I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire. – Robin Morgan
At one time it was a subject rarely spoken of in public; now it sometimes seems that some people talk of little else. Since the 1970s rape has become one of the most politicized issues of our culture, despite sex being arguably the least appropriate topic for politics imaginable. The politicization of what could be considered the most personal of crimes began in 1970 with the publication of Carol Hanisch’s second-wave feminist manifesto “The Personal is Political”; as I wrote in my essay “Politicizing the Personal”,
The only problem with [the essay] is, it’s a load of crap; usually, the personal is just personal, and declaring it to be political merely holds the door open for increasingly tyrannical intrusion into people’s private lives. The idea that “the personal is political” is borrowed from Marxist dogma and basically means that nearly any problem experienced by an individual woman is the result of “systematic oppression.” If she’s unhappy or has a screwed-up life it isn’t because she’s irrational, poor, uneducated, overly emotional, foolish or unlucky in the genetic lottery, or because she’s made bad choices, or because the world is intrinsically unfair and many people of both sexes are unhappy and have screwed-up lives; it’s because she is oppressed by the Patriarchy. This is, of course, a fundamentally defeatist, paranoid and narcissistic view which removes responsibility from the individual and places it into a social context that encourages permanent class warfare (or in this case, gender warfare). Since the two sexes are different by nature and will always be unequal in one way or another, this provided political feminists with a path to political power; women were essentially told that their situation was hopeless unless they supported the schemes of the feminist leadership in its brave and determined struggle against the Male Overlords.
Once one understands this, the reason rape was politicized becomes obvious: Feminists could claim that rape wasn’t due to the criminal inclinations or loss of control of individual men, but because of a supposed “rape culture” which permeates society and encourages all men to rape and all women to be reduced to an imbecilic state in which we don’t know when we’ve been raped until the feminist saviors enlighten us. Had this notion been introduced full-blown in 1970 it would have been rejected as the rubbish it is, but it came by slow stages. Remember, second-wave feminism was at first a movement of strong, independent, educated women; it was tied to the sexual revolution and its earliest adherents recognized that sexual shame is one of the chief ways in which patriarchal societies control women. The miniskirt was a symbol of that freedom (hence the short uniforms in the original Star Trek, which were a visual demonstration of 23rd-century sexual equality), and prostitutes were active in a number of early feminist groups like WHO (Whores, Housewives and Others, the “others” being lesbians). So when feminist leaders wanted to call attention to rape, they couldn’t tell the truth about it for fear that women would stop being so sexually independent; they therefore invented the myth that “rape is a crime of power, not lust” so women would continue to put themselves in danger. The fact is that old ladies who get raped are as anomalous as child prostitutes; the vast majority of rape victims are young, sexually attractive women in unsafe sexual situations. There’s even evidence that conjugal visits reduce the rate of prison rape, and that legalization of prostitution reduces the rape rate.
The “rape is a crime of violence, not sex” mantra soon permeated Western society, and one could write an entire essay on the psychosocial reasons it did; in a nutshell, it’s because the truth – that rape is a natural, though unfortunate, outgrowth of our sexual programming – is scary to men because it reduces them to the level of animals, and to women because it means there is always the risk of rape in heterosexual relations. By ignoring the 73% of all unwanted sex which isn’t forcible, people of both sexes could pretend there was no elephant in the parlor. But there were some people who didn’t want that elephant ignored because its presence advanced their political agenda; just as first-wave feminism was eventually taken over by narcissistic middle-class white women, so it was with the second wave, and a cabal of angry lesbians and rape or molestation victims soon coalesced to lead those selfish, shortsighted women around by the nose. Since the “violence not sex” model did not advance their goals it needed to be replaced, but the propaganda campaign had been so successful it could not simply be tossed out; hence “rape culture”, the dogma that neither men nor women could recognize rape when they saw it due to “cultural conditioning”. In other words an act both parties agreed was consensual sex might really be rape, not merely in a sort of academic sense but in a real and prosecutable sense.
