Assuming that’s true, which it probably isn’t (and which you just made up for the fuck of it even if it was), I’d attribute it at least as much to the fact that so many men define equal rights for women as hostility towards men as to some kind of collapse of the idea of feminism. And again, that’s in addition to the fact that this phenomenon – no one will admit to being a feminist – is a specter of your pyretic imaginings.
Hell, I’m a feminist, and I don’t even like women.
Just to throw in my two cents, I don’t rape women because I can’t. Back when my marriage was falling apart, the Ex was willing to do the deed, but was obviously not very exited about it. Guess what? The little trooper wouldn’t Stand at Attention. I’ve had no problems with subsequent, eager partners. So, to answer “What’s stopping me from raping women if I could get away with it?” Answer: My dick. :rolleyes:
So…it’s not true, but if it IS true I lied? :rolleyes:
I didn’t say that it was MEN who were unwilling to call themselves feminists. And the unwillingness of women, including those supporting equal rights to call themselves feminists has been an on and off again controversy for a long time; have you been under a rock?
No, I live in a house.
Hang on. I’ll post more in a couple of weeks, when I’ve recovered from the trauma of seeing that you made a tiny round man roll his eyes at me in disdain.
How do you know it’s a man, you sexist fuck?
She was all, like, “No! Stop!” and then I got off and asked what I was doing wrong, and then she was angry because I was ruining it, and then I was like “oh, now I get it” and said that we were supposed to have like a safe word and stuff, but by then she was all “never mind, let’s just watch the second half of the movie.”
I’m a lousy rapist. 
Is the OP coming back?
It’s on the internet.
I thought they’d be charged with overstepping the lion.
As to the OP, the argument is so inept that it demolishes itself and doesn’t need my help. Anyway, previous posters have already done an excellent job of clearing the rubble and putting it in the trashcan.
Yes, it’s part of it on an individual level. Another part is the strident feminist syllogism of “Rape is about power -> Men have power over womyn -> all men are rapists” that Brownmiller and Dworkin pushed.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m reading it all. I don’t think that my posting more in this thread will change any of the opinions. I have learned something from it though, so that’s interesting.
And what did you learn?
I self-identify as a feminist. I do not think rape is a natural (i.e., intrinsic, inevitable) outcome of strong sexual feelings. Or of strong sexual feelings + the opportunity and capacity to rape.
I do believe that over the millennia of patriarchal civilization, power itself (in the sense of power over not in the sense of “capacity”, in case that’s not obvious) has been eroticized.
I believe it has been eroticized for men, that we are conditioned to get more of a sexual jolt from the combo of sexual opportunity, attractive ‘other’, and the dynamics of dominance or coercion. Not that every male has been successfully conditioned to the point that all of their erotic response is mapped onto that, by any means, but that for at least some males, sexual possibilities are not as ‘sexy’ unless there is a sense of resistance overcome or of ‘conquest’. Scoring, ripping off a piece, screwing, fucking: we’ve all heard the nomenclature and it’s all rife with implications of subject-object dynamics. Subject verb object. He fucks her. Bang. It may not define us, but every one of us has been exposed to it and along with it the expectation that we’re gonna get off on it.
I believe it has been eroticized for women, too. Women are exposed to the same imagery and representations and reciprocal expectations.
[QUOTE=Catherine MacKinnon]
I think that sexual desire in women, at least in this culture, is socially constructed as that by which we come to want our own self-annihilation. That is, our subordination is eroticized in and as female; in fact, we get off on it to a degree, if nowhere near as much as men do. This is our stake in this system that is not in our interest, our stake in this system that is killing us.
[/quote]
John Stoltenberg does a compellingly convincing riff when he asks an audience to visualize “a caveman” and then asks “what is he doing?” and a substantial number of responses = “he’s just clubbed a woman and is dragging her by the hair into his cave”. It’s a shared ‘icon’-like or ‘motif’-like mental image that is sort of a shorthand for the belief that in the absense of law enforcement and whatnot preventing or punishing anyone who does, all men would rape. Rape may not be about sex (Stoltenberg argues) but only in the sense that a great deal of sex, as we know it and construe it, is also not sex but is in fact rape; or alternatively, rape is very much about sex as sex has been constructed for us in the patriarchal context.
