Rape?

[Alceste]

Slapping cow?

I wasn`t talking about legal action. As I said, there should be no distinction legally cause the grond becomes too shaky.

Drats, I am sure most men and would be surprised if not most women would feel completely different about both very different kinds of violence. I myself would definetely prefer the kick in the nuts, not that I am eager to choose

That's the point. We DON'T feel "very differently" about "very different forms of violence". Violence is violence. If you ask Mystic whether she thinks it would have been preferable to simply be choked half to death and left to die at the side of the road or choked half to death while being sexually assaulted and left to die at the side of the road, I'd be willing to bet that being choked half to death is the factor that looms largest in her mind. Granted, it's probably extra-depressing knowing somebody actually derived sexual gratification from your attempted murder because it really drives home the point that people suck. But if you're so obsessed with where a penis happened to be and what it happened to be doing that you forget all about the choking, you're completely missing the point of what sexual assault is all about.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm sorry, I just can't be bothered with this. A vagina is not a car, it's not a bag of money, it's not a wallet, it's not a bag of crack cocaine. A woman is not an inconvenient crying baby, a bank teller, an unwitting pedestrian or a dealer that's simply standing between a man and his access to some vagina. If there is a rapist who specifically desired consensual sex but settled for rape simply because consensual sex was not available, I invite you to find go him and report back. Otherwise, this is a total waste of time.

While I find out if that sort of info is available online, I'll let you chew on this...

Though anger and power are believed, by some academics, to be the primary motivation for most rapes,[9] in 1994, Richard Felson coauthored the controversial book "Aggression and Coercive Actions: A Social-Interactionist Perspective" with James Tedeschi, a book which argues that sexual fulfillment is the motive of rapists, rather than the aggressive desire to dominate the victim.[10] Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power. Most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex.[11][12][13][14][15][16] In one study, male rapists evaluated with penile plethysmography demonstrated more arousal to forced sex and less discrimination between forced and consensual sex than non-rapist control subjects, though both groups responded more strongly to consensual sex scenarios.[17]

Causes of sexual violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Poisonshady313]

Also...

Evolutionary biologists purport that rape is, in fact, sexually motivated. "Rape [has] evolved as a form of male reproductive behavior. Despite the long-held theory to the contrary, many facts point to the conclusion that rape is, in its very essence, a sexual act" (Thornhill, R. & Palmer, C., 2000). Therefore, if the nature of the male beast is, in fact, aggressive and uncaring of the sensitivities and concerns of the opposite gender, and he, in fact, is in his base form, motivated to have sex as often as he can, regardless of the willingness of the female partner, then a culture that does not encourage this and that controls aggressive and dominant tendencies in men would be in the best interest of the women of that culture.

The Root Cause of Rape - A Male Dominated Society - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

This is going even farther than what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that this is only the case occasionally. That is, some number greater than 0. But the point remains.

 

[Poisonshady313]

While you're at it... read this:

Theories of Rape


A few relevant selections:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the case of indirect selection for rape, rape is an incidental effect of direct selection for male sexual traits other than rape. More precisely, rape is a byproduct of men's adaptation for pursuit of casual, non-committal, consensual sex. This pursuit was selected because it increased male mate number and because men's investment for offspring production is minimal. Put another way, rape evolved incidentally due to direct selection for obtaining a large number of consensual partners without romantic commitment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] There are at least six hypothetical psychological rape adaptations: (1) a psychological mechanism linking the vulnerability of victims to the use of rape by men; (2) a psychological mechanism linking the lack of resources (or the associated variable of a lack of sexual access to females) to the use of rape by men; (3) a psychological mechanism causing males to have a different preference (in terms of sexual attractiveness as indicated by age) in rape victims than in consensual sexual partners; (4) a psychological-physiological mechanism producing changes in the sperm count of ejaculates during rape (or to depictions of rape) that show specific functional design for rape; (5) a psychological mechanism producing differences in the arousal of males to depictions of rapes than to consensual matings; (6) a psychological-physiological mechanism producing marital rape as a sperm competition tactic.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] These putative mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. More than one of these mechanisms, or all six of them, could exist as part of men's sexual psychological adaptation to rape.