The shift had already started in the ‘70s with radical feminists like Robin Morgan, whose wholly subjective “rape definition” forms today’s epigram. That definition in one form or another spread through the emerging neofeminist movement; not only did it conveniently eliminate the need for physical evidence, it also allowed neofeminists to define sex work as “rape”. But the weaponization of what was at first merely a farfetched radical axiom took some doing; as I explained in “Imaginary Crises”:
…the FBI reported that 8% of all American women would suffer an attempted rape at some point in their lifetimes, and since only about a third of all attempted rapes are completed that just wasn’t enough to create the necessary hysteria…[so] in 1982 Mary Koss of Kent State used… [Morgan’s] definition to design a questionnaire she gave to 3000 coeds, and concluded that 15.4% of respondents had been raped and 12.1% were victims of attempted rape. But that wasn’t the way the women saw it; only 27% of those she called “rape victims” agreed that they had indeed been raped, while 49% said the incidents were the result of “miscommunication,” 14% called it “a crime but not rape,” and 11% said they were not victimized at all. In true neofeminist fashion Koss ignored the women’s views of their own experiences and characterized their denial that they were raped (and the fact that 42% of them later voluntarily had sex with their “rapists”) as evidence that they were “confused and sexually naïve” rather than that her theory was wrong. Koss’ results were published in Ms. magazine in 1985 and quickly became gospel; the “rape” and “attempted rape” figures together added up to 27.5%, a fraction quickly abbreviated to “one in four” and endlessly repeated in pamphlets, articles, “rape prevention” and “sensitivity” classes and protest marches.
Though the worst cultural excesses of early ‘90s neofeminism soon abated, it had already infiltrated academia and government and therefore became far more dangerous despite the fact that fewer women believed in it. Morgan’s definition is one of the roots of “sex trafficking” hysteria (via the notion of all prostitution as rape), and as I explained at length in “Setting Women’s Rights Back a Century”, “…the catechism being preached to young American women [is]: You are NEVER responsible for your own actions. No matter how irresponsibly you act, no matter what you say to or do with a man, if someone later convinces you that you were ‘assaulted’, or if ‘authorities’ rule that you were despite your protests, then you are a helpless, powerless victim without adult agency or volition, no better than an infant.” In my column of one year ago today I discussed the firestorm which ensued when Camille Paglia suggested that maybe women should take more responsibility for their own sexual behavior around men, and twenty years later it’s still the same every time a man makes a similar suggestion (though less so if a woman does unless she’s a Republican). There’s a vast difference between blaming the victim in a forcible rape and holding young women as much responsible for their actions while drunk in bed as we would hold them for their actions while drunk behind the wheel. And until Americans as a group recognize this, the culture wars over rape will be as endless as those over everything else involving sex, thus effectively drawing attention away from the real issues…which is exactly what those in power want.
The “rape is a crime of power, not lust” concept is still going strong on TV. That phrase is constantly repeated in police procedurals, even ones like Law and Order SVU, which supposedly specialises in sexual crimes.
It never made sense to me. Are they saying that the rapist is NOT feeling lust when he rapes? In case anyone has not noticed, it doesn’t work very well that way.
“Observe, helpless female, my sense of power has given me a tremendous hard on, even though you have the sex appeal of a pile of decomposing tripe!” (Add maniacal laughter here).
Sex is a commodity that men want, and rapists are men who are unwilling or unable to pay for it but want to have it anyway. The “rape is a crime of power, not lust” catchphrase makes as much sense as, “downloading films is a crime of power, not the desire for free entertainment”.
How can anyone, especially a man, say it with a straight face?
And don’t get me started on women who demand the “right” to wear anything (or nothing) + behave in a way that would make a prostitute run for a burka + do it in front of men who would probably cut your throat for your watch.
Sure, people should be able to dress as they please, but some common sense is still required. You are free to wear a bikini in a snow storm too. All the laws and sensitivity training in the world won’t help if a man is criminally inclined in the first place (or crazy).
The “rape is asexual” dogma is a fine example of how people can believe something DEAD STUPID if it protects their feelings, and how they can ignore mountains of evidence (young/pretty girls making up disproportionate number of victims, most rapes committed by acquaintances or in already-sexual settings, the necessity of penile erection) to come to the opposite conclusion if the obvious one says something scary about human nature.
