If I dare a moment of legal sanity. Criminal statutes define crimes with regard to the offender. Unfortunately, rape and incest (or crime in general) is not defined with regard to the victim except as a by-product of the offenders conviction.
This is troublesome when you have only a few weeks to determine if someone is a valid incest or rape victim. I think this is what they mean by "how do you define that".
Of course, this is why it's a good point to raise by the choice side. However, I think there's a greater general issue of making the recognition of a victim's suffering dependant on the conviction of an accused.
It's a fair point that a rape/incest exception would have to be enforced on the honor system, given that waiting for convictions would be impractical. But it shoul dbe made explicitly -- 'Pregnant rape victims can't have abortions because we can't figure out how to keep other women from lying to take advantage of the loophole.'
The feminist arguments about "trusting women" become even more relevant: apparently in this logic, women cannot be trusted to know whether or not they've been the victims of rape or incest, or else they are likely to falsely claim to be victims of very serious crimes in order to serve their own selfish convenience.
I think this is similar to conviction before the crime. If an exception for valid rape and incest cases is entertained, it would obviously be a crime to fraudulently pose as a victim in order to get an abortion. If this is true, not providing a service because of the possibility of committing this crime must be considered an assumption of guilt, and constitutes a sort of conviction before a crime has been committed, much less proven.
bitcphd! That's an obscene suggestion! Obviously, they really wanted it, there was no leading on. Or... do we not trust the seemingly limitless accounts of men who claim this has happened to them?
I suppose it's hard to trust men when they so obviously are the source of all the world's evil.
That's true. Isn't it wonderful having a crime that only one gender can commit? However, it is impressive how many women get convicted of rape despite that.
Or... do we not trust the seemingly limitless accounts of men who claim this has happened to them?
Oddly, while the claim ("All women lie! Men never rape!") is common enough, it's almost never reported as a first-person claim. The men worried about it never were charged with rape, it's always someone they heard about or know, or their worries that their college girlfriend will get mad at them years later and cry rape because they went limp after two minutes.
It's kind of like those limitless accounts of girls that got pregnant though virginal because an excited man ejaculated in the swimming pool near them, or the collegiate murders where the roommate was spared only because she didn't turn on the light when she interrupted the murder to get her math book, or the kids that ate pop rocks and coke and died. Bullshit's bullshit.
The SD law discussion seems to presume that more women will cry rape if it's the only way they can get an abortion. Not thinking so, given the shit a rape victim has to go through. But whatever the problem, it's certainly not because rape is a fuzzy concept.
While I recognize that posting enigmatic one-liners generally frees you from the constraints of making sense, this really doesn't make sense. Your last gnomic remark on this subject stated, or implied, that women commit rape too, frequently, and so it's wrong to consider it a crime committed only by men. If getting an abortion becomes criminal, on the other hand, that is a crime that can be committed only by women. (Men can commit related crimes, or abet that one, but not commit it.)
So, not so much the same problem.
(Further, and this is a request I would make of anyone, whether I largely agree with them or not, if you have a point, can you argue it explicitly? Particularly when there's disagreement, the vague, allusive style you've adopted really isn't conducive to getting anywhere.)
So let me get this straight.. The men who are wrongfully accused and convicted, presumably, of rape, are mournfully telling my college buddies (not sure when they started hanging out with convicted rapists), who in turn tell me of someone they heard of, but don't personally know, was wrongfully accused by a vengeful ex-girlfriend?
16: Mmm. I think he's saying that no guy who was ever accused of rape would tell a woman that, because he assumes she would assume he was a rapist.
I had a friend who worked in a state prosecutor's office, and she said that she saw cases of rape claims filed that she found not credible. But those weren't cases that were prosecuted. Make of it what you will.
I don't believe so. Whatever the interaction with CCP was, it hadn't yet coalesced into an argument so much. Maybe he'll come back and tell us if we're arguing.
And yet, you would think, given that rape cases often get high-profile coverage, especially if there's something shocking about them or if the accused is the kind of guy who "doesn't do that sort of thing" (lacrosse players, upper middle-class high school boys, famous people), that if there were a huge number of cases of false accusations that got to trial, that one would read about them in the newspaper. Last I checked, both men *and* women can read.
1. Rape is distressingly common, a serious problem, and vastly underreported. 2. People file false rape claims.
While there's no direct contradiction, you are overlooking the moral hazard dimension. It is the very frequency of rape that encourages the false reports. After all, who would think to falsely report something rare, such as an alien abduction?
It's analogous to the way health insurance drives up the cost of medical care. For example, with neither money nor insurance a person who suffers liver failure will simply die, incurring little additional expense. With insurance, however, they may opt for a liver transplant. That will lead to the consumption of additional resources such as drugs, hospital care, etc., all of which are avoidable by simply eliminating the choice of treatment options.
Thus, the way to totally eliminate the filing of false rape claims is simply to eliminate the filing of all rape claims. As with abstinence, it's the only 100% certain method.
More importantly, the moral hazard dimension also highlights the privacy rights of the fetus. Like the mother, the fetus has a privacy right in medical information. To recognize and give effect to this right we must forbid disclosure of any information about an abortion, unless the fetus has consented. Without a knowing and intelligent waiver by the fetus of its right to non-disclosure of medical information, any disclosure of information concerning an abortion would be criminal.
In summary, it is obvious that recognizing the fetus's rights would greatly reduce the incidence of disclosure of information about abortions, which would necessarily reduce the filing of false reports of rape.
(n.b. the above is not intended to be taken seriously. It's what we short hairy folks call a dwarvic remark
It would also violate the fetus's privacy rights if it were declared to be the product of incest and rape -- think of the social stigma attached to such designations!
For a mean baby, well, I like your pants
Born in South Dakota
For a mean baby, well, I like your hips
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Man I feel lucky tonight
I'm gonna get stoned and run around
Born in South Dakota
Hey we're going to a rodeo town
I'm gonna get drunk and fuck some cows
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
It's wide open
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
Masons and lumberchucks, says God as my squirrel
It's wide open
I said it's wide open
Dakota
Man I feel lucky tonight
I'm gonna get stoned and run around
Born in South Dakota
Hey we're going to a rodeo town
I'm gonna get drunk and fuck some cows
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
It's wide open
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
Mason and lumberchucks, says God as my squirrel
Mr. Fliptop and Razorback, you know I'm your girl
I'm wide open
I said I'm wide open
Dakota
Dakota
Dakota
Actually, it was Adam who made the oblique connection between abortion and rape; why don't you ask him what he means? And, tying together my response to him with an earlier post from myself, as if they were the same argument is dishonest; though I‘m sure it wasn’t malicious.
So, not so much the same problem. - LizardBreath
I said the problem was the same, as opposed to the situation or the symptoms.
1) because falsely claiming you were raped to get an abortion requires an allegation of rape; you automatically bring about problem 2.
2) because rape is so often an issue of he-said/she-said, it becomes an issue of trust. Case dismissed.
3) Also, there is a commonality in that both crimes are gender bound, and as a result are subject to sexist distortions (Cala as case in point who claims that noone would lie about rape because the process is so difficult. Nieve to begin with, but doubly when you consider that the trauma of a rape trial is only relevant if you were really raped. In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real). In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault. Women who are convicted of rape, and men convicted of abortion are, as you say, accomplices and the like, so, not deeply relevant except to illustrate that even when crimes are gender specific, both sexes manage to get their fingers dirty.
There are others, but I think that’s enough to prove both crimes are part of a reproductive tug-of-war between genders. Any questions?
Actually, it was Adam who made the oblique connection between abortion and rape; why don't you ask him what he means? And, tying together my response to him with an earlier post from myself, as if they were the same argument is dishonest; though I‘m sure it wasn’t malicious.
So, not so much the same problem. - LizardBreath
I said the problem was the same, as opposed to the situation or the symptoms.
1) because falsely claiming you were raped to get an abortion requires an allegation of rape; you automatically bring about problem 2.
2) because rape is so often an issue of he-said/she-said, it becomes an issue of trust. Case dismissed.
3) Also, there is a commonality in that both crimes are gender bound, and as a result are subject to sexist distortions (Cala as case in point who claims that noone would lie about rape because the process is so difficult. Nieve to begin with, but doubly when you consider that the trauma of a rape trial is only relevant if you were really raped. In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real). In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault. Women who are convicted of rape, and men convicted of abortion are, as you say, accomplices and the like, so, not deeply relevant except to illustrate that even when crimes are gender specific, both sexes manage to get their fingers dirty.
There are others, but I think that’s enough to prove both crimes are part of a reproductive tug-of-war between genders. Any questions?
In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault.
I have no idea if you're adverting to some historical argument to back this up. But if you're arguing that men can't be raped (by, for example, other men), you're clearly wrong. And if you don't think that most men would prefer a savage, survivable, beating to being raped, then your estimation of male preferences is very different from mine.
Actually, nieve[sic] or not, I didn't say that there was no such thing as a false rape claim. (The rest of your nievecalaworld doesn't follow, so I'll just let that go.)
All I'm saying is that the risk of a man being the victim of a false rape claim is much, much less than the fear most guys seem to have of it. And the level of their fear -- whicih is usually unfounded -- will go up with a rape/incest-only exemption. I also agree that it's a largely unworkable exemption.
The level of accusations rising? Probably. But again, it's not going to be a walk in a park: physical exams, statements, pressure from police/school/family, and the risk of court and stigma? I'm thinking most panicking sixteen-year-olds would be far more likely to attempt a home abortion rather than cry rape against their boyfriend whom they think they love.
In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault.
I don't know how to read this except: "If those dang feminists hadn't made women think that they had the right to consent, then all we'd worry about is whether she was bruised or beat up."
But that sounds awfully strawmannish, and can't be what you meant. Because whatever gender roles you think apply to this society, rape's not just an assault crime. If it were, why wouldn't the rapist just take a few swings at her face instead?
South Dakota's cities, and perhaps much of its population, are concentrated in its lower corners. The possibility of a big clinic on the Pine Ridge would presumably service the Southwestern corner. Does anyone know where the abortion trail leads from the Southeastern region? I would presume Sioux Falls, Council Bluffs, Omaha, maybe even Minneapolis, but I really don't know. I'm sure the persecutors do. And where do the Southwesterners go now?
A woman who accuses a man of rape will have her sexual history picked over…
And that’s traumatic? I know people who would get sexually aroused from that. It’s hardly a standard consideration. The common situation is one of “embarrassment”. Hardly the same.
All I'm saying is that the risk of a man being the victim of a false rape claim is much, much less than the fear most guys seem to have of it - Cala
The risk is less than the fear? Says who? I think most men aren‘t afraid enough, arrogantly secure behind their male privilege.
I don't know how to read this except… - Cala
Why are you reading into it? Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex. That rape is a special crime at all is because women were once considered property (rape used to be a crime committed against the owning male). Now, we shed special tears for women still held on a patriarchal pedestal, instead of demoting rape to what it is… assault.
Someone else commented that men generally fear rape more than assault. Obviously this is because of homophobia, and the romantic position reserved for assault among males. As someone who’s been both raped and beaten within an inch of my life, I can tell you; only a macho moron would prefer the later (lol - I wrote mocha instead of macho at first).
Given that the sorts of guys that have voiced such fears to me are the sorts of guys who have sex only in the context of longish-term, loving relationships, it strikes me as a less than rational fear. Rather like fearing flying but being perfectly fine with riding in a car. Sure, there are cases of plane crashes. Sure, there are women who concoct lies to trap former boyfriends three years after the fact. But the fear is incommensurate with the risk of prosecution.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps one in ten men is accused wrongfully of rape at some point during his lifetime.
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex.
Off of the top of my head, the main difference seems to be that, even in the absence of consent language (today) or a property system (old), rape is a specialized form of assault relying on the perversion of an act that is paradigmatically loving and caring (or at least fun). Other violent crimes don't involve the same sort of perversion of an otherwise enjoyable activity.
Now, I'm sure we could postulate a world in which sex itself had no more meaning than brushing one's teeth, and then we'd judge the severity of the rape on the injuries inflicted alone. (Meaning of course, all women and men are fair game for rapists as long as there's no demonstrable injuries.)
But I'm not sure such a world is desirable or even possible. The meaning that sex has may change with mores and times, but I think it's always going to have an important meaning. And as long as it has an important meaning, rape's going to be different from other forms of assault.
I don't see sex becoming irrelevant, even if it is mocha-flavored.
And that’s traumatic? I know people who would get sexually aroused from that. It’s hardly a standard consideration. The common situation is one of “embarrassment”. Hardly the same.
I hope you're not being serious. But, I fear you are.
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault?
Same comments as above. For fuck's sake, even a small child should know the difference. Unlike Cala, who engages you, I feel that this question is simply too purposefuly obtuse to justify a response.
In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real
Finally, a question for you. How the hell do you justify that statement? It seems to me to have come, steamy and stinking, right out of your ass.
Someone else commented that men generally fear rape more than assault. Obviously this is because of homophobia, and the romantic position reserved for assault among males.
I take it back. I don't think this guy is serious.
Funny thing is, I've seen the same guy commenting at Dr. B.'s, and while I couldn't quote you anything he'd said, I had a vague impression of him as contrarian, but not a total loon. I either have him mixed up with someone else, or he's trying out a new persona.
lol @ Cala. You talk as if you're disagreeing with me. Yes, the only reason rape is not assault is because of how society views sex. That's what I said; you agree with me; what's the problem? And I'm contrarian! haha.
Let's put it another way: what's the difference between rape and an unwanted touch (assault)?
As for those who responded with nothing but general character assassinations; well, I think your insight into the actual subject has been well demonstrated.
-----
And yeah, you recognize me from bitchphd's site. It's funny how "total loon" comes to mind when noone has presented a single argument against any of my points. You folks need to open your minds.
It seems to me that one can say that the particular form of violence known as rape might go away if, somehow, humans evolved to a point where the control/humiliation aspects of this particular assault no longer applied. I mean if the perp doesn't get the added bonus of humiliation/control, why not just knock me on the head and be done with it?
Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that there's no greater humiliation than a rape, but I can't see us, as a group, getting beyond considering it a humiliating form of assault. (I don't mean shame on the part of the victim, but the brutal taking of intimate physical autonomy).
On the SD law, it's far from clear to me why a woman seeking an abortion can't just say that she was raped by an unknown assailant. She doesn't have to accuse her boyfriend. If she's going to lie anyway . . .
Thinking about it for another minute, I'd distinguish between shame vis-a-vis society at large, and shame vis-a-vis the attacker. Even if/when attitudes of society at large cease to be a source of shame, I can see that a victim would feel shamed, personally and towards the attacker, during the assault.
I never implied that the sex could be, or should be taken out of rape. I mentioned that rape was only different from assault because of the sexual connotations of rape. I offered this point as supporting evidence to the claim that rape is a gender charged crime, much like abortion, and so is subject to distortions resulting from gender bias. For this I've been characterized a "loon".
I agree, humiliation is a good description of what makes rape exceptional. Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury. This is my only point in the area; and; it wasn't I who posed the comparison in the first place.
If she's going to lie anyway . . .
In many states, if a rape is reported it must be acted on whether or not the "victim" wants it to be. Aside from that, there's no point having an unenforcable exception (not that there aren't already lots of un enforceable laws).
in many states, if a rape is reported it must be acted on whether or not the "victim" wants it to be.
I don't know what the hell that means. what does it mean to "act" on a rape? and why is "victim" in quotes? Is rape a victimless crime all of a sudden?
One major difference between assault and rape is the possibility of pregnancy. Another is STDs. Another is the distinction between assault outside your body and assault inside. Another is that the attacker (usually) literally gets off on it. Another is that it is, by definition, a hate crime; while some assaults are, as well, rape is pretty much a crime of hatred against women (and, inasmuch as men are also raped, usually a crime about "feminizing" the victim, i.e., hatred of the feminine).
Yes, the only reason rape is not assault is because of how society views sex. That's what I said; you agree with me; what's the problem?
No, I don't agree with that characterization. Rape isn't assault because it's a fundamentally different type of crime, one that doesn't boil down to any particular characterization of sex. Shorter: As long as human beings have sex freely, there will be a meaningful distinction between rape and assault.
Now maybe you agree with that, but I can only respond to the what you had posted before my post, not after, and this:
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex.
seems to be false. For "how we view sex" to be a trivial, 'only difference' kind of distinction imples that 'how we view sex' is something we just picked, like a fashion statement. ("What's different between heels and flats and beauty? Nothing. The only difference is in what media trends view as sexy.")
Ditto also to B's distinctions. Also pointing out that I've not called you contrarian or a loon, though I'm not sure that you were responding to me in that part of your post.
Moreover, no: not all rape is "violent" in the sense we mean when we talk about assault. And it's not at all a minor point that non-violent rapes (date rape, drunken rape, coercion) is *precisely* the kind of rape that (1) men are supposedly terrified of being accused of; (2) supposedly decent, non-rapist men are eager to defend, explain away, or define as not "real" rape.
An STD and pregnancy is another type of injury, and while assault charges vary depending on the injury, it's a mater of scale, not type. Outside and inside: if I stab a stick into a guy's throat; is it rape then (or do you mean inside emotionally)? You don't think men and women can "get off" on assault - wrong, but this is still a sexual distinction, so, it actually supports my point. In fact, the assumption that rapists "get off" on it is a gross mis-characterization of what's actually going on. There are plenty of assaults that result from "hate": racial, sexual orientation, religious, etc... The pregnancy one is an interesting difference, but I don't think it's a difference in the crime, but a difference in injury.
So no, there is no difference beyond sexual connotation. And thus, we should never forget that it's subject to gender bias.
"act" on a rape mcmc
Sorry, Means "press charges" (maybe this is just in canada). Victim is in quotes because it means alleged victim, not that it's a victimless crime. Abortion is a crime in North Dakota... that's the point of this post.
you don't think men and women can "get off" on assault
I didn't say that.
In fact, the assumption that rapists "get off" on it is a gross mis-characterization of what's actually going on.
Oh yes? Rapists don't usually achieve orgasm? News to me. I'd like to see the stats on this.
In fact, pretty much your entire response to my comment is responding to things I didn't say, represents me as saying the opposite of what I did say, and the one thing you acknowledge my saying correctly--pregnancy--you admit is "interesting" but then say you "don't think" it counts.
"Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury."
What? Because the integrity and health of the mind are inherently so much less valuable than that of the body? I can think of lots of physical traumas I'd rather endure than be raped, and I'm sure that's not machismo.
Oh, ok, the "rape demoted to assault" thing... That's what all the fluttering is about.
non-violent rape - bitchphd
There is a huge swath of bahaviour here. Legally, coersion is NOT the same thing as assault; there's a reason for that. They're not at all the same crimes. That doesn't devalue them: coersing someone into murder is much more serious than throwing a paperclip at your boss.
I for one, would love to charge everyone who's ever coersed me into doing something, with rape. I doupt it would stick though.
(1) They aren't terrified enough
(2) You just accused every man who defines rape differently from you as rapists. So much for Cala's note about men rarely being accused of rape.
I realize you disagree with me Cala; most people do. Rape as a crime maintains the supremecy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women. Anyone who has a stake in maintaining gender based rivalry has an interest in maintaing rape.
Oh, ok, the "rape demoted to assault" thing... That's what all the fluttering is about.
non-violent rape - bitchphd
There is a huge swath of behaviour here. Legally, coercion is NOT the same thing as assault; there's a reason for that. They're not at all the same crimes. That doesn't devalue them: coercing someone into murder is much more serious than throwing a paperclip at your boss.
I for one, would love to charge everyone who's ever coerced me into doing something, with rape. I doubt it would stick though.
(1) They aren't terrified enough
(2) You just accused every man who defines rape differently from you as rapists. So much for Cala's note about men rarely being accused of rape.
I realize you disagree with me Cala; most people do. Rape as a crime maintains the supremacy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women. Anyone who has a stake in maintaining gender based rivalry has an interest in aggrandising rape.
CCP, here's my worry with characterizing rape as assault:
Take a distressingly realistic example. A girl goes to a party, has several drinks. She passes out, and some guy rapes her. (Assume, arguendo, that this is a case where we would all agree that he is guilty of rape: he confesses, or slipped her a drug, or whatever you need.) Because she's not struggling, there's not a whole lot of injury. Not enough to substantiate a serious assault charge, certainly.
Assume we're treating rape as just like assault, it seems she has no grounds to say he did anything wrong as long as he didn't hurt her bad enough. That just seems wrong.
Assault comes in two types: major and minor. Major injuries are very very serious injuries that carry with them some permanant or semi-permanant disability: loosing a limb or other body part and so on. Minor injuries include things as slight as an unwanted touch, or verbal assault (you don't even need to touch physically to be charged with assault). The nature of the injury, and the severity within the realm of minor or major is considered during sentencing.
The problem of proocing assault without injury is no different than the problem of proving rape without injury.
So, that's not really a concern. Assault covers all types of assaultive rape (as oppossed to coersive rape). Of course, assaults can be classified as severe in cases where there is severe psychological trauma... it doesn't have to be physical at all.
The thing is, Matt, CCP hangs out over at my place, where despite his monomania about how feminism is *really* about oppressing men, he often has interesting and substantive things to say. So I feel kinda obligated to engage him rather than treating him as a troll, even though sometimes it's a li'l hard to tell the difference....
Having said that, however, 70 is completely over the line. It's not my place, b/c this isn't my blog, but for the record, CCP, Matt is hellaciously "bright" and you're being an asshole.
