Yes, but it isn’t that (most) men don’t have access to sex, it is that (most)men don’t have ready access to sex that isn’t obtained through the sex-for-barter system. Prostitution, traditional (male-provider) marriage, economically compensated mistresses and consorts, and any other form of this doesn’t count. After all, the bitter hateful guys I describe could go pay a prostitute for sex any time they chose to. Irrelevant.
I just would like to single xcheopis out for some praise.
::clapclapclapclapclapclapclap::
xcheopis… I don’t think you understood what I meant by “anti-feminist”… obviously I’m not against feminists completely. I just think sometimes they take it too far. That was my mistake, I didn’t explain myself.
I want to reiterate how inhumane your comments are. Most people at StraightDope debate facts and ideas rather than tearing an individual down. I hope you learn to do that some day. Again, I’ve NEVER disagreed that in the past (and in some remote places today) marriage was a barter and women were treated horribly.
However, due to your inability to debate reasonably and treat me as an educated human being, I’m unsubscribing from this thread. Lucky for you, you won’t hear from me anymore.
you know what?
i really don’t care why i was raped.
whether is was out of anger, fear, power-lust, ignorance or simply stupidity.
i just wish i hadn’t been.
that is all i have to say on the matter.
You know, I have never understood the purpose of that phrase. It’s a platitude that is constantly repeated, but never given any sort of explanation. It seems to me that rape is wrong because it is physically and emotionally hurtful to the victim. So why is there a need to further characterize it with a trite phrase like that? All that does is imply that somehow, if rape were NOT an act of violence, that it would be O.K., which is preposterous. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is - rape is wrong either way.
To Blowero:
The statement about rape baing an act of violence is being taken a bit out of context. The point of phrasing it that way is to point out that rape is almost NEVER about sex. So-called ‘Date Rape’ is usually about sex and spousal rape usally is as well but the stereotyped ‘stranger in a dark alley’ type of rape has almost nothing to do with sex.
Generally individuals who take part in this kind of atrocity are trying to get some feeling of power into their pathetic, drained lives. They are trying to make up for something in their lives that is missing but it usually isnt sex thats missing. The proof of this is seen in rapists who target the elderly even though they do not find them attractive. THe point is that it is even easier to dominate an elderly woman than a ayoung one and that is what they want: dominance, degradation and fear.
Another good example is rapists who are impotent but who overpower and rape women using dildos or any other phallic instrument that happens to be lying around.
So anyway the statement “sex is an act of violence” is meant to convey that it is violent assertion that is sougt by the rapist, not sex.
Hope this helps.
cheers
Thanks, but no that doesn’t really help. You didn’t really answer my question; you basically repeated the “rape is an act of violence” platitude, but dressed it up with adjectives like “atrocity” and “pathetic”. This is what I don’t get: Is someone making the argument that rape is NOT an atrocity, or is NOT pathetic? Isn’t that generally agreed by everyone? My question was why it’s necessary to use the oft-repeated phrase “rape is an act of violence”, when it does nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the issue. Also, your point about rapists targeting the elderly is not well-taken, since the majority of rape victims are of child-bearing age. But that’s not really the point; the point is why do we feel it necessary to assert that rape “has nothing to do with sex”? In my mind, whether or not it has anything to do with sex makes it no better or worse of a thing.
And finally, I don’t know if I agree with your drawing a distinction between date/spouse rapes and stranger rapes and saying one is about sex and the other is not. I would suspect that all kinds of rape are about dominance, control, and/or power. I don’t see how being acquainted with one’s victim changes anything.
[Hmmm… Looking back at my post, I hope the tone of it doesn’t seem too harsh. I apologize if anything in there sounds combative; it wasn’t my intent.]
blowero, I think the reason “rape has nothing to do with sex” is constantly repeated is because, even in the first world in the 21st century, there are still people who believe rape is about sex. As an example, I’ll offer the judge a few years ago who said a woman who was raped was asking for it because she wore a short skirt. I’m not an expert on this subject, but there is still a perception that women are chosen as rape victims because they’re attractive, because they smiled, because they were in a bar, because they can’t resist a stranger. There was a case in my city where a woman was raped in the restroom of a bar. Her rapist’s defence was that it was consensual and she wanted it. If you asked the rapist, it was about sex. Me, I’m pretty sure power played into it, too.
CJ
$0.02USD
The phrase most constantly repeated is that rape is about power, not sex. I’ve rarely if ever heard anyone deny that it is about violence.
My long and rambling posts above were intended to make the point that rape is about anger. And why. (The anger is about sex, so rape is about sex but not in the way that the abovementioned asshole judge thinks it is).
Ugh - that’s horrible. Does anyone have a cite on this? I’d like to see what this idiot judge’s “reasoning” for saying that was. Anyway, I understand your point as to why people feel it’s necessary to repeat the platitude - it’s frustrating that anyone in this day and age can still have such an unenlightened attitude. But I maintain that the phrases “rape is an act of violence” and/or “rape has nothing to do with sex” do nothing to further anyone’s understanding of the real issues.
O.K., but you’re still conflating several issues. The first issue is “what is the motivation for a person to commit rape?” Is the rapist motivated by hunger for power, desire to inflict injury, sexual desire, or something else, or all of the above? THIS IS IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER IT WAS A CRIME. There is no excuse to justify rape - it is not acceptable to say “I was horny, so I raped someone”.
The second issue, and I think this is really what you are talking about, is whether it’s possible for a woman to have been “asking for it”. And of course the answer is emphatically NO. A lot of progress has been made from the time when a woman’s “character” was allowed to be called into question, and things are much better now. But obviously the courts aren’t 100% there yet, as evidenced by this judge you referred to. But here’s my point: These two issues are NOT the same thing. The empty phrase “rape is an act of violence”, fails to shed any light on the REAL issue, which is “there is no justification for rape”.
