#15. Understand that rape is about power, not about sex.
'Do you honestly think that "it's not about sex" for a horny man on a first date with a woman who has sex with the woman anyway after she says no? '
---or---men who place the so-called "date rape pill" in drinks in bars to get beautiful women into private places where they can have sex with them are motivated by lust.”
Hmmm, they're right in a way. These examples are “about sex”, in the sense that the perpetrator of the criminal act in this case was motivated by it. That's all very true and all very beside the point. We're not claiming there is no relationship between sex and rape. Also, we're not discussing motivations.
The disconnect seems to be about what about's about. These guys, let's call them 'RAy', interpret about as meaning “motivated by”, and have arguments about psychology, innateness and biology. None of which is relevant to the point I want to make.
I don't care what motivates the criminal to commit the act, I'm talking about the criminal act itself, which is an abuse of power. What motivates anyone to abuse power is not part of the discussion, but I can't get Ray to see the distinction
I don't care what motivates the criminal to commit the act, I'm talking about the criminal act itself, which is an abuse of power. What motivates anyone to abuse power is not part of the discussion, but I can't get Ray to see the distinction
"doing something without consent turns almost anything into crime. Saying that rape isn't about sex makes about as much sense as saying that theft isn't about acquiring property.”
Yeah, theft is 'about' acquiring property, in the above sense which I'm not using, but acquiring property is not a crime, and Theft is. It's not a crime because of the thief's motives, it's a crime because of the thief's actions. In the sense we're using 'about', Robbery is 'about' stealing shit, not 'about' the greed that motivates the thief to steal shit. RAy can be as greedy, or as lustful, as he wants — right up to the point where he abuses his power, by taking whatever it is without permission.
Maybe #15 would be better this way?
Understand that Rape is the act (of abusing power),
not the (sexual) motivation for that abuse.
Ray won't like it. He'll still say,
You can point this out [that all rapes are abuses of power] as much as you like, but it has nothing to do with the obvious truth that the men in these scenarios were motivated to have sex with these women out of lust.”
That's exactly right, it has nothing to do with it. Neither does the Apollo moon landing, so why does he insist on changing the topic? We try to address the topic of rape being violent, and he diverts the discussion onto motivations, a topic that even he says has nothing to do with it.
We're not talking about whether these men can or do or should want to have sex (it's pretty safe to assume they do), the topic is these people committing violence.
For context here, we've been compiling a list of “Rape Prevention Tips for Men”, advice directed to men, that could be helpful for men who would like see rape eliminated. The point is to separate sex and rape, so we can address them as two different things, since the goal is to eliminate one of them, not both. Apparently this is too subtle for Rays to grasp.
We're not talking about whether these men can or do or should want to have sex (it's pretty safe to assume they do), the topic is these people committing violence.
For context here, we've been compiling a list of “Rape Prevention Tips for Men”, advice directed to men, that could be helpful for men who would like see rape eliminated. The point is to separate sex and rape, so we can address them as two different things, since the goal is to eliminate one of them, not both. Apparently this is too subtle for Rays to grasp.
Q: “Why do some people feel the need to separate rape from sex?”
A: “Good question - that's exactly what I've been wondering.”
This sounds to me like “Why do people need to not get raped?” or, “Hey, let's all cut off our right foot” so aside from some pretty creative profanity I'm stuck, but Helen Huntingdon had an answer:
“The reason these dudes are trying to mansplain about rapists wanting sex is the mansplainers don't have any mental concept for sex without coercion.
If you're used to thinking in terms of how to "get" a partner to want sex, whether through buying dinner or whining that it's been X days or whatever, you're already thinking in terms of your partner being someone who isn't going to choose sex with you freely. From there, coercion just looks like a matter of degree, and we get the tools showing up splitting hairs about just how much pressure they're allowed before it's rape. These guys can believe rape is about sex because it hasn't occurred to them that sex without the coercive aspect is even an option.”
That seems right. With that notion of sex, women don't want it, men need it, and the question is how to get her to give it. How much force or coercion are we allowed to use before it is called rape? To say “none” is to say we can never have sex at all.
You can't separate rape and sex in your mind if they are the same thing, and sadly for some people this is the case, like this Ray:
Rape is often about power, but it is about sex first. Sex itself is a power struggle
If you see life like that you have serious issues, but to be fair, in our culture that's the dominant notion of sex, that we are all brought up to hold and will likely retain unless and until something happens to shake it loose.
It should be shaken loose.
In this culture, (paraphrasing Skeptifem)It should be shaken loose.
a person can be raped and not realize that is what has been done to them;
a person can commit rape and not realize that is what they have done to someone;
a person can think they are 'getting sex' from a willing partner even when the partner is unwilling or even actively resisting;
a person can confuse masculinity with dominance, confuse dominating a partner with having sex with them, and accept one party being traumatized as a normal part of sex. This culture turns sex into a power struggle for control over an inferior, instead of a mutually shared experience between two equals.
a person can commit rape and not realize that is what they have done to someone;
a person can think they are 'getting sex' from a willing partner even when the partner is unwilling or even actively resisting;
a person can confuse masculinity with dominance, confuse dominating a partner with having sex with them, and accept one party being traumatized as a normal part of sex. This culture turns sex into a power struggle for control over an inferior, instead of a mutually shared experience between two equals.
The best thing we can do to combat rape is to shake loose the former and replace it with the latter. If every person on earth had this latter notion of what sex is, they would respect their partner and there wouldn't be any power and control lorded over any victims.