Without even finishing this thread right now, I just want to observe one thing. I don't know how else to say it other than, CCP, You are *really bad* at understanding people. Even aside of your misconstrual of what people here are saying, I'm referring to your grasp of human psychology in general. To pick one example among many:
I agree, humiliation is a good description of what makes rape exceptional. Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury.
This is just wrong. There are many reasons for choosing a little pain over a little humiliation, or choosing a lot of pain over a lot of humiliation, and of all of those reasons, machismo is just one possibility. It's not even a necessary reason.
You're missing the point. I think raping someone is seriously wrong even if the physical injuries are relatively minor. And this isn't just because I've got some crazy strawfeminist notions about consent or some notions that women are property.
If the only thing that matters is the extent physical injury, that's going to make a lot of unsavory situations the legal equivalent of poking your finger in someone's face during an argument or lightly punching a stranger in the shoulder.
(I'm exaggerating, but I don't bruise easily. What sort of proof would I have on this system? DNA samples wouldn't count as an assault, or at least no worse an assault than spilling a liquid on someone.)
He calls me a troll, I call him dumb. Yeah, obviously I'm behaving just awfully. How about this instead:
Matt, maybe you should give some thought to what "feminine ideal" means.
And spare me the condescension, you know I’m right. You’re just hoping that if you wish for feminism to become egalitarian for long enough, it suddenly will.
Maybe I shouldn't speak for B, but she was pointing out that one way rape is different from assault is that in motive it's always a hate crime. Even when men are raped it's an effort to feminize them by penetrating them, because to be penetrated is to be feminine in our construction of sex. So in motive it's still like a hate crime against women; it's still reinforcing what a vile thing it is to be a woman, just like it would be a hate crime if you taunted a white person for behaving like someone of a different race, or for fraternizing with members of that race, and then beat him up.
I've been trying to argue in good faith, assuming that CCP has a coherent position.
And somehow, I'm being condescended to by someone who is seriously postulating that claims of rape are false because a significant portion of women get off on having their sexual histories read to them publicly. And we're agreeing (so I can be lol'ed at.) and disagreeing (because I'm neive and fluttering.) at the same time!
I can only assume that I must be really bored and/or trying to procrastinate.
Pretty much what Tia said, yeah. Plus, it seems to me that rape is primarily a crime of dominance. Inasmuch as dominating someone by raping them is sexualizing dominance (obviously), then rape is a way of dominating someone by feminizing them: by making them weaker, by penetrating them, by defining them as sex "objects" in the most literal and offensive way. Even when women commit rape, I'd argue that rape is an act of dominance and aggression, and that a major part of the humiliation and stigma of rape is being treated "like a pussy," that is, being treated as a weak, sexualized thing that is there "to be used," rather than as a person.
CCP, you *are* acting like a troll. Matt doesn't know you; you show up here, with no history as far as most of the ppl here are concerned, and you start arguing about shit that is at best, tangential to the subject of the post at hand and insulting regulars. It looks trollish, as does responding to criticism with "if you were bright enough" and trying to tell people what they think. And btw, you said "fluttering" specifically w/r/t the question of whether or not rape is assault: since Cala and I were the only ones who were really engaging you on that (and doing so with respect, no less), it's pretty disingenuous to say that that wasn't aimed at us.
Anyway. 'Nother topic. It's interesting to me that it's mostly the women who are more or less responding to CCP decently (I even defended him), and the guys who are being impatient with him, ignoring him, or being dismissive. It makes me wonder if I'm being played for a fool, not only here but over at my own place where CCP and a couple of other contrarian regulars frequently take over comment threads and try to pick nits about little insubstantive shit, including the never-old subject of whether feminists "really" just hate men, and whether feminism is "really" just silly and ridiculous. What do the Unfoggedetariat, whose opinions, judgment and logic I respect more than my own a lot of the time, and with whom I've also argued about whether x, y, or z position is feminist/irrational/just plain wrong, think about that kind of dynamic? I don't like the frequency of its occurance at my place lately, but I also don't want to expose myself to the "you ban anyone who disagrees with you" b.s., and I honestly think that a major part of the problem isn't deliberate trolling per se, but simply not getting some basic things that I expect ppl to take for granted. (E.g., feminism isn't anti-man.) How does this place manage to keep argument at such a high discursive level? And how can I recapture some of that myself?
Oh, and for the record, I've also been getting a lot more of whath I consider genuinely foolish faux-feminist arguments, as well, so there's that. It's not just the boys. I'm starting to get impatient with the whole kit n' kaboodle, and wonder if it's even possible to talk about feminism in a public forum without it eventually deteriorating into stupidity.
Ok, that sounds familiar. IANAGR, so I'm not sure whether it's correct or not. I assume that some male rapes are crimes of lust. Others, I also assume, are committed to show ownership and to humiliate - which fits a certain definition of "feminizing." Others I suppose are just to inflict pain and humiliation, without any baggage about gender/social roles. (It must be a truism that that kind of painful violation is simply naturally humiliating, without having to bring in any ideas of "feminizing.")
I don't mean to agree with CCP, but does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine, because male rape involves penetration and that this (along with regular homophobia) is an attack on the feminine?
How are we defining rape. The definition that I was taught was that rape was sex without consent brought about through force or fear.
It seems to me that everyoen is limiting the discussion to two possible types of rape:
(1.) men raping women; and
(2.) men raping men.
While I'll grant that there are two other options:
(3.) women raping other women: and
(4.) women raping men.
I'm pretty sure that 4 is extremely rare, and I don't know anything about lesbian rape, although the stereotypes would suggest that it would be uncommon.
I'm not comfortable with B's statement that ejaculation=getting off. I remember hearing something once about people saying that a little boy who was sexually molested by a woman couldn't have been raped, because he ejaculated; it seems perfectly plausible to me that the ejaculation was induced by fear. In my book that qualifies as rape.
Sure, most molestation is perpetrated by men, but, as a definitional matter, rather than as a practical one, I don't think that rape has to involve penetration by someone's dick to count.
I remember hearing something once about people saying that a little boy who was sexually molested by a woman couldn't have been raped, because he ejaculated; it seems perfectly plausible to me that the ejaculation was induced by fear. In my book that qualifies as rape. Of course it does. And rape is rape even if the guy *doesn't* orgasm, and that it's rape even if there's no dick involved. Part of what I meant by the "gettting off" thing was what Michael said: assume that some male rapes are crimes of lust. But it seems to me that the underlying idea that, if one feels lust, one should/can/is therefore allowed to *act* on that lust by forcing someone to have sex is intrinsically a way of demeaning the person one is forcing, using them as an object. And that the cultural construct of who "fucks" and who "is fucked" is gendered.
It's not that penetration is *inherently* an attack on "the feminine" in some quasi-spiritual new-agey kind of way, or that rape has to be consciously about dominance. It's that dominating someone through sex is a "masculine" act, and being fucked (note passive voice) is "feminine," broadly speaking. So it seems to me that getting off on dominance, or feeling justified in fucking someone as an expression of dominance (or anger, or power, or lust) necessarily involves imposing your will on someone else. Forcing them to "serve" you, forcing them into a weak position, forcing them into objectification. That's what I mean.
82: I think that the jokes--cock and otherwise--keep the seriosu discussion civil. I'm not sure how it works exactly beyons that. It may be that the joking creates a shared bond of trust which allows commenters to self-police a shared social norm.
On your blog, B, I would feel that I was only responding to you, because I don't in any sense "know" the other commenters. Here we tease people first, and then if they don't get the hint, we call them on it directly, but I think it ties back to the fact that even quasi-lurkers and occasional commenters feel a certain shared ownership in the blog. I think that shared ownership came about because of a sense fo camaraderie among teh regulars, which brings me back to the jokes and the point about trust. I trust apo and Reniew and Cala and LizardBreath and a bunch of other people. I knwo that they would stand up for me. I think that makes people a bit more easy going, because we know that if anything gets really bad, our posse will come to defend us.
And all of the in-jokes mean that most people feel that they have to lurk for a while befor ethey comment. That means that unfogged people generally have decided that they want to become unfogged people before the start commenting. Higher barriers to entry=Fewer Trolls. The trick is to remainign welcoming.
On your blog, B, I would feel that I was only responding to you, because I don't in any sense "know" the other commenters.
Thanks, bg. I think this is part of it, and I think it's also partly my fault in that I *do* talk a lot. I've had the same dynamic in classrooms, except when I force myself to stfu and let other people respond to questions that I have an answer for. And of course, the more personal nature of the blog probably feeds into that. Sigh.
I have to say that while what you say makes sense, B, I think my inition confusion at your fomulation was that I wasn't thinking about these conceptioins of "feminine." I'm aware they're still current, but, despite the truckload of emails I get from women's groups reminind me of current practices of misogyny, I still don't think of "masculine" and "feminine" that way in my daily life. Perhaps I am unusual in this. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, just provinding some vocabulary feedback.
I don't agree with the claim that 'an attack on the feminine' is necessary for a crime to be rape.
I'll admit that it's mostly because I think crimes are committed against people, and not ideas, and I'm allergic to jargon.
Rape often, and maybe generally happens because of wrongful thinking on gender: she had it coming, he had blue balls, boys will be boys.
But I'm not sure that the humiliation in #1 and #2 necessarily stemmed from being attacked as the feminine as it does from being attacked in a way that should be something enjoyable and consented to.
89: Well, I don't think I do, either, but I really wonder, because I suspect that on an unconscious level we think that way more than we realize. E.g., the whole discussion over "gay," or calling people "pussy" or whatever; it's different to say someone's being a pussy (weak, pathetic) than it is to say they're being a dick (aggressive, obnoxious). Or like the way we'll say "I'm being *such* a girl" when talking about something frivolous, or "you've got big ones" when praising someone's bravery. You know?
i.e., I think rape would still be rape even if we had achieved gender parity, because I think the humiliation aspect is separate from the feminization aspect.
It's funny that you mention the more personal aspect as being part of the problem, because in a weird way, I feel much safer about being vulnerable in this more "competitive" environment. It's easier for me to be open about certain things here. Even psudonymously I would feel as though I was revealing too mcuh at bitchphd's site.
Maybe this is just my dysfunctional intellectualization, i.e. the smart kid who was always intellectual feels comfortable talking about more personal things only around people who can do the intellectual thing too. I don't know. Anyway, I've probably subjected everyone to too much blog-based therapy already. Shouldn't I wait for AskTia Tuesday or whatever it's called?
I'm kind of the same way--I talk about stuff here that I don't mention on BPhD. Part of that, I think, is what you're saying about the sense of "in group" here. And I think the intellectualization thing is maybe part of it, now that you mention it: it feels safer to talk about stuff where you know people aren't going to get all irritatingly touchy-feely on you, but respect the boundaries between personal revelation and personal weakness. Or something. Fuck, I don't know what I'm talking about either.
I wasn't exactly saying what I though, BG, but what I thought B was thinking. I don't think this hate crime element is a necessary aspect of rape, but I think it's frequently present. Even when it's not part of even an implicit motive, misogyny is an implicit or explicit justification. Also, I think at least legally, "rape" is usually understood to be penetrative, while "sexual assault" is the term for non penetrative molestation, but that's not to say there's a significant moral difference between them.
(There are other categories of rape/molestation: women and men who rape boys and girls.)
I'm inclined to think it's false that there's any rape designed to cause pain or humiliation that does so without gender role baggage. Sex (the act) is too connected to gender.
Or like the way we'll say "I'm being *such* a girl" when talking about something frivolous, or "you've got big ones" when praising someone's bravery. You know?
Yes, those common phrases do tend to reinforce and reaffirm rather offensive notions of gender. Perhaps one should avoid them.
I object to linking rape to feminization for the same reason: it presupposes that feminine = weak (as has been noted).
My vague impression is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time and energy arguing that rape is a crime of power and dominance, and has little or nothing to do with sex. It deprives the victim of agency, or autonomy, of control over their own body (as has been noted). Going the next step, and calling this deprivation feminization, just reinforces the bad gender construction.
If one thinks that being feminine means lacking autonomy, then the connection between rape and abortion may make a bit more sense.
Sorry I'm so slow that I'm still three topics back.
wow, I got the infernal server error. I feel like one of the gang.
I'm inclined to think it's false that there's any rape designed to cause pain or humiliation that does so without gender role baggage. Sex (the act) is too connected to gender.
I'm inclined to agree. That is, sex is used to demonstrate the other's lack of autonomy *because* feminine is traditionally constructed to mean weak. Otherwise it'd involve tar and feathers, or chocolate syrup, or something other than genitals.
I object to linking rape to feminization for the same reason: it presupposes that feminine = weak (as has been noted).
Femininity is already linked to weakness in the culture. It's not promoting the linkage to observe that rapists often rape in order to humiliatingly feminize their victims.
Tia, MHS, sure, your objections seem reasonable. As noted, IANAGR and doubt my ability to understand them. I was thinking that where humans actions can run the full gamut of possibilities, they will. But, as I said, your objections seem reasonable.
My neighbors (well, they just moved, actually, so not really neighbors) play-rape during sex. Freaked me out late one night when I heard them (before I knew what was going on).
does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine
No. In some cases it can, but as a general statement, not any more than burglary represents the hatred of property owners.
This is analogy is really inapt. Sex is not a fungible commodity like a TV set. Rape is nearly always motivated by a desire to feel powerful at the expense of the victim (there may be some subset of rapists who just want sex, I guess, but even they are rationalizing their actions through dehumanization of the victim). Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
I'm inclined to agree. That is, sex is used to demonstrate the other's lack of autonomy *because* feminine is traditionally constructed to mean weak. Otherwise it'd involve tar and feathers, or chocolate syrup, or something other than genitals.
and conversely, people often use sexuality when what they really want to express is pleasure in power over someone else.
I’m inclined to agree as well. My initial point was that rape is a special crime because of "gender role baggage", or rather, the gender role baggage we attribute to sex, and crimes with a sexual element.
Of course, I must be a monster to think such a thing. Has anyone ever considered that rape (the crime) reinforces the gendered significance of rape (the act) by making it a special crime?
Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
I'm not up on the psychology of rapists, but, it strikes my intuition that you could replace "burglars" with "rapists" and the above sentence would still hold true. ("thing" would refer to sexual pleasure.)
Rape is nearly always motivated by a desire to feel powerful at the expense of the victim (there may be some subset of rapists who just want sex,
Again, I want to stress my nonexpertise, but I thought I remembered there being an uproar as psychologists began overturning the old model and accepting that rape *was* most often about sexual pleasure, not power.
I'm quite confident that my nonexpertise is bigger than your nonexpertise: I seem to have entirely missed the uproar as psychologists began overturning the old model and accepting that rape *was* most often about sexual pleasure, not power
A quick trip down gogle lane didn't clue me in, but my googliferous skills are nothing to brag about. I don't have much power over google, it holds out on me.
It makes little sense to posit rape as an expression *primarily* of sexual desire, rather than of power. Because it's not that fucking hard to get laid: you can always hire a hooker. Or masturbate.
(Leaving aside, for the moment, the complicated discussion of whether hiring a hooker is always/often/usually itself an expression/assertion of power.)
does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine
No. In some cases it can, but as a general statement, not any more than burglary represents the hatred of property owners.
I agree with Tia that this is a false analogy. There is a difference between hatred of women and hatred of femininity. Sex /= gender. I don't see how blending sex+power+force does *not* function as an attack on "femininity" or, conversely, an assertion of "masculine" privilege/power/right.
I can't link, but in a desperate attempt not to do the work I'm supposed to be doing, I'm doing an abstract search. Here's one, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004:
Individuals who are high in rape myth acceptance (RMA) have been found to report a high proclivity to rape. In a series of three studies, the authors examined whether the relationship between RMA and self-reported rape proclivity was mediated by anticipated sexual arousal or anticipated enjoyment of sexually dominating the rape victim. Results of all three studies suggest that the anticipated enjoyment of sexual dominance mediates the relationship between RMA and rape proclivity, whereas anticipated sexual arousal does not. These findings are consistent with the feminist argument that rape and sexual violence may be motivated by men's desire to exert power over women. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.
Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
Not necessarily. Burglary with vandalism is not uncommon. Some burglars do get off on violating someone else's private place--you hear about burglars who take a ritual dump in the middle of whatever living room they've broken into. Burglary becomes a symbolic rape.
The difficulty in arguing about whether rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power vs. a desire for sexual pleasure is that one can't always draw the line--for some people, sexual pleasure is attained by humiliating the other. So some people rape because they get sexual pleasure from humiliating others, some people rape because they wish to hurt and humiliate the other and rape is a convenient way to do that, and some people, presumably, rape because they want to come, and are so contemptuous of women, or weaker men, that they don't care about what the other wants. In all three cases there is an intention to control the other. It's the difference between hurting someone because you hate them, or because you just don't think it matters. In either case a hate crime.
These findings are consistent with the feminist argument that rape and sexual violence may be motivated by men's desire to exert power over women. - Tia
Would you agree that rape and sexual violence are motivated by a desire to conform to a masculine ideal that is defined in part, as that which dominates the feminine; so that a rapist (for example) adopts the role of the masculine ideal (even if it’s a female rapist), and at the same time casts the victim (male or female) as the feminine?
Apologies, I'm not writing clearly. I still think that rape is about power, and almost never about sexual gratification. I think that's what the article Tia cited was saying, as was the second article I cited. I thought Michael was suggesting the contrary.
I don't see how blending sex+power+force does *not* function as an attack on "femininity" or, conversely, an assertion of "masculine" privilege/power/right.
It functions as an attack on femininity *only* if you accept the construction female = feminine = weak.
But that is a construction. Constructions may be contested. One can look it straight in the eye and deny it (before a cock crows even once).
One may aver that feminine does NOT = weak; that one may be feminine without being weak; that one may be weak without being feminine.
That is, one can view rape as an attempt to act out the construction feminine = weak. But one can deny it that meaning.
I don't disagree with anything you said mcmc. But the point of apo's analogy, as I took it, was to say that rapists, like burglars, were only motivated by the thing they wanted, not by their attitude towards the person they were taking it from, which is wrong. I know there can be other kinds of buglaries; that's why I said "usually". I was trying to draw a distinction between the paradigmatic buglary and motivations for rape. I've never liked "it's not about sex, it's about power" because the two are intertwined.
I don't see how one can deny it that meaning, given that that meaning *is* functional in the society as a whole. Saying "no it's not" doesn't change the fact that we see feminine/girly/girlish as "weak," "silly," "passive," etc. and masculine/manly/boysih as "strong," "aggressive," etc. You can *aver* that femininity isn't, in fact, weakness, and I will agree with you; I'm quite happy to play femme roles and to argue strenuously that I'm not weakening myself by doing so. But the fact that I have to make that argument shows that I'm consciously and deliberately criticizing a dominant social association of feminine with weak; I can fight it, but I can't simply snap my fingers and whisk it away. And I also have to recognize that my playing femme *is* seen by a lot of people *as* weak, or as capitulation to patriarchy, or as an opportunity to put me in the one-down position. One of the reasons I do it is to counter that reality, but it's still reality.
I don't see how one can deny it that meaning, given that that meaning *is* functional in the society as a whole. ... One of the reasons I do it is to counter that reality, but it's still reality.
And I deny that reality, to help construct a new reality.
The way to change socially constructed meanings is to change them - that is, to speak and act as if they were changed. To repeat and reaffirm their new meanings at every opportunity. To never, never ever do anything that could be seen as admitting the possibility of the old meaning.
Here's an example. Repeat after me:
- the liberal media
- deregulation means freedom
- all taxes are oppression
- flip-flop
See how it works? Now we need to repeat female =| feminine =| weak.
In other words, I think if we all snap our fingers together we can whisk it away. I'm snapping as hard as I can.
In the past decade, research into the etiology of rape has increasingly focused on cognitive variables. The studies reviewed in the present article provide evidence that men with a high proclivity to rape have more rape supportive attitudes, are more likely to consider victims to be responsible for rape, and are less knowledgeable about the negative impact of rape on the victims. These men tend to misperceive cues emitted by women in heterosocial interactions; fail to generate inhibitory self-verbalizations to suppress association of sex and aggression; and have more coercive, sexual fantasies. Furthermore, a high proclivity to rape is associated with a semantic network in which concepts of sex and power are closely linked in such a way that power cues are necessary precursors of sexual feelings. Multivariate studies suggest that rape-supportive attitudes interact with noncognitive factors in the etiology of rape. Implications for rape prevention and treatment of rapists are considered. Finally, methodological issues are discussed, and recommendations for future research are given.
122: I see, and I agree with you. I think it's actually Apo with whom I take issue. I know it's going off on a tangent to argue about the nature of burglary, but I do think a perverse pleasure in violation is characteristic of burglars--as compared, for example, to shoplifters. So actually, rapists are not unlike burglars, but for the opposite reason to the one Apo gave. Neither one just wants the stuff.
120: Would you consider then that rape (the criminal charge) is a reaction to rape (the act) that both honours the masculine ideal by attributing a special scariness to it, while honouring the sacrifice of the feminine ideal?
"But, after the abuse I've sustained here, I've earned the right."
and
"Of course, I must be a monster to think such a thing."
Dude's just looking to get abused. This is likely why he views feminism as about oppressing men. It's what he wants it to be about. Likewise, in this forum, he's looking to get abused for his views, so he goes about his arguments in a manner that ensures exactly that.
Cue comment in 3...2...1 about how I'm not "bright enough" to understand him or some such bullshit.
The difficulty in arguing about whether rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power vs. a desire for sexual pleasure is that one can't always draw the line
My non-expert opinion is that rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power and also by a belief (intuition? fear?) that sexual gratification accrues only to the powerful. That is, the motivating factors behind rape seem to be A) a desire for sexual pleasure B) a desire for dominance, but also C) a particular (most of us would say aberrant) notion of the relationship between the two. To the rapist, "good" sex must be taken.
