Heterosexul women are not trying to have sex with other women. Therefore, she may have little to no understanding of the issue, outside of her own personal subjective experience, and no understanding of the issue from the perspective of a man.
The perspective of a woman, has NO greater value than the perspective of a man, in terms of viewing the totality of a situation and the interaction between both sexes.
A scientific standpoint, is using logic and facts, to come to a conclusion about a phenomenon, object, or situation. It is NEUTRAL!
So according to what you are saying, it can be logically deduced, all things being equal, that therefore a heterosexual man has little to no understanding of other heterosexual men (beyond the personal subjective experience) and no understanding of the issue from the perspective of a woman.
That means, if a woman describes a man's actions as "rape-y" or chooses to run away from them, a heterosexual man cannot possibly understand this issue from the perspective of these women. It would be ridiculous to try and discount or deny the women's views or actions because the heterosexual man would be strictly speaking from a completely and equally ignorant position. Is this correct? Because otherwise, a heterosexual man, who has never been with another man, would be placing a GREATER value on his own personal, subjective experience over the woman's perspective of other men, of which he knows nothing about.
Nor do you appear to know what a straw man is. It does not mean to arbitrarily label any argument you don't like or is opposed to your own, as a "straw man". Your failure to understand the analogy or dislike of it, makes it no less relevant to illustrating reluctance and persuasion.
Okay, let's have a closer look, if my understanding of "straw man fallacy" is accurate and correctly applied in this case. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong. Here is the original quote:
If a salesman tries to get me to buy a car, I'm reluctant, but I decide to buy the car anyway then am I "forced" or "he stole my money"?
An adult woman can make it clear when she doesn't want to have sex. Reluctance, is not "rape" [sic].
Here is the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
Here is the structure of a straw man fallacy from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X.
- Person 2 argues against superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
In this case:
Person 1 asserted that this part of the story was 'rape-y': "
After a while, I escalate on her, and she gives many of the standard resistance lines."
Person 2 argues that being "reluctant" to buy a car but buying it anyways does not mean it was forced, therefore "reluctance" is not rape. As if being reluctant to buy a car was an argument against resistance to sex being rape-y.
@Solong Please tell me how I don't "appear to know what a straw man is". Also, please let me know where exactly I have "arbitrarily" labelled your argument and how in particular I have demonstrated my "failure to understand the analogy", because the above looks painfully clear and simple to understand.
Thank you!
