Did you actually read the post you were responding to?
Regarding sex and power…I am going to assume you enjoy sex. Now, if you had some kind of crazy blackout and when you came to you were raping someone, would you think “Oh my god this is terrible!” or would you be thinking “Mmmmmmm pleasurable sexy fun”? Normal people do not find rape enjoyable, pleasurable, or at all sexy. Normal people find rape (as in real-life rape, not rape fantasy) repulsive and horrific. Even if the physical sensation technically feels good, it’s not sexy or fun at all.
Rapists enjoy rape precisely because they enjoy what makes it different than consensual sex. They find the power aspect to be sexually exciting. Nobody rapes because they are just really horny. People rape because they enjoy using sex to hurt people.
This is a good point. There was a string of sexual assaults in my hometown, and the police advised women to adjust their lives so they were not out at night. Could you imagine the police advising African-Americans to stay home in oder to keep themselves safe after a lynching? Could you imagine the Department of Homeland Security advising financial institutions employees to avoid being out and about to avoid being victims of terrorism?
I thought that the very reason I pay tax dollars to the police is so that I can do normal things like go to work, walk around my neighborhood, and otherwise go about my normal, unremarkable life. If for some reason my police department cannot keep enough public order to the point that I have to hide in my house rather than living a normal life, they need to fix their problem, not put that burden on me.
Since I’m a moral person, the former. If I was amoral, the latter.
Nonsense; I’d say the majority of rapes are because the rapist is horny and amoral. Your claim only works if you think that men are all ideologically devoted to the subjugation of women; you are claiming that no matter how utterly ruthless a man is, he’ll never commit rape unless he also has an agenda against women. He’ll lie, cheat, steal, rob and murder; but rape? Nope!
This is why rape is about sex.
This is really only a point of contention because of the way that rape was explained to the general public when it finally became acceptable for public discussion in the seventies and eighties. I remember the mantra repeated over and over again in public service messages of various sorts, along with the made for television movies:
“Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power. Rape is always about power. It is never about sex.”
As if this was meant to make the rape victims feel better about what happened to them.
I always felt it was bullshit. If rape was never about sex, and only about power, why weren’t these power crazed sickos satisfied with simply beating a woman senseless, or threatening them with death? Why not simply force a victim to lick the sidewalk or eat garbage or something? Why involve sex at all, if sex had nothing to do with rape?
It is finally being acknowledged that sex is part of what makes rape. But for a long while, the smarminess of the so-called “experts” was really annoying.
Police are doing their jobs “Protecting the public” by means of warning/advising women they haven’t caught him yet and part of his MO is assaulting at night, so go out at your own risk. If the police didn’t warn women I can pretty much guarantee you there would be outrage about it.
In a perfect world all criminals would be arrested within 24hrs. But it isn’t a perfect world is it. I think you’ve underestimated what it takes to catch criminals.
Again, you never hear announcements like “There has been a serial mugger on the loose. Everyone in Detroit should call in sick tonight in order to keep themselves safe,” or “A recent terror cell has been infiltrated, revealing that stock markets are the next target for terror attacks. We advise stock traders to take up a different line of work,” or “Post 9/11 backlash has lead to violence against perceived Muslims. If you are brown, please try not to go to the supermarket until things calm down.” Telling people not to go about everyday life because they have become the target for a hate crime is not acceptable, outside of a clear and present danger situation.
Nobody ever said rape wasn’t sexual. It’s about sexually dominating someone, and having sexual power over them. But rape isn’t about being really super horny, or about just really wanting to get laid. It’s not about seeing a pretty girl and wanting to have sex with her. It’s about seeing a pretty girl and wanting to sexually dominate her. It’s not about sex as most people experience it. Rape requires that aspect of enjoying hurting someone sexually. It requires getting off on the fact that it is not consensual.
Rape belongs on the continuum that includes beating and humiliating people. It’s a natural progression of that that happens to include sex (which, for some people, makes it more appealing than other forms of violence and abuse.) But ultimately, it’s violence that happens to include sex.
It doesn’t fit as well on the continuum that includes hot nights at the drive in theater or sexy fun in the shower. It’s not sex that happens to include violence.
Hmm. In my neck of the woods you often actually do hear “There is a murderer at large/escaped from prison, be extra careful about being out at night and about locking your doors.”
That said, if there’s a known serial rapist (or increased muggings, or whatever) in an area, an announcement of “Use caution in neighborhood X because of an increase in crime Y” wouldn’t be amiss–knowing about increased local risk factors is a good thing. As you say, the biggest problem is A) phrasing it as directed at a specific group and B) phrasing it in ways that put an onus on the potential victim.
I SERIOUSLY disagree. Violent or drug-assisted rape, I will agree, fits what you describe.
However, it’s a known fact that date rape/acquaintance rape is FAR more common a crime, and the deeply sad fact is that a guy telling himself “I know she really wants this” or “she didn’t say NO exactly” or “she’s only a little drunk, and I know she digs me” or “we’ve been friends forever, and she doesn’t REALLY want me in the friend zone” does not often consider himself a rapist–in HIS mind, what happened was sex.
Similarly, the existence of BDSM trivially refutes the idea that sex and coercion/force cannot be on the same continuum. It’s actually a known problem in a lot of BDSM communities in particular that there are some dominant guys who either cannot determine or do not appear to care about the difference between “fighting back as part of consensual BDSM play” and “fighting back because she doesn’t want you.” Again, the “cannot determine” guys are not trying to rape, and they do not consider themselves rapists.
This whole blurb is another reason that “dress modestly” doesn’t work as an anti-rape strategy. Most rapes start out with the eventual victim being happy to be in close proximity to the eventual attacker.