Maybe that's blindingly obvious, (or wrong) but I just thought I'd throw it out.
130: How would you explain the fairly common notion that rape is worse than murder? This brings us back to North Dakota where many imagine that abortion is murder, but that an exception should be made in cases of rape. How do people resolve these if "rape" does not trump "murder" somewhere in their heads?
But the point of apo's analogy, as I took it, was to say that rapists, like burglars, were only motivated by the thing they wanted, not by their attitude towards the person they were taking it from, which is wrong.
Well, my point was that rape may have all kinds of motivations behind it. And that some percentage of those motivations, as with all crimes, is simply that somebody is a selfish, amoral person who really has no larger academic construct of gender in which they operate. For some subset of rapists, the motivation is not particularly different than it is for hitting somebody in the head with a brick.
It's easy to place it into an sociological construct, but that rarely maps neatly onto the real world, where we're dealing with individual psyches. While it can be describeable as a hate crime in plenty of instances, it isn't necessarily so.
130: Why not? How would you explain the fairly common notion that rape is worse than murder? This brings us back to North Dakota where many imagine that abortion is murder, but that an exception should be made in cases of rape. How do people resolve this idea if "rape" does not trump "murder" somewhere in their heads?
#134
Common? WTF? I'd say damn near anyone would rather be raped than killed.
The reason for the rape excetpions are that most abortion foes don't actually believe it's murder. They just say they do. But when you suggest getting rid of the rape exception, or charging the mother who gets an abortion with murder of the fetus, they get all squirrely and back down.
131: gswift isn't wrong. I've been abused much of my life, in a variety of ways, and it's easy to reflexively adopt an oppressed role. However, that doesn't really obsolve those who take me up on it (especially when I obviously don't want it to continue).
136: Because you imply again that getting raped is equivalent to getting punched in the nose, and because although I have no clear idea what you mean by "honouring the sacrifice of the feminine ideal" your language is creeping me out.
There's two charitable reasons, as far as I can see, that a pro-life group or person might admit a rape exemption.
1) The pro-lifer sees abortion as not equivalent morally to murder, but nevertheless a grievous moral wrong that is, however, trumped by the moral wrong of the harm done to a rape victim in forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term; or,
2) The pro-lifer does believe that it's murder, but thinks that a rape exemption is the only practical way to get a legal ban on abortion. (i.e., it won't play in Peoria to make rape victims carry rapists' babies, but that's better than unrestricted access.)
Non-charitable reasons include wanting pregnancy to be a punishment for extramarital sex, but they make up a minority of the pro-lifers I know.
On the rape as power-grab topic. To my mind, it seems to apply to some forms of rape, but not others. All rape seems to involve a denial of the other person's agency, but I suspect most date rape is motivated more by lust than a desire to humiliate the other person. (Unless we broadly construe 'humiliation' in a way that I think is unwarranted.)
As I understand the historical narrative, 'rape is about power' came about to combat the narrative 'rape is because the woman was asking for it'. But if rape is only to do with power, not sex, then why doesn't the rapist just beat the person with a baseball bat? There's lots of other expressions of power that don't involve sexual humiliation.
139: You need to talk to a greater variety of people. People *honestly* believe that abortion is murder, but that there should be an exception in cases of rape. They really do. I'm not saying they're brilliant because of it, but they do think that. And it’s not a matter of people would rather be murdered or raped, I’m talking about the public display of the trial. I'm talking about what people think of others. Murder is much more socially acceptable than rape.
I don't know about that, CCP. Quite a lot of date rapists, at least, get excused as 'oh, he's a nice boy, don't ruin his life', which I imagine would be quite unlikely if the same nice boy murdered someone.
135: okay, I'll certainly grant that the full spectrum of motivations for an act is broad, but I think the comparison to a property crime is poor, because we do not, despite mcmc's well-taken point, think of property crimes as usually motivated by attitudes toward the victim, which I think rape generally is.
selfish, amoral person who really has no larger academic construct of gender
I think this is a slightly misleading presentation of the issue though. It's not like the rapist need consciously or explicitly connect his actions to a desire for a gendered feeling of power; it's that he's been taught to connect sex and coercive or violent power in the process of learning to be "a man". You can get affirming pleasure from acting out gendered violence without having any conscious notion that that's what's happening.
I suspect most date rape is motivated more by lust than a desire to humiliate the other
There's an intermediate point, where the motivation for date rape is not humiliation but a specific kind of gratification wherein the man feels empowered specifically by the disregard of the other's agency, by knowing that what he wants he can take.
143: True Cala, but even if you just consider that rape is a heavier social taboo than murder is. For reference, observe the treatment of rapists in jail vs. the treatment of murderers. Rape is a powerful word.
142: I've never suggested rape is the equivolent of getting punched in the nose (although, a better comparison would be getting punched in the nose over and over). But WHY is it different? WHY is it a greater crime than assault? The only answer offered so far is that it's a greater crime becauise it conotes the power of the masculine over the feminine. Can anyone think of another?
You seem to be looking for some sort of essentialist rationale for the treatment of rape. It's treated as worse than savage assault because we think it's worse than savage assault. Maybe because rape is more common than savage assault? (I'm not sure that's true, though.)
147: It's true Cala. And that IS part of the mythos of rape, but doesn't work against what I'm describing.
Think of it in a more general sense. In an effort to get men to stop raping women as an assertion of their dominance, we have increased the threat reputation of rape, thereby making it more attractive as a proof of dominance.
The only answer offered so far is that it's a greater crime becauise it conotes the power of the masculine over the feminine. Can anyone think of another?
No, it's not any of the answers offered so far.
Is this a fair summary of where we are?
1. You think, for reasons given above, that the law should not consider rape as distinct in kind from assault.
2. The rest of us think, also for reasons given above, that the law, here, now, should make the distinction.
3. Bickering.
148: I think what resolves our positions is that this isn't an either/or situation. I feel quite certain that some number of rapists are sociopaths, and the issue isn't that they devalue women, but that nobody is a full human being except themselves - male, female, gay, straight, black, white, whatever.
I understand that this plays out inside a culture that has certain inherent gender issues, but these are actors who are operating largely outside of that culture's established norms anyhow.
This observation isn't particularly useful in practical terms.
And I deny that reality, to help construct a new reality.
The way to change socially constructed meanings is to change them - that is, to speak and act as if they were changed. To repeat and reaffirm their new meanings at every opportunity. To never, never ever do anything that could be seen as admitting the possibility of the old meaning.
Well, that's nice and all, but it isn't the way the world works. And advocating that we simply ignore or deny unpleasant truths pretty much prevents us from actually doing jack shit to address them. It's like saying "racism doesn't exist!" and expecting that to somehow solve the poverty on Indian reservations or something.
I suspect our difference may be that you think that when I say "feminine = weak" I mean it as a simple descriptive, that femininity reall is weak. Of course I don't think that. I mean it simply as a labelling of the way the language and the ideas we have work, for better or for worse (in this case, obviously, worse).
137: I haven't totally caught up on this thread, but I gotta say, I find that pretty offensive, if I'm interpreting it correctly.
I feel quite certain that some number of rapists are sociopaths, and the issue isn't that they devalue women, but that nobody is a full human being except themselves
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're not devaluing women. It only means they're not devaluing women exclusively.
"137: I haven't totally caught up on this thread, but I gotta say, I find that pretty offensive, if I'm interpreting it correctly."
I took it to mean that CCP thinks that view is common because the people he largely associates with share that view, giving him a skewed sample. I'm forever trying to point this out to "gun nuts." Because they and their range buddies all think that buying guns without a background check is a God given right, they assume most of the country also thinks this way. They just have a hard time understanding that "me and my circle of friends" isn't necessarily representative of the population at large
To the extent that you addressed me, you say, 'lol', 'fluttering' and 'I agree with you, contrarian' and 'I disagree with you.' To the extent that you addressed B, it seems that you misread nearly every point she made.
Where does it leave us? You proposed the view that rape is worse than murder as "common." This site has commenters from various regions of the country, various walks of life, etc., and so far it seems there's no support for your depiction. So what we have is your proposal seems wildly counterintuitive, and you haven't posted any kind of data to back it up.
Being raped by a stranger wreaks havoc with normal sexual relations the same way that being violently assaulted by a stranger wreaks havoc with...what? amateur boxing?
I like Paul's point (in 133) about for the rapist, good sex must be taken.
There's something else too. There is the question of whether, not only in the mind of the rapist, but sometimes in the public mind, and the jurys', there is a belief that situations can amount to consent. This is "asking for it" with a capital A. So, in this way of thinking, a girl goes to an athlete's room, that's consent. Suppose she did think she was likely to have sex with him. Suppose also she then decided she didn't want to. If he judges the situation as one where her being present under those circumstances is consent, and especially if she had ever expressed consent, say when he first asked her, then he can go ahead and take it.
I don't think many people actually belief this, nor that it's the law, certainly not in this country. I think that it's more that the girl's having put herself in this position is evidence she may have implicitly consented at some point, and that therefore there may have been a misunderstanding about consent. All the elements, including the absence of consent, need to be proven beyond a reasonble doubt. This question of consent is the easiest one to cast doubt on. This idea, that there may be a confusion about consent, seems to be present in every famous modern rape trial.
As I say, I think this is the issue for reasons of evidence and trial strategy. But there is also the issue Paul raised, about good sex must be taken. I believe if told to desist, I would do it from whatever situation, no matter how "developed;" shock, picque, anger, maybe, but desist I would. But then there is that about the rape play somebody mentioned above. And what about the story somebody told here a couple of weeks ago about the girl who thought pretending to be wasted, unable to coherently resist, would be a turn on? For all we know, the famous athletes and other privileged rapists have "taken" successfully, without complaint before, sometimes to the evident satisfaction of the woman. Remember that scene in Gone With The Wind, immediately after the frustrated Rhett seizes Scarlett and runs up stairs with her kicking and screaming, when she is shown purring and luxuriating in bed?
I'm forced to admit that taking and being taken appeal to many people, men and women both.
Further, Apo get it exactly right. I'm well aware of how thoroughly sex and power is linked. I'm sure that some rapes are almost exclusively about power. But I also believe that although in some rapes, though the sexual gratification may be dependent upon power, the rape is not about power! It's about fucking, and doing anything to get off. In this subset of cases, power relations may be necessary to get off, but they are neverthless just the way by which the goal of getting off is reached.
167: ...same way that being violently assaulted by a stranger wreaks havoc with your ability to go to public places, every other human being on earth, you know, apparently non-important stuff like that.
165: Are we going to test this theory here? On this site? What should the questionnaire be? How about this:
What do you find more appalling?
1) rape squads
2) death squads
Put the following crimes in order of their heinousness:
- auto theft
- rape
- severe assault
- murder
- manslaughter
You are kidnapped by an evil alien, who gives you two choices:
1) kill your friend.
2) Rape your friend.
Well, that's nice and all, but it isn't the way the world works. ...
But how do things change?
You are saying that the dominant paradigm is what it is - and, of course, it is. But it doesn't exist apart from what people do. Individuals, every day, choosing how to act and what to say, make it real.
By saying "feminine = weak, according to the dominant paradigm" you may make people think that feminine = weak, according to the dominant paradigm. It's a type of magic, like saying something three times. Repetition makes it true.
On the other hand, if we all repeat "sexism bad", we may encourage people to think that sexism is bad. If enough people think it, and act on it, then by golly we have a new dominant paradigm.
advocating that we simply ignore or deny unpleasant truths pretty much prevents us from actually doing jack shit to address them
On the other hand, once most people began to deny that black = lazy, shiftless, and likes watermelon then the meaning of black did change.
...the way the language and the ideas we have work ...
They work the way people make them work.
Or maybe I heard that the personal is political, and heard it too often, at an impressionable age. But language and ideas do change. I'm not at all clear on exactly how, but it does happen. I think it's through the magic of shared belief.
I'm well aware of how thoroughly sex and power is linked.
They are only linked for those sexists who choose to link them - or for those whom childhood trauma has left emotionally and morally crippled. [see? that's an approach to changing the paradigm]
No, language and its associations change because people consciously become *aware* of the associations (which involves identifying them) and then consciously try to reject/relearn them. Not by simply denying them in the first place.
173: We're mixing up the personal and the other. Not wanting to die yourself, is different from caring if someone else dies. It would be nice if it wasn't, but a world at war says differently. More evidence of the popularity of murder: American heroes are gun fighters, not dick fighters.
So far it seems people would rather be raped than murdered, and as a society we impose harsher sentences for murder. I'm still not getting where we get "common notion that rape is worse than murder"
177: No, he really isn't being purposely obtuse. Look, I have some sense of what you're getting at with 'rape is worse than murder', but it's not well or clearly put -- in the terms you've stated it, very very few people are going to agree either that they feel that way, or that any substantial number of other people feel that way. Most people would simply rather be raped than killed.
I would suggest an alternative formulation, that many people think a rapist is a worse person (more mentally ill, more evil, however you want to put it) than a murderer (for some types of murderer). Even people who feel this way, though, seem often to change their minds when presented with a 'sympathetic' rapist, the 'nice boy who's life is going to be ruined'.
If the point is really that we think less poorly, in the abstract, of murderers than of rapists, then that seems trivial. We can all imagine killings we think to be justified (e.g., Hitler); it's harder to imagine a rape we think is justified.
Cripes, if that's really the point, it took a long, long time to go a very short distance.
Back to B's question in 82, about what makes it easier to have a productive discussion here than in most other comments sections:
I get a little embarrassed by this conversation, which comes up every so often, because it's hard not to get self-congratulatory about it. Really, I think a lot if it that we're protected from trolls by the awesome power of boredom. The people whe comment here do so largely because they enjoy a particular style of chatter (that's certainly what I'm here for), which, for people who aren't into that kind of thing, has got to be hideously dull. For people who like it, on the other hand, it's great fun. So someone who reads enough to bother to delurk usually, although not always, starts off from a position of liking the people and the enviroment of discourse (yow, does that sound pretentious) enough that substantive arguments can be productive and non-hostile.
For example, think of gswift's delurking to argue gun-control from what is, on this site, a minority position. Without the basis of good feeling from the smartass chatter, that probably would have been a nasty little argument with insults going both ways. Because gswift came in with a previously formed good opinion of the place, even though it got stiff at times, the conversation never got irretrievably ugly. Same with the abortion conversations -- the social bonds from the silliness are strong enough to keep a contentious topic pretty civil.
When you get someone who isn't charmed by the background conversation, on the other hand, while they may get ugly and unpleasant, they also just get bored pretty fast, and they go away.
Also, there's a unreasonably high proportion of philosophers and lawyers. Philosophers spend their days arguing and for better or for worse, it's all a game. Can we find a justification for torture? Can we find a non-consequentialist grounding for a prohibition of pornography? Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill an innocent baby and a flower? What if you're a brain in a vat -- should you then be vegetarian?
Lawyers, as we commonly know, are all used to defending unpleasant clients. On the scale of things to get offended about, blog comments are probably pretty low.
Unfogged also isn't a political blog these days. It's either highbrow personal or lowbrow current events.
Rape is often a more heinous transgression than murder, and sometimes, even a worse punishment than murder, however; why is it considered *as* serious a transgression as murder, or even severe assault? Why does the abstract idea of rape have so much strength? What gives this punch in the nose it's extra power? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't trivial.
I proposed that the main difference was sex, or more specifically, gender roles. And that the crime of rape itself, the very word rape, grants the masculine ideal the special privilege of this special threat. The question isn’t just “how do we feel about rapists”, but how much do people fear being raped?
As for the “nice boy” phenomenon; I think it’s usually a misrepresentation. They say nice boy, but being a boy is never sympathetic (that would destroy the power of rape). Instead, what they should really say is ‘nice white’, or ‘nice rich’, or ‘nice my son’, and so on…
179: Every rape is justified - by someone. The question is: why do so many justify it for themselves and loath it in others?
On the subject of professions/arguing habits: I've always felt somewhat handicapped as a lawyer by not being interested in the game as a game. My brother-in-law has this gift in spades; it's a good reason to get up in the morning, or in his case, in the afternoon.
What's your explanation for the literary types, which is closer to what I am?
The question isn’t just “how do we feel about rapists”, but how much do people fear being raped?
Well, a lot--more than is really realistic, actually, especially when it comes to stranger rape. It serves a social function of making women afraid and justifies limiting our freedom of movement along with the perpetuation of blame-the-victimism ("well, if she hadn't been drunk..."). It's also an expression of the stupid, sexist idea that men can't control themselves sexually, that it's women's job to be the gatekeepers, that "boys will be boys," that women, rather than men, are responsible for preventing rape, yadda yadda.
Rape is often a more heinous transgression than murder, and sometimes, even a worse punishment than murder, however; why is it considered *as* serious a transgression as murder, or even severe assault?
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but what do you mean specifically? If you're talking about sentencing, I don't think that's an accurate basis for saying how severely a crime is viewed by society -- heck, if you look at what a pot dealer can get sentenced to v. a violent criminal in some states, it's obvious that the criminal law is not in close harmony with how society feels about the crime.
In the interests of moving forward with the argument, what say we drop the 'more serious than murder' phrasing, which I think is only posing as a roadblock, and talk about whether there are problems with the severity with which people regard rape.
And here I think there is a valid point, although I'm not sure that it is the same one that you're making. There is a sense in which rape is regarded as a, I'm not sure how to put this, crime that pollutes the victim, which is I think a vestige of inequitable gender roles. The sense is that a raped woman has lost her virtue, or her purity, and that a raped man has lost his masculinity,and that's what makes it so terrible a crime. This is not so much, in my eyes, an overvaluing of the heinousness of rape, as considering it particularly heinous for the wrong reasons, and it's the kind of thing that leads people to consider rape no big deal when it happens to the wrong victim: a woman with no 'virtue' to lose, or a man with no 'masculinity'. This isn't all that clearly put, but is it the kind of thing you're talking about?
183: You've still got the attraction to wordplay, if not to argument for argument's sake.
I think the literary types like playing with ideas. Plus, some of us are really opinionated. More and more, though, I realize that the underlying literary type training in the importance of subtext, associations, and the cultural weight of language can be a handicap, b/c I usually don't spell that stuff out and yet it's foundational to most of my arguments (e.g., my claim here that "feminine = weak").
I would suggest an alternative formulation, that many people think a rapist is a worse person ...
Exactly. I think that may be indeed be what he's getting at, but apparently the rest of us are supposed to run what he says through our magic CCP decoder ring rather than just take his statements at face value.
169: I feel this distinction is semantic, at least insofar as we are arguing, rather than insofar as you are arguing with a position I'm not taking, but that I think some people do: that rape does not bring sexual gratification. If a rape is in the cases you're talking about a sexual act that depends on the exercise of power over the victim for the deliverance of gratification, and the particular kind of gratification can't come without the feeling of power, and you can't get the feeling of power without coercive sex, then both sex and power are simultaneous goals of the rapist. It is not "about" one or the other; one is not only incidental to the other. (Somewhere I read a complaint that really resonated with me about the incredibly sloppy use of the word "about" when that;s nbt what is meant at all.)
179: Every rape is justified - by someone. The question is: why do so many justify it for themselves and loath it in others?
You keep asserting things as if they are eternal verities that we all know to be true. Is there some group of rapists that you're aware of that draw distinctions between good rape and bad rape (or good forced sex and bad forced sex)? I find that implausible.
In trying to pick up on 185, I'm wondering about the relative importance of 1) what will people think of me, having been raped? 2) (sort of the internalized version of 1), very likely just as if not more significant) what do I think of myself, socially, having been raped? 3) what effect does having been raped have on me, assuming that 1) and 2) are not important, which seems impossible but the factors might be distinguishable.
I'd like to start with 3), where I think that the loss of control and free expression, about something very close to my personal core, is the damage. And this may be present--to a much lesser extent--even in cases most people would not call rape, where we have gone along or given ambivalent consent.
Because gswift came in with a previously formed good opinion of the place
Actually, I was resenting all of you from the shadows, waiting for the perfect moment to strike you down with 2nd Amendment goodness.
I you and Cala are both right. It helps that I find the banter here amusing, and this site seems particularly good at debating rather nutty things without it getting personal.
189: Surely your average date rapist distinguishes between good rape ("not really rape"; "she wanted it") and bad rape ("real" rape).
But that's the thing - he doesn't think he raped her. To the extent he forced sex on her and thinks it was justified, I assume he would say the same if some other man did it. This seems closer to something like saying preemptive killing isn't murder, but very different from other cases where we might believe that there were factors mitigating or justifying a murder (e.g., killing the man who raped your kid).
I believe that there are far more situations where we think that (a) there's no doubting that what was done was murder, and (b) we still think it was justified, than (i) there's no doubting that what was done was rape, and (ii) we still think it was justified.
Well, I'd agree with that. Even though I'd also say, "well, it was too rape, and he's a rationalizing little shit and his opinion shouldn't be taken into account." And then that gets us back into the whole argument about consent and legal liability and all that. Ugh.
There is a sense in which rape is regarded as a, I'm not sure how to put this, crime that pollutes the victim,
Can this be overcome by people with traditionally conservative views of sex? I doubt it, because, from a traditionally conservative view of sex, it appears to be true. But I do hope that there would be a way for such people to overcome this view; compassion should triumph.
And, shorter CCP: It's common that people think rape is more heinous than murder, even though no one agrees with me.
I do get what CCP is getting at. I do know that some people would prefer certain forms of murder to certain forms of rape. And it is true that we glorify certain forms of murder. But beware all of this "certain forms" business. I doubt anyone would rather be horribly murdered than date-raped. In any case, there's something intrinsically rotten about asking for a preference among two awful choices. And I can't figure out the point of arguing whether or not rape is worse than murder.
