Rape?

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said rape was justifed in any way.

You asked if somebody could rape because of a lack of sex. Is that not what you asked?

 

[Titanic]

You asked if somebody could rape because of a lack of sex. Is that not what you asked?

Yes I did. But how does that mean i think rape is okay in a particular case?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

There is an insistence on understanding just how difficult it can be to be the perpetrator. There is an insistence on suggesting that someone can be so desperate they can't help themselves, and they just had to violently attack somebody. And that the reasons are that sexual arousal was just in the stratosphere.

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

I don't see it as any motive. I see it as an ancillary feature.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes I did. But how does that mean i think rape is okay in a particular case?

Not an attractive option, but are you asking if it is understandable?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose if somebody just wanted to commit violence against someone, then they'd just beat somebody up. It seems bizarre to attempt to remove sex as a motivation to me. However, I think I better understand the emotional motivations behind such a perspective, so I'll step out of the conversation now, and will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There is an insistence on understanding just how difficult it can be to be the perpetrator. There is an insistence on suggesting that someone can be so desperate they can't help themselves, and they just had to violently attack somebody. And that the reasons are that sexual arousal was just in the stratosphere.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody is asking you to "understand" or feel bad for the perpetrator.

And nobody suggested that sexual arousal had anything to do with anything.

YOU keep insisting on bringing these things up.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Abu Ghraib. Look it up.

 

[Titanic]

Not an attractive option, but are you asking if it is understandable?

I think it is understandable. I do not think it is right or justifed though. I mean the way i see it you can only go without sex for so long. Does it mean rape is okay? NO! i do not believe so. p.s anyone can alway's pay for sex. p.s.s i am going to drop out of this thread for awhile. (let's just agree to disagree until something more productive come's up, if it ever does). Cheer's!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody is asking you to "understand" or feel bad for the perpetrator.

And nobody suggested that sexual arousal had anything to do with anything.

YOU keep insisting on bringing these things up.

Ask Me Myself about his thoughts on sexual arousal during rape and then get back to me.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I mean the way i see it you can only go without sex for so long.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with this statement. People can and have lived sexless lives without ever committing rape.

My answer "yes" to the original post means that I believe lack of sex can be A motivating factor that would lead to rape. A lot of other factors would have to be present. I never suggested that rape was the next logical step for someone who hasn't had any in a while.

 

[Titanic]

For what it's worth, I don't agree with this statement. People can and have lived sexless lives without ever committing rape.

My answer "yes" to the original post means that I believe lack of sex can be A motivating factor that would lead to rape. A lot of other factors would have to be present. I never suggested that rape was the next logical step for someone who hasn't had any in a while.

I have not had any in awhile. In fact it was last month.

 

[Poisonshady313]

, 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.

From who? Which among the participants of this thread has expressed him or herself with such an attitude?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Didn't see this post till just now.

You position demonstrates empathy for the perpetrator and none for the victim.

It most certainly does not.

When we talk about motivation... what might lead to something... at that point, there is not yet a victim. There is only a person on the verge of making a decision to commit rape or not. To seek out and obtain a victim. At this point, the potential rapist is only thinking of his own self.

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.

Predators of any kind don't always acknowledge the humanity and emotional life of their victim. Yeah, there are cases where the perpetrator has an interest in knowing that the victim is suffering. But this is not the case every single time.

He or she is described dispassionately as a means to an end - A mere teller at the bank of vagina.

Didn't we establish earlier that "objectification of women" is a part of rape?

I'm not the one doing the objectifying. The rapist is.

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.

Again... talking about motivation... what lead's up to the rape... we're talking about a time before there's a victim. I'm not dehumanizing or objectifying the victim. The rapist does that. And that's the point.

There is no empathizing with the desires and feelings of the perpetrator. That's not at all what I'm doing.

The mere act of listing a possible condition that may have triggered the perpetrator to become a perpetrator is not an act of sympathizing, empathizing, accepting, justifying, or any such thing.

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.

Listening to a conversation about rape isn't going to cause a man to force his penis into a woman's vagina.

I'm not tolerating, justifying, giving permission, or otherwise legitimizing rape. You insisting that I am doesn't make it so.

You insisting so shows a massive failure on your part to understand my response to the original post.

 

[Alceste]

From who? Which among the participants of this thread has expressed him or herself with such an attitude?

Kilgore Trout expressed his opinion that categorizing rape as aggression and violence rather that sex is an emotional / irrational opinion based on a lack of understanding of male sexuality. That's a "boys will be boys" position that not only focuses on the feelings of the perpetrator at the expense of the feelings of the victim, but also implies that sexual violence is a uniquely male proclivity.

He doubled down on that position by then worrying that recognizing sexual assault as violence and aggression could potentially lead to men in general being mistrusted and thought of as monsters by women in general.

Of course there are massive issues the "boys will be boys" position completely side steps. Namely, that women also commit sexual assault (Karla Homolka, for example), and that sexual violence is often committed for the sole purpose of humiliating, terrorizing, dehumanizing and exerting power over the victims and does not entail any aspect of sexual arousal on the part of the perpetrators (Abu Ghraib, for example).