Regarding your “bikini in a snowstorm” example, Camille Paglia likened it to leaving your car keys on the hood in New York City:
The idea that women should never be responsible for the consequences of our own actions does not liberate us; it establishes us as legal imbeciles, like small children who are assumed not to know any better when they run out into the street.
Didn’t see your response before I posted mine noting the same car analogy. Should I be flattered or worried that my mind works like Camille Paglia’s.
I know I’m flattered whenever I’m compared to her. 🙂
Agreed. I’ve been compared to Paglia as an intended insult; the insulter was appalled that I took it as a compliment instead. I’m re-reading Sexual Personae now and lent/gave Vamps and Tramps to a co-worker who has similar outlook as I do. It’s amazing how many other ‘feminists’ I know who hate Paglia, yet make some of the SAME POINTS that she does! Heaven forbid I point that out to them. It’s like a little anti-Paglia chip in their brain starts sparking.
Paglia and my mother have the same birthday, only a year apart. Similar thought processes and all. No wonder I like Camille so much!
As far as this topic, well, I’ve already expressed my views on the lack of logic concerning personal safety, especially among the young feminists who were my co-workers at the university writing center. I don’t believe too much in good luck, but I do believe in proper payoffs that come with planning, being aware, and having your wits about you. I didn’t grow up in a rough neighborhood but I had to travel through plenty to get to and from school and work. I wouldn’t have made it if I didn’t have a good grasp on common sense and not thinking that serendipity is some sort of shield and psycho-repellent.
aspasia,
I read Sexual Personae shortly after it was published and always regretted that the tease implicit in the subtitle was never fulfilled; I wondered how an academic take on Sexual Personae in the 20th century would read.
She has given a taste of that in Sex, Art and American Culture and Vamps and Tramps but a more thorough examination would be eagerly read by me.
Her aphoristic writing style and inflammatorybons mots , eg., “Women civilize men and men build civilization” and “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” point up the distinct difference between her view that sex differences abide in biology vs the neo-feminist view that all is socially constructed.
I completely agree. I’ve had sex when I was definitely too drunk to making logical…or rational decisions and so was not able to legally fully consent, but the next morning when I woke up, I did not think that I had been raped. I was a little ashamed of myself and resolved to not get that drunk again, but that was all.
But the interesting thing is that even drunk, I only ever had sex with guys that I liked already or found attractive. So if they wanted sex, I’m afraid my usual response was “Great idea!” and not “No, I came up to your room with you expecting NOT to have sex.”
Aren’t most young women today aware that an invitation to a boy’s room (or to dance, or go for a drive or listen to Itunes) is ALSO a disguised invitation to have sex?
I found that plain enough that even in college I had a set of personal rules to keep me out of trouble when I was in a serious relationship. (Like: don’t stay up late with someone if you don’t want to have sex with them.) -grin- Ahh…college. Because by 2am, I was ready to say “Great idea!” to just about anything. LOL
So what are you doing about nine hours from now ?
😉 lol
While I agree with the initial position that a person is responsible for their actions, leaving doors wide open is not and should not be seen as ‘foolish’. It isn’t too much to ask that people respect other people’s property and not ‘steal’… We should not have to lock everything away. I would bet that the communities with the most locks (or burkas) have the most thievery. I’ve been fortunate enough to live in a community that did not require locks (possibly because everyone had guns), so for me, this style of community is and should always be the goal. It is not ‘stupid’ to expect respect of property rights. And everyone walking by the car, keys in or not, is perfectly aware that the car is not theirs and that they should leave it exactly as they’ve found it.
I am not sure that I agree that sex is always a commodity of value and that rape is always stealing. I might think that there is more to sex than that and maybe even women might like it too? That sex is often treated as a commodity says something about how we treat beautiful things in most human civilizations… But, then again, I would like to think that Humans are not just Resources, even if our corporations tell us they are.
To me, these expectations are very different from the ‘take responsibility for your actions’ position. That means, if you are going to drink and drive, expect to cause harm… Of course, the issue of drinking and driving is clear cut… The issue of human mating rituals and the variations of style are so much more complex… For many of the ‘problems’ women experience related to these activities are directly due to variants of style. Some people ‘like it that way’ or think ‘that means such and such’ and others do not. These problems relating to variants of style are not the same as the ‘thief stealing the commodity’ sort of actions that are often called rape.