And I still refuse to answer such an obtuse question as "why is rape worse than assault?".
bitch in #174. I want to give MHS a bit more credit than that. He seems to be arguing, "faulty ideas noted, let's start changing them *now*." I do think that language is more likely to change by censuring/punishing the wrong use of it than by simply repeatedly pointing out the wrong use. It's an intellectual reactioin to note that feminine=weak, but certainly it's more socially effective to decalre that the whole "feminine=weak" construct is socially taboo?
It's an intellectual reactioin to note that feminine=weak, but certainly it's more socially effective to decalre that the whole "feminine=weak" construct is socially taboo?
Certainly, and in another context you know I'd be all over that. But in the current context, trying to think about the "meaning" of rape, not pointing out the feminine=weak thing seems to inhibit our ability to understand the issue at hand.
Yes, but there's a risk, which I think is what worries Dr. B (I know it worries me) that it will become taboo to explicitly name or refer to the association between femininity and weakness, but it won't become taboo to continue to make that association. That is, we (the unfogged commentariat, or even the larger community of people who care about this stuff) don't have the power by ourselves to make 'pussy' no longer an insult meaning 'weak' -- whether or not we use it, other people still will. While other people make that association, it hampers us not to be able to admit that that association is being made.
This sort of thing has happened with respect to race -- it is now widely regarded as as or more unseemly and improper to allude to the possibility of racism in any specific situation ('playing the race card') as it is to actually say or do something racist.
I dispute 194 as a definitional matter. Murder is properly used to mean only those killings which have been judged to be (morally or legally, depending on context) wrongful, so it doesn't make sense to talk about justified murder.
199: I think you're wrong. I'm thinking about case where it is clearly murder by any legal definition, but that, as a matter of common belief, the killing was justified. Which, I suppose, really reduces to an understanding that there are justifications for killing that we accept, but not openly or uniformly.
198: Don't think that's exactly what's happened wrt race, but I like the general point. I can stand, even sometimes envy people who can use words like "pussy" without anybody misunderstanding them; there's a fearlessness in banter and capacity to communicate subtext that escapes me completely and leaves me feeling stiff and dull.
But I'd be appalled if I heard my children speaking this way, and I think they don't. We're going to be earnest in this house, goddamit!
Like I said, this is a pure definitional dispute, so it's not going to lead anywhere interesting, but I read 199 as saying that there are morally proper killings which are criminally punished as murder, despite not being in the moral category "murder." I agree that this happens, and I'm just noting that I use different words to describe it.
If you don't like rape is worse, or as bad as murder, take it from the other direction: why is rape worse than an unwanted touch?
The statement I've been defending is that the only thing that seperates rape from assault is sex and gender. To answer Micheal's point - which amounts to "so what?" - and to pick up where Lizardbreath left off...
As the victim is polluted, so is the feminine ideal validated as that which is polluted. As the rapist is demonized, so is the masculine ideal demonized. This leaves rape as a very wierd criminal charge that, with each conviction vallidates the threat of rape; the power of the masciline; and the dominance of the masculine over the feminine. Think of a rape trial as a ritual that celebrates the power of the rape threat, and the pollution of the feminine.
Why is this important? Rape is a vivid, and grusome illustration of the rivalry between sexes. How we treat it determines what gender roles mean to us. So, I suppose it matters as much as gender roles matter.
the only thing that seperates rape from assault is sex and gender.
Where I have problems with this statement is that 'sex and gender' isn't one thing -- it is at least two. To get all weirdo-hypothetical about this, picture an alternative world with only one, hermaphroditic, gender. There are no gender roles or gender conflicts, everyone is the same. But people still have sex for reproduction and pleasure and as an expression of caring and love, and still have a sense of sex as something powerfully related to their selves and their personal autonomy. In such a world, it is my belief that rape would still be a crime more significant than assault, despite the fact that gender roles wouldn't enter into it -- a lot of the trauma would remain the same.
Taking that as an assumption, I can't agree that treating rape as a significant crime only or primarily validates and supports iniquitous gender roles, although there are certainly attitudes about rape, as in my 185, that do.
204: I agree with your hermaphrodite-world-would-still-have-rape idea, and think it is close to what I meant by 3) in 190. This is the damage from rape considered as much as possible without the social significance, just the personal.
Yes, but differenciating between resulting-in-death and not-resulting-in-death is a difference in physical reality not the result of a social gender bias. If you prefer a society where gender bias dominates, of course, rape is just fine the way it is.
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity? Maybe. But no one thinks it's a sufficiently important factor in the reinscription to risk unknown or untoward to justify different treatment than currently used. Maybe that will change in time. I doubt it.
I already answered that, and so, I think, did Cala.
Rape is a vivid, and grusome illustration of the rivalry between sexes.
Not at all. It's a crime. Now, I take what you're saying about *part* of the heinousness of the crime resting in the stigmatization of the rape victim, and I think that that is partly true. And yes, in the context of gender, which is inescapable, rape takes on certain meanings (which is probably why it occurs so frequently, as I've argued upthread); without gendered categories tying into both sex and power, the only motivation for rape would end up being sexual desire, which is pretty easy to fulfill without forcing yourself on someone. Nonetheless, being raped would still suck more than an "unwanted touch," again for all the reasons I listed way upthread.
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity?
Aha. If this is the case, then sure; in theory, I might be willing to go along with it, although I *do* think that there's a difference between assault and rape. The problem with the argument, of course, is the same as the anti-affirmative action argument: it's aiming (I think) to have the law treat as equal, circumstances that in actual practice aren't. Sure, when and if we get to that golden day when women's sexuality is no longer seen as a passive receptacle, when the virgin/whore dichotomy just makes people go, "the what?" when porn no longer exists, and when public nudity is no more of a deal than seeing someone's bare forearms, then sure: let's make rape just a variation of assault, maybe. But in the meantime, I don't see the point of the argument?
Yes, but differenciating between resulting-in-death and not-resulting-in-death is a difference in physical reality not the result of a social gender bias.
Maybe we could switch the wording to something nice and neutral like "assaults involving genitalia."
That way if someone knocks me unconcious with a beer bottle, it's just assault. But if the guy decides to cum on me afterwards, an appropriately stiffer sentence can be imposed.
209: It also reinscribes notions of masculine power as one that threatens and dominates and conquers. In essence, the crime of rape vallidates the threat of rape which makes rape an action of power, which of course; is why rapists rape.
Of course, muder often stumbles on this as well. It's both a heinous crime, and a status symbol.
In the end, I'm not saying that rape should be punished less (though I would probably argue differently - somewhere else:P), but that it shouldn't be exaulted. Whether the crime of rape exists as a legal construct or not, it's important to remember that the event of a rape trial is also a social ritual that redefines our gender roles.
210: I know you and Cala offered a number of reasons why rape is differentiated from assault, but none that rweally seemed to apply. Some of the examples were fraud, others were sexual reasons, still others were differences in injury that are already accounted for. The only possible exception was pregnancy... but, the difficulty with pregnancy is that it's not neccissarily even an injury.
I suppose there's another very real legal question: is a crime best defined by the nature of the transgression, or by material results? Obviously, the current system is a bit of both.
212: an excellent point! That isn't my aim. I'm happy to see the realities of what we now call rape handled differently from assault, but not under the gender banner of rape (which I believe only energizes the issue with wierdness). The specific differences, should be handled specificly, which would include special sentencing and special services for the victim. Already there are a number of special treatments for assaults of a specific social nature: domestic, against animal, verbal, and so on...
In my state, it's called first-degree sexual assault. I'm unclear. Do you just want to ban the term 'rape'?
The only other thing is that like I said earlier, unless you postulate a world even crazier than B's 209, where not only is sex not gender-defined, it's as meaningless as taking a dump, it's going to be wrong to use sex as a violent weapon in a way that doesn't map on neatly to the actual physical damage done. And given that rape survived a pretty big definition shift (from women as property to consent), I don't see it going away as a concept in anything like an achievable human society.
Some of the examples were fraud, others were sexual reasons, still others were differences in injury that are already accounted for.
c
the difficulty with pregnancy is that it's not neccissarily even an injury
The difficulty with pregnancy, frankly, is that it's not anything else; it's pregnancy. At some point people will realize that.
Re. "assault involving genitals": this makes me think of the recent torture arguments. It seems to me that one of the major distinctions between, say, beating someone up and raping them is similar to the difference between, say, assault and torture. Whether the injuries end up being the same or not, or worse in an assault, there is still something extremely psychologically devastating--torturous, even--in the intimacy and deliberateness of the act that I think puts it in a different category.
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity?
Being raped is different from being assaulted. The terrible logic trying to equate the two at a fundamental level simply because they both involve harmful bodily contact is insufficient and shallow. The stupidity of this is screaming, and it's real torture to understand how one could confuse the two. The notions of dominant paradigms, masucline and feminine roles are being distorted by an insufficient understanding. This thread is like watching an infant play with a nail gun - a powerful tool it can't know how to use correctly.
223: Stop thrashing Michael, and return to your regularly scheduled program. Your best argument so far is "insufficient and shallow"; which amounts to saying "'cause it is". You're a classic case of one who exaults the sexuality of the event above the violence of the event, and frankly, it's a little disturbing.
Also, assault isn't about bodily harm, it's about invading someone's personal space against their will. Yelling is assault. Conversely, if you harm someone while defending yourself, you *havn't* commited assault.
221: I sort-of agree, and yet; turture isn't a crime onto itself. Consider too that psychological injury does fall within the boundary of assault. You WILL be sentenced harsher for psychological injury. With rape, obviously because of it's traumatic impact, this would be a major emphasis.
Your best argument so far is "insufficient and shallow";
It's not exactly an argument, but yes, this is probably the most substantive reply I've made.
You're a classic case of one who exaults the sexuality of the event above the violence of the event, and frankly, it's a little disturbing.
I find your refusal to see the rape-event as it is to be disturbing. You are the one who advocated that some people would rather be killed than raped. That that statement is even worthy of being considered is a testament to the destructive impact of rape. I don't recall you arguing that people would rather be killed than assaulted.
So I take it that the damage of rape is at least uncontroversial. Yet, if I understand correctly, you want to treat rape as regular assault? You think that prosecuting as rape only enforces the categories which bring about the possiblity of rape? That is, you think prosecuting it as rape is part of the problem? Please do correct me if I haven't understood you. And you argue that the point of treating rape as assault is that rape really is just assault, if only we saw through eyes not clouded by culture?
The easy but true, argument is that people are not going to see as if outside their culture. You answer that we should change the culture. The easy but true answer is, "that's not going to happen."
The deeper argument is that it's wrong to dismiss people's incultured being. It's wrong to say, "hey, you know, you have some gender roles that create the possibility of the powerful raping the weaker, so you should change that." It's dense to argue this on a level of personal change, but it's well beyond that to argue that our courts should change and try to force this new paradigm on people. Such a change would produce a lot of pain among people, and no good. Victims and their families would be pained. The trivilization of rape would shock society, especially the female population. And, you don't know that it wouldn't increase rape.
Which brings up another argument to my mind. Every woman has a very real reason to fear rape. Most people don't have much reason to fear assault. Given the commonality of rape, and that it happens among the educated and the middle class, it seems that stiffer penalties are real deterrents, and it would endanger more women to take them away.
And another argument is the historical reality of rape. It's not as if it's the creation of our culture. It has, as far as I know, been everpresent in human interaction. Ignoring it will not make it go away. And, unlike Dr. B, I cannot even imagine a society which does not view rape as in some way distinct from assault. I do not think human interaction can ever take such a form such that it does not recognize sex crimes.
One of the problems with this subject is that there's so many objections. But, enough, I'm stopping here, even though this isn't exhaustive.
And, this is just one more objection, but I think it's getting to the crux of the matter; even *if* one accepts that rape is premised on traditional male/female gender roles (and therefore some legal action should be taken to remedy this), you dismiss without consideration the notion that we have an obligation to respect the accepted roles. Even if you accept that they are given to us before we ask, that does not mean we should not accept them, or respect the preferences of those who accept them. To put it yet another way, even if you view gender roles as social constructs that doesn't make them unreal.
227: I was teasing you with the intelligent design comment. When you observe that culture doesn't change, it implies a view of universal stasis (aka. fundamentalism).
This last point is a much better argument than culture-doesn't-change, and we-don’t-have-a-right-to-change-culture, or even think-of-the-women-and-children. I agree; if there was a huge announcement that rape (or sexual assault) was being removed from the books; there would be nothing short of panic.
If such a thing was going to be undertaken, it would have to be an opportunistic change, for example, during a regime change. These are issues of implementation; while very relevant, don’t detract from my general analysis.
That said, I think it’s important to keep in mind that rape cases aren’t just criminal cases, but cultural rituals which serve a greater - but not so just - purpose.
I'm going to repeat SCMT here: "You keep asserting things as if they are eternal verities that we all know to be true."
Also, assault isn't about bodily harm, it's about invading someone's personal space against their will.
I'd wager that there's a substantial subset of assault cases in which this is completely, utterly false. I'd wager that if I took a claw hammer to the guy once cubicle over, the bodily harm is *exactly* what he would consider a crime.
You WILL be sentenced harsher for psychological injury.
Where the hell do you get this? It's not that it's always untrue, it's just that I can't see it being anywhere near the maxim you seem to think it is.
Muzak I could tolerate. Talk radio would incur some manner of wrath.
(NB: Both of my neighbors are very nice, quiet women. "Guy" was used in 229 to introduce as few variables as possible, lest CCP seize on some newly discovered wrinkle.)
I once had a cube neighbor who talked to her boyfriend on the phone seven or eight times a day, always literally in baby talk. "Hewo baby" she'd say. My neck muscles are tensing up right now in Pavlovian memory. Can she get the retroactive claw hammer?
You say that; but your eye keeps fixing on the claw hammer that the guy who came in yesterday to work on the lights left lying on your desk. Even while you're trying to read the Unfogged comments, it's still there in the corner of your eye -- a whitish gleam from the fluorescent fixture reflected off the side of the hammer head draws your attention awy from the Google search you just did for "anger management hotline", and suddenly as you look again -- for what seems now like the thousandth time -- at the tool, size it up, imagine its heft, you hear Doreen from the next cubicle picking up her phone. "Accounts, this is Doreen," she says in her high-pitched voice -- almost a chirp really -- and it occurs to you how annoying her voice is, and she always seems so smugly cheerful when she comes in in the morning too. Your mind drifts back to high school, when Marcelle turned down your invitation to the senior prom; and you see Marcelle's face next to Doreen's -- there is more than a passing resemblance which you had never really noticed before. You turn back to your computer wondering what happened in Iraq today.
200 and 202: You're thinking too much like a lawyer. Mitigating circumstances that have been described over centuries=manslaughter; justified killing=self-defense.
Also, semi-relevant to the present discussion. Traditionally, if you walked in on your wife having sex with another man, and you killed him in a rage, I believe, that it was an automatic knockdown to manslaughter per se.
When Dietrich Bonhoeffer was planning along with his conspirators to kill Hitler, he was clearly preparing to commit *murder*. Nevertheless, most people think that his actions were justified.
229: The transgression of assault includes actions which may or may not result in physical harm. You talk about a claw hammer as if that isn't "invading someone's personal space against their will." I think it's pretty invassive.
Psychological damage suffered by a victim is examined during sentencing at every criminal trial (unless, of course; there was none). At least... in my country it is.
Which universal truths have I been assuming? Or is that bullshit like that rest of your argument?
235: I think it's still considered a mitigating circumstance by way of temperary insanity.
If I dare a moment of legal sanity. Criminal statutes define crimes with regard to the offender. Unfortunately, rape and incest (or crime in general) is not defined with regard to the victim except as a by-product of the offenders conviction.
This is troublesome when you have only a few weeks to determine if someone is a valid incest or rape victim. I think this is what they mean by "how do you define that".
Of course, this is why it's a good point to raise by the choice side. However, I think there's a greater general issue of making the recognition of a victim's suffering dependant on the conviction of an accused.
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 11:00 AM
It's a fair point that a rape/incest exception would have to be enforced on the honor system, given that waiting for convictions would be impractical. But it shoul dbe made explicitly -- 'Pregnant rape victims can't have abortions because we can't figure out how to keep other women from lying to take advantage of the loophole.'
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 11:06 AM
The feminist arguments about "trusting women" become even more relevant: apparently in this logic, women cannot be trusted to know whether or not they've been the victims of rape or incest, or else they are likely to falsely claim to be victims of very serious crimes in order to serve their own selfish convenience.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 11:34 AM
I think this is similar to conviction before the crime. If an exception for valid rape and incest cases is entertained, it would obviously be a crime to fraudulently pose as a victim in order to get an abortion. If this is true, not providing a service because of the possibility of committing this crime must be considered an assumption of guilt, and constitutes a sort of conviction before a crime has been committed, much less proven.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 11:43 AM
Well, apo, we all know there's no such thing as rape. There's just women who led guys on and then decided afterwards to cry wolf.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 12:47 PM
bitcphd! That's an obscene suggestion! Obviously, they really wanted it, there was no leading on. Or... do we not trust the seemingly limitless accounts of men who claim this has happened to them?
I suppose it's hard to trust men when they so obviously are the source of all the world's evil.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 12:51 PM
Don't be ridiculous, B. Black guys rape white women all the time.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 12:53 PM
Men are actually the source of nearly all the world's rape.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 12:57 PM
That's true. Isn't it wonderful having a crime that only one gender can commit? However, it is impressive how many women get convicted of rape despite that.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:18 PM
Or... do we not trust the seemingly limitless accounts of men who claim this has happened to them?
Oddly, while the claim ("All women lie! Men never rape!") is common enough, it's almost never reported as a first-person claim. The men worried about it never were charged with rape, it's always someone they heard about or know, or their worries that their college girlfriend will get mad at them years later and cry rape because they went limp after two minutes.
It's kind of like those limitless accounts of girls that got pregnant though virginal because an excited man ejaculated in the swimming pool near them, or the collegiate murders where the roommate was spared only because she didn't turn on the light when she interrupted the murder to get her math book, or the kids that ate pop rocks and coke and died. Bullshit's bullshit.
The SD law discussion seems to presume that more women will cry rape if it's the only way they can get an abortion. Not thinking so, given the shit a rape victim has to go through. But whatever the problem, it's certainly not because rape is a fuzzy concept.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:20 PM
Actually, if abortion were illegal, then only one gender could commit the crime of getting an abortion.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:27 PM
I think you mean to say, "If abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will get abortions."
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:28 PM
…it's almost never reported as a first-person claim
Maybe not to you… have you ever wondered why?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:38 PM
Actually, if abortion were illegal, then only one gender could commit the crime of getting an abortion.
Exactly. Same problem... even more so.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:40 PM
Same problem... even more so.
While I recognize that posting enigmatic one-liners generally frees you from the constraints of making sense, this really doesn't make sense. Your last gnomic remark on this subject stated, or implied, that women commit rape too, frequently, and so it's wrong to consider it a crime committed only by men. If getting an abortion becomes criminal, on the other hand, that is a crime that can be committed only by women. (Men can commit related crimes, or abet that one, but not commit it.)
So, not so much the same problem.
(Further, and this is a request I would make of anyone, whether I largely agree with them or not, if you have a point, can you argue it explicitly? Particularly when there's disagreement, the vague, allusive style you've adopted really isn't conducive to getting anywhere.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:46 PM
So let me get this straight.. The men who are wrongfully accused and convicted, presumably, of rape, are mournfully telling my college buddies (not sure when they started hanging out with convicted rapists), who in turn tell me of someone they heard of, but don't personally know, was wrongfully accused by a vengeful ex-girlfriend?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 1:59 PM
16: Mmm. I think he's saying that no guy who was ever accused of rape would tell a woman that, because he assumes she would assume he was a rapist.
I had a friend who worked in a state prosecutor's office, and she said that she saw cases of rape claims filed that she found not credible. But those weren't cases that were prosecuted. Make of it what you will.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 2:06 PM
So have we been lured into arguing about whether rape actually happens or not?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 3:36 PM
I don't believe so. Whatever the interaction with CCP was, it hadn't yet coalesced into an argument so much. Maybe he'll come back and tell us if we're arguing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 3:42 PM
1. Rape is distressingly common, a serious problem, and vastly underreported.
2. People file false rape claims.
There's nothing contradictory in those two statements.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 3:46 PM
And yet, you would think, given that rape cases often get high-profile coverage, especially if there's something shocking about them or if the accused is the kind of guy who "doesn't do that sort of thing" (lacrosse players, upper middle-class high school boys, famous people), that if there were a huge number of cases of false accusations that got to trial, that one would read about them in the newspaper. Last I checked, both men *and* women can read.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 4:43 PM
1. Rape is distressingly common, a serious problem, and vastly underreported.
2. People file false rape claims.
While there's no direct contradiction, you are overlooking the moral hazard dimension. It is the very frequency of rape that encourages the false reports. After all, who would think to falsely report something rare, such as an alien abduction?
It's analogous to the way health insurance drives up the cost of medical care. For example, with neither money nor insurance a person who suffers liver failure will simply die, incurring little additional expense. With insurance, however, they may opt for a liver transplant. That will lead to the consumption of additional resources such as drugs, hospital care, etc., all of which are avoidable by simply eliminating the choice of treatment options.
Thus, the way to totally eliminate the filing of false rape claims is simply to eliminate the filing of all rape claims. As with abstinence, it's the only 100% certain method.
