Rape?

[Titanic]

Thank you Alceste for your reply's. I guess you could say i have been "awaken".

 

[Alceste]

Thank you Alceste for your reply's. I guess you could say i have been "awaken".

Wahoo! I'm so happy to hear that. May you have many happy and abundant years of awesome consensual sex with eager and attractive women for sticking with me for all this time, and many wonderful wanks in between.

:curtsy:

 

[Titanic]

Wahoo! I'm so happy to hear that. May you have many happy and abundant years of awesome consensual sex with eager and attractive women for sticking with me for all this time, and many wonderful wanks in between.

:curtsy:

I hope so. You too as well if you know what I mean. peace be with you.

 

[Titanic]

I am an agnostic. Do not know why I added that in there but I felt like saying it. once again peace.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm pretty sure a big part of the miscommunication here is that we're all using different definitions of rape, which are covering varying types of scenarios and situations.

For myself, on one end, you might have a situation where two college freshmen who had a few drinks are in the dorm room, and they start having sex, and, at some point the girl is making it clear that she's not having a good time, but perhaps not obviously or directly enough for the boy to know for sure, or he thinks it's the case, but decides to just finish.

On the other end, you have five guys grab a women off the street into a van, and over the course of several hours, gang rape her, beat her, and dump her on the street.

In between, there are many gradiations of various elements, but I'd say that both scenarios could be defined as rape. However, for situations closer to the first scenario, I don't think committing violence is the prime motivation of the person, whereas in the second scenario, violence is clearly the primary, and perhaps, only motivation.

I can't think of any human behavior which can be boiled down to one motivation, or any behavior that couldn't conceivably have almost any motivation. It's overly simplistic to attempt to reduce the range and scope of human behaviors in this way.

I'm interested in hearing any substantive objections to this post, as my longer posts geared towards attempting to bridge the gap of understanding seem to keep getting passed over. I rather resent any implications that I'm insensitive as this accusation isn't at all accurate, nor in line with the history of my positions argued on RF. Nor, does a reading of what I'm actually saying in this thread support such an indictment.

I would appreciate a sincere, honest attempt at understanding what my position actually is, and am open to discussing substantive disagreements to the points. But, please, read what I actually say before attributing things to me. For example, I never used the word "irrational" or implied irrationality to other people, nor have I ever implied or stated support for the position that people can't help but violently rape others due to sex drive. I'm being extremely patient, honest, and balanced in this topic, and I merely expect the same.

 

[Titanic]

I really do not have anything left to say. I wish you nothing but the best Kilgore Trout. My view's to a point have changed now. peace be with you.

 

[Alceste]

I'm interested in hearing any substantive objections to this post, as my longer posts geared towards attempting to bridge the gap of understanding seem to keep getting passed over. I rather resent any implications that I'm insensitive as this accusation isn't at all accurate, nor in line with the history of my positions argued on RF. Nor, does a reading of what I'm actually saying in this thread support such an indictment.

I would appreciate a sincere, honest attempt at understanding what my position actually is, and am open to discussing substantive disagreements to the points. But, please, read what I actually say before attributing things to me. For example, I never used the word "irrational" or implied irrationality to other people, nor have I ever implied or stated support for the position that people can't help but violently rape others due to sex drive. I'm being extremely patient, honest, and balanced in this topic, and I merely expect the same.

Do you recall how you reacted to Mystic's account of her own experience? I can't be bothered to sift through 60 pages to find it, but it seemed to me you replied to her story by asserting that she probably wouldn't be able to form objective opinions on the subject as a consequence of having been raped herself. Obviously that impression has stuck with me for a while now and grown in significance - partly because you were the only man with the balls to address her post at all, but also because the implication that rape victims have nothing of value to contribute to a reasonable discussion of rape is unacceptable. If you're interested in clarifying or elaborating on your position in that interaction for me that would be awesome. I'd love it if I got it completely wrong.

So, with regard to your "grey area", where one party honestly doesn't know whether what is happening is completely OK with the other party, I don't call that rape. Or sexual assault. Or anything of that nature. I think both parties need to work on their communication skills if that's the case because I find it bizarre that anybody could not be completely sure whether or not the person they are having sex with actually wanted to have sex, at least at that moment. But if one party or the other sincerely believes consent is present when it isn't for some reason (again, I can't even imagine what kind of reason that would be, except maybe two staggering drunks fumbling about in the bedroom), then it isn't sexual assault. So there is no need to worry whether understanding that sexual assault is an act of violence might lead to the persecution of innocent men.