[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Apparently, the question raised by the OP has an answer that's not "never".
[/FONT]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

rape1
Pronunciation: /reɪp/

Translate rape | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of rape
noun
[mass noun]
1the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
he denied two charges of rape

Definition of rape in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

Seriously? First, you'll lose at the dictionary game, and second:

Definitions only go so far.

And even if dictionaries went a lot farther
1) You only have the "noun" entry. And it isn't a "mass noun". It's the way an action can frequently be conceptualized abstractly, the way that words like kill, torture, abuse, molest, and many others are.
2) The Oxford Dictionaries are cheap versions of the Oxford English Dictionary. Looking up the entries in the actual OED shows how far dictionaries get us:
1. The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering. Also as a count noun: an instance of this, a robbery, a raid. Now rare (chiefly arch. and literary).

?c1350 Ballad Sc. Wars 212 in A. Brandl & O. Zippel Mitteleng. Sprach- u. Literaturproben (1917) 139 Bot soffid sal be mani of stede, For res þat þai sal after ride; And seen sal leaute falsed lede In rapes sone after þat tyde.
a1456 tr. Secreta Secret. (Marmaduke, Ashm. 59) (1977) 210 (MED), If þe king absteyne him..frome violent rape of þe moneye of heos subgettes, þat is a certaine token þat in hyme is verraye and gret bounte of vnderstonding.
c1475 tr. A. Chartier Quadrilogue (Univ. Oxf.) 199 (MED), I shall..reherce the places and townes where many of thyn haue inhabited as longe as the vitailes and rape of goddes might susteyne thaim.
1526 W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection iii. sig. PPPiii, All vnlawfull vsurpyng..of the temporall goodes of any person, by rape, pikyng..or any other maner of stelyng.
1596 Spenser Second Pt. Faerie Queene iv. vii. sig. F8, He liu'd all on rauin and on rape Of men and beasts.
...
a1973 J. R. R. Tolkien Silmarillion (1977) xxiv. 251 Few of the Teleri were willing to go forth to war, for they remembered the slaying at the Swanhaven, and the rape of their ships.

I doubt you'll ever find a bigger fan of Tolkien than I, but even I wouldn't rely on his usage of "rape" in the Silmarillion (and he actually worked on the OED).

More importantly, under the OED definition that refers to the criminal act (def. 2), we find something extremely rare. Not just a definition and examples, but a definition followed by this:
"The precise legal definition of rape has varied over time and between legal systems. Historically, rape was considered to be the act of a man forcing a woman other than his wife to have intercourse against her will, but recently the definition has broadened. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the United Kingdom the crime of rape includes the penile penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person of either sex, where consent to the act has not been given. This includes marital rape: in 1992 the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided that the previous understanding (i.e. that a wife had given an irrevocable consent to intercourse) was no longer part of the law. Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13 also constitutes rape irrespective of whether consent is obtained. In the United States the precise criminal definition of rape varies from state to state."

That's the first time I ever seen the OED include something like that under a definition, so apparently the most extensive, comprehensive, and respected dictionary of the English language made a special point of noting that dictionaries aren't the way to go.

The true definition of rape is superfluous.

I'd go further. I'd say their is no true definition, and not just because in general language doesn't work like a dictionary, but because we're dealing with both a legally defined action and an interpretation. By interpretation, I mean that it could matter less if someone didn't define what they did as rape, and one doesn't need a dictionary to understand the traumatic experience regardless of whether we're talking about rapere/raptus or Lustmord (a German word that means the raping and killing of someone).

 

[Alceste]

While I find out if that sort of info is available online, I'll let you chew on this...



Causes of sexual violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also...



The Root Cause of Rape - A Male Dominated Society - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

This is going even farther than what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that this is only the case occasionally. That is, some number greater than 0. But the point remains.

Both these articles, taken in their entirety, seem to affirm that male-on-female sexual aggression is related to power, domination, the willingness to assert self-interest through force, misogyny, entitlement, punishment, humiliation, abuse, social superiority, etc.

You get no brownie points from me for ferreting out the one short paragraph in each article that acknowledges personal sexual gratification is an aspect of male-on-female penetrative rape. Nobody here ever argued that it wasn't. Only that this is not the primary cause of sexual violence in general (including female rape, prison rape, rape with an object, etc.) To quote from your second link:

"All sexual offenders seek to control and dominate and do not view their victims sympathetically."

