Note: I’m not looking for a debate of the merits of this particular argument (yet), I just want to know who first stated this idea and why.
I’ve seen several posts on these boards that have stated that the motivation for rape has nothing to do with sex, that it’s all about power, domination, humiliation, or some other non-sexual motivation.
Since this idea seems so counter-intuitive, I would think that someone would need stong supportive evidence before taking this position. Where did this idea originate, and how did it become so popular?
While it is almost impossible to keep this thread from veering into GD instead of GQ (and you’re doing a good job to send it there), the OP is asking a legitimate historical question.
The OP does not seem to be questioning the reality of rape, merely asking about the history of the idea that rape is primarily about power rather than sex. That is, that the motivation of a rapist is primarily domination, rather than achieving sexual satisfaction.
While I cannot answer the question definitively myself, and don’t really want to get involved in a debate, this idea certainly first became prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, with the rise of feminism, although it may have originated earlier.
Therefore, Surreal’s intuition is that rape is a valid variety of sex? It’s just, like, a different position, or style? The “historical” question seems obtuse to me. Call it intuition.
There is intuition, and there is myth.
Someone who’s been a member here as long as Surreal knows how to Google for the information requested in the OP.
Colibri, your statement linking the origin of this “idea” (cite?) to the rise of feminism suggests belief in another myth; the myth that rape only happens to women.
Nothing in the OP could be construed as equating rape to a “different position.” I’ve never seen the OP’s question asked here, actually, We’ve debated the issue, but I don’t recall anyone coming up with objective evidence as to when the “Rape is not about sex” mantra became popular. I’d guess it was in the 60s, too, but I don’t actually know. I’d be curious to see a cite.
"…several posts on these boards…have stated that the motivation for rape has nothing to do with sex, that it’s all about power, domination, humiliation, or some other non-sexual motivation.
Colibri- “The OP does not seem to be questioning the reality of rape, merely asking about the history of the idea that rape is primarily about power rather than sex. That is, that the motivation of a rapist is primarily domination, rather than achieving sexual satisfaction”
Yes, this is exactly what I am asking.
I suppose the only way anyone could determine what the real motivation for rape is would be to interview a bunch of convicted rapists and ask them what drove them to do it.
And this:
“…merely asking about the history of the idea…”
Doesn’t jibe with this:
“Since this idea seems so counter-intuitive, I would think that someone would need stong supportive evidence before taking this position.”
That last one seems to have nothing to do with the history of the idea, and everything to do with its merits.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gluteus maximus *
** Therefore, Surreal’s intuition is that rape is a valid variety of sex? It’s just, like, a different position, or style? The “historical” question seems obtuse to me. Call it intuition. **
Of course, Surreal said nothing remotely resembling this. Your statements seem to be due to the fact that either you are deliberately misreading the OP, or else are completely ignorant of the history of attitudes about rape.
You really seem to have no idea what the actual question is.
**
Nonsense. Likely search terms would yield a very large number of results that might be quite difficult to search through for relevant information.
**
More nonsense. The idea also applies to homosexual rape, and I have seen it so applied.
From Websters New Weorld Collefe Dictionary fourth edition
Rape: the crime of engaging in sexual acts, esp. involving penetration of the vagina or anus, usually forcibly, with a person who has not consented.
(bolding mine)
therefore the OP is reasonable saying that the idea that ‘rape has nothing to do with sex’ is counter-intuitive is absolutely correct from the dictionary deffinition.
I believe the phraise that ‘Rape has nothing to do with sex’ is using the term sex to refer to healthy consensual sexual activity, or to refer to reproduction. Not using the term sex in its widest possible meaning.
To this end, do we know who was the first to associate Rape with asserting power over or dominating another individual.
Well, misreadings aside, can anyone answer the historical question: When did the notion that rape is more/entirely about power, rather than about sex, come into being/wide circulation? My own googlings have been fruitless, discovering only references to the evolutionary biology book “A Natural History of Rape.”
Personally, I would say that the idea that a sexual act has nothing at all to do with sex is in fact counter-intuitive. And that is the idea we are talking about here.
I myself could not tell you who said it first. Might have been Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will), but not necessarily.
It always struck me (a student of feminist theory) as a slightly odd assertion, insofar as much of what our society conceptualizes as sexy and erotic has a lot to do with power differentials rather than mutuality, with objectification, with doing and being done unto rather than sharing. And feminist theory has tended to point this out, whether you agree with me (and them) or not. Which makes it, as I said, an odd assertion. I’d be more inclined to say that in an antagonistic patriarchal society perhaps sex is not about sex, or, rather, that sex as we see it portrayed and as we are (at least to an extent) trained to conceptualize it, has a lot to do with rape, and vice versa.
But I guess the nucleus of the assertion is that rape does not occur simply as a natural consequence of being horny and having the opportunity. It’s an assertion that having a sexual appetite – even a strong one – does not predispose a person to force sex upon those to whom he or she is attracted. It’s a contradiction of the thinking that was commonplace at the time, which was that rape was inevitable, a consequence of horniness, something natural, and therefore something that got winked at a lot. And while men can be and are victims of rape and women can be and are perpetrators of rape, the image of rape was definitely gendered as something men to do women (which is, I assume, true of the majority of rapes). It was the tendency of people to blame women victims for putting themselves at risk rather than men perpetrators for raping that was being attacked by this assertion.
The rape/power concept is also related to studies of mammals who use forced, non-procreative sex to confirm the hierarchy (alpha male “rapes” beta male).
There is also the suggestion that some rapists can’t actually achieve an erection. And, if you wanted a root, you could go to a prostitute, pick someone up in a bar, etc.; you wouldn’t have to break into an 80-year-old woman’s flat and tie her up to have sex, or put drugs in a guy’s drink, or hold a gun to a chick’s head. These indicators all point toward issues of power, not eroticism.
No, I don’t know who to finger for [neologism]concretising[/neologism] the idea, but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(sociology)
Nietzsche disseminated ideas on the “will to power”, which he saw as the domination of other humans as much as the exercise of control over one’s environment.
and
One of the broader modern views of the importance of power in human activity comes from the work of Michel Foucault. Feminist analysis of the patriarchy often concentrates on issues of power: note the “Rape Mantra”: Rape is about power, not sex.
Now that is getting somewhere Colibri thanks for the cite.
I wonder if there wouldn’t be more raping of weak males by stronger males if the act was purely one of domination? Maybe there is more of that sort of rape than I am aware of. I have been subject to persons exercising power and intimidation over me through threat and violence, and this was most effective for them without any suggestion of threat of rape.
A real-world, practical outcome of this idea came up a few years ago. The idea to castrate male sex offenders was proposed, and several vocal critics of the idea were stating that since rape is not about sex, but about power, that castration would have no effect. Their over-simplified motto was “the problem is not between the legs, but between the ears.”
The extreme position, that rape has virtually nothing to do with sex, is way overstated, but it should be clear to everyone that the male libido, combined with some screwed up mental processes, together are responsible.