And then you have brought up a THIRD issue, which is whether consent was given. It’s an important issue, but also irrelevant to the “rape is violence” mantra. If there was no consent, it was rape - If there WAS consent, it was NOT rape. Again, the psychological motivation for rape is not the issue.
I guess what I’m wondering is: why is the idea that sexual desire may play a part in rape so abhorrent to women? Obviously, rape is not about love and tenderness, but isn’t it a little extreme to maintain that a rapist is completely devoid of sexual desire? Is it because women are afraid that sexual desire will be used as a defense to justify committing rape? I suppose a few whackos might try to defend rape as such, but I’m pretty sure mainstream society is not going to buy it. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to instill the point that desire is NEVER a justification for rape, rather than to obstinately say “No, it’s impossible - rape has nothing to do with sex”?
I thought I’d just pop in to offer some references on this topic. Roy Hazelwood’s book “The Evil That Men Do”, while perhaps unfortunately titled, covers this topic extremely well. And as one of the FBI’s top investigators into sex crimes, I’d say he ought to be considered an expert. 
The book is an excellent layperson’s explanation of the phenomenon. And it gives references in the back, should you wish further reading.
He, other investigators, and forensic psychologists have determined that indeed, most rape has little to nothing to do with the actual sex. Sex is mostly being used as a weapon of dominance.
Here’s a couple links:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/401/401lect18.htm
http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensicbio/articles/psychologicalprofiles/f-psyc01.htm
blowero, unless I’m dense as a box of rocks no one here was discussing whether or not there exists any justification for rape. Understanding isn’t justification and an explanation is not an excuse.
Well we must not be reading the same thread, because I believe what you just said is exactly the point I was making. I’m somewhat distressed that you didn’t get that at all from my posts.
Well, it’s nice to be in agreement even if at least one of us is comprehension-impaired, I guess…
:o
Well, I don’t know that it’s necessarily your fault. Nobody seems to be getting my point, so I think it’s time for me to bow out of this thread.
You hit the nail on the head.
Soc & WS majors will spend hours and hours philosophizing why rape occurs, while in the mean time women are getting raped.
Like you, I could care less why evil occurs. I’m only interested in stopping it. Solution? Every woman should be packing a handgun loaded with 7 or more rounds of Corbon ammunition (9mm or larger), along with training on how to use it.
I second Crafter_man’s suggestion, with the suggestion that men would be, too.
I agree with Irishgirl. I wasn’t raped, but molested as a child. And I don’t care why. Knowing why isn’t going to help me. Even if every woman in the world had a definitive answer to that question, rape would still occur. That’s what I believe, anyway. Take it as you will.
Men experience rape sexually. Women experience it violently.
In most cases, men rape to obtain sex. The majority of rape victims are of child-bearing age, that is, at their peak attractiveness in their life cycle. Rapists either do not care about women’s feelings and enjoy the torment they inflict, or do not know how to obtain consent. Rapists usually talk about the anger they felt towards their victims, or towards women in general. This anger is usually rooted in frustration and confusion about what is and is not an invitation for sex, believing they are often being “led on” or “teased”. (Their interpretation, not mine, and certainly not a justification.)
I think stranger rape is usually the case of a man who is driven to desperate, violent action by extreme ignorance of understanding of how to interact with women to obtain sex. Rape of dates and wives is usually about establishing oneself as dominant to the others - My will over yours…Your body is mine. Men rape other men for much the same reason.
When you consider the asymmetries in human reproduction (a teaspoon of sperm vs a disabling pregnancy and dangerous childbirth) you can see why rape is viewed as so devastating to women, and why men rape and women do not (at least in the form of hetero intercourse). Because of how much women fear and loathe rape, those with the desire to terrorize women will clearly use rape as part of their torturous repotiore. A woman would clearly not do the same to a man - what man would see it as torture? Men have little to lose from random sexual interaction, even with women they despise. Women have much to lose from being impregnated by a man they would never choose to have sex with.
Don Symons makes some comments on rape (I borrowed greatly from his ideas here) in his book The Evolution of Human Sexuality. His discussion is in fact found in the chapter titled “Copulation as a Female Service.” I would say that a blatant sex-for-trade arrangement puts a woman in a position of power in the transaction, and cannot see it creating, by itself, a rape-promoting environment.
A more recent (and less impressive) book discussing this topic was Thornhill and Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape. One author argued (unconvincingly in my view) that rape is an adaptive part of human male sexuality. The other (more reasonably) argued that it was a byproduct of other features of male sexuality. Most of the book was political and annoying, but they did make a few good points, many of which I also presented here.
arachnid
I highly recommend reading any of the books by John Douglas, who was the FBI guy that brought profiling into the mainstream. He was the consultant on the Silence of the Lambs. His third book Obsession focuses more on rapists than serial killers.
He lists four types of rapists (I am quoting him, so keep it brief):
Power-Reassurance Rapist (sometimes called the “gentleman rapist”) feels inadequate and compensates by forcing women to have sex with him.
Exploitative Rapists is a more impulsive predator, and the result of seizing an opportunity that presents itself rather than of fantasizing ahead of time about what the act is going to be like.
Anger Rapist his sexual assult is a displaced expression of the rage and anger within him. Attacks will be episodic and triggered by precipitating stressors involving the woman or women to whom his rage is actually directed, but the victim will be a substitute for the real target of his rage.
sadistic rapist is the most dangerous sexual predator of all. He is completely self centred rather than driven by rage. He anticipates his crime, and perfected his MO over his criminal career.