Besides, almost nobody reports awkward, regrettable sex as rape. Even when reporting a legitimate date rape, the police are likely to chase the victim out of the station because there's no physical proof more often than not. Even when a police report is filed, prosecutors are more likely than not to refuse to press charges due to a lack of evidence. And even when they press charges, the trial is mostly going to focus on what the victim wore, how much s/he drank, whether s/he knew the rapist and whether they'd had sexual relations before, how many other people the victim has had sexual relationships with, etc. Even if the victim can endure that level of scrutiny and public shaming, jurors are no less likely to embrace prejudicial rape myths than the rest of us and are generally not educated on the subject during the course of the trial, so are generally inclined to acquit with the slightest suggestion of doubt with regard to the victim's character and sexual history.

Basically, the odds that anybody is sitting in jail for a rape they didn't intentionally commit are pretty much zero, except for those occasional cases where something truly awful happens and the police are in such a rush to close the case that they arrest and prosecute the wrong person.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you recall how you reacted to Mystic's account of her own experience? I can't be bothered to sift through 60 pages to find it, but it seemed to me you replied to her story by asserting that she probably wouldn't be able to form objective opinions on the subject as a consequence of having been raped herself. Obviously that impression has stuck with me for a while now and grown in significance - partly because you were the only man with the balls to address it at all, but also because the implication that rape victims have nothing of value to contribute to a reasonable discussion of rape is unacceptable. If you're interested in clarifying or elaborating on your position in that interaction for me that would be awesome. I'd love it if I got it completely wrong.

If you can't be bothered to read back to what I actually said, and what I was specifically responding to, then I suppose I can't either. However, I can understand if one took it a certain way, in a certain context, then they may have your response. Suffice it to say, if I intend to offend somebody, or being insensitive, it's rather apparent, and I rarely do this to people I like and respect. Although, I also understand that my communication style can often lead to misunderstandings.

So, with regard to your "grey area", where one party honestly doesn't know whether what is happening is completely OK with the other party, I don't call that rape. Or sexual assault. Or anything of that nature. I think both parties need to work on their communication skills if that's the case because I find it bizarre that anybody could not be completely sure whether or not the person they are having sex with actually wanted to have sex, at least at that moment. But if one party or the other sincerely believes consent is present when it isn't for some reason (again, I can't even imagine what kind of reason that would be, except maybe two staggering drunks fumbling about in the bedroom), then it isn't sexual assault. So there is no need to worry whether understanding that sexual assault is an act of violence might lead to the persecution of innocent men.

I was identifying two extreme ends of what could be classified as rape, but by your response, I can see that my assumption that we're defining what covers rape is different. I suppose that's just a matter of personal preference, and both perspectives are valid depending on one's assumptions and experience.

Besides, almost nobody reports awkward, regrettable sex as rape. Even when reporting a legitimate date rape, the police are likely to chase the victim out of the station because there's no physical proof more often than not. Even when a police report is filed, prosecutors are more likely than not to refuse to press charges due to a lack of evidence. And even when they press charges, the trial is mostly going to focus on what the victim wore, how much s/he drank, whether s/he knew the rapist and whether they'd had sexual relations before, how many other people the victim has had sexual relationships with, etc. Even if the victim can endure that level of scrutiny and public shaming, jurors are no less likely to embrace prejudicial rape myths than the rest of us and are generally not educated on the subject during the course of the trial, so are generally inclined to acquit with the slightest suggestion of doubt with regard to the victim's character and sexual history.

Basically, the odds that anybody is sitting in jail for a rape they didn't intentionally commit are pretty much zero, except for those occasional cases where something truly awful happens and the police are in such a rush to close the case that they arrest and prosecute the wrong person.

This is probably another point of misunderstanding. I wasn't really classifying convicted rapists as a relevant factor. I certainly agree that many rapes of varying degrees and levels are under-reported and under-punished, but I see that as a failure of law, society, culture, and institutions. In fact, a problem that needs to be addressed more fully, and my whole argument of not limiting the definition of rape is meant to address the danger of ignoring the problem by compartmentalizing rape as only more violent or extreme acts.

 

[Father Heathen]

But with MMA

Woah, woah, woah... WTF does martial arts have do to with perpetuating unhealthy cultural perceptions and attitudes towards rape?

 

[Poisonshady313]

There's a lot of insistence on the "sex" part as relevant. And the insistence is on the assumed experience of the perpetrator.

Anyone ask how relevant the experience is for the victim(s)?

The thing is, and I hope you don't take this as being dismissive... the topic as was raised in the original post was squarely aimed at the motivation for the act. The original idea that set off the chain reaction of decisions and events leading up to the rape.

When talking about that specific aspect, there isn't yet a victim. Only a potential perpetrator. The victim doesn't and cannot know what is in the perpetrator's mind. You know what happened... how it happened... but can you really and honestly say that you know why it happened?

When talking about the experience of being raped and the effects of having been raped, that's where we dig deep into the experience of the victim.

 

[Alceste]

The thing is, and I hope you don't take this as being dismissive... the topic as was raised in the original post was squarely aimed at the motivation for the act. The original idea that set off the chain reaction of decisions and events leading up to the rape.