Still, I would say, that in all of this, there is still room for the rape as a display of dominance/power. I think it is clear that in many animal species, the most aggressive male gets to pass his genes on to the next generation. I am not sure the human animal is wholly removed from these sorts of inclinations…
In any event, this is an interesting subject and I’ve appreciated everyone’s thoughts.
Political power, rape and women’s bodies as pawns for the weak and wicked. You know this reminds me of the scene from the movie, “Oh, Brother Where Art Thou?” where the jackass Governor “Pappy” O’Daniels sees the enraptured crowd throwing themselves at the “Soggy Bottom Boys” and then takes to the stage to ride the moment to his re-election. Only here women are the Soggy Bottom Boys with their fake beards and Pappy, oh Pappy is alive and well and up to his old tricks on them sum-bitches – “my cunstichency”.
I have to agree that the worst thing about the redefining of rape is to preclude being able to provide basic advice on how to avoid dangerous situations. “But I have the absolute right to get drunk, go to some strange guy’s room, drop my top and not have sex.” Yes, as a legal matter that is the right answer, just as I have the absolute right to legally park my Lexus in a bad neighborhood, unlocked with the keys in the ignition. When I complain about my car being stolen, everyone will tell me exactly why I’m an idiot, but the drunk coed who finds herself in the hospital getting a rape kit filled out can’t be told how to avoid this problem in the future, because that’s blaming the victim. No, the criminal is still to blame, but we have to expect people to take common sense precautions to avoid becoming a victim. It’s like looking both ways before crossing the street. Yes pedestrians have the right of way, but if you step in front of a speeding car, it’s your heirs who will file the lawsuit.
Maggie, did you see the series “ENTERPRISE” where they finally explained that the green-skinned Orion “slave girls” were actually the masters on their planet who kept the men barking to their every command by using their incredible sexuality?
I think Neo-feminists really need to have more sex – because they don’t seem to understand how a lot of sex is really “initiated” out here. Let me give you an example from about two weeks ago …
Picture Krulac, sprawled out on the couch with his MacBook open – prolly reading a Maggie McNeill column …
Mrs. Krulac: “Hey babe, you know my garden is overgrown with weeds and I’ve been meaning to clean it out but I’ve just been too busy and now some of them are the size of small shrubs and I just can’t pull them up.”
Krulac: “So you want me to clean it out?”
Mrs. Krulac: “Would you please? I’ll make it VERY worth your while if you do.”
Krulac: “Hmmm … sometimes I’m not smart enough to figure things like this out … are you offering me …”
Mrs. Krulac: “Whatever you want.”
Krulac: “The short purple baby-doll with nothing on below the waist?”
Mrs. Krulac: “Totally doable.”
Krulac: “And you’ll invite your girlfriend? The former NFL cheerleader?”
Mrs. Krulac: “Don’t push it”
Krulac: “Okay well, you’ll at least call me ‘Conan’ right?”
Mrs. Krulac: “Of course, and … the daughter has a sleepover so we can go from room to room if you want.”
Krulac: “No problem, babe, I’m on that shit now!!”
Mrs. Krulac: “Don’t you want to wait a bit to clean out the garden – it’s raining right now.”
Krulac: “Idontgiveashit about rain!”
You betcha I did, and I thought it was brilliant. It’s called “topping from the bottom”, and women have been doing it for at least 6000 years (ever hear the phrase “she stoops to conquer”?) But the Orion women have raised it to an art form.
I wish more women would realize they have this kind of power and not feel guilty about using it. It’s only wrong if you use it for deceptive purposes.
That was one of the complaints from feminists about that episode, I recall. Many women reacted, saying that it reinforced stereotypical images of women’s roles.
I called balderdash on that.
I think some women are quite literally penis-enviers. Being status-drive, they see symbols of male status they can’t acquire, and desire it. But this blinds them to the actual advantages and disadvantages that each gender is automatically born with. Add in women who lose out in the typical Female lottery for female advantages (ie, unattractive women, for whaever reason) and you get the motivation. Then add in the women who have no interest in interacting with men (lesbians), and you get a perfect storm of women who detest female heterosexuality, even if it’s their own.