 

[Poisonshady313]

Both these articles, taken in their entirety, seem to affirm that male-on-female sexual aggression is related to power, domination, the willingness to assert self-interest through force, misogyny, entitlement, punishment, humiliation, abuse, social superiority, etc.

Related to. Not caused by.

The reasons why some may feel like they can get away with it... or why it's not punished as severely as it should, can be accounted for through the reasons you listed... mysogyny, entitlement, etc. "the willingness" describes the how... not the "why".

The third link I provided goes into "why".

You get no brownie points from me for ferreting out the one short paragraph in each article that acknowledges personal sexual gratification is an aspect of male-on-female penetrative rape. Nobody here ever argued that it wasn't. Only that this is not the primary cause of sexual violence in general (including female rape, prison rape, rape with an object, etc.) To quote from your second link:

"All sexual offenders seek to control and dominate and do not view their victims sympathetically."

Of course they seek to control and dominate. They hope to get away with what they're doing with minimal (none, if possible) consequences for themselves.

As I've stated all along... the dominance... the power... the violence... is a means to an end.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hold on a second. In your own words, you've proven my point.

Let's take a look...

Alceste[/B]]Both these articles, taken in their entirety, seem to affirm that male-on-female sexual aggression is related to power, domination, the willingness to assert self-interest through force, misogyny, entitlement, punishment, humiliation, abuse, social superiority, etc.

willingness to assert self-interest (sexual gratification, for example) through force, misogyny, entitlement, punishment, humiliation, abuse, social superiority, etc.


Means to an end.

Violence and abuse and punishment to fulfill one's self interest/sexual gratification.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Hmmmm.....Perhaps other analogies ought to be presented to further clarify my point:

- Is shaking a baby a form of parenting?

- Is chattel slavery a social welfare program?

- Is torture an educational method?

- Is abduction a joy ride?

There was once a time when torture and chattel slavery were once considered normal and typical subsets of other various definitions because it was easy to dehumanize the victim involved and include them as an object - not just by any perpetrator - but by society.

The concern I have with defining rape as a subset of sex, that it's a form of sex, is that there is an allowance of rape to be normalized and justified. I see responses suggesting that sure, rape is BAD, it's WRONG, but it's SEX. And the fact that it's SEX or SEXUAL, we have to understand that it happens because a perpetrator has his or her own motives that under any other circumstances are benign.

So you take a benign motive for a violent crime, focus on the benign motive, talk about it, stress the benign motive as important....we run the risk of normalizing this form of violence and crime against humanity. Why else would such a defense be repeated as accusing someone like me of being "naive", "silly", or "emotional"?

I would suggest that such responders be very careful of what perspectives are supported, because consider that those responses are closer to justification of a violent crime than a definition that does not include sex or a benign motive.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hmmmm.....Perhaps other analogies ought to be presented to further clarify my point:

- Is shaking a baby a form of parenting?

- Is chattel slavery a social welfare program?

- Is torture an educational method?

- Is abduction a joy ride?

There was once a time when torture and chattel slavery were once considered normal and typical subsets of other various definitions because it was easy to dehumanize the victim involved and include them as an object - not just by any perpetrator - but by society.

The concern I have with defining rape as a subset of sex, that it's a form of sex, is that there is an allowance of rape to be normalized and justified.

That's where you're wrong. Nobody in this discussion is saying that rape in any way is or can be normalized or justified.

I see responses suggesting that sure, rape is BAD, it's WRONG, but it's SEX. And the fact that it's SEX or SEXUAL, we have to understand that it happens because a perpetrator has his or her own motives that under any other circumstances are benign.

Motives aren't excuses or justifications.

So you take a benign motive for a violent crime, focus on the benign motive, talk about it, stress the benign motive as important....

I'm not sure I ever suggested that the motive was all that important. All I've been saying is that the answer to the OP's question isn't necessarily "never".

we run the risk of normalizing this form of violence and crime against humanity. Why else would such a defense be repeated as accusing someone like me of being "naive", "silly", or "emotional"?

Because you're not arguing with what's really being said. You're arguing with what you think is being implied by what's being said.