When talking about that specific aspect, there isn't yet a victim. Only a potential perpetrator. The victim doesn't and cannot know what is in the perpetrator's mind. You know what happened... how it happened... but can you really and honestly say that you know why it happened?

When talking about the experience of being raped and the effects of having been raped, that's where we dig deep into the experience of the victim.

Actually, we can say why it happens, and we have said why throughout this discussion. Lack of consensual sex is not why. A study of convicted rapists found that 60% were married at the time they committed the assault and virtually all were having normal consensual sexual relations. Details inside.

Quiz

So now that that question is settled (it was settled sixty pages ago but some of you guys are slow on the uptake), we can move on to the discussing socially destructive aspects of rape myth acceptance and rape-supportive attitudes, including indifference to the impact on victims. If you like. I'm not super interested in beating a dead horse though if you'd still rather talk about whether or not being horny causes rape.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So when the story you linked actually says, "Patriarchy is a root cause of rape," it isn't making the claim that patriarchy is the root cause of rape... but that it's related to rape?

A root cause of rape. Not THE root cause of rape.

And read in context, its discussing rape as a concept... i.e. what causes the prevalence of rape, what causes the current societal attitude towards rape.. as opposed to what goes through a rapist's mind before he makes the decision to commit rape. The trigger for an individual act of rape.

I get that patriarchy is what causes some people to (wrongly) blame the victim.

But to say "Rapist X committed rape against Victim Y because of patriarchy" sounds meaningless. It offers no clue to what triggered that particular chain of events.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I would like to ask, if you're willing to share your perspective again knowing how insensitive or oblivious some of the folks in this thread were last time. I personally don't feel like I'd be particularly worried about the precise location of anybody's penis compared to the major horror of being violently assaulted, but I admit I don't know first hand.

If you are willing to share, that would be great. Otherwise, I can go ask science.

I'm not sure if the full story is welcomed in a thread like this. I just wrote it all out on Notepad and saved it in case it might be a help. But others have responded already saying that a survivors experience isn't relevant to the discussion. I'm concerned that revealing the entirety of the experience might seem like a sudden ugly regurgitation rather than offering substance to the debate, and how it is received.

I'll give it some thought if my story is requested again by others who are looking to include it as substantial. I appreciate the request, and I understand that it's important to actually tell what happened, since there was nothing sexual about the whole thing. I thought I was going to die.

FWIW, it's on my Notepad.

 

[Alceste]

If you can't be bothered to read back to what I actually said, and what I was specifically responding to, then I suppose I can't either. However, I can understand if one took it a certain way, in a certain context, then they may have your response. Suffice it to say, if I intend to offend somebody, or being insensitive, it's rather apparent, and I rarely do this to people I like and respect. Although, I also understand that my communication style can often lead to misunderstandings.



I was identifying two extreme ends of what could be classified as rape, but by your response, I can see that my assumption that we're defining what covers rape is different. I suppose that's just a matter of personal preference, and both perspectives are valid depending on one's assumptions and experience.



This is probably another point of misunderstanding. I wasn't really classifying convicted rapists as a relevant factor. I certainly agree that many rapes of varying degrees and levels are under-reported and under-punished, but I see that as a failure of law, society, culture, and institutions. In fact, a problem that needs to be addressed more fully, and my whole argument of not limiting the definition of rape is meant to address the danger of ignoring the problem by compartmentalizing rape as only more violent or extreme acts.

I've tried to be pretty consistent using the terms "sexual assault", "sexual violence or aggression", sometimes shortening that to either violence or aggression depending on the context. So I don't think I'm guilty of "limiting the definition" of rape. In fact, I've consistently argued for a more expansive, more inclusive, non-gender specific definition of sexual assault like the one we have in Canadian criminal law. Our laws don't discriminate based on the precise details of the assault (i.e. What went where). Sexual assault is basically defined as sexual contact without consent. The perpetrator's motives and gender and the precise location of everybody's genitals at the time of the attack are not considered, except perhaps during the trial (if there ever is one).

It's a definition that can adequately address anything from a he said she said drunken fumble or a sneaky grope to a full blown rape/murder, and the criminal justice system has the means to tell the difference and sentence perpetrators accordingly.

To me, it appears that rather than limiting the definition of rape, you seem to be more concerned about limiting the number of things we consider to be sex. Really, though, there is nothing to be gained but confusion by thinking of sexual assault as a type of sex as opposed to a type of assault. As I said before, there's a good reason we put the words that way around.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Really, though, there is nothing to be gained but confusion by thinking of sexual assault as a type of sex as opposed to a type of assault. As I said before, there's a good reason we put the words that way around.