The fact is, neither Mystic or myself have any difficulty "understanding male sexuality". We simply refuse to include sexual assault in the category "male sexuality" because it is completely irrational and socially destructive to do so.

I would think he'd be glad to hear that, since it unambiguously demonstrates that we don't believe men are monsters, or that all men are potential rapists, or any such nonsense.

 

[Alceste]

Didn't see this post till just now.


It most certainly does not.

When we talk about motivation... what might lead to something... at that point, there is not yet a victim. There is only a person on the verge of making a decision to commit rape or not. To seek out and obtain a victim. At this point, the potential rapist is only thinking of his own self.

Predators of any kind don't always acknowledge the humanity and emotional life of their victim. Yeah, there are cases where the perpetrator has an interest in knowing that the victim is suffering. But this is not the case every single time.

Didn't we establish earlier that "objectification of women" is a part of rape?

I'm not the one doing the objectifying. The rapist is.

Again... talking about motivation... what lead's up to the rape... we're talking about a time before there's a victim. I'm not dehumanizing or objectifying the victim. The rapist does that. And that's the point.

There is no empathizing with the desires and feelings of the perpetrator. That's not at all what I'm doing.

The mere act of listing a possible condition that may have triggered the perpetrator to become a perpetrator is not an act of sympathizing, empathizing, accepting, justifying, or any such thing.

Listening to a conversation about rape isn't going to cause a man to force his penis into a woman's vagina.

I'm not tolerating, justifying, giving permission, or otherwise legitimizing rape. You insisting that I am doesn't make it so.

You insisting so shows a massive failure on your part to understand my response to the original post.

Look, this entire line of reasoning affirms the culture of male sexual entitlement that tolerates male on female sexual violence with a wink and a nod. It is simply assumed that somebody's penis gaining access to somebody else's vagina in some way is a valid and reasonable objective, so it makes complete sense that some men would just go ahead and rape somebody. But there's nothing that rape can accomplish that you can't accomplish more easily with a fleshlight or a greased up fist. EXCEPT the desire to dehumanize, control and perpetrate violence against another human being.

 

[Alceste]

Oh yeah, and I guarantee you that the take away message from this conversation that some confused, frustrated, angry, insecure young man is going to walk off with is that sometimes guys need sex so badly they simply have to rape somebody to get it. It's just "male sexuality" in action. Totally natural. So thanks for that, guys. Great role models you're being for future generations.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For what it's worth, I don't agree with this statement. People can and have lived sexless lives without ever committing rape.

:clap

We agree on something!

My answer "yes" to the original post means that I believe lack of sex can be A motivating factor that would lead to rape. A lot of other factors would have to be present. I never suggested that rape was the next logical step for someone who hasn't had any in a while.

I would say that an expectation of a certain amount of sex that has not been met to be the discussed mitigating factor. Not an assumed lack. The expectation it seems comes from a perspective of the world and specifically of where other human beings fit. That if push literally comes to shove, they will do whatever they have to to get what they feel they're entitled to.

Hence, if the perpetrator is horny, the sexual desire itself is not a mitigating factor, but ancillary of the perspective of what the perpetrator he or she feels entitled to.

The feeling of entitlement coupled with the dehumanization of the victim are what moves the perpetrator to act. Any sexual urges present are merely along for the ride.

 

[Alceste]

I have not had any in awhile. In fact it was last month.

Really? I didn't think guys your age could even go a day without a wank.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Look, this entire line of reasoning affirms the culture of male sexual entitlement that tolerates male on female sexual violence with a wink and a nod.

No, it does not.

It is simply assumed that somebody's penis gaining access to somebody else's vagina in some way is a valid and reasonable objective,

No, it is not.

But there's nothing that rape can accomplish that you can't accomplish more easily with a fleshlight or a greased up fist. EXCEPT the desire to dehumanize, control and perpetrate violence against another human being.

That's not true. There's more to the physical experience of sex than having a hole to plug into. And you say "but rape isn't sex". Yes it is. It is non-consensual sex.

As I said many times before... control, violence against another human being... sometimes they may be an end themselves. Other times, those things are a means to an end.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I would say that an expectation of a certain amount of sex that has not been met to be the discussed mitigating factor. Not an assumed lack. The expectation it seems comes from a perspective of the world and specifically of where other human beings fit. That if push literally comes to shove, they will do whatever they have to to get what they feel they're entitled to.

I don't know why you're talking about mitigating factors.

A person can want something without feeling entitled to it. Entitlement isn't necessarily a factor.

The feeling of entitlement coupled with the dehumanization of the victim are what moves the perpetrator to act. Any sexual urges present are merely along for the ride.

That makes no sense. What does the perpetrator feel entitled to? The gratification of his sexual urges. The whole thought process is started with the sexual urges. Entitlement, anger, etc.. these all pile onto the fact that he can't get what he wants... and so he decides that rather than do without, he'll take it by force.

The dehumanization of the victim is a means to an end.