a caste system.

Can you explain how animals have relationship preferences? Do you think we are fundamentally different from animals? Of course biology factors into mate selection. Committed sexual relationships have certainly not had the privileged position in American and Canadian society since at least the 70s.

You keep looking for a biological explanation in what is (for humans) a complex social--biological construct.

Marriage (and coupling generally) is still a privileged status in society, legally and socially (some of this varies by jurisdiction, and was only recently extended to homosexual couples in some juridictions):

• Tax benefits including transfer of assets, social security, tax deferrals, etc.
• Assumed legal transfer of assets upon death of a partner, estate control, inability to force a partner to testify in court;
• Retirement benefits
• Social benefits (married males generally less suspicious around children than otherwise, women taken more seriously in refusing a man's advances if she has a wedding ring, etc.)

Ryan Swanson wrote:

Who decides what is and isn't a protected group?  Obviously white straight male christian is the first group to go, but then how does one prioritize black vs gay? muslim vs non-binary? A straight black muslim woman offends a gender-queer Mexican atheist, who gets in trouble?  Serious question here, as someone doesn't believe I'm serious about track.

Ryan, since you got deleted repeatedly, here's a reply. I don't like people getting axed out of the conversation.

All? Sexual harassment isn't just male on female, it can be same sex, or female on male. Because, it has little to nothing to do with sexual attraction or desires. It is almost entirely about power.

Per the EEOC (Feds), the vast majority of harassment is never reported at all. But, the general statistics are going down, and, the percentage of males reporting is going up. Both, I consider encouraging.

There is a whole procedure in place for reporting, and also the same for an appeal. An employee can bypass their employer and go direct to the EEOC. That is one avenue that would have been available to the Prof with the flyers.

There is also protection for the claimant. You cannot be fired or harassed for filing a claim. There are stiff penalties for false claims, up to and including dismissal.

How does this work out? Two ways. Quid pro quo, where it is tit for tat, perhaps literally, lol! Sexual favors required to keep your job. Hostile work environment is the other. This is the one I think many of you find a slippery slope. But, if you've been in the thick of it, it is clear. We aren't talking about one off color joke here, but something ongoing, or egregious. The day a coworker called our (then) boss a bitch to her face, was his last moment of employment. One overheated moment when he made a stupid, irredeemable mistake.

The flyer story is a good example of a hostile environment. The person is afraid. In this case, the University is liable, by law, to ensure their employees are not harassed in this way, including by outsiders. If they do not have reasonable plans in place and a good faith, ongoing effort, they can be in deep trouble. Again, this is federal law.

The "boys will be boys" argument no longer flies, either. I'm ashamed to say Idaho has had two cases of high school boys ganging up on someone recently. One case, already through the courts (tried as an adult) and one alleged. Both, were locker room hazing that ended with forcible penetration with a foreign object. All male. I seriously do not think "marriage" will prevent seventeen year olds from holding someone down and kicking a coat hanger up their rectum. Or, just grabbing their balls. Or, making crude jokes. At what point does it cross over into harassment? By definition, when the butt of the joke no longer is laughing voluntarily.

When are you a jerk on MP? When someone else flags you. Argue it all you want, simple fact is that you offended someone enough to take that action. Flagging isn't anonymous, on Nick's end, and it is not automatic that a post gets pulled. Nick makes that call. Unlike the thumbs up on mean comments by anonymous cowards.

Hope this helps clarify some of this, for some of you.

Best, OLH

So, I took the survey.

I guess what I'm most interested in is how the results will help develop strategies to reduce incidents involving sexual harassment.

Although this subject touches a nerve with nearly everyone for whatever reason, I believe that 100% of the posters in this thread would agree that sexual harassment, in general, is a bad thing. Along with that assumption comes another, bolder, assumption: that most people would agree that if they witness sexual harassment, that it should be called out in hopes that the harasser understands why it is a problem.

I think the gray area comes into the picture when we try to define sexual harassment. For instance, what should happen in the hypothetical where a guy attempts to flirt with a girl at the crag or the gym? Would the woman consider that harassment? It seems clear that some would indeed consider that harassment. But it's also clear that many would not. The survey includes "unwanted sexual advances" as one of the check boxes for the type of harassment you've experienced. Would asking someone out count? Would paying someone a "compliment" about how they look count?

It's probably obvious, but I am a white, straight male, so take this for whatever it's worth: I have asked girls out at the gym before, and I have attempted to strike up conversations with women in the hopes of pursuing a sexual relationship with them. I do not believe that what I did was sexual harassment, and if a woman ever tells me no, or that they are not interested, or if they even imply that me talking to them is unwanted, I will immediately back off and apologize.