I would suggest that such responders be very careful of what perspectives are supported, because consider that those responses are closer to justification of a violent crime than a definition that does not include sex or a benign motive.

Consider that you're wrong. Nobody is trying to justify rape.

I'll say it again. Nobody is trying to justify rape.

If you'd like, when you re-read some of the posts made by myself, the OP, and others who are saying basically what I'm saying, go ahead and repeat out loud the phrase "nobody is trying to justify rape". When you read each post with that understanding, you might have a better picture of where we're coming from.

The car thief who strangled the baby... his motive for strangling the baby was to avoid having attention called to himself so he could successfully steal the car. There's nothing just or normal about this. But it would be silly to suggest that the ONLY thing that lead to the car thief killing the baby was the desire to exert his dominance over his victim.

Strangling the baby was an act of violence. Unacceptable, inexcusable. But when a person asks why he strangled the baby... the answer is not "because he wanted to see the baby suffer". He didn't even approach the car theft with the intent to murder a baby. He did it to get what he wanted... i.e. to silence the baby. This could have been achieved in a number of ways that didn't involve strangling the baby.. But as a criminal, we don't expect him to be logical, reasonable, or moral.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's where you're wrong. Nobody in this discussion is saying that rape in any way is or can be normalized or justified.

Yep, finally struck a nerve there. Didn't I?

I'm not sure I ever suggested that the motive was all that important. All I've been saying is that the answer to the OP's question isn't necessarily "never".

I disagree. To suggest that a desire is so big that they just can't help but violently attack somebody else is giving too much credibility to the desire itself, and not nearly enough on the profile of the perpetrator as sociopathic.

Because you're not arguing with what's really being said. You're arguing with what you think is being implied by what's being said.

I'm arguing with the notion that rape is a subset of sex, and that sexual urges are ever a causal factor in rape. I say that this is a dangerous road to travel down when we attribute these factors. What is being argued is that attributing sexual urges as a causal factor to rape is just no big deal.

Feel free to correct me if you are not actually suggesting that sexual urges are a causal factor in rape.

Consider that you're wrong. Nobody is trying to justify rape.

I'll say it again. Nobody is trying to justify rape.

Yep. There it went again. My post struck a nerve. Repeat it all you want, PS, but I suggest you consider that the language used in understanding motives in rape be more carefully studied, rather than assuming it's simply "just so" without much more inquiry than personal perspective.

If you'd like, when you re-read some of the posts made by myself, the OP, and others who are saying basically what I'm saying, go ahead and repeat out loud the phrase "nobody is trying to justify rape". When you read each post with that understanding, you might have a better picture of where we're coming from.

LOL tell you what....I'll do that if you go through my posts, Alceste's posts, Legions posts, dust1n's posts, Debater Slayer's posts, and repeat out loud the phrase, "they are taking a stand against violence." When you read each post with that understanding, you might have a better picture of where we're coming from.

Otherwise, your tactic for attempting to hammer in your point over and over again and wanting me to just repeat what you say is futile.

The car thief who strangled the baby... his motive for strangling the baby was to avoid having attention called to himself so he could successfully steal the car. There's nothing just or normal about this. But it would be silly to suggest that the ONLY thing that lead to the car thief killing the baby was the desire to exert his dominance over his victim.

Strangling the baby was an act of violence. Unacceptable, inexcusable. But when a person asks why he strangled the baby... the answer is not "because he wanted to see the baby suffer". He didn't even approach the car theft with the intent to murder a baby. He did it to get what he wanted... i.e. to silence the baby. This could have been achieved in a number of ways that didn't involve strangling the baby.. But as a criminal, we don't expect him to be logical, reasonable, or moral.

Now we're getting somewhere....Answer this: Is it reasonable to suggest that strangling a baby is a natural subset of avoiding having attention called to oneself?

Understand this is what I'm arguing against. I've argued repeatedly that somebody who rapes can certainly be turned on, but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape. Just like it isn't reasonable to suggest that one can have such an incredible desire to be left alone that they're going to strangle a baby.

Therefore, arguing that the desire to be left alone is a natural causal factor in strangling a baby suddenly begins to sound as if strangling a baby is at least a little more acceptable or understandable or expected than if we were to look at the desire as not a factor.

