The Politics of Rape

Originally posted by jeantherapy
Everyone must think very carefully about the kind of person they want to be, about what is truly right and wrong. Choose to be a good person and then live it; think everyday about the things you would rather die than do; "I would rather die than steal, or rape, or inflict this suffering or ever do to somebody a thing which I would defend against having done to me" Live it and breath it everyday, keep it in your conscious foremind. And never forgive or excuse a rapist or allow them to repeat their incomprehensibly evil acts. We must all keep each other safe. Don't let your chicks walk home alone. Ladies don't go to frat parties and drink to excess. I see a lot of people that are morally opposed to things which they are not willing to fight against. The police are not keeping women safe, but somebody must. Please have the courage to be a real hero.

In other words, we are all in this together. Individual effort is commendable, but many times we need a partner to be there when we cant be there for ourselves. Totally agree!!!

Originally posted by RealSpoke
This article is really stupid.

Agreed.

If a guy wants sex he can go on craigslist and find someone, it isn't that hard to get a prostitute.

edit on 9-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Im not certain, but I think that is the mentality feminism opposes. If a MAN wants sex, and cant get it, surely he is an evolved enough creature to be able to suppress such urges?

if a male of the human species can not suppress his urges then is he no more than an animal?

Freud has a lot to answer for! as Capra puts it in The Truning Point, Freud only applies to the sick third of humanity.

Originally posted by cartenz
Im not certain, but I think that is the mentality feminism opposes. If a MAN wants sex, and cant get it, surely he is an evolved enough creature to be able to suppress such urges?

if a male of the human species can not suppress his urges then is he no more than an animal?

Freud has a lot to answer for! as Capra puts it in The Truning Point, Freud only applies to the sick third of humanity.

Regarding that "sick 1/3 of the population"; if the government would step aside and deregulate sexuality, then that 1/3 would be further reduced; or, at least, appeased via legal means. It would not reduce sex crimes to 0%; however, it would reduce sex crimes, increase/create income potential for individuals and create a new taxable workforce (which already existed, but has never been accounted for). The same can be said of the prohibition of "illegal" substances.

Live and let live....so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another, then why should anyone else bother worrying about it; nor get involved. I have lived by that rule my entire life....it works!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Unity_99

 

Knocking someone out is extremely violent and pre-meditated form of bullying and massive abuse, not sexual.

does your theory apply when the knock-out method is a drug, alcohol, persuasive coercion or the mere threat of substantial bodily harm (as with a knife or gun) ??

while i agree the whole scenario is pre-meditated, it is not force, violence or physical abuse that indicates pre-meditation. and, any act which is pre-meditated will be repeated until the desire is removed. (ask any addict)

Pardon me, first of all I took that to be a physical knock out, as i was threatened with by a police officer when I was 19, but I did ignore him and continued to call out for help until I was rescued.

However, now that you have brought out slipping someone a mickey as it used to be called, that is also FORCE.

reply to post by RealSpoke

A date rape scenario could very well just be about sex. Even though I can see how power could be a part of it if they are the ones drugging the drinks themselves.

Agreed.

Even in a date rape situation, the one committing this act, is callous to the other person's value as a person and is violating their core being and harming them emotionally for years and is overriding them physically to assualt them sexually. It may have a sexual impulse, in some cases, but it is still a complete sociopath/psychopath that could ever do that to someone and dissociate them from human dignity or ignore their wishes and No's. This is an extreme selfish dangerous bully. So the issues go far beyond sexual impulse and into deep rooted power plays.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by cartenz
Im not certain, but I think that is the mentality feminism opposes. If a MAN wants sex, and cant get it, surely he is an evolved enough creature to be able to suppress such urges?

if a male of the human species can not suppress his urges then is he no more than an animal?

Freud has a lot to answer for! as Capra puts it in The Truning Point, Freud only applies to the sick third of humanity.

Regarding that "sick 1/3 of the population"; if the government would step aside and deregulate sexuality, then that 1/3 would be further reduced; or, at least, appeased via legal means. It would not reduce sex crimes to 0%; however, it would reduce sex crimes, increase/create income potential for individuals and create a new taxable workforce (which already existed, but has never been accounted for). The same can be said of the prohibition of "illegal" substances.

Live and let live....so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of another, then why should anyone else bother worrying about it; nor get involved. I have lived by that rule my entire life....it works!

The jurisdiction in which I live has decriminalised prostitution (and yes, sex workers have been charged for not paying income tax), so I dont buy the argument that a small government approach will reduce sexual violence and sex crimes.

I also find it morally repugnant that a government (any government) would tax one of the most disenfranchised working groups.