More importantly, the moral hazard dimension also highlights the privacy rights of the fetus. Like the mother, the fetus has a privacy right in medical information. To recognize and give effect to this right we must forbid disclosure of any information about an abortion, unless the fetus has consented. Without a knowing and intelligent waiver by the fetus of its right to non-disclosure of medical information, any disclosure of information concerning an abortion would be criminal.
In summary, it is obvious that recognizing the fetus's rights would greatly reduce the incidence of disclosure of information about abortions, which would necessarily reduce the filing of false reports of rape.
(n.b. the above is not intended to be taken seriously. It's what we short hairy folks call a dwarvic remark
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 5:21 PM
It would also violate the fetus's privacy rights if it were declared to be the product of incest and rape -- think of the social stigma attached to such designations!
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 7:02 PM
who would think to falsely report ... an alien abduction?
Reckon it's happened, though.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-21-06 8:34 PM
For a mean baby, well, I like your pants
Born in South Dakota
For a mean baby, well, I like your hips
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Man I feel lucky tonight
I'm gonna get stoned and run around
Born in South Dakota
Hey we're going to a rodeo town
I'm gonna get drunk and fuck some cows
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
It's wide open
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
Masons and lumberchucks, says God as my squirrel
It's wide open
I said it's wide open
Dakota
Man I feel lucky tonight
I'm gonna get stoned and run around
Born in South Dakota
Hey we're going to a rodeo town
I'm gonna get drunk and fuck some cows
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
It's wide open
Hey all you city fucks, it's a prarieman's world
Mason and lumberchucks, says God as my squirrel
Mr. Fliptop and Razorback, you know I'm your girl
I'm wide open
I said I'm wide open
Dakota
Dakota
Dakota
Posted by lizphair | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 1:20 AM
Actually, it was Adam who made the oblique connection between abortion and rape; why don't you ask him what he means? And, tying together my response to him with an earlier post from myself, as if they were the same argument is dishonest; though I‘m sure it wasn’t malicious.
So, not so much the same problem. - LizardBreath
I said the problem was the same, as opposed to the situation or the symptoms.
1) because falsely claiming you were raped to get an abortion requires an allegation of rape; you automatically bring about problem 2.
2) because rape is so often an issue of he-said/she-said, it becomes an issue of trust. Case dismissed.
3) Also, there is a commonality in that both crimes are gender bound, and as a result are subject to sexist distortions (Cala as case in point who claims that noone would lie about rape because the process is so difficult. Nieve to begin with, but doubly when you consider that the trauma of a rape trial is only relevant if you were really raped. In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real). In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault. Women who are convicted of rape, and men convicted of abortion are, as you say, accomplices and the like, so, not deeply relevant except to illustrate that even when crimes are gender specific, both sexes manage to get their fingers dirty.
There are others, but I think that’s enough to prove both crimes are part of a reproductive tug-of-war between genders. Any questions?
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 8:50 AM
Actually, it was Adam who made the oblique connection between abortion and rape; why don't you ask him what he means? And, tying together my response to him with an earlier post from myself, as if they were the same argument is dishonest; though I‘m sure it wasn’t malicious.
So, not so much the same problem. - LizardBreath
I said the problem was the same, as opposed to the situation or the symptoms.
1) because falsely claiming you were raped to get an abortion requires an allegation of rape; you automatically bring about problem 2.
2) because rape is so often an issue of he-said/she-said, it becomes an issue of trust. Case dismissed.
3) Also, there is a commonality in that both crimes are gender bound, and as a result are subject to sexist distortions (Cala as case in point who claims that noone would lie about rape because the process is so difficult. Nieve to begin with, but doubly when you consider that the trauma of a rape trial is only relevant if you were really raped. In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real). In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault. Women who are convicted of rape, and men convicted of abortion are, as you say, accomplices and the like, so, not deeply relevant except to illustrate that even when crimes are gender specific, both sexes manage to get their fingers dirty.
There are others, but I think that’s enough to prove both crimes are part of a reproductive tug-of-war between genders. Any questions?
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 8:51 AM
In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault.
I have no idea if you're adverting to some historical argument to back this up. But if you're arguing that men can't be raped (by, for example, other men), you're clearly wrong. And if you don't think that most men would prefer a savage, survivable, beating to being raped, then your estimation of male preferences is very different from mine.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 9:05 AM
the trauma of a rape trial is only relevant if you were really raped
A woman who accuses a man of rape will have her sexual history picked over whether the accusation's true or not.
I think that’s enough to prove both crimes are part of a reproductive tug-of-war between genders.
Huh? This seems like a crashing non sequitur.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 9:18 AM
Actually, nieve[sic] or not, I didn't say that there was no such thing as a false rape claim. (The rest of your nievecalaworld doesn't follow, so I'll just let that go.)
All I'm saying is that the risk of a man being the victim of a false rape claim is much, much less than the fear most guys seem to have of it. And the level of their fear -- whicih is usually unfounded -- will go up with a rape/incest-only exemption. I also agree that it's a largely unworkable exemption.
The level of accusations rising? Probably. But again, it's not going to be a walk in a park: physical exams, statements, pressure from police/school/family, and the risk of court and stigma? I'm thinking most panicking sixteen-year-olds would be far more likely to attempt a home abortion rather than cry rape against their boyfriend whom they think they love.
In fact, rape only exists because of gender roles, without which, it would simply be assault.
I don't know how to read this except: "If those dang feminists hadn't made women think that they had the right to consent, then all we'd worry about is whether she was bruised or beat up."
But that sounds awfully strawmannish, and can't be what you meant. Because whatever gender roles you think apply to this society, rape's not just an assault crime. If it were, why wouldn't the rapist just take a few swings at her face instead?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 9:37 AM
South Dakota's cities, and perhaps much of its population, are concentrated in its lower corners. The possibility of a big clinic on the Pine Ridge would presumably service the Southwestern corner. Does anyone know where the abortion trail leads from the Southeastern region? I would presume Sioux Falls, Council Bluffs, Omaha, maybe even Minneapolis, but I really don't know. I'm sure the persecutors do. And where do the Southwesterners go now?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 9:42 AM
A woman who accuses a man of rape will have her sexual history picked over…
And that’s traumatic? I know people who would get sexually aroused from that. It’s hardly a standard consideration. The common situation is one of “embarrassment”. Hardly the same.
All I'm saying is that the risk of a man being the victim of a false rape claim is much, much less than the fear most guys seem to have of it - Cala
The risk is less than the fear? Says who? I think most men aren‘t afraid enough, arrogantly secure behind their male privilege.
I don't know how to read this except… - Cala
Why are you reading into it? Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex. That rape is a special crime at all is because women were once considered property (rape used to be a crime committed against the owning male). Now, we shed special tears for women still held on a patriarchal pedestal, instead of demoting rape to what it is… assault.
Someone else commented that men generally fear rape more than assault. Obviously this is because of homophobia, and the romantic position reserved for assault among males. As someone who’s been both raped and beaten within an inch of my life, I can tell you; only a macho moron would prefer the later (lol - I wrote mocha instead of macho at first).
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 11:02 AM
Consider the twinkies.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 11:07 AM
CCP, I still don't understand your project here. I just ate some yogurt.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 11:56 AM
I'm sure you don't. Was is mocha?
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 1:27 PM
Coffee und Chocolate together gemixt.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 1:56 PM
The risk is less than the fear? Says who?
Given that the sorts of guys that have voiced such fears to me are the sorts of guys who have sex only in the context of longish-term, loving relationships, it strikes me as a less than rational fear. Rather like fearing flying but being perfectly fine with riding in a car. Sure, there are cases of plane crashes. Sure, there are women who concoct lies to trap former boyfriends three years after the fact. But the fear is incommensurate with the risk of prosecution.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps one in ten men is accused wrongfully of rape at some point during his lifetime.
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex.
Off of the top of my head, the main difference seems to be that, even in the absence of consent language (today) or a property system (old), rape is a specialized form of assault relying on the perversion of an act that is paradigmatically loving and caring (or at least fun). Other violent crimes don't involve the same sort of perversion of an otherwise enjoyable activity.
Now, I'm sure we could postulate a world in which sex itself had no more meaning than brushing one's teeth, and then we'd judge the severity of the rape on the injuries inflicted alone. (Meaning of course, all women and men are fair game for rapists as long as there's no demonstrable injuries.)
But I'm not sure such a world is desirable or even possible. The meaning that sex has may change with mores and times, but I think it's always going to have an important meaning. And as long as it has an important meaning, rape's going to be different from other forms of assault.
I don't see sex becoming irrelevant, even if it is mocha-flavored.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 1:58 PM
And that’s traumatic? I know people who would get sexually aroused from that. It’s hardly a standard consideration. The common situation is one of “embarrassment”. Hardly the same.
I hope you're not being serious. But, I fear you are.
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault?
Same comments as above. For fuck's sake, even a small child should know the difference. Unlike Cala, who engages you, I feel that this question is simply too purposefuly obtuse to justify a response.
In Cala’s world, every rape that goes to trial must be a false allegation, and every rape that doesn’t must be real
Finally, a question for you. How the hell do you justify that statement? It seems to me to have come, steamy and stinking, right out of your ass.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 3:10 PM
Someone else commented that men generally fear rape more than assault. Obviously this is because of homophobia, and the romantic position reserved for assault among males.
I take it back. I don't think this guy is serious.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 3:13 PM
I agree. This all seems a bit cavalier for someone who supposedly has been both raped AND beaten within an inch of his life. I call bullshit.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 7:16 PM
Funny thing is, I've seen the same guy commenting at Dr. B.'s, and while I couldn't quote you anything he'd said, I had a vague impression of him as contrarian, but not a total loon. I either have him mixed up with someone else, or he's trying out a new persona.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-22-06 7:20 PM
lol @ Cala. You talk as if you're disagreeing with me. Yes, the only reason rape is not assault is because of how society views sex. That's what I said; you agree with me; what's the problem? And I'm contrarian! haha.
Let's put it another way: what's the difference between rape and an unwanted touch (assault)?
As for those who responded with nothing but general character assassinations; well, I think your insight into the actual subject has been well demonstrated.
-----
And yeah, you recognize me from bitchphd's site. It's funny how "total loon" comes to mind when noone has presented a single argument against any of my points. You folks need to open your minds.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:12 PM
It seems to me that one can say that the particular form of violence known as rape might go away if, somehow, humans evolved to a point where the control/humiliation aspects of this particular assault no longer applied. I mean if the perp doesn't get the added bonus of humiliation/control, why not just knock me on the head and be done with it?
Of course, it's a ridiculous premise. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that there's no greater humiliation than a rape, but I can't see us, as a group, getting beyond considering it a humiliating form of assault. (I don't mean shame on the part of the victim, but the brutal taking of intimate physical autonomy).
On the SD law, it's far from clear to me why a woman seeking an abortion can't just say that she was raped by an unknown assailant. She doesn't have to accuse her boyfriend. If she's going to lie anyway . . .
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:20 PM
Thinking about it for another minute, I'd distinguish between shame vis-a-vis society at large, and shame vis-a-vis the attacker. Even if/when attitudes of society at large cease to be a source of shame, I can see that a victim would feel shamed, personally and towards the attacker, during the assault.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:26 PM
noone has presented a single argument against any of my points.
What were they again?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:34 PM
I never implied that the sex could be, or should be taken out of rape. I mentioned that rape was only different from assault because of the sexual connotations of rape. I offered this point as supporting evidence to the claim that rape is a gender charged crime, much like abortion, and so is subject to distortions resulting from gender bias. For this I've been characterized a "loon".
I agree, humiliation is a good description of what makes rape exceptional. Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury. This is my only point in the area; and; it wasn't I who posed the comparison in the first place.
If she's going to lie anyway . . .
In many states, if a rape is reported it must be acted on whether or not the "victim" wants it to be. Aside from that, there's no point having an unenforcable exception (not that there aren't already lots of un enforceable laws).
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:36 PM
Wait, but how do the Illuminati fit in, CCP? What price the Illuminati?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:38 PM
in many states, if a rape is reported it must be acted on whether or not the "victim" wants it to be.
I don't know what the hell that means. what does it mean to "act" on a rape? and why is "victim" in quotes? Is rape a victimless crime all of a sudden?
Also, abortion is not a crime.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:51 PM
One major difference between assault and rape is the possibility of pregnancy. Another is STDs. Another is the distinction between assault outside your body and assault inside. Another is that the attacker (usually) literally gets off on it. Another is that it is, by definition, a hate crime; while some assaults are, as well, rape is pretty much a crime of hatred against women (and, inasmuch as men are also raped, usually a crime about "feminizing" the victim, i.e., hatred of the feminine).
Is that enough of a distinction for you?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:52 PM
Is Apostropher around? I want to tell him and Cala about the Bacon Mashed Potatoes I'm about to eat for lunch.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 12:53 PM
Yes, the only reason rape is not assault is because of how society views sex. That's what I said; you agree with me; what's the problem?
No, I don't agree with that characterization. Rape isn't assault because it's a fundamentally different type of crime, one that doesn't boil down to any particular characterization of sex. Shorter: As long as human beings have sex freely, there will be a meaningful distinction between rape and assault.
Now maybe you agree with that, but I can only respond to the what you had posted before my post, not after, and this:
Is rape not a violent act? What separates it from assault? The only difference is in how we view sex.
seems to be false. For "how we view sex" to be a trivial, 'only difference' kind of distinction imples that 'how we view sex' is something we just picked, like a fashion statement. ("What's different between heels and flats and beauty? Nothing. The only difference is in what media trends view as sexy.")
Ditto also to B's distinctions. Also pointing out that I've not called you contrarian or a loon, though I'm not sure that you were responding to me in that part of your post.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:08 PM
Oh, and you did say, CCP, that you thought rape should be demoted to assault.
I'm disagreeing with you is not because I'm 'neive' or contrarian, but because, well, I disagree that we *should* demote rape to assault.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:11 PM
Moreover, no: not all rape is "violent" in the sense we mean when we talk about assault. And it's not at all a minor point that non-violent rapes (date rape, drunken rape, coercion) is *precisely* the kind of rape that (1) men are supposedly terrified of being accused of; (2) supposedly decent, non-rapist men are eager to defend, explain away, or define as not "real" rape.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:12 PM
An STD and pregnancy is another type of injury, and while assault charges vary depending on the injury, it's a mater of scale, not type. Outside and inside: if I stab a stick into a guy's throat; is it rape then (or do you mean inside emotionally)? You don't think men and women can "get off" on assault - wrong, but this is still a sexual distinction, so, it actually supports my point. In fact, the assumption that rapists "get off" on it is a gross mis-characterization of what's actually going on. There are plenty of assaults that result from "hate": racial, sexual orientation, religious, etc... The pregnancy one is an interesting difference, but I don't think it's a difference in the crime, but a difference in injury.
So no, there is no difference beyond sexual connotation. And thus, we should never forget that it's subject to gender bias.
"act" on a rape mcmc
Sorry, Means "press charges" (maybe this is just in canada). Victim is in quotes because it means alleged victim, not that it's a victimless crime. Abortion is a crime in North Dakota... that's the point of this post.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:17 PM
You can't press charges against an unknown assailant.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:19 PM
you don't think men and women can "get off" on assault
I didn't say that.
In fact, the assumption that rapists "get off" on it is a gross mis-characterization of what's actually going on.
Oh yes? Rapists don't usually achieve orgasm? News to me. I'd like to see the stats on this.
In fact, pretty much your entire response to my comment is responding to things I didn't say, represents me as saying the opposite of what I did say, and the one thing you acknowledge my saying correctly--pregnancy--you admit is "interesting" but then say you "don't think" it counts.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:24 PM
"Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury."
What? Because the integrity and health of the mind are inherently so much less valuable than that of the body? I can think of lots of physical traumas I'd rather endure than be raped, and I'm sure that's not machismo.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:27 PM
Oh, ok, the "rape demoted to assault" thing... That's what all the fluttering is about.
non-violent rape - bitchphd
There is a huge swath of bahaviour here. Legally, coersion is NOT the same thing as assault; there's a reason for that. They're not at all the same crimes. That doesn't devalue them: coersing someone into murder is much more serious than throwing a paperclip at your boss.
I for one, would love to charge everyone who's ever coersed me into doing something, with rape. I doupt it would stick though.
(1) They aren't terrified enough
(2) You just accused every man who defines rape differently from you as rapists. So much for Cala's note about men rarely being accused of rape.
I realize you disagree with me Cala; most people do. Rape as a crime maintains the supremecy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women. Anyone who has a stake in maintaining gender based rivalry has an interest in maintaing rape.
And of course... I never said I was decent.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:31 PM
Oh, ok, the "rape demoted to assault" thing... That's what all the fluttering is about.
non-violent rape - bitchphd
There is a huge swath of behaviour here. Legally, coercion is NOT the same thing as assault; there's a reason for that. They're not at all the same crimes. That doesn't devalue them: coercing someone into murder is much more serious than throwing a paperclip at your boss.
I for one, would love to charge everyone who's ever coerced me into doing something, with rape. I doubt it would stick though.
(1) They aren't terrified enough
(2) You just accused every man who defines rape differently from you as rapists. So much for Cala's note about men rarely being accused of rape.
I realize you disagree with me Cala; most people do. Rape as a crime maintains the supremacy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women. Anyone who has a stake in maintaining gender based rivalry has an interest in aggrandising rape.
And of course... I never said I was decent.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:32 PM
CCP, here's my worry with characterizing rape as assault:
Take a distressingly realistic example. A girl goes to a party, has several drinks. She passes out, and some guy rapes her. (Assume, arguendo, that this is a case where we would all agree that he is guilty of rape: he confesses, or slipped her a drug, or whatever you need.) Because she's not struggling, there's not a whole lot of injury. Not enough to substantiate a serious assault charge, certainly.
Assume we're treating rape as just like assault, it seems she has no grounds to say he did anything wrong as long as he didn't hurt her bad enough. That just seems wrong.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:35 PM
Rape as a crime maintains the supremacy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women.
It's a special crime to rape men, too, last I checked.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:38 PM
Assault comes in two types: major and minor. Major injuries are very very serious injuries that carry with them some permanant or semi-permanant disability: loosing a limb or other body part and so on. Minor injuries include things as slight as an unwanted touch, or verbal assault (you don't even need to touch physically to be charged with assault). The nature of the injury, and the severity within the realm of minor or major is considered during sentencing.
The problem of proocing assault without injury is no different than the problem of proving rape without injury.
So, that's not really a concern. Assault covers all types of assaultive rape (as oppossed to coersive rape). Of course, assaults can be classified as severe in cases where there is severe psychological trauma... it doesn't have to be physical at all.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:46 PM
It's a special crime to rape men, too, last I checked
It is, but as bitchphd points out, raping men is actually an attack on the faminine ideal.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:50 PM
It's a special crime to rape men, too, last I checked
It is, but as bitchphd points out, raping men is actually an attack on the faminine ideal.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:51 PM
fluttering
Nice. Not at all condescending, either.
Rape as a crime maintains the supremacy of the male aspect by making it a special crime to hurt women.
Last I checked, as we've all agreed, men get raped too. And when they do, it's a crime.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:53 PM
as bitchphd points out, raping men is actually an attack on the faminine ideal.
Once again, not what I said.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:54 PM
I support the faminine ideal: Don't feed CCP.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:56 PM
and, inasmuch as men are also raped, usually a crime about "feminizing" the victim, i.e., hatred of the feminine - bitchphd
Sorry. I thought that's what you meant when you said the above.
fluttering was totally condescending. But, after the abuse I've sustained here, I've earned the right. (you and Cala were fine)
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:58 PM
and, inasmuch as men are also raped, usually a crime about "feminizing" the victim, i.e., hatred of the feminine - bitchphd
Sorry. I thought that's what you meant when you said the above.
fluttering was totally condescending. But, after the abuse I've sustained here, I've earned the right. (you and Cala were fine)
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 1:59 PM
lol @ "I support the faminine ideal"
If only you were bright enough to understand the irony of this.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:02 PM
The thing is, Matt, CCP hangs out over at my place, where despite his monomania about how feminism is *really* about oppressing men, he often has interesting and substantive things to say. So I feel kinda obligated to engage him rather than treating him as a troll, even though sometimes it's a li'l hard to tell the difference....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:03 PM
Having said that, however, 70 is completely over the line. It's not my place, b/c this isn't my blog, but for the record, CCP, Matt is hellaciously "bright" and you're being an asshole.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:05 PM
Without even finishing this thread right now, I just want to observe one thing. I don't know how else to say it other than, CCP, You are *really bad* at understanding people. Even aside of your misconstrual of what people here are saying, I'm referring to your grasp of human psychology in general. To pick one example among many:
I agree, humiliation is a good description of what makes rape exceptional. Given the choice between humiliation and physical injury... it's certainly machismo that chooses injury.
This is just wrong. There are many reasons for choosing a little pain over a little humiliation, or choosing a lot of pain over a lot of humiliation, and of all of those reasons, machismo is just one possibility. It's not even a necessary reason.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:08 PM
Don't battle with pudge. Support the faminine ideal.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:11 PM
You're missing the point. I think raping someone is seriously wrong even if the physical injuries are relatively minor. And this isn't just because I've got some crazy strawfeminist notions about consent or some notions that women are property.
If the only thing that matters is the extent physical injury, that's going to make a lot of unsavory situations the legal equivalent of poking your finger in someone's face during an argument or lightly punching a stranger in the shoulder.
(I'm exaggerating, but I don't bruise easily. What sort of proof would I have on this system? DNA samples wouldn't count as an assault, or at least no worse an assault than spilling a liquid on someone.)
