And that’s sort of it. What if WE - BOTH GENDERS were socialized to see sex differently. To see the opposite gender differently? So that women weren’t raised to have “Beast” fantasies or believe stalking to be “romantic” instead of the scary experience it turns out to be in real life. And men didn’t get as much sexual objectification of women as they get or get the “boys will be boys” message.
Law & Order: SVU, of course, is all about sexual assault. Certainly, the criminal is always caught, but the subject matter was presumably selected because of the extra visceral impact of sex crimes. To pick up on someone else’s theme above, they’ve never made Law & Order: Art Theft.
But I have just as many fantasies where I am dominating sexually, as I have where I am dominated sexually.
Men, too. Dominatrixes are not hurting for work.
We should all trust our adult selves to be free to indulge in any kind of fantasies, art, sex, etc. that we like.
The problem is when a *non *consensting person is denied their own freedoms and rights. That’s why I think it is important to keep a hard line.
A man should be able to treat a woman exactly as he would a man, respecting her same exact rights as he would a man. Not concerning himself with attempting to be extra sensitive to her fears or issues or past history of whether she has ever been molested.
ETA: This post was in response to Dangerosa…sorry.
One thing that came to mind after I made the previous post – if we can say that romance novels are a kind of ‘‘chick porn,’’ there are some comparatively huge differences in the way that rape is depicted in guy porn. Chick porn does not often involve the degradation, dehumanization and humiliation of the woman–she is dominated, she likes it but feels she should say no due to ‘‘propriety’’, he loves her so much he can’t help himself, he is gentle and slow and cares so much about her pleasure, etc. Guy porn (that features rape and sexual subjugation) is a whole different ball of wax. In fact it often involves the complete objectification of the woman being subjugated, the infliction of pain and delight in her torment. She is reduced to a fuck toy. Which is actually a more accurate depiction of what rape actually is.
Well, technically…
Win.
How can it be rape if there is no trauma? Rape is not a victimless crime.
Just because someone is not traumatized by the act does not mean it did not take place. If someone steals something from you that you did not care about did no theft take place?
Well, you can be raped even if you don’t mind/know about it. Hypothetically if a stranger holds you down and rapes you and you enjoy it, it’s still rape–they had no way of knowing you consented. Or if you’re unconscious and raped–still rape. Even if the person is gentle and doesn’t leave any marks.
The crime of rape is that of having sex with someone without their consent. That they be traumatized by this is likely, but not required.
Also remember that “rape culture” are those factors in a culture that make rape more likely. And rape itself in “rape culture” is not legalistically defined - the word “rape” was chosen because its more emotional that to say “objectification culture” or “sexual assault culture” both of which are related to the idea of a “rape culture.”
When you start getting into the legal definition of rape and “well, that isn’t rape,” you are in the weeds on the concept. Because the concept itself sort of challenges us to think about a continuum of treatment of women - and of men - with rape as the extreme and respect and ‘equality’ at the other end (‘equality’ in quotes because equal does not mean same in this context) and the factors that contribute in pushing us down the line.
Naw, seems to me that the “legalistic” definition has life in it. Rape is sex without consent. I don’t agree that the term “rape culture” is particularly useful, but to the extent that it is, “rape culture” seems to me would mean those aspects of culture which specifically contribute to the belief that consent to sex isn’t really necessary.
Certainly a lack of respect for women would be part of it, but it cannot be the whole story. I can be the biggest woman-hater around, the most bigoted ass, and not believe that having sex without consent is okay or justified - equating the two just looks like scare tactics: that, in paraphrase, ‘those folks who do not agree to respect me as I wish to be respected, are more or less the same as rapists - or at least, on the same road’. That erodes the sting of the accusation of being a rapist.
Yeah, I’m wary of putting it on a spectrum. I agree that you can behave badly without raping someone, but I don’t like the idea of putting someone who objectifies women but doesn’t rape them on the same continuum.
You guys are right, but don’t get bogged down in the legal definition of rape. i.e. if a guy reaches down a woman’s pants - that isn’t rape, but its part of the “rape culture” i.e. one in which reaching down her pants without her consent would even occur to someone who wasn’t a sociopath.
(agree with the “rape culture” as a term disclaimer - again).
I don’t know–I mean, can’t we just call that sexual assault? It’s not rape, but it is illegal and wrong.
I think Dangerosa said it pretty well. Having your bodice ripped by some devilish brute means you get to have the hot sex you crave without it being your ‘fault’ – you might even get to keep the only thing that matters, your chastity!
That’s just it. You wonder ‘How are supposedly people getting to a point where they think it is okay to put their dick in a person’s vagina, anus or mouth who doesn’t want it there (or can’t make her willingness or unwillingness known)’? It doesn’t work if rape alone is the be-all and end-all. I could be wrong, but I htink you’d be hard-pressed to find any popular criminal theory that doesn’t look at specific crimes in context of what else is criminal as well as morally reprehensible.
Yes, but the term isn’t “sexual assault culture” its “rape culture.” And the two (sexual assault and rape) are intertwined. It would be hard to have a “rape culture” without having a “sexual assault culture.” (Assuming you have either).
Right, but why do we have to go around saying we live in a rape culture? I mean, yes, sexual assault and rape occurs, but it’s only one part of our culture.
Its a way to spark a conversation like this. Far as I know, only a very few people spend their time going around saying we live in a “rape culture” (which is a terribly 1989 sort of term anyway). I certainly don’t. But the words have sparked an interesting, and I think important, conversation.
The very fact that you can get men freaking out and yelling by using the term “rape culture” at all means that it’s an effective tool to challenge privilege. If guys gave up their privilege, they wouldn’t be getting mad when the term is used. Because if they gave up their privilege, they would no longer have that underlying understanding that all women are available to them if they want it badly enough and they would no longer also have that comforting knowledge that if they go too far the woman probably won’t be believed anyway and even if she is believed the “boys will be boys” mentality will go a long way toward shielding them from the consequences of their actions. The term “rape culture” is an effective barometer of where we stand in fighting it.