That said, the "containment policy" as its know here has greatly reduced the sex trafficking (slavery) industry by making madams legally accountable for their staff. Also it has removed a large organised crime component of the sex industry here.

And that would only be for an impulse to overpower someone who the rapist was close physically to, on a date. If somene goes so far as to drug another to forcibly have sex with them passed out, this person is a complete danger to society in every way possibly, they have devalued human life to be valueless and are opportunists and horrendous bullies. Its a crime that is so sickening its horrific.

More on the author of the original article:

Dr. Hansen's article was fortunately labeled “opinion,” since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science. In fact, her entire article is based upon beliefs and values that have little been influenced by psychological research or theory. One would hardly know she is a clinical psychologist, given her presumptions that are flawed. It appears that she engages in reverse reasoning: “I believe that a child should have a mother and father as parents, so let me design some reasoning to support this thesis.”

pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com...

Can we HOAX bin this already?

Originally posted by Unity_99
And that would only be for an impulse to overpower someone who the rapist was close physically to, on a date. If somene goes so far as to drug another to forcibly have sex with them passed out, this person is a complete danger to society in every way possibly, they have devalued human life to be valueless and are opportunists and horrendous bullies. Its a crime that is so sickening its horrific.

edit on 9-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

You dont concede that a person acting on such an impulse is also a danger to society also? someone willing to destroy what erver interpersonal relationship they had prior with the victim, and negatively effect that person fro the rest of their life for a few moments of lust? those people are just as dangerous, in my opinion.

reply to post by Unity_99

Pardon me, first of all I took that to be a physical knock out, as i was threatened with by a police officer when I was 19, but I did ignore him and continued to call out for help until I was rescued.

sorry to hear about such an experience but yes, a physical knock-out would apply.

the part i'm not following from your previous comment involved correlating force with pre-meditation.

not quoted here, but it led me to think that "based on the use of force" a rape can be considered pre-meditated --> with which i happen to disagree.

this train of thought may lead some to think that rape is, in some imaginable way, spontaneous.
not in my book it isn't.

i believe most survivors would support the opinion that an act of rape is always pre-meditated, with or without additional physical force/coercion of any kind.
hopefully, we agree.

ETA: brutality often accompanies rape, but, it should never be used to mitigate damage caused by the rape.

Something that I don't believe has been touched upon much here is the connection with alcohol/drugs and date rape. I don't care so much for the term date rape. Rape is rape, and the term makes it sound like less of a crime IMO.

Personally, I have never had nonconsensual sex with anyone. I have passed up quite a few opportunities for a sexual encounter because the woman involved was inebriated, and I had no previous relations with her. Not to say that I haven't had sex with a woman that was legally drunk, but in those cases, I was in a personal relationship with those women at the time, and they were consenting.

I think that having sex with a person that is under the influence is very risky and it was a risk that I never took.

Originally posted by cartenz

Originally posted by Unity_99
And that would only be for an impulse to overpower someone who the rapist was close physically to, on a date. If somene goes so far as to drug another to forcibly have sex with them passed out, this person is a complete danger to society in every way possibly, they have devalued human life to be valueless and are opportunists and horrendous bullies. Its a crime that is so sickening its horrific.

edit on 9-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

You dont concede that a person acting on such an impulse is also a danger to society also? someone willing to destroy what erver interpersonal relationship they had prior with the victim, and negatively effect that person fro the rest of their life for a few moments of lust? those people are just as dangerous, in my opinion.

Yes, they are a danger, and sociopathic as well, if you read the last two posts, I clearly pointed this out. The last post stepped it up to the premeditated level of drugging someone.

I would compare this to first degree or second degree murder, wherein the first is premeditated.

For someone to do this to another human being, goes beyond a sexual urge, it is predatory abuse and psychopathy, whether impulsive or planned.

reply to post by Unity_99


Sorry for misreading. I have consumed a lot of info this weekend and think it may be time to take a rest...

Of course... These far left liberals don't care too much about 'morality' - at least, not in the sense of abiding by principles - the traditional sense. Their morality veers off into nether zones of 'relativity' - of necessity provoking action. In this case, even though rape is OBVIOUSLY perpetrated by males who are sexually frustrated and morally insensitive, feminists would prefer us to believe that it is a power thing, and then men must demasculate themselves to provide women room to breathe.

I will never forget this apposite reply of John Adams to his Feminist wife Abigail.

"Abigail Adams grated on her husband John in letters demanding full legal rights for women: “we are determined to instigate a rebellion” she declared, echoing the women of Athens in Lysistrata. John Adams’ reply was only too apt: men’s legal privileges were essential, he wrote, “we dare not exert our power [in the home] in its full latitude…in practice, you know, we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters. To give up on this would subject us completely to the despotism of the petticoat.”