If they insist on usurping the gender roles, my own preference is to oblige women who do not follow this very extreme and irrational worldview to follow, as well.
Thus, women should be required to be in the front lines in wartime, to fight using the same standards for jobs, and to be shamed in the same way as men for not working or choosing parenting over paid work.
Like Simone de Beauvoir said, women can’t be given the choice to stay at home, because too many will choose that.
If you want to compete with men, give up the advantages traditionally given to women.
You can’t have it both ways.
Most feminists don’t understand “misandry” and think it’s a myth, because they can’t see how women are basically getting all the perks, including the traditional perks, without having to suffer any of the traditional drawbacks.
it’s why most men see modern women as essentially self-indulgently narcissistic.
I don’t think that it’s benefits anyone when the sexes take an antagonistic view toward each other. They have different strengths and weaknesses and acknowledging that just makes good sense.
“If they insist on usurping the gender roles, my own preference is to oblige women who do not follow this very extreme and irrational worldview to follow, as well. Thus, women should be required to be in the front lines in wartime, to fight using the same standards for jobs, and to be shamed in the same way as men for not working or choosing parenting over paid work..”
I’m not sure how it would be a good thing to punish women who are sensible and balanced in order to get back at the few extremists. Isn’t that like assuming that ALL men are rapists, which I think most men have a problem with and get pissed off about?
I’m confused. I can see that leaving the keys in the Lexus is an invitation to a thief; yet the cop in Canada who suggested that girls shouldn’t dress as sluts was vilified. Yes, I do understand that most rapes occur in the circumstances Maggie described above, yet the cop did seem to make some sense to me. Where have I gone wrong?
You haven’t; feminism has. Yes, “don’t dress like a slut” was an incredibly stupid thing to say and has nothing to do with it; the first time I was raped I was wearing a dress that hid everything above the ankle. But at the same time, it wasn’t the specific idea that clothing can provoke rape which was vilified but rather the idea that women can take certain precautions to prevent it. It seems most feminists would rather believe that the Almighty Patriarchy enables rapists to somehow overcome reasonable precautions in a way impossible for any other criminal, so that any precaution, no matter how sensible, is useless, and that the only way to prevent it is to “educate” men (social construction of gender, remember?) not to do it. You might as well teach wolves to eat grass.
I also had once accepted that rape was about power, not sex, and only slowly moved away from it as I read and thought more about it. Eventually I discussed this with some feminists, and when I did I had the same feeling I’d had arguing with neo-conservatives over terrorism.
That is, we both accepted that terrorism was morally repugnant and unacceptable, but I argued that government policies sometimes increase the risk of terrorism by inspiring and provoking terrorist responses. I could point to Northern Ireland, where decades of discrimination by the Protestant-dominated government helped to legitimise the Irish nationalist paramilitary IRA movement in the eyes of desperate and angry Catholics. When British soldiers opened fire on a Catholic civil rights march in 1972 it inspired a wave of young Catholics to abandon peaceful protest in favour of IRA violence.
Did the foolish and unfair governing of Northern Ireland JUSTIFY nationalist terrorism? Absolutely not. Did it explain why nationalist terrorism became more popular in the 1970s? Well, yes.
But when I argued these points I was attacked for blaming the victim. There was no way they would accept that we could understand terrorists as anything but evil monsters who need to be fought and killed; any social or political context was ignored and anyone who raised it was damned for blaming the victims and for justifying terrorism. Now I feel the same thing in this discussion about rape. Does the behaviour or appearance of women justify their rape by men? NEVER. But might it affect the risks of rape happening in the first place? Well I don’t actually know, but it’s not “blaming the victim” to at least consider it.
Actually I realise that my comparison with talk of terrorism might be misleading because in the example I gave of Northern Ireland the government was actually behaving very harmfully in its discrimination against Catholics. Whereas women’s behaviour or appearance isn’t actually hurting anyone of course!
I just mean that it can be healthy to wonder WHY some awful crime is happening without blinding ourselves with moral indignation and refusing to consider uncomfortable possibilities. Just need to stay open-minded and consider ideas we may find repugnant.