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:17 PM
inasmuch as men are also raped, usually a crime about "feminizing" the victim, i.e., hatred of the feminine
I have to say I don't understand what this means.
CCP, you've earned what abuse you've received, and probably more, through your malicious and stupid misreadings of other commentators.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:17 PM
AND through your use of "lol". You deserve a lot of abuse just for that.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:19 PM
Nieve … coersed … permanant … loosing … proocing … faminine
The jig is up, Yglesias.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:23 PM
"Don't feed CCP" vs. "bright enough"
He calls me a troll, I call him dumb. Yeah, obviously I'm behaving just awfully. How about this instead:
Matt, maybe you should give some thought to what "feminine ideal" means.
And spare me the condescension, you know I’m right. You’re just hoping that if you wish for feminism to become egalitarian for long enough, it suddenly will.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:28 PM
I have to say I don't understand what this means.
Maybe I shouldn't speak for B, but she was pointing out that one way rape is different from assault is that in motive it's always a hate crime. Even when men are raped it's an effort to feminize them by penetrating them, because to be penetrated is to be feminine in our construction of sex. So in motive it's still like a hate crime against women; it's still reinforcing what a vile thing it is to be a woman, just like it would be a hate crime if you taunted a white person for behaving like someone of a different race, or for fraternizing with members of that race, and then beat him up.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:30 PM
I've been trying to argue in good faith, assuming that CCP has a coherent position.
And somehow, I'm being condescended to by someone who is seriously postulating that claims of rape are false because a significant portion of women get off on having their sexual histories read to them publicly. And we're agreeing (so I can be lol'ed at.) and disagreeing (because I'm neive and fluttering.) at the same time!
I can only assume that I must be really bored and/or trying to procrastinate.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:36 PM
Pretty much what Tia said, yeah. Plus, it seems to me that rape is primarily a crime of dominance. Inasmuch as dominating someone by raping them is sexualizing dominance (obviously), then rape is a way of dominating someone by feminizing them: by making them weaker, by penetrating them, by defining them as sex "objects" in the most literal and offensive way. Even when women commit rape, I'd argue that rape is an act of dominance and aggression, and that a major part of the humiliation and stigma of rape is being treated "like a pussy," that is, being treated as a weak, sexualized thing that is there "to be used," rather than as a person.
CCP, you *are* acting like a troll. Matt doesn't know you; you show up here, with no history as far as most of the ppl here are concerned, and you start arguing about shit that is at best, tangential to the subject of the post at hand and insulting regulars. It looks trollish, as does responding to criticism with "if you were bright enough" and trying to tell people what they think. And btw, you said "fluttering" specifically w/r/t the question of whether or not rape is assault: since Cala and I were the only ones who were really engaging you on that (and doing so with respect, no less), it's pretty disingenuous to say that that wasn't aimed at us.
Anyway. 'Nother topic. It's interesting to me that it's mostly the women who are more or less responding to CCP decently (I even defended him), and the guys who are being impatient with him, ignoring him, or being dismissive. It makes me wonder if I'm being played for a fool, not only here but over at my own place where CCP and a couple of other contrarian regulars frequently take over comment threads and try to pick nits about little insubstantive shit, including the never-old subject of whether feminists "really" just hate men, and whether feminism is "really" just silly and ridiculous. What do the Unfoggedetariat, whose opinions, judgment and logic I respect more than my own a lot of the time, and with whom I've also argued about whether x, y, or z position is feminist/irrational/just plain wrong, think about that kind of dynamic? I don't like the frequency of its occurance at my place lately, but I also don't want to expose myself to the "you ban anyone who disagrees with you" b.s., and I honestly think that a major part of the problem isn't deliberate trolling per se, but simply not getting some basic things that I expect ppl to take for granted. (E.g., feminism isn't anti-man.) How does this place manage to keep argument at such a high discursive level? And how can I recapture some of that myself?
Maybe this is an "ask Tia" kind of question.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:46 PM
Oh, and for the record, I've also been getting a lot more of whath I consider genuinely foolish faux-feminist arguments, as well, so there's that. It's not just the boys. I'm starting to get impatient with the whole kit n' kaboodle, and wonder if it's even possible to talk about feminism in a public forum without it eventually deteriorating into stupidity.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:50 PM
Tia,
Ok, that sounds familiar. IANAGR, so I'm not sure whether it's correct or not. I assume that some male rapes are crimes of lust. Others, I also assume, are committed to show ownership and to humiliate - which fits a certain definition of "feminizing." Others I suppose are just to inflict pain and humiliation, without any baggage about gender/social roles. (It must be a truism that that kind of painful violation is simply naturally humiliating, without having to bring in any ideas of "feminizing.")
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:54 PM
I don't mean to agree with CCP, but does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine, because male rape involves penetration and that this (along with regular homophobia) is an attack on the feminine?
How are we defining rape. The definition that I was taught was that rape was sex without consent brought about through force or fear.
It seems to me that everyoen is limiting the discussion to two possible types of rape:
(1.) men raping women; and
(2.) men raping men.
While I'll grant that there are two other options:
(3.) women raping other women: and
(4.) women raping men.
I'm pretty sure that 4 is extremely rare, and I don't know anything about lesbian rape, although the stereotypes would suggest that it would be uncommon.
I'm not comfortable with B's statement that ejaculation=getting off. I remember hearing something once about people saying that a little boy who was sexually molested by a woman couldn't have been raped, because he ejaculated; it seems perfectly plausible to me that the ejaculation was induced by fear. In my book that qualifies as rape.
Sure, most molestation is perpetrated by men, but, as a definitional matter, rather than as a practical one, I don't think that rape has to involve penetration by someone's dick to count.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 2:55 PM
I remember hearing something once about people saying that a little boy who was sexually molested by a woman couldn't have been raped, because he ejaculated; it seems perfectly plausible to me that the ejaculation was induced by fear. In my book that qualifies as rape. Of course it does. And rape is rape even if the guy *doesn't* orgasm, and that it's rape even if there's no dick involved. Part of what I meant by the "gettting off" thing was what Michael said: assume that some male rapes are crimes of lust. But it seems to me that the underlying idea that, if one feels lust, one should/can/is therefore allowed to *act* on that lust by forcing someone to have sex is intrinsically a way of demeaning the person one is forcing, using them as an object. And that the cultural construct of who "fucks" and who "is fucked" is gendered.
It's not that penetration is *inherently* an attack on "the feminine" in some quasi-spiritual new-agey kind of way, or that rape has to be consciously about dominance. It's that dominating someone through sex is a "masculine" act, and being fucked (note passive voice) is "feminine," broadly speaking. So it seems to me that getting off on dominance, or feeling justified in fucking someone as an expression of dominance (or anger, or power, or lust) necessarily involves imposing your will on someone else. Forcing them to "serve" you, forcing them into a weak position, forcing them into objectification. That's what I mean.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:03 PM
82: I think that the jokes--cock and otherwise--keep the seriosu discussion civil. I'm not sure how it works exactly beyons that. It may be that the joking creates a shared bond of trust which allows commenters to self-police a shared social norm.
On your blog, B, I would feel that I was only responding to you, because I don't in any sense "know" the other commenters. Here we tease people first, and then if they don't get the hint, we call them on it directly, but I think it ties back to the fact that even quasi-lurkers and occasional commenters feel a certain shared ownership in the blog. I think that shared ownership came about because of a sense fo camaraderie among teh regulars, which brings me back to the jokes and the point about trust. I trust apo and Reniew and Cala and LizardBreath and a bunch of other people. I knwo that they would stand up for me. I think that makes people a bit more easy going, because we know that if anything gets really bad, our posse will come to defend us.
And all of the in-jokes mean that most people feel that they have to lurk for a while befor ethey comment. That means that unfogged people generally have decided that they want to become unfogged people before the start commenting. Higher barriers to entry=Fewer Trolls. The trick is to remainign welcoming.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:05 PM
On your blog, B, I would feel that I was only responding to you, because I don't in any sense "know" the other commenters.
Thanks, bg. I think this is part of it, and I think it's also partly my fault in that I *do* talk a lot. I've had the same dynamic in classrooms, except when I force myself to stfu and let other people respond to questions that I have an answer for. And of course, the more personal nature of the blog probably feeds into that. Sigh.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:08 PM
I have to say that while what you say makes sense, B, I think my inition confusion at your fomulation was that I wasn't thinking about these conceptioins of "feminine." I'm aware they're still current, but, despite the truckload of emails I get from women's groups reminind me of current practices of misogyny, I still don't think of "masculine" and "feminine" that way in my daily life. Perhaps I am unusual in this. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, just provinding some vocabulary feedback.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:08 PM
I don't agree with the claim that 'an attack on the feminine' is necessary for a crime to be rape.
I'll admit that it's mostly because I think crimes are committed against people, and not ideas, and I'm allergic to jargon.
Rape often, and maybe generally happens because of wrongful thinking on gender: she had it coming, he had blue balls, boys will be boys.
But I'm not sure that the humiliation in #1 and #2 necessarily stemmed from being attacked as the feminine as it does from being attacked in a way that should be something enjoyable and consented to.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:11 PM
89: Well, I don't think I do, either, but I really wonder, because I suspect that on an unconscious level we think that way more than we realize. E.g., the whole discussion over "gay," or calling people "pussy" or whatever; it's different to say someone's being a pussy (weak, pathetic) than it is to say they're being a dick (aggressive, obnoxious). Or like the way we'll say "I'm being *such* a girl" when talking about something frivolous, or "you've got big ones" when praising someone's bravery. You know?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:12 PM
82: We initimdate trolls with philosophy threads and esoteric references. Also, our keen rhyming skills.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:12 PM
i.e., I think rape would still be rape even if we had achieved gender parity, because I think the humiliation aspect is separate from the feminization aspect.
I'm not making any sense now. Apologies.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:14 PM
Damn, why can't I type/ spell properly?
It's funny that you mention the more personal aspect as being part of the problem, because in a weird way, I feel much safer about being vulnerable in this more "competitive" environment. It's easier for me to be open about certain things here. Even psudonymously I would feel as though I was revealing too mcuh at bitchphd's site.
Maybe this is just my dysfunctional intellectualization, i.e. the smart kid who was always intellectual feels comfortable talking about more personal things only around people who can do the intellectual thing too. I don't know. Anyway, I've probably subjected everyone to too much blog-based therapy already. Shouldn't I wait for AskTia Tuesday or whatever it's called?
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:17 PM
I'm kind of the same way--I talk about stuff here that I don't mention on BPhD. Part of that, I think, is what you're saying about the sense of "in group" here. And I think the intellectualization thing is maybe part of it, now that you mention it: it feels safer to talk about stuff where you know people aren't going to get all irritatingly touchy-feely on you, but respect the boundaries between personal revelation and personal weakness. Or something. Fuck, I don't know what I'm talking about either.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:25 PM
I wasn't exactly saying what I though, BG, but what I thought B was thinking. I don't think this hate crime element is a necessary aspect of rape, but I think it's frequently present. Even when it's not part of even an implicit motive, misogyny is an implicit or explicit justification. Also, I think at least legally, "rape" is usually understood to be penetrative, while "sexual assault" is the term for non penetrative molestation, but that's not to say there's a significant moral difference between them.
(There are other categories of rape/molestation: women and men who rape boys and girls.)
I'm inclined to think it's false that there's any rape designed to cause pain or humiliation that does so without gender role baggage. Sex (the act) is too connected to gender.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:27 PM
Or like the way we'll say "I'm being *such* a girl" when talking about something frivolous, or "you've got big ones" when praising someone's bravery. You know?
Yes, those common phrases do tend to reinforce and reaffirm rather offensive notions of gender. Perhaps one should avoid them.
I object to linking rape to feminization for the same reason: it presupposes that feminine = weak (as has been noted).
My vague impression is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time and energy arguing that rape is a crime of power and dominance, and has little or nothing to do with sex. It deprives the victim of agency, or autonomy, of control over their own body (as has been noted). Going the next step, and calling this deprivation feminization, just reinforces the bad gender construction.
If one thinks that being feminine means lacking autonomy, then the connection between rape and abortion may make a bit more sense.
Sorry I'm so slow that I'm still three topics back.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:37 PM
coersing someone into murder is much more serious than throwing a paperclip at your boss.
Not necessarily.
does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine
No. In some cases it can, but as a general statement, not any more than burglary represents the hatred of property owners.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:40 PM
wow, I got the infernal server error. I feel like one of the gang.
I'm inclined to think it's false that there's any rape designed to cause pain or humiliation that does so without gender role baggage. Sex (the act) is too connected to gender.
I'm inclined to agree. That is, sex is used to demonstrate the other's lack of autonomy *because* feminine is traditionally constructed to mean weak. Otherwise it'd involve tar and feathers, or chocolate syrup, or something other than genitals.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:44 PM
I object to linking rape to feminization for the same reason: it presupposes that feminine = weak (as has been noted).
Femininity is already linked to weakness in the culture. It's not promoting the linkage to observe that rapists often rape in order to humiliatingly feminize their victims.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:45 PM
I don't deny that rapists often feminize and humiliate their victims; I deny simply that feminization's a necessary condition to rape.
(But really, apo, did you need to use a property example? yeesh.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:51 PM
Tia, MHS, sure, your objections seem reasonable. As noted, IANAGR and doubt my ability to understand them. I was thinking that where humans actions can run the full gamut of possibilities, they will. But, as I said, your objections seem reasonable.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:51 PM
My neighbors (well, they just moved, actually, so not really neighbors) play-rape during sex. Freaked me out late one night when I heard them (before I knew what was going on).
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:55 PM
does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine
No. In some cases it can, but as a general statement, not any more than burglary represents the hatred of property owners.
This is analogy is really inapt. Sex is not a fungible commodity like a TV set. Rape is nearly always motivated by a desire to feel powerful at the expense of the victim (there may be some subset of rapists who just want sex, I guess, but even they are rationalizing their actions through dehumanization of the victim). Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 3:56 PM
I'm inclined to agree. That is, sex is used to demonstrate the other's lack of autonomy *because* feminine is traditionally constructed to mean weak. Otherwise it'd involve tar and feathers, or chocolate syrup, or something other than genitals.
and conversely, people often use sexuality when what they really want to express is pleasure in power over someone else.
Sometimes, very explicitly.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:02 PM
also, 104 deserves to be read twice because it's right on target...
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:04 PM
I’m inclined to agree as well. My initial point was that rape is a special crime because of "gender role baggage", or rather, the gender role baggage we attribute to sex, and crimes with a sexual element.
Of course, I must be a monster to think such a thing. Has anyone ever considered that rape (the crime) reinforces the gendered significance of rape (the act) by making it a special crime?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:35 PM
Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
I'm not up on the psychology of rapists, but, it strikes my intuition that you could replace "burglars" with "rapists" and the above sentence would still hold true. ("thing" would refer to sexual pleasure.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:44 PM
Rape is nearly always motivated by a desire to feel powerful at the expense of the victim (there may be some subset of rapists who just want sex,
Again, I want to stress my nonexpertise, but I thought I remembered there being an uproar as psychologists began overturning the old model and accepting that rape *was* most often about sexual pleasure, not power.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:47 PM
109 c'est moi.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:49 PM
And in 109 i mean primarily about sexual pleasure, because certainly the power aspect can feed into the sexual pleasure.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 4:51 PM
I'm quite confident that my nonexpertise is bigger than your nonexpertise: I seem to have entirely missed the uproar as psychologists began overturning the old model and accepting that rape *was* most often about sexual pleasure, not power
A quick trip down gogle lane didn't clue me in, but my googliferous skills are nothing to brag about. I don't have much power over google, it holds out on me.
I did find this site saying "there is rape as a means of sexual gratification. ... This is the most common type of rape"
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=violence&refid=011menu
But they cite as authority this site, which suggests this distribution of motivations:
55% - power rapists
40% - anger rapists
5% - sadistic rapists
http://www.interactivetheatre.org/resc/menwhorape.html
So I'm confused. Any pointers towards information on the revolution?
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 5:09 PM
If I'm not mistaken, anger and sadism are both expressions of power.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 5:13 PM
It makes little sense to posit rape as an expression *primarily* of sexual desire, rather than of power. Because it's not that fucking hard to get laid: you can always hire a hooker. Or masturbate.
(Leaving aside, for the moment, the complicated discussion of whether hiring a hooker is always/often/usually itself an expression/assertion of power.)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 5:46 PM
does everyone else here agree that rape represents the hatred of the feminine
No. In some cases it can, but as a general statement, not any more than burglary represents the hatred of property owners.
I agree with Tia that this is a false analogy. There is a difference between hatred of women and hatred of femininity. Sex /= gender. I don't see how blending sex+power+force does *not* function as an attack on "femininity" or, conversely, an assertion of "masculine" privilege/power/right.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 5:50 PM
What is different about saying a hatred of femininity and a hatred of weakness?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 5:51 PM
I can't link, but in a desperate attempt not to do the work I'm supposed to be doing, I'm doing an abstract search. Here's one, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2004:
Individuals who are high in rape myth acceptance (RMA) have been found to report a high proclivity to rape. In a series of three studies, the authors examined whether the relationship between RMA and self-reported rape proclivity was mediated by anticipated sexual arousal or anticipated enjoyment of sexually dominating the rape victim. Results of all three studies suggest that the anticipated enjoyment of sexual dominance mediates the relationship between RMA and rape proclivity, whereas anticipated sexual arousal does not. These findings are consistent with the feminist argument that rape and sexual violence may be motivated by men's desire to exert power over women. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:10 PM
Hatred of femininity includes traits other than weakness, and many mistake females for femininity.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:10 PM
Burglars are usually motivated by a desire for the thing they're taking, irrespective of the experience of their victim.
Not necessarily. Burglary with vandalism is not uncommon. Some burglars do get off on violating someone else's private place--you hear about burglars who take a ritual dump in the middle of whatever living room they've broken into. Burglary becomes a symbolic rape.
The difficulty in arguing about whether rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power vs. a desire for sexual pleasure is that one can't always draw the line--for some people, sexual pleasure is attained by humiliating the other. So some people rape because they get sexual pleasure from humiliating others, some people rape because they wish to hurt and humiliate the other and rape is a convenient way to do that, and some people, presumably, rape because they want to come, and are so contemptuous of women, or weaker men, that they don't care about what the other wants. In all three cases there is an intention to control the other. It's the difference between hurting someone because you hate them, or because you just don't think it matters. In either case a hate crime.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:22 PM
These findings are consistent with the feminist argument that rape and sexual violence may be motivated by men's desire to exert power over women. - Tia
Would you agree that rape and sexual violence are motivated by a desire to conform to a masculine ideal that is defined in part, as that which dominates the feminine; so that a rapist (for example) adopts the role of the masculine ideal (even if it’s a female rapist), and at the same time casts the victim (male or female) as the feminine?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:23 PM
Apologies, I'm not writing clearly. I still think that rape is about power, and almost never about sexual gratification. I think that's what the article Tia cited was saying, as was the second article I cited. I thought Michael was suggesting the contrary.
I don't see how blending sex+power+force does *not* function as an attack on "femininity" or, conversely, an assertion of "masculine" privilege/power/right.
It functions as an attack on femininity *only* if you accept the construction female = feminine = weak.
But that is a construction. Constructions may be contested. One can look it straight in the eye and deny it (before a cock crows even once).
One may aver that feminine does NOT = weak; that one may be feminine without being weak; that one may be weak without being feminine.
That is, one can view rape as an attempt to act out the construction feminine = weak. But one can deny it that meaning.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:29 PM
I don't disagree with anything you said mcmc. But the point of apo's analogy, as I took it, was to say that rapists, like burglars, were only motivated by the thing they wanted, not by their attitude towards the person they were taking it from, which is wrong. I know there can be other kinds of buglaries; that's why I said "usually". I was trying to draw a distinction between the paradigmatic buglary and motivations for rape. I've never liked "it's not about sex, it's about power" because the two are intertwined.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:34 PM
I don't see how one can deny it that meaning, given that that meaning *is* functional in the society as a whole. Saying "no it's not" doesn't change the fact that we see feminine/girly/girlish as "weak," "silly," "passive," etc. and masculine/manly/boysih as "strong," "aggressive," etc. You can *aver* that femininity isn't, in fact, weakness, and I will agree with you; I'm quite happy to play femme roles and to argue strenuously that I'm not weakening myself by doing so. But the fact that I have to make that argument shows that I'm consciously and deliberately criticizing a dominant social association of feminine with weak; I can fight it, but I can't simply snap my fingers and whisk it away. And I also have to recognize that my playing femme *is* seen by a lot of people *as* weak, or as capitulation to patriarchy, or as an opportunity to put me in the one-down position. One of the reasons I do it is to counter that reality, but it's still reality.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:35 PM
123 was responding to 121.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:35 PM
120: certainly in most cases.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:37 PM
I don't see how one can deny it that meaning, given that that meaning *is* functional in the society as a whole. ... One of the reasons I do it is to counter that reality, but it's still reality.
And I deny that reality, to help construct a new reality.
The way to change socially constructed meanings is to change them - that is, to speak and act as if they were changed. To repeat and reaffirm their new meanings at every opportunity. To never, never ever do anything that could be seen as admitting the possibility of the old meaning.
Here's an example. Repeat after me:
- the liberal media
- deregulation means freedom
- all taxes are oppression
- flip-flop
See how it works? Now we need to repeat female =| feminine =| weak.
In other words, I think if we all snap our fingers together we can whisk it away. I'm snapping as hard as I can.