I think a lot of men worry that this kind of behavior, which I personally see as a natural and essential part of being human, is going to become taboo, if it hasn't already. I don't think that most men are sexual predators, but I know that most women have experienced what they would define as harassment. It is bothersome, simply as a fellow human, that this happens and upsets so many people. There is no doubt that it needs to be addressed. It is also bothersome to me, as a man, that I can see the pendulum easily swinging too far in the opposite direction at some point, where certain behavior that has always been part and parcel of being human gets stigmatized. Maybe it should? Perhaps I'm ignorant as to what kind of stress these situations put on women.

Either way, I don't understand how this survey will help the situation. I think having healthy conversations about it, to further understanding on both sides, is the best possible way to flesh out what we might call a common standard of decency in the climbing community and the world at large.

Alex 

Old lady H wrote: When are you a jerk on MP? When someone else flags you. Argue it all you want, simple fact is that you offended someone enough to take that action. Flagging isn't anonymous, on Nick's end, and it is not automatic that a post gets pulled. Nick makes that call. Unlike the thumbs up on mean comments by anonymous cowards.

Hope this helps clarify some of this, for some of you.

Best, OLH

Nice!

Air Alexy wrote: So, I took the survey.

I guess what I'm most interested in is how the results will help develop strategies to reduce incidents involving sexual harassment.

Although this subject touches a nerve with nearly everyone for whatever reason, I believe that 100% of the posters in this thread would agree that sexual harassment, in general, is a bad thing. Along with that assumption comes another, bolder, assumption: that most people would agree that if they witness sexual harassment, that it should be called out in hopes that the harasser understands why it is a problem.

I think the gray area comes into the picture when we try to define sexual harassment. For instance, what should happen in the hypothetical where a guy attempts to flirt with a girl at the crag or the gym? Would the woman consider that harassment? It seems clear that some would indeed consider that harassment. But it's also clear that many would not. The survey includes "unwanted sexual advances" as one of the check boxes for the type of harassment you've experienced. Would asking someone out count? Would paying someone a "compliment" about how they look count?

It's probably obvious, but I am a white, straight male, so take this for whatever it's worth: I have asked girls out at the gym before, and I have attempted to strike up conversations with women in the hopes of pursuing a sexual relationship with them. I do not believe that what I did was sexual harassment, and if a woman ever tells me no, or that they are not interested, or if they even imply that me talking to them is unwanted, I will immediately back off and apologize.

I think a lot of men worry that this kind of behavior, which I personally see as a natural and essential part of being human, is going to become taboo, if it hasn't already. I don't think that most men are sexual predators, but I know that most women have experienced what they would define as harassment. It is bothersome, simply as a fellow human, that this happens and upsets so many people. There is no doubt that it needs to be addressed. It is also bothersome to me, as a man, that I can see the pendulum easily swinging too far in the opposite direction at some point, where certain behavior that has always been part and parcel of being human gets stigmatized. Maybe it should? Perhaps I'm ignorant as to what kind of stress these situations put on women.

Either way, I don't understand how this survey will help the situation. I think having healthy conversations about it, to further understanding on both sides, is the best possible way to flesh out what we might call a common standard of decency in the climbing community and the world at large.

Alex 

Alex, it's proceeding past "no". Meaning, if you "flirt" every time we cross paths at the gym, ignoring my forced smile (because that's the only time I can come, so I'm stuck with you). That's what we are talking about. Put it into a workplace? You've just crossed the line legally, also

I think the survey isnt an attempt at anything, but testing the waters, to see what people say. I don't think climbing is as much of a problem, generally, because of the mutual trust we are forced to give each other. If you are giving someone your life to protect, you are just not going to be as inclined to be a jerk. Once the group is large enough though, say at a gym, then it would be closer to "normal". Just my two cents.

Best, OLH

I keep coming back to this thread when I see the notifications, and feeling more and more discouraged. I don’t think I have the energy or much time to contribute to this conversation, but I just wanted to say thank you to ubu and FosterK for engaging. 

Ryan Swanson wrote:

However, you claimed that certain groups are protected.  What is a group in this scenario?  My understanding is that men are a group; Asians are a group; homosexuals are a group; etc.  It seems to me that some groups have a preferential treatment due to affirmative action laws.  Now I'm not advocating either way, but does that not mean that certain people's harassment claims will need to be dealt with in a stricter/swifter manner?