I understand, Shane, and I agree. Understanding something can actually help to control or eliminate it; emotional vilification with no attempt at understanding does nothing to help.
It’s the same with crimes of property and crimes of violence related to drugs, or to prostitution.
“We have to fight drug use, because look at all the theft and robbery and violence that surrounds it! People getting shot over marijuana. We have to put ALL the pot users and dealers and growers in prison, for the sake of [say it with me] our children!”
“Er, maybe all that crime is because there’s no legal way for people to…”
“Shut up! You damned liberals never want to get tough! You always want to understand the hoodlums who need to be locked up or shot!”
Or, just as easily:
“We need stiffer penalties for any man who hires a prostitute! There’s money laundering, even the trafficking of unwilling women going on. And children! They’re being trafficked too!”
“Er, maybe we should make prostitution by willing adults legal. That way, any hooker who hears about trafficking in children on the ‘hooker grapevine’ isn’t afraid to report it.”
“Shut up! Why do you always try to say that there are ‘reasons’ for horrible crimes, like that makes it OK or something?”
Well, you get the idea, and I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but sometimes even that helps a little.
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea: I’m not saying we should legalize rape, just that we should stop criminalizing consensual sex.
You Crazy Long-haired Hippy Liberal!
Ooh, wait, you actually made a coupla good points.
I guess that means I’m not a conservative.
I was listening, many years ago, to Sean Hannity*, when he was talking to the then Libertarian presidential candidate, Harry Browne.
Hannity: So I understand that part of your platform is legalizing drugs. How can you support doing that when drugs ruin the lives of so many people in America?
Browne: Most of the negative effects of illegal drug use come from the fact that they are prohibited. Look at Prohibition and the criminal gangs then. Does Anheuser-Busch send its drivers to shoot up Coors warehouses today? It’s the War on Drugs that is the problem. Besides, Sean, I would have thought that a Constitutionalist like you would understand this. If we had to have a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol, should the modern war on drugs require the same constitutional treatment?
Hannity: So how much pot have you smoked today?
There you have it folks. The Conservative response to de-criminalizing drugs. Gee Hannity, I thought you had a Catholic education. I’m sure they covered the idea that ad hominem is a fallacious argument.
*It’s like an aerobic workout in your car – elevated heart rate, lung expansion… Now if I could only get rid of seeing red, nausea and my larynx hurting from screaming at the radio…
I was talking to Tracy’s little sister, and after a while I turned to Tracy and in an exaggerated whisper I said, “Tracy, your sister’s a hippie!” Little Sister grins and says, “Oh I am such a hippie!”
I guess I’m maybe something of an “honorary hippie.” Not sure. I’ll ask Little Sister.
I wouldn’t “vilify” the Cop but I don’t agree with him. Men have to have some self control here. A beautiful woman is a gift to look at imo. “Slutty dress” … what is that? Ass cheeks hanging out? Usually I think that’s more comical than sexy so I’m not tempted in the least to “grab” that. Mini-skirts or tight fitting clothing? Could be defined as slutty but definitely HOT. I’m usually appreciative when I see a woman dressed that way and I don’t in the least think she’s doing so to entice me to attack her. I don’t feel I have license to do so either.
It’s like when someone gives you a “piece” of a chocolate from their valentines box. You enjoy the piece they were nice enough to give you – you don’t grab the whole box and start chowing down.
I agree that “dressing like a slut” is not something I’d call an unduly risky behavior for the reasons Krulac cites on male self control. Otherwise we end up with the fundamentalist Islamic idea that seeing a woman’s hair means a man can’t control himself. And as Krulac notes, what constitutes too sexy or slutty? Personally I find women most attractive in elegant evening clothes, while the butt flashing miniskirts make me laugh, like guys with their pants belted below their butts and their underwear hanging out. Note in my example the coed’s actions are putting her at risk. As Maggie said, how a woman’s dressed isn’t really the issue we’re talking about. You can be dressed as sexy or demurely as you like, but go into a rough biker bar you are starting to take a risk. Get drunk, start playing with the patrons, you’re taking more risk. Agree to go back to a guy’s place, even if you really only want to see his bike collection, and you’re now in a very bad place.