I'm arguing that people remove the causal link between sex and rape, and we should be able to progress in minimizing the crime, attributing responsibility where it is deserved on the perpetrator, and allowing survivors to be able to move forward with a healthier version of themselves and to find trust again.

 

[Alceste]

Hmmmm.....Perhaps other analogies ought to be presented to further clarify my point:

- Is shaking a baby a form of parenting?

- Is chattel slavery a social welfare program?

- Is torture an educational method?

- Is abduction a joy ride?

There was once a time when torture and chattel slavery were once considered normal and typical subsets of other various definitions because it was easy to dehumanize the victim involved and include them as an object - not just by any perpetrator - but by society.

The concern I have with defining rape as a subset of sex, that it's a form of sex, is that there is an allowance of rape to be normalized and justified. I see responses suggesting that sure, rape is BAD, it's WRONG, but it's SEX. And the fact that it's SEX or SEXUAL, we have to understand that it happens because a perpetrator has his or her own motives that under any other circumstances are benign.

So you take a benign motive for a violent crime, focus on the benign motive, talk about it, stress the benign motive as important....we run the risk of normalizing this form of violence and crime against humanity. Why else would such a defense be repeated as accusing someone like me of being "naive", "silly", or "emotional"?

I would suggest that such responders be very careful of what perspectives are supported, because consider that those responses are closer to justification of a violent crime than a definition that does not include sex or a benign motive.

Yeah, Poison Shady's second article goes on about that subject at length. The problem with male-on-female sexual assault is a culture that is supportive and encouraging of male violence and aggression in general. This is what creates the culture of entitlement, the dehumanization and lack of empathy with women in general and rape victims in particular, the inclination to commit sexual violence as a means to affirming one's sense of social status or "manliness", and the general underlying attitude in society that sexual violence is pretty much a case of "boys will be boys" you see in this thread.

The fact that it is so difficult for some men to understand, let alone accept, the position that rape is not sex for the exact same reason an unprovoked assault is not a boxing match illustrates that the lack of empathy with victims, the dehumanization of women, the normalization and acceptance of male violence and aggression, and a culture of male entitlement are still significant social factors out there that we need to address if we want to stop teaching our sons it's acceptable to use force to advance their self-interest or assert their manliness and social status.

 

[Alceste]

Yep. There it went again. My post struck a nerve. Repeat it all you want, PS, but I suggest you consider that the language used in
Now we're getting somewhere....Answer this: Is it reasonable to suggest that strangling a baby is a natural subset of avoiding having attention called to oneself?

Understand this is what I'm arguing against. I've argued repeatedly that somebody who rapes can certainly be turned on, but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape. Just like it isn't reasonable to suggest that one can have such an incredible desire to be left alone that they're going to strangle a baby.

Therefore, arguing that the desire to be left alone is a natural causal factor in strangling a baby suddenly begins to sound as if strangling a baby is at least a little more acceptable or understandable or expected than if we were to look at the desire as not a factor.

I'm arguing that people remove the causal link between sex and rape, and we should be able to progress in minimizing the crime, attributing responsibility where it is deserved on the perpetrator, and allowing survivors to be able to move forward with a healthier version of themselves and to find trust again.

Exactly. When we have young men putting up threads that ask the question "Anybody ever get so horny they just have to rush out and rape somebody?", followed by a chorus of men passionately asserting "That is a totally reasonable question! I'm sure it happens all the time!" we are perpetuating a culture that dehumanizes women while tolerating and legitimizing male aggression.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yep, finally struck a nerve there. Didn't I?

Not really. I've been consistently reminding you that nobody is trying to justify rape, and you don't seem to get it.

I disagree. To suggest that a desire is so big that they just can't help but violently attack somebody else is giving too much credibility to the desire itself, and not nearly enough on the profile of the perpetrator as sociopathic.

Sometimes, terrible people will do whatever it takes to get what they want, regardless of how it impacts those they hurt.

I'm arguing with the notion that rape is a subset of sex, and that sexual urges are ever a causal factor in rape. I say that this is a dangerous road to travel down when we attribute these factors. What is being argued is that attributing sexual urges as a causal factor to rape is just no big deal.

Feel free to correct me if you are not actually suggesting that sexual urges are a causal factor in rape.