Feminists want us to forget the already established, perennial known fact of their subconscious power over man. In Toronto, for instance, there is this ridiculous parade called "slut-walk" in which woman dress like sluts in order to protest inequality between the sexes. Just 2 weeks ago the mayors niece, krista ford, advised women in Toronto not to "dress like whores" as a preventive measure against being targeted for sexual harassment. Guess what the response was: instead of being viewed as an OBVIOUS piece of practical advice, it was criticized and lambasted for it's implicit sexism "why should women have to curtail what they wear while men get to wear what they please". I sit astounded; the crux of sexual assault is the feeling of sexual frustration, and that the more scantily dressed the woman, the more likely it is that she would be targeted for sexualization by the perpetrator.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

I have been yearning for someone to eloquently discuss this topic from this angle for a long time. I've had small success in one on one conversations with both males and females, but reaching a broader audience is difficult without being easily misunderstood. This is a very helpful article because both sides of the issue need to be able to be honest in order to reach any *real* improvements to the situation.

As a male I painfully ask "If women are now more liberated with more power in society than ever before... and men are/were to blame for the objectification of women... why are women objectified now more than ever?"

Namaste.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


This hyper concern with physical beauty is an objectification of body. What the feminists want - a pipe dream, a fantasy - is to have their cake and eat it too. They want the latitude to present themselves in any way they desire, but also, to deny basic facts of biology, to deny that men, independent of their own volition, will become more aroused when women present themselves more scantily dressed.

This tabula rasa nonsense which hypothesizes a mans reaction to a woman's beauty and charm to be nothing more than 'environmental conditioning' is absurd, unscientific ideologically motivated trite. They want to erase that reality in order to arrogate further powers for female kind, as if their subconscious emotional sway over a man's psychology weren't enough; because anything less then complete unqualified equality - because to be different means to be inferior, apparently - is somehow immoral.

If patriarchal society means acknowledgement of differences, and matriarchal society means abnegation of differences, than I think if we want to live in a just world, we should prefer a patriarchal society.

Womankind has been favored in a way that man isn't. A man cannot exert subconscious, subtle influence over a woman's decision making and behavior as a woman can over a man. Feminists choose not to take note of this. Somehow, it's irrelevant. But in any case, since it is acknowledged the world over, from ancient times to now, it's unnatural to treat women in every situation the same as men; a simple example being the desire for equality in public dress: just as men are allowed to walk around topless, feminists argue they should be granted the same privileges. Ignored is the biological effect a topless man has on women verses the effect a topless woman has on men. This alone determines the morality. The circumstance - a mans biology and his response - puts him at the mercy of his sex drive once he sees a topless woman. Conversely, a woman can see a topless man and not sexualize it. The issue being: how the sex in question responds to the sight of toplessness. A woman's biology allows her the wiggle room to not be afflicted with unwanted sexual thoughts, whereas a man, whether a married one who values monogamy with his wife, and thus freedom from oppressive thoughts, or a youth, who shouldn't be inured to such sights at such a young and suggestible age, has much less freedom.

Laws are designed to promote freedom, no??? Well here, feminists want to take what little freedom law gives men from their sultry powers over us. It seems to me feminism is motivated at root against biology, against God; at it's root, it's a rebellion against nature - which is ironic since they use nature in their platform. In any case those who desire to live free, which means, to live from EXTERNAL INFLUENCE i.e. the pangs of unqualified instinct, which affects men far more than women, for those who value the freedom to will what they please, who value the freedom to live as they please, this wanton abuse of scientific fact by feminists impinges on THEIR freedom to think and feel free from external influences.

Hence, feminism is intimately linked with moral relativism, with nihilism, with naturism; in short, with ancient paganism. What the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to emancipate mankind from - from subservience to the passions - feminists hope to bring us back into slavery to. But who does it benefit?? It benefits THEM! They will have all the emotional power over us in addition to political powers which support them.

The Judeo-Christian tradition balances it out. It acknowledges, and indeed, it cannot outright erase, the influence a woman has over a man; nature has decreed that it be so, that men, like the Absolute, seek expression, just as a woman takes the indeterminate seed of a man and gives it expression in her womb as a child.

This is natural law. A womans power is essentially esoteric, private, and covert. To give her exoteric, public and overt powers, doesn't change the situation. It just affords her the power to rule over men inside and out.

That's the fact of the matter. Thus Patriarchal law is a balance of natures - and a woman's - power over man.