Yeah, I totally agree with what you are saying here. There are “risky” behaviors that should be self-evident. I just hope … that within in the spectrum of all our efforts to “un-demonize” men, that we don’t tilt in the opposite direction and just embrace any old animalistic behavior from men. Men are capable of MUCH more than that and, I think it should be demanded of us. There should be “acceptable” ways for us to “vent off” the animal side while maintaining high standards of social behavior. Note here, that I’m not advocating a standard of “moral” behavior. What I’m saying here is that men and women should be partners in life and support each other – and not take advantage of each other for selfish reasons.
That is the very point of the discussion. Most men already behave in what we would consider a “moral” manner. Most men don’t rape, or even desire to rape.
Which is why generalising the criminal behaviour of “real” rapists into a “normal” male trait is dangerous and unproductive.
So is placing the entire burden of moral behaviour on the man, while telling the woman that she can literally behave in any manner at all and always be the innocent victim.
Actually all this confusion about what is rape and what constitutes consent could be eliminated if all sexual relationships were based on a prostitution model. Every time a woman and a man went out together, the option of sex (or not) would be clearly stated up front, and the price agreed. This could still be a dinner and a film and not cash. So on a sexless date, the couple could relax and enjoy each other’s company without the fear and tension. They would get to know each other and decide if they want to progress to sex. Naturally, on a sex date, (only) negligent or criminal behaviour of either party would invalidate consent.
I can even see a business opportunity in this. A confidential on-line registry of sexual consent. Both parties call in with their cell phones, enter a PIN code and the intended partner’s public ID code, and specify the sexual rating of the date. No more he said, she said. This would also discourage men from trying to get women drunk or women claiming they were too drunk to consent.
It’ll never happen for the same reason many amateurs don’t use condoms; being overcome by emotions is viewed as “good”, while acting rationally is “cold” and therefore “bad”. I will point out, however, that the concept that a woman can be too drunk to consent, but a man can never be so drunk he can’t judge consent, is about the most male-chauvinist thing I’ve heard in years other than the Swedish Model.
Regarding drunkenness, I totally agree. I can only speak for myself, but if I was too drunk to judge the woman’s consent, I’d be unconscious. So, I would have to assume the same applies to women when it comes to giving it.
In general, as an excuse, being drunk is highly overrated.
The only way I can even make a coherent argument out of that position is if they’re talking about passing-out drunk, at which point, a man would be physically incapable of having sex.
(I know, this post was a year ago, but I had to reply anyway.)
Maggie, if I was so drunk I couldn’t consent, I was too drunk to do anything anyway, except *maybe* with my tongue. Nothing below the belt was working if I was that drunk!
yes it does seem confusing to me to. But i will read more and think about it.Like
Krulac said, I enjoy pretty ladies, sexy ladies, fun filled ladies………….however ,i personally need to be given a green light so to say i fi were to go beyoud looking.Does this sound right??
Sounds sensible to me.
Alas, if you even look at a woman and see her as remotely sexual, you are a Harasser at best, and actually, may be visually Raping Her as well.
I think what is meant when it’s said that “Rape is a crime of power, not sex” is that rape is about power, and sex is the medium through which it’s expressed.
The rapist doesn’t have to rape to get sex. you can buy sex, pretty cheaply if you’re not at all particular. Certainly cheaper than risking a prison term. But the rapist wants to show he has the power to impose his will.
And I do believe that a patriarchy is alive and well. Evidence of this is that a group of men feel competent to hold public hearings on women’s health without allowing women to even testify!
The patriarchy isn’t an organized conspiracy, however. It’s a deeply ingrained cultural thing, strong in some areas (like the Muslim middle east) and weaker in others. But it’s still there, and still has an effect.
I seem to find, however, that my style of feminism is out of date. I think it went out of style in the 1970’s. My style was about allowing both sexes to live to their full potential, and saw women as competent, sentient beings, capable of free choice, including the choice to make sex a business.
If the claim was “rape has a power component” I could buy it because I’ve been on the receiving end of that kind of rape. However, the others were not different from ordinary paid sex except that the man didn’t respect my boundaries. And the denial that lust and power are intertwined denies the legitimacy of BDSM, which neofeminists hate as much as prostitution.