...I can't believe that anyone is too fucking stupid to see that an unconscious, drugged woman cannot see that power and control are being lorded over her, when she is, unconscious after being drugged, and that the drugging was obviously a means to an end for the rapist to have sex with a woman whom he lusted for.
Well, from my end, it's all too easy to believe that someone "is too fucking stupid to see" that ...
... the fact of someone “lording power and control over a person” doesn't cease to be a fact just because the person isn't aware of it at that exact moment. It's still there, it's still a fact, and it's still wrong.
I don't object to the man lusting after the woman.
I don't object to the man having sex with the woman.
I do object to “lording power and control over her”. Whether his motivation is to show her who's boss, or to fuck her, or to steal her purse, I still object to it, and it's still about power, not sex.
I don't object to the man lusting after the woman.
I don't object to the man having sex with the woman.
I do object to “lording power and control over her”. Whether his motivation is to show her who's boss, or to fuck her, or to steal her purse, I still object to it, and it's still about power, not sex.
Anyhow that's what I tried to say with #15. Now how do I get Ray to see that?
How do I get this idea across in a pithy little one liner in a bulleted list of “Rape Prevention Tips”?
Or should I even bother? Should that be on the list at all?
6 comments:
Uzza,
Despite a long explanation (and shelled criticism of those who disagree with your view ;) ) of your stance, I do not agree fully.
Where I disagree is with your & the generic(?) "Ray" trying to put a primary cause to rape. Can't an occurrence be multifactorial? Can it not have more than one prerequisites? I'm not trying to find middle ground. Just like you point out, rape involves abuse of power, it by definition also involves the act of sex.
Yes, you're right when you point out that many men who can't see the 'abuse' part in it are incapable of appreciating it, possibly because sex as a means or end of subjugation had never been used against them. So they cannot step into a rape victim's 'shoes'.
But why people point out the act of sex as primary 'about' in rape is because power can be abused in many ways (say, publicly verbally humiliating, even stealing, slapping, and in old days, keeping slaves), but it is the act of sex that brings specificity to its definition. E.g., I don't know your views on statutory rape (of 'minors'). A minor having sex with another minor with complete consent and will on both sides would still be defined as rape in India. But what is common to this aspect of 'rape' and the general sense in which rape is understood, is that ("an act like that of") sex is needed to be performed, and not that power was abused.
I feel, in terms of both motivations and requirements that are met for rape to 'happen' (excuse the passive voice), rape is like lung cancer: there can be many histological types of lung cancers, the chances of which increase to differing degrees by smoking, however relation between smoking and lung cancer is not causal! And I have seen so many smokers give this argument: "I know person 'A' who had never smoked and yet he suffered from lung cancer, and 'B' who used to smoke a lot and is still healthy.". But the argument is flawed.
So to summarize, if lung cancer corresponds to rape, lesion in the lung corresponds to act of sex, and smoking corresponds to abuse of power. To diagnose lung cancer, a lesion has to be there (some penetration of an orifice [according to Indian laws] has to take place), but not all lesions need be lung cancer (not all acts of sex involve abuse of power to same degree - zero being also a degree) and lastly, smoking need not always lead to lung cancer - it can lead to/contribute to vascular disorders of some other lung disorder [exacerbation of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary/lung disorder (COPD/COLD)] (power abuse can result in other crimes/unethical behavior).
The flaw in above analogy of course is that a cigarette being inanimate, in smoking is passive, but a rapist is active and using his volition....
...Lastly, did you mean to term any act of volition which influences another organism (goodly or badly) as use (and not necessarily abuse) of power? I ask this, because general perception of power is something that enables one to do things openly. In that sense, drugging another person would be seen as cowardly and not an indicator of power. Of course, that would be done to make the victim 'power'less (i.e., to gain 'power' over her). Was it thus you meant to use the term 'power' in this context?
I had countered (click)the arguments of someone advocating removal of age as criterion to determine ability to give valid consent for sex (which by many perceived as advocacy of pedophily; I was ambivalent as to what exactly he [Dr. Ashley Tellis] had in mind while making those arguments).
He had said the following:
"Everybody’s initiation into sexuality is traumatic … that most sexual encounters, even with willing consenting adults are part coercion and part consent" and "Power is part of all sexuality"
I had somehow found that argument very disgusting (though, my disgust might not show in that article).
Sorry for the long comment!
PS: Have not read the links you had provided here.
Yes, that's how I meant 'power'. Whether or not it's cowardly is a different, separate issue.
You were way too lenient with Tellis. For example, you never once included the phrase “disgusting fucken pervert”. Otherwise, everything you said was spot on. Impressive.
The rest of what you say merely substitutes the word “cause” for its synonym “motivation”, and ignores everything I said. You seem to be desperately grasping for a situation where rape occurs in the absence of violence or coercion. Why? Why is it so important that rape be “about sex?”
More to the point, what changes to #15 would make it acceptable to you?
?Understand that rape is about power as well as sex.
?Understand that rape is about power.
?Remember that rape is about power, not just sex
?Something else. ?
Hard to summarize it in a short and pithy one-liner, but if I may …
“#15: Understand that whilst motivation for rape may be sexual, the act itself is an abuse of power.”
Or some such.
Also, who is Dr. Tellis? I Googled (briefly) but found about a dozen vague references.
“#15: Understand that whilst motivation for rape may be sexual, the act itself is an abuse of power.”
Damn, that's good, wish I'd said that. Yeah, I like it. I think it's what I wanted to say. Thnx.
(Tellis is a teacher in India advocating pedo; see Ketan's link up above.)
Post a Comment