A valid perspective. Conversely, as I outlined, I see a good reason for a broader look at defining rape and the myriad of causes and situations that can contribute to it. So, it appears we have different perspectives, but both have considered reasons for our positions which we feel is useful in addressing it. A situation I have no problem with, and probably occurs more often than people think.

 

[Alceste]

A root cause of rape. Not THE root cause of rape.

And read in context, its discussing rape as a concept... i.e. what causes the prevalence of rape, what causes the current societal attitude towards rape.. as opposed to what goes through a rapist's mind before he makes the decision to commit rape. The trigger for an individual act of rape.

I get that patriarchy is what causes some people to (wrongly) blame the victim.

But to say "Rapist X committed rape against Victim Y because of patriarchy" sounds meaningless. It offers no clue to what triggered that particular chain of events.

We don't need to know what "triggered" a chain of events that leads to a specific assault. Especially since this "rape" we're discussing is completely hypothetical. It helps during the trial and may be presented as a defense, but our main concern should be understanding and changing the social attitudes, gender roles and myths that create an atmosphere where people can convince themselves sexual assault is worth the risk.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure if the full story is welcomed in a thread like this. I just wrote it all out on Notepad and saved it in case it might be a help. But others have responded already saying that a survivors experience isn't relevant to the discussion. I'm concerned that revealing the entirety of the experience might seem like a sudden ugly regurgitation rather than offering substance to the debate, and how it is received.

I'll give it some thought if my story is requested again by others who are looking to include it as substantial. I appreciate the request, and I understand that it's important to actually tell what happened, since there was nothing sexual about the whole thing. I thought I was going to die.

FWIW, it's on my Notepad.

Ah well I completely understand, hon. I'd be interested to read it and of course keep it to myself if you're willing to share it with me by PM. If not, that's OK too. I've read enough memoirs written by women and spoken to enough of my friends to know exactly what it's like from our side of the looking glass.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not the only one in this thread who is able to see that sex and rape are two distinctly separate paradigms. Everyone agrees in this thread on one principle: people get turned on.

Having urges and being turned on are two totally different things. My participation in this thread has never said anything whatsoever about being turned on.

If you believe sexual gratification can include non-consensual penetration, this opens the door for legitimizing rape.

I disagree with you about this.

Whatever rationale is considered, people don't tend to ask if the lack of whatever is considered leads to the homicide. People don't tend to ask something like, "Hey, everyone! Can a lack of having toys lead to arson?"...and then people debating furiously over whether or not it's normal, typical, or even relevant for people committing arson because they didn't have enough toys.

I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, but I have never suggested that it's normal or typical for someone to rape because of a lack of sex. In fact, just the opposite. That it's rare... at most, occasional. You insisting that I'm defending the notion that it's normal or typical for anyone under any circumstance to commit rape is insulting to me.

 

[dust1n]

I'm pretty sure a big part of the miscommunication here is that we're all using different definitions of rape, which are covering varying types of scenarios and situations.

For myself, on one end, you might have a situation where two college freshmen who had a few drinks are in the dorm room, and they start having sex, and, at some point the girl is making it clear that she's not having a good time, but perhaps not obviously or directly enough for the boy to know for sure, or he thinks it's the case, but decides to just finish.

On the other end, you have five guys grab a women off the street into a van, and over the course of several hours, gang rape her, beat her, and dump her on the street.

In between, there are many gradiations of various elements, but I'd say that both scenarios could be defined as rape. However, for situations closer to the first scenario, I don't think committing violence is the prime motivation of the person, whereas in the second scenario, violence is clearly the primary, and perhaps, only motivation.

I can't think of any human behavior which can be boiled down to one motivation, or any behavior that couldn't conceivably have almost any motivation. It's overly simplistic to attempt to reduce the range and scope of human behaviors in this way.

But in both situations, the perpetrator IS showing a lack of empathy towards their partner. Even if you think you might have heard something different or only have 2 seconds to go until you finish, the moment that thought is made, a decision has to be made to either a.) ignore the consent of the other person or b.) respect the consent of the other person.

As soon as consent is disregarded, then a very fundamental difference has taken place. And since there is no real definition of "rape" or "sex," then, if anything, why shouldn't the line be drawn on the precedent of consent?

I can't imagine in one instance of "rape" in which consent has ever played a part, and if one has knowingly acted past consent, whether drunk in a dorm room or being nefarious preemptively from a van, the one "motivation" that is always present is to act upon a person regardless of their consent. It's an intention that must be present in order act upon the decision to rape someone.

 

[dust1n]

We were talking about motivations behind this behaviour.
If rape is always all about violence, and nothing else, why is rape being the chosen method to manifest the violence?

Rape is ALWAYS an act against someone's will, therefore rape is always preceded by the intention to disregard someone's will.

And is an intention to disregard someone's will "violence" when acting upon their body?

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2]

Violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can it not be?