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:47 PM
Here's another abstract:
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 6:56 PM
122: I see, and I agree with you. I think it's actually Apo with whom I take issue. I know it's going off on a tangent to argue about the nature of burglary, but I do think a perverse pleasure in violation is characteristic of burglars--as compared, for example, to shoplifters. So actually, rapists are not unlike burglars, but for the opposite reason to the one Apo gave. Neither one just wants the stuff.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:01 PM
120: Would you consider then that rape (the criminal charge) is a reaction to rape (the act) that both honours the masculine ideal by attributing a special scariness to it, while honouring the sacrifice of the feminine ideal?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:03 PM
129: No.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:05 PM
"But, after the abuse I've sustained here, I've earned the right."
and
"Of course, I must be a monster to think such a thing."
Dude's just looking to get abused. This is likely why he views feminism as about oppressing men. It's what he wants it to be about. Likewise, in this forum, he's looking to get abused for his views, so he goes about his arguments in a manner that ensures exactly that.
Cue comment in 3...2...1 about how I'm not "bright enough" to understand him or some such bullshit.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:12 PM
129: no
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:12 PM
The difficulty in arguing about whether rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power vs. a desire for sexual pleasure is that one can't always draw the line
My non-expert opinion is that rape is commonly motivated by a desire for power and also by a belief (intuition? fear?) that sexual gratification accrues only to the powerful. That is, the motivating factors behind rape seem to be A) a desire for sexual pleasure B) a desire for dominance, but also C) a particular (most of us would say aberrant) notion of the relationship between the two. To the rapist, "good" sex must be taken.
Maybe that's blindingly obvious, (or wrong) but I just thought I'd throw it out.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:14 PM
130: How would you explain the fairly common notion that rape is worse than murder? This brings us back to North Dakota where many imagine that abortion is murder, but that an exception should be made in cases of rape. How do people resolve these if "rape" does not trump "murder" somewhere in their heads?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:16 PM
But the point of apo's analogy, as I took it, was to say that rapists, like burglars, were only motivated by the thing they wanted, not by their attitude towards the person they were taking it from, which is wrong.
Well, my point was that rape may have all kinds of motivations behind it. And that some percentage of those motivations, as with all crimes, is simply that somebody is a selfish, amoral person who really has no larger academic construct of gender in which they operate. For some subset of rapists, the motivation is not particularly different than it is for hitting somebody in the head with a brick.
It's easy to place it into an sociological construct, but that rarely maps neatly onto the real world, where we're dealing with individual psyches. While it can be describeable as a hate crime in plenty of instances, it isn't necessarily so.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:16 PM
130: Why not? How would you explain the fairly common notion that rape is worse than murder? This brings us back to North Dakota where many imagine that abortion is murder, but that an exception should be made in cases of rape. How do people resolve this idea if "rape" does not trump "murder" somewhere in their heads?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:20 PM
How would you explain the fairly common notion that rape is worse than murder?
Yeah, "common" might be a function of the people you hang out with, CCP.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:23 PM
This brings us back to North Dakota
South Dakota.
Posted by: Central Content Provider
Publisher.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:23 PM
#134
Common? WTF? I'd say damn near anyone would rather be raped than killed.
The reason for the rape excetpions are that most abortion foes don't actually believe it's murder. They just say they do. But when you suggest getting rid of the rape exception, or charging the mother who gets an abortion with murder of the fetus, they get all squirrely and back down.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:23 PM
Did everyone hear about that crazy thing Tom Cruise did?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:27 PM
131: gswift isn't wrong. I've been abused much of my life, in a variety of ways, and it's easy to reflexively adopt an oppressed role. However, that doesn't really obsolve those who take me up on it (especially when I obviously don't want it to continue).
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:30 PM
136: Because you imply again that getting raped is equivalent to getting punched in the nose, and because although I have no clear idea what you mean by "honouring the sacrifice of the feminine ideal" your language is creeping me out.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:32 PM
There's two charitable reasons, as far as I can see, that a pro-life group or person might admit a rape exemption.
1) The pro-lifer sees abortion as not equivalent morally to murder, but nevertheless a grievous moral wrong that is, however, trumped by the moral wrong of the harm done to a rape victim in forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term; or,
2) The pro-lifer does believe that it's murder, but thinks that a rape exemption is the only practical way to get a legal ban on abortion. (i.e., it won't play in Peoria to make rape victims carry rapists' babies, but that's better than unrestricted access.)
Non-charitable reasons include wanting pregnancy to be a punishment for extramarital sex, but they make up a minority of the pro-lifers I know.
On the rape as power-grab topic. To my mind, it seems to apply to some forms of rape, but not others. All rape seems to involve a denial of the other person's agency, but I suspect most date rape is motivated more by lust than a desire to humiliate the other person. (Unless we broadly construe 'humiliation' in a way that I think is unwarranted.)
As I understand the historical narrative, 'rape is about power' came about to combat the narrative 'rape is because the woman was asking for it'. But if rape is only to do with power, not sex, then why doesn't the rapist just beat the person with a baseball bat? There's lots of other expressions of power that don't involve sexual humiliation.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:35 PM
138: Thanks for the school marm moment.
139: You need to talk to a greater variety of people. People *honestly* believe that abortion is murder, but that there should be an exception in cases of rape. They really do. I'm not saying they're brilliant because of it, but they do think that. And it’s not a matter of people would rather be murdered or raped, I’m talking about the public display of the trial. I'm talking about what people think of others. Murder is much more socially acceptable than rape.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:37 PM
#141
If you want to take swings at people, go right ahead. But try not to be surprised when they swing back.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:37 PM
#144
People says a lot of things. But their actions tell the true story.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:39 PM
I don't know about that, CCP. Quite a lot of date rapists, at least, get excused as 'oh, he's a nice boy, don't ruin his life', which I imagine would be quite unlikely if the same nice boy murdered someone.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:41 PM
135: okay, I'll certainly grant that the full spectrum of motivations for an act is broad, but I think the comparison to a property crime is poor, because we do not, despite mcmc's well-taken point, think of property crimes as usually motivated by attitudes toward the victim, which I think rape generally is.
selfish, amoral person who really has no larger academic construct of gender
I think this is a slightly misleading presentation of the issue though. It's not like the rapist need consciously or explicitly connect his actions to a desire for a gendered feeling of power; it's that he's been taught to connect sex and coercive or violent power in the process of learning to be "a man". You can get affirming pleasure from acting out gendered violence without having any conscious notion that that's what's happening.
I suspect most date rape is motivated more by lust than a desire to humiliate the other
There's an intermediate point, where the motivation for date rape is not humiliation but a specific kind of gratification wherein the man feels empowered specifically by the disregard of the other's agency, by knowing that what he wants he can take.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:44 PM
143: True Cala, but even if you just consider that rape is a heavier social taboo than murder is. For reference, observe the treatment of rapists in jail vs. the treatment of murderers. Rape is a powerful word.
142: I've never suggested rape is the equivolent of getting punched in the nose (although, a better comparison would be getting punched in the nose over and over). But WHY is it different? WHY is it a greater crime than assault? The only answer offered so far is that it's a greater crime becauise it conotes the power of the masculine over the feminine. Can anyone think of another?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:47 PM
You seem to be looking for some sort of essentialist rationale for the treatment of rape. It's treated as worse than savage assault because we think it's worse than savage assault. Maybe because rape is more common than savage assault? (I'm not sure that's true, though.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:51 PM
138: Thanks for the school marm moment.
CCP, If you'd lurked a little longer you might know that We Do Not Dis Teh Standpipe.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:52 PM
147: It's true Cala. And that IS part of the mythos of rape, but doesn't work against what I'm describing.
Think of it in a more general sense. In an effort to get men to stop raping women as an assertion of their dominance, we have increased the threat reputation of rape, thereby making it more attractive as a proof of dominance.
Is that a clear way of putting it?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:54 PM
151: I've always been a bad 'we' player. But, if it helps, it's all bark.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 7:56 PM
The only answer offered so far is that it's a greater crime becauise it conotes the power of the masculine over the feminine. Can anyone think of another?
No, it's not any of the answers offered so far.
Is this a fair summary of where we are?
1. You think, for reasons given above, that the law should not consider rape as distinct in kind from assault.
2. The rest of us think, also for reasons given above, that the law, here, now, should make the distinction.
3. Bickering.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:04 PM
We Do Not Dis Teh Standpipe.
I appreciate the sentiment, mcmc, but I'm as fair as game can be.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:08 PM
148: I think what resolves our positions is that this isn't an either/or situation. I feel quite certain that some number of rapists are sociopaths, and the issue isn't that they devalue women, but that nobody is a full human being except themselves - male, female, gay, straight, black, white, whatever.
I understand that this plays out inside a culture that has certain inherent gender issues, but these are actors who are operating largely outside of that culture's established norms anyhow.
This observation isn't particularly useful in practical terms.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:08 PM
Can anyone think of another?
Between B and I, I count five? six?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:08 PM
And I deny that reality, to help construct a new reality.
The way to change socially constructed meanings is to change them - that is, to speak and act as if they were changed. To repeat and reaffirm their new meanings at every opportunity. To never, never ever do anything that could be seen as admitting the possibility of the old meaning.
Well, that's nice and all, but it isn't the way the world works. And advocating that we simply ignore or deny unpleasant truths pretty much prevents us from actually doing jack shit to address them. It's like saying "racism doesn't exist!" and expecting that to somehow solve the poverty on Indian reservations or something.
I suspect our difference may be that you think that when I say "feminine = weak" I mean it as a simple descriptive, that femininity reall is weak. Of course I don't think that. I mean it simply as a labelling of the way the language and the ideas we have work, for better or for worse (in this case, obviously, worse).
137: I haven't totally caught up on this thread, but I gotta say, I find that pretty offensive, if I'm interpreting it correctly.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:11 PM
I feel quite certain that some number of rapists are sociopaths, and the issue isn't that they devalue women, but that nobody is a full human being except themselves
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're not devaluing women. It only means they're not devaluing women exclusively.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:20 PM
"137: I haven't totally caught up on this thread, but I gotta say, I find that pretty offensive, if I'm interpreting it correctly."
I took it to mean that CCP thinks that view is common because the people he largely associates with share that view, giving him a skewed sample. I'm forever trying to point this out to "gun nuts." Because they and their range buddies all think that buying guns without a background check is a God given right, they assume most of the country also thinks this way. They just have a hard time understanding that "me and my circle of friends" isn't necessarily representative of the population at large
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:21 PM
157: I addressed those at 150. There were others?
158: What's offensive?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:24 PM
In that case, I retract my umbrage. I took it as being classist, and I should have known better, really.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:25 PM
160: I would say the same to you gswift. Where does that leave us?
However, at least I've established that many here think that murder is objectively worse than rape. I agree.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:27 PM
You didn't post at 150.
To the extent that you addressed me, you say, 'lol', 'fluttering' and 'I agree with you, contrarian' and 'I disagree with you.' To the extent that you addressed B, it seems that you misread nearly every point she made.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:33 PM
Where does it leave us? You proposed the view that rape is worse than murder as "common." This site has commenters from various regions of the country, various walks of life, etc., and so far it seems there's no support for your depiction. So what we have is your proposal seems wildly counterintuitive, and you haven't posted any kind of data to back it up.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:36 PM
Sorry! I meant 54!
The "fluttering" was for the guys who were giving me a hard time, not you or bitchphd.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:37 PM
Being raped by a stranger wreaks havoc with normal sexual relations the same way that being violently assaulted by a stranger wreaks havoc with...what? amateur boxing?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:48 PM
I like Paul's point (in 133) about for the rapist, good sex must be taken.
There's something else too. There is the question of whether, not only in the mind of the rapist, but sometimes in the public mind, and the jurys', there is a belief that situations can amount to consent. This is "asking for it" with a capital A. So, in this way of thinking, a girl goes to an athlete's room, that's consent. Suppose she did think she was likely to have sex with him. Suppose also she then decided she didn't want to. If he judges the situation as one where her being present under those circumstances is consent, and especially if she had ever expressed consent, say when he first asked her, then he can go ahead and take it.
I don't think many people actually belief this, nor that it's the law, certainly not in this country. I think that it's more that the girl's having put herself in this position is evidence she may have implicitly consented at some point, and that therefore there may have been a misunderstanding about consent. All the elements, including the absence of consent, need to be proven beyond a reasonble doubt. This question of consent is the easiest one to cast doubt on. This idea, that there may be a confusion about consent, seems to be present in every famous modern rape trial.
As I say, I think this is the issue for reasons of evidence and trial strategy. But there is also the issue Paul raised, about good sex must be taken. I believe if told to desist, I would do it from whatever situation, no matter how "developed;" shock, picque, anger, maybe, but desist I would. But then there is that about the rape play somebody mentioned above. And what about the story somebody told here a couple of weeks ago about the girl who thought pretending to be wasted, unable to coherently resist, would be a turn on? For all we know, the famous athletes and other privileged rapists have "taken" successfully, without complaint before, sometimes to the evident satisfaction of the woman. Remember that scene in Gone With The Wind, immediately after the frustrated Rhett seizes Scarlett and runs up stairs with her kicking and screaming, when she is shown purring and luxuriating in bed?
I'm forced to admit that taking and being taken appeal to many people, men and women both.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 8:54 PM
138 was teh funny. There is no denying that.
Further, Apo get it exactly right. I'm well aware of how thoroughly sex and power is linked. I'm sure that some rapes are almost exclusively about power. But I also believe that although in some rapes, though the sexual gratification may be dependent upon power, the rape is not about power! It's about fucking, and doing anything to get off. In this subset of cases, power relations may be necessary to get off, but they are neverthless just the way by which the goal of getting off is reached.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:02 PM
167: ...same way that being violently assaulted by a stranger wreaks havoc with your ability to go to public places, every other human being on earth, you know, apparently non-important stuff like that.
165: Are we going to test this theory here? On this site? What should the questionnaire be? How about this:
What do you find more appalling?
1) rape squads
2) death squads
Put the following crimes in order of their heinousness:
- auto theft
- rape
- severe assault
- murder
- manslaughter
You are kidnapped by an evil alien, who gives you two choices:
1) kill your friend.
2) Rape your friend.
Which do you choose?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:04 PM
169: It was funny.
But the crime isn't in getting off. The crime is in doing "anything" to get off. Which is about power. Your power to get off without barriers.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:09 PM
Well, that's nice and all, but it isn't the way the world works. ...
But how do things change?
You are saying that the dominant paradigm is what it is - and, of course, it is. But it doesn't exist apart from what people do. Individuals, every day, choosing how to act and what to say, make it real.
By saying "feminine = weak, according to the dominant paradigm" you may make people think that feminine = weak, according to the dominant paradigm. It's a type of magic, like saying something three times. Repetition makes it true.
On the other hand, if we all repeat "sexism bad", we may encourage people to think that sexism is bad. If enough people think it, and act on it, then by golly we have a new dominant paradigm.
advocating that we simply ignore or deny unpleasant truths pretty much prevents us from actually doing jack shit to address them
On the other hand, once most people began to deny that black = lazy, shiftless, and likes watermelon then the meaning of black did change.
...the way the language and the ideas we have work ...
They work the way people make them work.
Or maybe I heard that the personal is political, and heard it too often, at an impressionable age. But language and ideas do change. I'm not at all clear on exactly how, but it does happen. I think it's through the magic of shared belief.
I'm well aware of how thoroughly sex and power is linked.
They are only linked for those sexists who choose to link them - or for those whom childhood trauma has left emotionally and morally crippled. [see? that's an approach to changing the paradigm]
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:26 PM
#170
People's survival instinct generally trumps all. Pretty much everything is seen as preferrable to death.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:27 PM
No, language and its associations change because people consciously become *aware* of the associations (which involves identifying them) and then consciously try to reject/relearn them. Not by simply denying them in the first place.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:34 PM
173: We're mixing up the personal and the other. Not wanting to die yourself, is different from caring if someone else dies. It would be nice if it wasn't, but a world at war says differently. More evidence of the popularity of murder: American heroes are gun fighters, not dick fighters.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 9:48 PM
So far it seems people would rather be raped than murdered, and as a society we impose harsher sentences for murder. I'm still not getting where we get "common notion that rape is worse than murder"
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-23-06 11:06 PM
Now you're being purposly obtuse.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 6:12 AM
177: No, he really isn't being purposely obtuse. Look, I have some sense of what you're getting at with 'rape is worse than murder', but it's not well or clearly put -- in the terms you've stated it, very very few people are going to agree either that they feel that way, or that any substantial number of other people feel that way. Most people would simply rather be raped than killed.
I would suggest an alternative formulation, that many people think a rapist is a worse person (more mentally ill, more evil, however you want to put it) than a murderer (for some types of murderer). Even people who feel this way, though, seem often to change their minds when presented with a 'sympathetic' rapist, the 'nice boy who's life is going to be ruined'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 7:44 AM
If the point is really that we think less poorly, in the abstract, of murderers than of rapists, then that seems trivial. We can all imagine killings we think to be justified (e.g., Hitler); it's harder to imagine a rape we think is justified.
Cripes, if that's really the point, it took a long, long time to go a very short distance.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 7:51 AM
Back to B's question in 82, about what makes it easier to have a productive discussion here than in most other comments sections:
I get a little embarrassed by this conversation, which comes up every so often, because it's hard not to get self-congratulatory about it. Really, I think a lot if it that we're protected from trolls by the awesome power of boredom. The people whe comment here do so largely because they enjoy a particular style of chatter (that's certainly what I'm here for), which, for people who aren't into that kind of thing, has got to be hideously dull. For people who like it, on the other hand, it's great fun. So someone who reads enough to bother to delurk usually, although not always, starts off from a position of liking the people and the enviroment of discourse (yow, does that sound pretentious) enough that substantive arguments can be productive and non-hostile.
For example, think of gswift's delurking to argue gun-control from what is, on this site, a minority position. Without the basis of good feeling from the smartass chatter, that probably would have been a nasty little argument with insults going both ways. Because gswift came in with a previously formed good opinion of the place, even though it got stiff at times, the conversation never got irretrievably ugly. Same with the abortion conversations -- the social bonds from the silliness are strong enough to keep a contentious topic pretty civil.
When you get someone who isn't charmed by the background conversation, on the other hand, while they may get ugly and unpleasant, they also just get bored pretty fast, and they go away.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:13 AM
Also, there's a unreasonably high proportion of philosophers and lawyers. Philosophers spend their days arguing and for better or for worse, it's all a game. Can we find a justification for torture? Can we find a non-consequentialist grounding for a prohibition of pornography? Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill an innocent baby and a flower? What if you're a brain in a vat -- should you then be vegetarian?
Lawyers, as we commonly know, are all used to defending unpleasant clients. On the scale of things to get offended about, blog comments are probably pretty low.
Unfogged also isn't a political blog these days. It's either highbrow personal or lowbrow current events.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:22 AM
178: close, but not totally there. How about...
Rape is often a more heinous transgression than murder, and sometimes, even a worse punishment than murder, however; why is it considered *as* serious a transgression as murder, or even severe assault? Why does the abstract idea of rape have so much strength? What gives this punch in the nose it's extra power? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't trivial.
I proposed that the main difference was sex, or more specifically, gender roles. And that the crime of rape itself, the very word rape, grants the masculine ideal the special privilege of this special threat. The question isn’t just “how do we feel about rapists”, but how much do people fear being raped?
As for the “nice boy” phenomenon; I think it’s usually a misrepresentation. They say nice boy, but being a boy is never sympathetic (that would destroy the power of rape). Instead, what they should really say is ‘nice white’, or ‘nice rich’, or ‘nice my son’, and so on…
179: Every rape is justified - by someone. The question is: why do so many justify it for themselves and loath it in others?
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:26 AM
181:
I like "highbrow personal."
On the subject of professions/arguing habits: I've always felt somewhat handicapped as a lawyer by not being interested in the game as a game. My brother-in-law has this gift in spades; it's a good reason to get up in the morning, or in his case, in the afternoon.
What's your explanation for the literary types, which is closer to what I am?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:30 AM
The question isn’t just “how do we feel about rapists”, but how much do people fear being raped?
Well, a lot--more than is really realistic, actually, especially when it comes to stranger rape. It serves a social function of making women afraid and justifies limiting our freedom of movement along with the perpetuation of blame-the-victimism ("well, if she hadn't been drunk..."). It's also an expression of the stupid, sexist idea that men can't control themselves sexually, that it's women's job to be the gatekeepers, that "boys will be boys," that women, rather than men, are responsible for preventing rape, yadda yadda.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:43 AM
Rape is often a more heinous transgression than murder, and sometimes, even a worse punishment than murder, however; why is it considered *as* serious a transgression as murder, or even severe assault?
I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, but what do you mean specifically? If you're talking about sentencing, I don't think that's an accurate basis for saying how severely a crime is viewed by society -- heck, if you look at what a pot dealer can get sentenced to v. a violent criminal in some states, it's obvious that the criminal law is not in close harmony with how society feels about the crime.
In the interests of moving forward with the argument, what say we drop the 'more serious than murder' phrasing, which I think is only posing as a roadblock, and talk about whether there are problems with the severity with which people regard rape.
And here I think there is a valid point, although I'm not sure that it is the same one that you're making. There is a sense in which rape is regarded as a, I'm not sure how to put this, crime that pollutes the victim, which is I think a vestige of inequitable gender roles. The sense is that a raped woman has lost her virtue, or her purity, and that a raped man has lost his masculinity,and that's what makes it so terrible a crime. This is not so much, in my eyes, an overvaluing of the heinousness of rape, as considering it particularly heinous for the wrong reasons, and it's the kind of thing that leads people to consider rape no big deal when it happens to the wrong victim: a woman with no 'virtue' to lose, or a man with no 'masculinity'. This isn't all that clearly put, but is it the kind of thing you're talking about?