Well, what exactly are the “opinions” that you think should be changed by rational, right thinking people? Your “rape is all about power” paradigm is absurd. Rape can be about power in some circumstances, but the primary audience of potential rapists you are addressing with your hypothesis (ie the men in this thread) are giving you a direct pipeline to their mental and emotional landscape, and the urges that drive them, and are telling you point blank that lust based rape as sex for the sake of sex is more than sufficient to contemplate acting on that impulse if the drive is great enough, and there is an absence of consequences. Dominance issues, from the man’s perspective, are generally entirely peripheral to lust driven rape.
I mean seriously here you have reasonably astute men, albeit somewhat anonymously, telling you with honesty and frankness what’s really going on in their heads and you dismiss these revelations because they don’t fit into your tinker toy “rape is dominance” construct?
QtM, thank you so much for saying that. I’ve been wanting to smack the idiots who repeat that stale tripe about rape for a long time now.
You read Dworkin too? :eek:
Grad thesis on fem lit: “Recogntion and Rejection of Victimization in the Novels of Margaret Atwood” Recognition and Rejection of Victimization in the Novels of Margaret Atwood
I’m interested in hearing what the OP learned, as well.
A follow-up question: you know those cute little ducklings you see on the lake in spring? They’re generally the offspring of forcible mating: male ducks will mount female ducks and push their heads underwater so the females can’t escape.
There’s a species of insect whose males have a special long limb that serves one purpose: it holds the female in place during sexual intercourse to prevent her from escaping.
Rape is commonplace in the nonhuman animal world. Is it all about power there? Or are humans special inasmuch as we’re the only species in which rape occurs but is not motivated by sexual desire?
Rape is a horrifying, brutal crime. Misrepresenting its underlying causes prevents us from finding a way to minimize its occurrence.
In his book The Blank Slate, Stephen Pinker lays out a pretty good case for why an abhorrence of rape has an evolutionary advantage for women, and why for some men, rape is evolutionarily advantageous. I’d recommend the OP find the book and read that chapter. Hopefully it’ll let her see that rape can be both about sexuality (even about reproduction) and still be horrifying and worth opposing at every turn.
Obviously, it’s in the torte context.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. The original “rape’s not about sex” is a drastic shortening of a perfectly correct argument against the common belief of the day, which was that rape was all about sexual attraction and horniness; that ugly women who claimed to have been raped were lying, that good-looking men couldn’t be guilty of rape “because they didn’t need to”; that attractive women who claimed to have been raped were guilty because they dressed a certain way, or were in a certain place. The power of the argument lies in the FACT that there is NO degree of lust, horniness, or sexual attraction that will lead to rape. Not by itself. There is ALWAYS something else going on – whether it be hate, anger, vengeance, misogyny, or merely a sociopathic indifference to the feelings of others. It seems to be true that most rapes involve the assumption or assertion of a right that doesn’t exist, and often anger or resentment over the denial of this “right” – namely, the “right” to have sex with a woman who has aroused one’s expectations.
The history of rape in law and in society is, in part, the history of changing views: What expectations are reasonable; which are not? Does it matter? At one time, a man had, absolutely, a right to sex with his wife, and raping one’s wife was legally impossible. This has changed, but many husbands (and not a few boyfriends) still feel entitled, and are resentful when denied. Some men feel aggrieved at refusal from any woman, regardless of whether they’ve made any effort to secure approval, recognition, or even eye contact, and some will even presume refusal and seek to forestall it. It is this, the “loss of manhood” incurred by failure, and the drive to recover it, that has been translated in popular published to “it’s about power.” It’s the fear that one has lost (or will lose) power/status/esteem at the hands of a woman that provides the impetus for rape, because it’s a far stronger motivation than not having sex for a week (or even a year). Frustration, failure, and loss, in fact, inspire a lot of crimes, and a lot of stupid and evil actions and can’t be explained by mere want.
Seeing as the Cook County, Illinois, jail is the biggest county jail in the USA, it could be both, seeing as that is where criminals go to be served their just deserts.