Sticking to the gender issue:

Affirmative action in government hiring/contracting does give preference to women

 https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

It's my understanding that filing a discrimination lawsuit (either having the EEOC bring it for you and/or your own civil lawsuit) under the CRA et al is theoretically symmetrical for "sex" i.e. men have filed for being discriminated against for being men. For example, the original Hooter's case where Hooter's argued forcefully under the BFOQ exception and the EEOC eventually dropped their case. Hooter's settled in the private suit(s), but did not really give on the "hiring attractive female servers" issue.

Apparently other similar private and EEOC cases have been filed since then against Hooter's itself and other restaurants.

https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-newsletters-article-eeoc-settles-beef-with-restaurant

I'm sure one of the lawyers already on this thread can clarify further in a paragraph or twenty ; -)

Lena chita wrote: I keep coming back to this thread when I see the notifications, and feeling more and more discouraged. I don’t think I have the energy or much time to contribute to this conversation, but I just wanted to say thank you to ubu and FosterK for engaging. 

I don't know if I would thank them for trying change the subject.  This discussion started about a survey by a renowned victimologist and now we are talking about something else very different.  I do understand that there could be many genders but this is the forum for women and was meant to be about the woman gender.  But men through history have  wanted a sexual caste system where they are on top, it is true.  At least in the this part of the forum women can be on top in which is a good change.  But I do not see that happening in this discussion.

ubu wrote:

Wow.  You're really sensitive on this issue eh?

I'm not the one trying to have an argument here.  I've shared my perspective on Peterson, and could care less about "attacking" or "damaging" anyone.  You don't like my opinion?  That's your call, and you're welcome to keep trying to convince everyone that Peterson is the long awaited anti-PC messiah, but I'm not really interested in engaging.  Enjoy your fight.

p.s. for future reference, posting a ton of youtube links is not the same thing as making an argument.  Just something to consider if your goal is to make a cogent argument.

I would just like to highlight how insane this idea is.

nowhere have I said anything of the sort about Peterson being some kind of messiah.
i've merely presented some talks on the issue.  the reason I chose video links was as not to create some giant wall of text that leans in the direction of mansplaining and makes the "conversation" grind to a halt due to the complexity involved.

what is ubu contributing really?  saying in the same paragraph, effectively 1. "wow you sure wrote a lot"  2. "why didn't you write more?"  3. "I'm not engaging or responding to the argument"
(p.s.  for future reference.  coming into a thread and saying, effectively "Nuh-uh!" does not make it worth creating a "cogent argument" in response.)

why have y'all decided to go crazy over "enforced monogamy".  that's a mis-frame for sure.  Monogamy is a force that creates a strong bond. it's by no means guaranteed for everyone nor should be..
the results of the women's movement of the 60s/70s provided the basis that now, women hold the power in who is "enforcing" monogamy.
the human child is a very helpless thing for a very long time and needs a LOT of attention and programming to not turn out crazy.
remember that old saying "it takes a village"?
do ANY of you live in a "village" that you would completely trust to raise your children?
hence the argument for attempting to make monogamy mean something.
unless you would like society to return to a Tribal system.   but, you know... Tribal systems result in brutal wars and rape/assault just by the nature of tribes..  so it would seem counterproductive to this thread to hope for such a thing.

Ryan Swanson wrote:

I said the track controversy is now some men identify as women, and then compete as a woman.  They win.  By a lot.  It's not even something to disagree with.  It is a fact.

This leads to the question of why even have categories? We surely won't have one for all 57 genders.  

Read fast before this one gets nuked too!

I also made the claim that I would have done quite well at NCAA nationals if I was a woman running and jumping my marks.  Maybe that's what made me a jerk.

I agree with you ryan on this point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZgtMK0UxlY   -some cogent commentary on the matter,  (post-transition sports competition) made by an MMA commentator.  (I don't see what's wrong with linking a video to someone who is rather qualified in their field rather than trying to form some fresh argument, but by all means, enlighten me if you have issues with this ;) )

I would argue that society at large, does not have room in it's moral structures to include 57+ more interpretations on how people interact and recreate.
we can barely handle and sort through the 2 ..which we've had for millennia.
case in point.  we're in THE WOMENS FORUM.
guess you better get creating 57 more forums if you want to carry out the gender idea.  correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought the main ideal was to try and fight against the polarization and fragmentation of society.

and as for Foster K's nonsense about "caste systems"
i'll just say that, in caste systems.. there is no opportunity for rising through the structure in your lifetime. that's literally what makes it a caste system.  you're born into it and that's that.

swing!, and another mis-frame..

and for you people who are towing the "lobster bs" line...
his argument is this.  lobsters have serotonin systems.  those systems regulate their perception of status and mood.
one of the most prescribed psychiatric medicines in humans is an SSRI.  which aims to re-regulate your serotonin system, in order to reduce depression.

that's it. that's the whole "lobster idea" that he presents.
no psychobabble.
just a simple biology point.