That’s nonsense. Are you really going to claim that someone who is simply ruthless and doesn’t care either way about a woman’s feelings wouldn’t rape her just for the sex?
Rape is sex. It’s not a moral way of getting sex, but it’s still sex, not a political agenda.
It’s also a problem when the warnings are drilled in women’s heads since birth and never cease, irrespective of actual crime rates or local threats. It’s always assumed the danger of rape exists and its women’s duty to stay vigilant against it.
There’s a difference between saying “there’s been a rash of armed thefts on the bus and subways lately, so be extra careful with your valuables when using public transit” and “to protect themselves, women should avoid risky behaviors like going out by themselves or dressing provocatively around strange men”. The former is more like a reminder to take precautions with one’s stuff due local activity. The latter is treated like a rule of thumb that you have to follow for the rest of your life.
I’d put it this way: “It’s not just about sex.” Because it definitely is related to sex; if nothing else, that’s the form of expression. And I have grave doubts about those who say it’s not at least partly sexually motivated.
Der Trihs: While I’ve long suspected that you’re right about this, can you cite any good studies or arguments?
Regarding the excerpt above about police: they should have simply informed the women that there had been assaults in the area and refrained from any comments about their dress. Public statements such as “Women might want to think twice about …” are reasonable. But law officers shouldn’t appoint themselves dress code police.
It makes a lot more sense to warn them to not walk alone (at times/places where assaults have happened).
In any case, no matter what the range of dress styles is, there will be those at the more provocative / attractive end, and those at the other end. Shifting the range probably doesn’t shift the overall probability of assaults. If you dress more conservatively, you’re not helping everyone, you’re just moving your own probability lower in the group.
Just MHO, of course. I can’t back this up with any data. But I’d be willing to bet that anyone who’s undisciplined enough to grope anyone is likely to simply pick the best target available, and not have some standard over which they won’t go.
More proof that punctuation matters! I actually got a chuckle out of this, assuming that the insult was unintended. But it definitely gave me pause.
Good point, though I think it is appropriate to warn people not to be ostentatious in high-crime areas. It’s an interesting question as to whether there’s a difference in the tone and tenor of advice in these two regards, which should really be equivalent (except for the heinousness of the crime.)
In any case, I do think the OP is a bit fuddled (and credit him with realizing it). I believe that these days we’re closer to a reasonable middle than at any time in my life; I’m 55. I’m sure we have further to go, but I don’t think any pendulum as swung too far.
The blame for any offence is on the offender. However, responsibility is a different matter. I’m “responsible” for dealing with any offence against me, regardless of how blameless I am in the matter. The responsibility for avoiding it is up to me, and it’s up to me to judge between reasonable, careless, and downright foolish. The downright foolish may suffer as a result, but they’re not culpable. Reasonable people will disagree about what’s foolish.
If I had a crazy blackout I was unable to give consent and, waking to find myself engaged in a sex act, would certainly not be raping anyone. By definition. If anything I would be being raped.
No-one gives advice like that to men, no. No colleges offer free self defence courses for men, either. No public transport systems have men-only train carriages, or provide buses that carry only men home from work or college when those places let out after dark.
But men are much more likely to be the victim of muggings, and assaults and murders of all kinds by strangers on the way home. The difference is that no-one really cares when men are in danger. But when a woman might have to walk into danger she gets a bus while men are made to walk through.
Consider that society is more protective over women, not because they care more about them, but because portraying women as defensiveless and weak and in need of protection makes it easier for men to be occupy the strong and brave niche.
A lot of men feel threatened or repelled by the idea of women being strong enough to fend for themselves. Women are also taught that if they don’t act weak and fearful, they aren’t being feminine and desirable to the opposite sex. Men who are wary and cautious promptly get labled wussy, both by men and women.
People expect and encourage men to be bold, adventurous, and carefree, not because they don’t care about men but because they don’t see men as victims. Whereas, all women are damsels in distress waiting to happen. And who will rescue these damsels? Men, of course. Our definitions of masculinity and femininity are fundamentally based on the idea that a man’s job is to rescue and protect women, and a woman’s job is to let him.
I took a course in self-defense, and I can honestly say it changed my life. I no longer fear people, and no longer act meek and mild. Believe it or not, a lot of men do not want to mess with a woman who acts like she is in charge.
Reading this thread reminds me of the people who said that Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims were “asking for it” by going to gay bars.
Good for you, Annie
You honestly believe this? I think you need to re-read what you posted. Your claim is that society is more protective over women because men need to occupy the strong and brave niche. That makes absolutely no sense, at all.
Women are encouraged to be strong and independent. Women are in no way, shape or form taught to be weak and fearful. Also, cautious men are not labeled as a wussy. Maybe, some people label them as such, but definitely not all.
Here lies the problem. Men are victims too. A man’s job is not to rescue and protect women.
Feminism would serve no purpose if women were in fact damsels in distress.
Even I need to agree with feminists on the fact that a lot of women are independent and strong, and I’m pretty anti-feminist.
Men and women need to be treated equally. EQUAL TREATMENT meaning that they can both EQUALLY be victims.
No; it’s mostly because most people simply don’t care as much (or at all) what happens to men. That’s why for example charitable organizations mostly use women and children for their advertising; women and children get sympathy, men don’t. It appears to be at least partly hardwired into human nature; a male baby needs to cry longer and louder to get his parents’ attention than a female baby.
Right, women and children get sympathy because they both have something in common: they are seen as defenseless and weak and need of protection.
It’s silly to say that no one cares what happens to men when couples prefer male to female babies, inheritance historically has been passed to sons not daughters, and oh yeah, the whole thousands of years worth of misogyny thing that has resulted in untold numbers of women being killed, shunned, and beaten for daring to step out line.