Yep. There it went again. My post struck a nerve. Repeat it all you want, PS, but I suggest you consider that the language used in understanding motives in rape be more carefully studied, rather than assuming it's simply "just so" without much more inquiry than personal perspective.



LOL tell you what....I'll do that if you go through my posts, Alceste's posts, Legions posts, dust1n's posts, Debater Slayer's posts, and repeat out loud the phrase, "they are taking a stand against violence." When you read each post with that understanding, you might have a better picture of where we're coming from.

Otherwise, your tactic for attempting to hammer in your point over and over again and wanting me to just repeat what you say is futile.



Now we're getting somewhere....Answer this: Is it reasonable to suggest that strangling a baby is a natural subset of avoiding having attention called to oneself?

Understand this is what I'm arguing against. I've argued repeatedly that somebody who rapes can certainly be turned on, but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape. Just like it isn't reasonable to suggest that one can have such an incredible desire to be left alone that they're going to strangle a baby.

Therefore, arguing that the desire to be left alone is a natural causal factor in strangling a baby suddenly begins to sound as if strangling a baby is at least a little more acceptable or understandable or expected than if we were to look at the desire as not a factor.

I'm arguing that people remove the causal link between sex and rape, and we should be able to progress in minimizing the crime, attributing responsibility where it is deserved on the perpetrator, and allowing survivors to be able to move forward with a healthier version of themselves and to find trust again.

I think I figured out why what you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

When we talk about "cause", I'm not talking about a woman causing a man to become so aroused that he becomes overwhelmed with sexual desire and proceeds to rape her.

I think this is what you think I'm saying, and if this is what you think, then you're wrong.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand... I am in no way making the victim responsible for what happened. Arousal has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying and what I believe the OP is saying.

When you say this:
"I've argued repeatedly that somebody who rapes can certainly be turned on, but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape."

It's clear that we're not having the same conversation.

Being turned on, arousal, etc... has no part in what I'm talking about.


I'm talking about a guy being so desperate for sexual contact with another human being that he'll take it from wherever he can get it, by force if necessary. Being incredibly selfish, he wants what he wants, regardless of how it'll make the victim feel. The violence he employs is a means to an end. He won't take "no" for an answer. He wants what he wants.

" but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape. Just like it isn't reasonable to suggest that one can have such an incredible desire to be left alone that they're going to strangle a baby."

If the goal is to shut the baby up, motivated by the desire to get away with the crime of theft, the criminal will do whatever it takes to achieve this goal as quickly as possible, with no concern for how it will make the baby, or the baby's parents, feel. It's not acceptable whatsoever.

Using your logic, the only reason thieves steal cars is because they enjoy murdering babies. I'm telling you, from time to time, the lack of a car causes thieves to steal cars, and murdering the baby was a means to an end.

This doesn't make it ok, understandable, normal, or acceptable for thieves to steal cars or murder babies... even though it all started with the benign motivation of wanting a car.

The car owner doesn't deserve to have his car stolen, and nobody's blaming him for being a target of car theft. And the appeal of the car is irrelevant... it has four wheels and an engine. That's enough to give the criminal what he wants.

 

[Titanic]

I never said rape was justifed in any way.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Exactly. When we have young men putting up threads that ask the question "Anybody ever get so horny they just have to rush out and rape somebody?", followed by a chorus of men passionately asserting "That is a totally reasonable question! I'm sure it happens all the time!" we are perpetuating a culture that dehumanizes women while tolerating and legitimizing male aggression.

None of us are tolerating or legitimizing male aggression.

And we're not dehumanizing women either. The rapist does that.

 

[Koldo]

The concern I have with defining rape as a subset of sex, that it's a form of sex, is that there is an allowance of rape to be normalized and justified.

Why do you think so?
What leads you to this conclusion?

I see responses suggesting that sure, rape is BAD, it's WRONG, but it's SEX. And the fact that it's SEX or SEXUAL, we have to understand that it happens because a perpetrator has his or her own motives that under any other circumstances are benign.

I think it is important to keep in mind the difference between A motive and THE motive.

 

[Alceste]

None of us are tolerating or legitimizing male aggression.

And we're not dehumanizing women either. The rapist does that.