I understand though, it's easy to just call me an acolyte so you don't have to think about it seriously.

Christian wrote:

It seems a little much though. Like he was already stressed before the chat began and the question put him over the edge.

 I don't know what the trend has been over the time. There's another one where he's crying about individualism back in January. Maybe one of the acolytes can clarify if it's always been like this.

Seems like his comment on the family connection with depression is legit too.

so clearly... if YOU had the same level of fame, you'd be able to handle it just fine, right?

because he cracks a little bit from time to time due to dealing with all the events that are thrown at him.. it's a reason to discount him?
like oh dear he has human moments and isn't perfect all the time.

but.. to say again... this really isn't supposed to be about HIM.  ideas are being presented here and it's mostly a wave of ad hominems in response.  
sense your own "unconcious bias" when you feel the need to say "but he's not the messiah".. because I don't think anyone's said he is, in this thread??

i mean, heaven forbid... I chose to link videos rather than spend hours typing and re-hashing... when it's just gonna get buried under 100+ responses that run wild...

(total time spent on all my responses in this thread... maybe 45 minutes.. and I think i'm done with it.  cya, and good luck "solving" the problem... personally, I don't think the problem of sexual assault is actually solvable.. not on a societal scale... it must be dealt with, on a case by case basis.   some cultures "deal" with it in different ways https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/gulabi-gang-indias-women-warrriors-201422610320612382.html )

http://biblehub.com/bsb/2_peter/3.htm 

Ryan Swanson wrote:

I said the track controversy is now some men identify as women, and then compete as a woman.  They win.  By a lot.  It's not even something to disagree with.  It is a fact.

This leads to the question of why even have categories? We surely won't have one for all 57 genders.  

Read fast before this one gets nuked too!

I also made the claim that I would have done quite well at NCAA nationals if I was a woman running and jumping my marks.  Maybe that's what made me a jerk.

Beats me. Like I said, I don't care to have voices silenced in discussions. I wasn't trying to say you were a jerk, I never saw your post. The point was, someone has to object, and flag a post. Further, Nick, or an appointee, I suppose, then has to decide. It isn't the general admins. It has seemed rather arbitrary, at times, but hey, it isn't our call, ultimately.

And yes, there are protections by law for certain groups, per the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Gender is one of them, so harassment of either gender, by either gender, qualifies. Presumably, race, religion, etc are also protected from discriminatory practices in employment. I didn't memorize the thing, just happened to be blazing through that bit of annual tedium while this thread was running. "Don't be a jerk" would be the nonlegalese, short version, lol, but no.....pages and pages of reading.

@Nate, sorry it wasn't clear up above. A false claim would be dismissed, certainly. "Dismissal" meant the employee making a false claim could be canned. But, the employer is barred from firing someone in retaliation for them making a claim.

Best, OLH

JSH wrote: why have y'all decided to go crazy over "enforced monogamy".

Because it's 2018, and men are still cooking up new terms, social movements, and mechanisms to reduce women to their sexual slaves.

(NB, what is unstated but understood is that the 'enforced monogamy' only applies to women).

You really have to ask this, in a women's forum of all places?

Thank you, yes I too have been asking why are we having men to talk about these things in a women's forum.  We should be talking about how men hurt women and how this survey can prove that but instead we allow men to talk about enslaving women!  How do we allow these things?

JSH wrote: why have y'all decided to go crazy over "enforced monogamy".

Because it's 2018, and men are still cooking up new terms, social movements, and mechanisms to reduce women to their sexual slaves.

(NB, what is unstated but understood is that the 'enforced monogamy' only applies to women).

You really have to ask this, in a women's forum of all places?

for the last 40+ years... the introduction and wide spread adoption of: the birth control pill for women, the morning after pill for women, no fault divorce clauses, the availability of abortion clinics nearly everywhere. women seriously entering the workforce at all levels..  

all of which massively empowered the woman when it comes to "being forced into monogamy"

 overall, monogamy is declining more and more.

it's 2018 and you still think men are the slavers with all the power??  you'll find that all of the advancements in empowering women that i've listed above have actually made the men into the slaves...

the average man is just plain LUCKY if a woman decides to let him experience a monogamous relationship at this point...and she can, at any moment.. just say "nope" and cut and leave with the children.
perhaps you might see how that makes the landscape look for men of weak character, and how that might lead to increased sexual assault from those men.

(p.s.  I was raised entirely by women... and out of all those women in my family.. only my grandmother maintained a monogamous relationship for longer than a decade)