183: You've still got the attraction to wordplay, if not to argument for argument's sake.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:46 AM
I think the literary types like playing with ideas. Plus, some of us are really opinionated. More and more, though, I realize that the underlying literary type training in the importance of subtext, associations, and the cultural weight of language can be a handicap, b/c I usually don't spell that stuff out and yet it's foundational to most of my arguments (e.g., my claim here that "feminine = weak").
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:52 AM
I would suggest an alternative formulation, that many people think a rapist is a worse person ...
Exactly. I think that may be indeed be what he's getting at, but apparently the rest of us are supposed to run what he says through our magic CCP decoder ring rather than just take his statements at face value.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:56 AM
169: I feel this distinction is semantic, at least insofar as we are arguing, rather than insofar as you are arguing with a position I'm not taking, but that I think some people do: that rape does not bring sexual gratification. If a rape is in the cases you're talking about a sexual act that depends on the exercise of power over the victim for the deliverance of gratification, and the particular kind of gratification can't come without the feeling of power, and you can't get the feeling of power without coercive sex, then both sex and power are simultaneous goals of the rapist. It is not "about" one or the other; one is not only incidental to the other. (Somewhere I read a complaint that really resonated with me about the incredibly sloppy use of the word "about" when that;s nbt what is meant at all.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:00 AM
179: Every rape is justified - by someone. The question is: why do so many justify it for themselves and loath it in others?
You keep asserting things as if they are eternal verities that we all know to be true. Is there some group of rapists that you're aware of that draw distinctions between good rape and bad rape (or good forced sex and bad forced sex)? I find that implausible.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:00 AM
In trying to pick up on 185, I'm wondering about the relative importance of 1) what will people think of me, having been raped? 2) (sort of the internalized version of 1), very likely just as if not more significant) what do I think of myself, socially, having been raped? 3) what effect does having been raped have on me, assuming that 1) and 2) are not important, which seems impossible but the factors might be distinguishable.
I'd like to start with 3), where I think that the loss of control and free expression, about something very close to my personal core, is the damage. And this may be present--to a much lesser extent--even in cases most people would not call rape, where we have gone along or given ambivalent consent.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:02 AM
Because gswift came in with a previously formed good opinion of the place
Actually, I was resenting all of you from the shadows, waiting for the perfect moment to strike you down with 2nd Amendment goodness.
I you and Cala are both right. It helps that I find the banter here amusing, and this site seems particularly good at debating rather nutty things without it getting personal.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:03 AM
189: Surely your average date rapist distinguishes between good rape ("not really rape"; "she wanted it") and bad rape ("real" rape).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:04 AM
186:
Good point; I'm a terrible speller-out yet can be upset when I feel misunderstood. Got to remember that all the time.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:05 AM
189: Surely your average date rapist distinguishes between good rape ("not really rape"; "she wanted it") and bad rape ("real" rape).
But that's the thing - he doesn't think he raped her. To the extent he forced sex on her and thinks it was justified, I assume he would say the same if some other man did it. This seems closer to something like saying preemptive killing isn't murder, but very different from other cases where we might believe that there were factors mitigating or justifying a murder (e.g., killing the man who raped your kid).
I believe that there are far more situations where we think that (a) there's no doubting that what was done was murder, and (b) we still think it was justified, than (i) there's no doubting that what was done was rape, and (ii) we still think it was justified.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:19 AM
Well, I'd agree with that. Even though I'd also say, "well, it was too rape, and he's a rationalizing little shit and his opinion shouldn't be taken into account." And then that gets us back into the whole argument about consent and legal liability and all that. Ugh.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:24 AM
There is a sense in which rape is regarded as a, I'm not sure how to put this, crime that pollutes the victim,
Can this be overcome by people with traditionally conservative views of sex? I doubt it, because, from a traditionally conservative view of sex, it appears to be true. But I do hope that there would be a way for such people to overcome this view; compassion should triumph.
And, shorter CCP: It's common that people think rape is more heinous than murder, even though no one agrees with me.
I do get what CCP is getting at. I do know that some people would prefer certain forms of murder to certain forms of rape. And it is true that we glorify certain forms of murder. But beware all of this "certain forms" business. I doubt anyone would rather be horribly murdered than date-raped. In any case, there's something intrinsically rotten about asking for a preference among two awful choices. And I can't figure out the point of arguing whether or not rape is worse than murder.
And I still refuse to answer such an obtuse question as "why is rape worse than assault?".
bitch in #174. I want to give MHS a bit more credit than that. He seems to be arguing, "faulty ideas noted, let's start changing them *now*." I do think that language is more likely to change by censuring/punishing the wrong use of it than by simply repeatedly pointing out the wrong use. It's an intellectual reactioin to note that feminine=weak, but certainly it's more socially effective to decalre that the whole "feminine=weak" construct is socially taboo?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:24 AM
It's an intellectual reactioin to note that feminine=weak, but certainly it's more socially effective to decalre that the whole "feminine=weak" construct is socially taboo?
Certainly, and in another context you know I'd be all over that. But in the current context, trying to think about the "meaning" of rape, not pointing out the feminine=weak thing seems to inhibit our ability to understand the issue at hand.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:27 AM
Yes, but there's a risk, which I think is what worries Dr. B (I know it worries me) that it will become taboo to explicitly name or refer to the association between femininity and weakness, but it won't become taboo to continue to make that association. That is, we (the unfogged commentariat, or even the larger community of people who care about this stuff) don't have the power by ourselves to make 'pussy' no longer an insult meaning 'weak' -- whether or not we use it, other people still will. While other people make that association, it hampers us not to be able to admit that that association is being made.
This sort of thing has happened with respect to race -- it is now widely regarded as as or more unseemly and improper to allude to the possibility of racism in any specific situation ('playing the race card') as it is to actually say or do something racist.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:31 AM
I dispute 194 as a definitional matter. Murder is properly used to mean only those killings which have been judged to be (morally or legally, depending on context) wrongful, so it doesn't make sense to talk about justified murder.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:32 AM
199: I think you're wrong. I'm thinking about case where it is clearly murder by any legal definition, but that, as a matter of common belief, the killing was justified. Which, I suppose, really reduces to an understanding that there are justifications for killing that we accept, but not openly or uniformly.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:40 AM
198: Don't think that's exactly what's happened wrt race, but I like the general point. I can stand, even sometimes envy people who can use words like "pussy" without anybody misunderstanding them; there's a fearlessness in banter and capacity to communicate subtext that escapes me completely and leaves me feeling stiff and dull.
But I'd be appalled if I heard my children speaking this way, and I think they don't. We're going to be earnest in this house, goddamit!
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:42 AM
Like I said, this is a pure definitional dispute, so it's not going to lead anywhere interesting, but I read 199 as saying that there are morally proper killings which are criminally punished as murder, despite not being in the moral category "murder." I agree that this happens, and I'm just noting that I use different words to describe it.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:54 AM
If you don't like rape is worse, or as bad as murder, take it from the other direction: why is rape worse than an unwanted touch?
The statement I've been defending is that the only thing that seperates rape from assault is sex and gender. To answer Micheal's point - which amounts to "so what?" - and to pick up where Lizardbreath left off...
As the victim is polluted, so is the feminine ideal validated as that which is polluted. As the rapist is demonized, so is the masculine ideal demonized. This leaves rape as a very wierd criminal charge that, with each conviction vallidates the threat of rape; the power of the masciline; and the dominance of the masculine over the feminine. Think of a rape trial as a ritual that celebrates the power of the rape threat, and the pollution of the feminine.
Why is this important? Rape is a vivid, and grusome illustration of the rivalry between sexes. How we treat it determines what gender roles mean to us. So, I suppose it matters as much as gender roles matter.
ok, fire away.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:18 AM
the only thing that seperates rape from assault is sex and gender.
Where I have problems with this statement is that 'sex and gender' isn't one thing -- it is at least two. To get all weirdo-hypothetical about this, picture an alternative world with only one, hermaphroditic, gender. There are no gender roles or gender conflicts, everyone is the same. But people still have sex for reproduction and pleasure and as an expression of caring and love, and still have a sense of sex as something powerfully related to their selves and their personal autonomy. In such a world, it is my belief that rape would still be a crime more significant than assault, despite the fact that gender roles wouldn't enter into it -- a lot of the trauma would remain the same.
Taking that as an assumption, I can't agree that treating rape as a significant crime only or primarily validates and supports iniquitous gender roles, although there are certainly attitudes about rape, as in my 185, that do.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:39 AM
And I say the only thing that separates assault from murder is the killing.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:47 AM
And from counterfeiting is that damn printing press. And the whole engraving thing.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:48 AM
204: I agree with your hermaphrodite-world-would-still-have-rape idea, and think it is close to what I meant by 3) in 190. This is the damage from rape considered as much as possible without the social significance, just the personal.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:52 AM
205:
Yes, but differenciating between resulting-in-death and not-resulting-in-death is a difference in physical reality not the result of a social gender bias. If you prefer a society where gender bias dominates, of course, rape is just fine the way it is.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 10:54 AM
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity? Maybe. But no one thinks it's a sufficiently important factor in the reinscription to risk unknown or untoward to justify different treatment than currently used. Maybe that will change in time. I doubt it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:07 AM
why is rape worse than an unwanted touch?
I already answered that, and so, I think, did Cala.
Rape is a vivid, and grusome illustration of the rivalry between sexes.
Not at all. It's a crime. Now, I take what you're saying about *part* of the heinousness of the crime resting in the stigmatization of the rape victim, and I think that that is partly true. And yes, in the context of gender, which is inescapable, rape takes on certain meanings (which is probably why it occurs so frequently, as I've argued upthread); without gendered categories tying into both sex and power, the only motivation for rape would end up being sexual desire, which is pretty easy to fulfill without forcing yourself on someone. Nonetheless, being raped would still suck more than an "unwanted touch," again for all the reasons I listed way upthread.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:20 AM
209: And I don't know why it should, for the reasons LB is saying better than I am.
And you've made me damn glad I learned to diagram sentences all those years ago.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:22 AM
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity?
Aha. If this is the case, then sure; in theory, I might be willing to go along with it, although I *do* think that there's a difference between assault and rape. The problem with the argument, of course, is the same as the anti-affirmative action argument: it's aiming (I think) to have the law treat as equal, circumstances that in actual practice aren't. Sure, when and if we get to that golden day when women's sexuality is no longer seen as a passive receptacle, when the virgin/whore dichotomy just makes people go, "the what?" when porn no longer exists, and when public nudity is no more of a deal than seeing someone's bare forearms, then sure: let's make rape just a variation of assault, maybe. But in the meantime, I don't see the point of the argument?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:32 AM
Yes, but differenciating between resulting-in-death and not-resulting-in-death is a difference in physical reality not the result of a social gender bias.
Maybe we could switch the wording to something nice and neutral like "assaults involving genitalia."
That way if someone knocks me unconcious with a beer bottle, it's just assault. But if the guy decides to cum on me afterwards, an appropriately stiffer sentence can be imposed.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:33 AM
209: It also reinscribes notions of masculine power as one that threatens and dominates and conquers. In essence, the crime of rape vallidates the threat of rape which makes rape an action of power, which of course; is why rapists rape.
Of course, muder often stumbles on this as well. It's both a heinous crime, and a status symbol.
In the end, I'm not saying that rape should be punished less (though I would probably argue differently - somewhere else:P), but that it shouldn't be exaulted. Whether the crime of rape exists as a legal construct or not, it's important to remember that the event of a rape trial is also a social ritual that redefines our gender roles.
210: I know you and Cala offered a number of reasons why rape is differentiated from assault, but none that rweally seemed to apply. Some of the examples were fraud, others were sexual reasons, still others were differences in injury that are already accounted for. The only possible exception was pregnancy... but, the difficulty with pregnancy is that it's not neccissarily even an injury.
I suppose there's another very real legal question: is a crime best defined by the nature of the transgression, or by material results? Obviously, the current system is a bit of both.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:50 AM
I suppose there's another very real legal question: is a crime best defined by the nature of the transgression, or by material results?
It's probably best defined by statute.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 11:55 AM
212: an excellent point! That isn't my aim. I'm happy to see the realities of what we now call rape handled differently from assault, but not under the gender banner of rape (which I believe only energizes the issue with wierdness). The specific differences, should be handled specificly, which would include special sentencing and special services for the victim. Already there are a number of special treatments for assaults of a specific social nature: domestic, against animal, verbal, and so on...
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 12:01 PM
215: It's codified by statute, and defined in your heart.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 12:04 PM
In my state, it's called first-degree sexual assault. I'm unclear. Do you just want to ban the term 'rape'?
The only other thing is that like I said earlier, unless you postulate a world even crazier than B's 209, where not only is sex not gender-defined, it's as meaningless as taking a dump, it's going to be wrong to use sex as a violent weapon in a way that doesn't map on neatly to the actual physical damage done. And given that rape survived a pretty big definition shift (from women as property to consent), I don't see it going away as a concept in anything like an achievable human society.
Some of the examples were fraud, others were sexual reasons, still others were differences in injury that are already accounted for.
c
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 12:10 PM
218: I would like to see the primacy of violence and sexuality inverted. It's violent first, then sexual; not the reverse.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 12:18 PM
It's violent first, then sexual; not the reverse.
I don't think that's categorically true.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 3:07 PM
the difficulty with pregnancy is that it's not neccissarily even an injury
The difficulty with pregnancy, frankly, is that it's not anything else; it's pregnancy. At some point people will realize that.
Re. "assault involving genitals": this makes me think of the recent torture arguments. It seems to me that one of the major distinctions between, say, beating someone up and raping them is similar to the difference between, say, assault and torture. Whether the injuries end up being the same or not, or worse in an assault, there is still something extremely psychologically devastating--torturous, even--in the intimacy and deliberateness of the act that I think puts it in a different category.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 3:17 PM
So at base, your claim is that rape should be treated in the same fashion as assault because to do otherwise reinscribes traditional notions of feminity?
Aha. If this is the case, then sure
*barf* THIS IS FUCKING RETARDED.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 4:34 PM
Being raped is different from being assaulted. The terrible logic trying to equate the two at a fundamental level simply because they both involve harmful bodily contact is insufficient and shallow. The stupidity of this is screaming, and it's real torture to understand how one could confuse the two. The notions of dominant paradigms, masucline and feminine roles are being distorted by an insufficient understanding. This thread is like watching an infant play with a nail gun - a powerful tool it can't know how to use correctly.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 4:44 PM
223: Stop thrashing Michael, and return to your regularly scheduled program. Your best argument so far is "insufficient and shallow"; which amounts to saying "'cause it is". You're a classic case of one who exaults the sexuality of the event above the violence of the event, and frankly, it's a little disturbing.
Also, assault isn't about bodily harm, it's about invading someone's personal space against their will. Yelling is assault. Conversely, if you harm someone while defending yourself, you *havn't* commited assault.
221: I sort-of agree, and yet; turture isn't a crime onto itself. Consider too that psychological injury does fall within the boundary of assault. You WILL be sentenced harsher for psychological injury. With rape, obviously because of it's traumatic impact, this would be a major emphasis.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 5:39 PM
Your best argument so far is "insufficient and shallow";
It's not exactly an argument, but yes, this is probably the most substantive reply I've made.
You're a classic case of one who exaults the sexuality of the event above the violence of the event, and frankly, it's a little disturbing.
I find your refusal to see the rape-event as it is to be disturbing. You are the one who advocated that some people would rather be killed than raped. That that statement is even worthy of being considered is a testament to the destructive impact of rape. I don't recall you arguing that people would rather be killed than assaulted.
So I take it that the damage of rape is at least uncontroversial. Yet, if I understand correctly, you want to treat rape as regular assault? You think that prosecuting as rape only enforces the categories which bring about the possiblity of rape? That is, you think prosecuting it as rape is part of the problem? Please do correct me if I haven't understood you. And you argue that the point of treating rape as assault is that rape really is just assault, if only we saw through eyes not clouded by culture?
The easy but true, argument is that people are not going to see as if outside their culture. You answer that we should change the culture. The easy but true answer is, "that's not going to happen."
The deeper argument is that it's wrong to dismiss people's incultured being. It's wrong to say, "hey, you know, you have some gender roles that create the possibility of the powerful raping the weaker, so you should change that." It's dense to argue this on a level of personal change, but it's well beyond that to argue that our courts should change and try to force this new paradigm on people. Such a change would produce a lot of pain among people, and no good. Victims and their families would be pained. The trivilization of rape would shock society, especially the female population. And, you don't know that it wouldn't increase rape.
Which brings up another argument to my mind. Every woman has a very real reason to fear rape. Most people don't have much reason to fear assault. Given the commonality of rape, and that it happens among the educated and the middle class, it seems that stiffer penalties are real deterrents, and it would endanger more women to take them away.
And another argument is the historical reality of rape. It's not as if it's the creation of our culture. It has, as far as I know, been everpresent in human interaction. Ignoring it will not make it go away. And, unlike Dr. B, I cannot even imagine a society which does not view rape as in some way distinct from assault. I do not think human interaction can ever take such a form such that it does not recognize sex crimes.
One of the problems with this subject is that there's so many objections. But, enough, I'm stopping here, even though this isn't exhaustive.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 8:48 PM
225: I smell intelligent design.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-24-06 9:47 PM
226: what??
And, this is just one more objection, but I think it's getting to the crux of the matter; even *if* one accepts that rape is premised on traditional male/female gender roles (and therefore some legal action should be taken to remedy this), you dismiss without consideration the notion that we have an obligation to respect the accepted roles. Even if you accept that they are given to us before we ask, that does not mean we should not accept them, or respect the preferences of those who accept them. To put it yet another way, even if you view gender roles as social constructs that doesn't make them unreal.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 1:02 AM
227: I was teasing you with the intelligent design comment. When you observe that culture doesn't change, it implies a view of universal stasis (aka. fundamentalism).
This last point is a much better argument than culture-doesn't-change, and we-don’t-have-a-right-to-change-culture, or even think-of-the-women-and-children. I agree; if there was a huge announcement that rape (or sexual assault) was being removed from the books; there would be nothing short of panic.
If such a thing was going to be undertaken, it would have to be an opportunistic change, for example, during a regime change. These are issues of implementation; while very relevant, don’t detract from my general analysis.
That said, I think it’s important to keep in mind that rape cases aren’t just criminal cases, but cultural rituals which serve a greater - but not so just - purpose.
Posted by Central Content Provider | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 6:27 AM
I'm going to repeat SCMT here: "You keep asserting things as if they are eternal verities that we all know to be true."
Also, assault isn't about bodily harm, it's about invading someone's personal space against their will.
I'd wager that there's a substantial subset of assault cases in which this is completely, utterly false. I'd wager that if I took a claw hammer to the guy once cubicle over, the bodily harm is *exactly* what he would consider a crime.
You WILL be sentenced harsher for psychological injury.
Where the hell do you get this? It's not that it's always untrue, it's just that I can't see it being anywhere near the maxim you seem to think it is.
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:11 AM
"once" s/b "one"
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:11 AM
if I took a claw hammer to the guy once cubicle over
What, is he playing that annoying ez listening again? Show him no mercy, says I.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:13 AM
Muzak I could tolerate. Talk radio would incur some manner of wrath.
(NB: Both of my neighbors are very nice, quiet women. "Guy" was used in 229 to introduce as few variables as possible, lest CCP seize on some newly discovered wrinkle.)
Posted by Tarrou | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:28 AM
I once had a cube neighbor who talked to her boyfriend on the phone seven or eight times a day, always literally in baby talk. "Hewo baby" she'd say. My neck muscles are tensing up right now in Pavlovian memory. Can she get the retroactive claw hammer?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:44 AM
Both of my neighbors are very nice, quiet women.
You say that; but your eye keeps fixing on the claw hammer that the guy who came in yesterday to work on the lights left lying on your desk. Even while you're trying to read the Unfogged comments, it's still there in the corner of your eye -- a whitish gleam from the fluorescent fixture reflected off the side of the hammer head draws your attention awy from the Google search you just did for "anger management hotline", and suddenly as you look again -- for what seems now like the thousandth time -- at the tool, size it up, imagine its heft, you hear Doreen from the next cubicle picking up her phone. "Accounts, this is Doreen," she says in her high-pitched voice -- almost a chirp really -- and it occurs to you how annoying her voice is, and she always seems so smugly cheerful when she comes in in the morning too. Your mind drifts back to high school, when Marcelle turned down your invitation to the senior prom; and you see Marcelle's face next to Doreen's -- there is more than a passing resemblance which you had never really noticed before. You turn back to your computer wondering what happened in Iraq today.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 7:50 AM
200 and 202: You're thinking too much like a lawyer. Mitigating circumstances that have been described over centuries=manslaughter; justified killing=self-defense.
Also, semi-relevant to the present discussion. Traditionally, if you walked in on your wife having sex with another man, and you killed him in a rage, I believe, that it was an automatic knockdown to manslaughter per se.
When Dietrich Bonhoeffer was planning along with his conspirators to kill Hitler, he was clearly preparing to commit *murder*. Nevertheless, most people think that his actions were justified.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 8:02 AM
229: The transgression of assault includes actions which may or may not result in physical harm. You talk about a claw hammer as if that isn't "invading someone's personal space against their will." I think it's pretty invassive.
Psychological damage suffered by a victim is examined during sentencing at every criminal trial (unless, of course; there was none). At least... in my country it is.
Which universal truths have I been assuming? Or is that bullshit like that rest of your argument?
235: I think it's still considered a mitigating circumstance by way of temperary insanity.
Posted by Central Content Publisher | Link to this comment | 04-25-06 11:25 AM