You position demonstrates empathy for the perpetrator and none for the victim. You specifically said the rapist might be "so desperate" for human sexual contact that he'd take it by force, but nowhere in any of your posts up to this point has there been any acknowledgement of the humanity and emotional life of the victim. He or she is described dispassionately as a means to an end - A mere teller at the bank of vagina.

I'm sure it's not intentional on your part, and you understand rape is a crime, but framing and discussing rape from a perspective that empathizes with the desires and feelings of the perpetrator while at the same time dehumanizing and objectifyng the victim does not help us address the problem of sexual violence. It is the CAUSE of sexual violence. At least, it is according to the second link you posted, which is pretty persuasive if you read the whole thing.

 

[Titanic]

Is there really a bank of vagina? You know the rapist has to sexually enjoy the rape and desire the sexual aspect of it. I mean how else could he get it up? the act of power alone?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not really. I've been consistently reminding you that nobody is trying to justify rape, and you don't seem to get it.

Justifying that sex can lead to rape. That too much desire can lead to rape. I'm arguing against that.

Sometimes, terrible people will do whatever it takes to get what they want, regardless of how it impacts those they hurt.

I think I figured out why what you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

When we talk about "cause", I'm not talking about a woman causing a man to become so aroused that he becomes overwhelmed with sexual desire and proceeds to rape her.

No, once again I'm arguing against the reasoning that someone can become so sexually aroused that they just can't help themselves. I'm arguing against the ethics of that line of reasoning. I have also made it clear that I don't argue gender-specifically, either.

I think this is what you think I'm saying, and if this is what you think, then you're wrong.

Look at my argument again.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand... I am in no way making the victim responsible for what happened. Arousal has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying and what I believe the OP is saying.

When you say this:
"I've argued repeatedly that somebody who rapes can certainly be turned on, but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape."

It's clear that we're not having the same conversation.

Being turned on, arousal, etc... has no part in what I'm talking about.

It is in the OP, and in the arguments supporting the OP's statement that horniness can lead to rape, which argues that rape is just another form of sex. BAD sex, but sexual nonetheless.

If you are not arguing that this is the case, then I think you're barking up the wrong tree and you ought to take your responses toward those who actually think that.

I'm talking about a guy being so desperate for sexual contact with another human being that he'll take it from wherever he can get it, by force if necessary. Being incredibly selfish, he wants what he wants, regardless of how it'll make the victim feel. The violence he employs is a means to an end. He won't take "no" for an answer. He wants what he wants.

Which has so little to do with sexual urges, arousal, being horny. Those are ancillary factors in rape. What is being argued is that the OP is wanting to know that lack of sex can lead to rape. It's unreasonable and absurd.

" but it doesn't logically follow nor ethically follow that just because somebody is turned on means that it's possible to lead to rape. Just like it isn't reasonable to suggest that one can have such an incredible desire to be left alone that they're going to strangle a baby."

If the goal is to shut the baby up, motivated by the desire to get away with the crime of theft, the criminal will do whatever it takes to achieve this goal as quickly as possible, with no concern for how it will make the baby, or the baby's parents, feel. It's not acceptable whatsoever.

The bolded part is the primary motive, btw. That's the driving force. It's sociopathic. My argument is that high libidos and sexual desire is not considered in sociopathic behavior.

Using your logic, the only reason thieves steal cars is because they enjoy murdering babies. I'm telling you, from time to time, the lack of a car causes thieves to steal cars, and murdering the baby was a means to an end.

This doesn't make it ok, understandable, normal, or acceptable for thieves to steal cars or murder babies... even though it all started with the benign motivation of wanting a car.

The car owner doesn't deserve to have his car stolen, and nobody's blaming him for being a target of car theft. And the appeal of the car is irrelevant... it has four wheels and an engine. That's enough to give the criminal what he wants.

People may want cars, like to drive cars, and maybe even want to take a care without the owner's knowledge. All these are desires and fantasies. What separates the criminal from the non-criminal, though?

There is a reason why rape is a criminal act. It isn't because somebody got too horny or desperate. It's because there is a fundamental shift in perspective that had nothing to do with desperation or horniness. And it is that particular distinction that must be emphasized, not on how horny the perpetrator was.