You style of feminism isn’t completely dead, though; it’s part of what is called “third wave feminism”, which generally respects agency and equality of both sexes except in groups where it’s been contaminated by neofeminism.
Thank You Maggie. And yes, rape has a power component, which is what I am trying to go into in part for my next article, which is a follow up to “Making Sex a Crime,” OpEdNews.com, March 24, 2012.
By the way, you have my permission to use any part of that article you desire on your blog, even if it is a part that you disagree with from your libertarian viewpoint. I learn through discussion of ideas as well as reading, and try very hard to keep my mind open–which is probably why one of my best friends is a 76 year old Wiccan high priestess, even though I am a very far left Christian (Unitarian-Universalist).
Regarding rape culture: this is not a term that has a clear cut definition, but most of the commentary on it that I’ve personally seen lays out a few key ideas that are very sensible. But then I don’t read neo-feminists, so maybe that’s why.
Rape culture: a woman is flirty to an important customer (because customer service people have to be nice to customers, duh), customer gets her alone and rapes her. She doesn’t consent, she tries to get away, she is shaking and sobbing by the time it’s over. That’s rape.
Rape culture comes into play, when her bosses try to persuade her not to report it. When they use her job against her so that she won’t report it. When the police ask her why it took 2 days for her to report it, and what was she doing alone with the customer anyway? When the media talks about the amount of alcohol that she might have had that night and what she was wearing. When the defense attorney brings up the fact that she has had sex with customers in the past.
So “rape culture” as I’ve seen it defined, is the society-wide tendency that we have to blame the victim of rape, to excuse the rapist, and to think that she MUST have brought it on herself. That would be the ‘sensible’ definition of rape culture and I think that it is reasonable to ask how we, as a society, blame rape victims in a way that we do not blame victims of robbery or murder.
No, that’s a culture of “innocent until proven guilty”. The customer and manager would surely go to jail; it’s the customer’s attraction to women that is source of “rape culture” which is cast as the problem.
Unfortunately, the sensible view is too often shouted down. Example: (link to youtube of Louis CK) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU3IM5pWTcc
This is a sensible guy with a great reaction to a woman telling him that she is ‘turned on’ by rape playacting. I’m annoyed that there are people who can see this and somehow think that Louis CK is ‘wrong’ or somehow approving of rape by saying this. -headdesk-
These stupid people harm us all with their stupid fanactical blindness. Okay, I know that generally rape jokes are not funny, because of the undercurrent of victim blaming. Because some men see rape jokes as a way to silence ‘uppity women’. Because our society is conflicted about rape in a way that it is not conflicted about murder or terrorism or pedophilia.
But this….ain’t that. sigh.
A lot of “feminists” can’t understand that some behaviors, no matter how much they’re within someone’s “rights” to do, are the equivalent of getting pie-faced drunk in a crappy bar while waving a wallet around that’s loaded with cash and major credit cards. Yes, I have the right to do this, but if I get mugged, the police are not going to be any too sympathetic.
And women’s general preference for non-verbal communication doesn’t help, either. Sending signals that can easily be misread (like, say, going up to a guy’s room alone with him at a party) is d-u-m-b, no matter how much she’s “within her rights” to do so.
When I’m at A-KON karaoke, I might sing this song and do this dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcJ8aNW8pw&fmt=18
I wouldn’t walk into a biker bar and do that, for all that I may have the right to.
It seems the song and dance didn’t show up. Here it is:
Here it isn’t.
One more try, and if it doesn’t show up, just go to YouTube and search for “Ookina Ai de Motenashite.”
It reminds me of this great “feminist” novel, “The women’s room”, which I left after fifty pages. The character was so abhorrent ! Basically it was, as you said, some larvae without a single thought and who said “a-okay” when one of those inhuman thing known as “man” said “we should get married”. Obviously the point of the book was “you are a nobody with the personality and willpower of a fencepost ? It’s okay. Don’t change, don’t make anything for youself. Just blame those icky men.” How inspiring !
I’d like to apologize for not providing a link, but I remember reading somewhere that researchers discovered that there is a high proportion of rape done by soldiers in wartime, and although this number goes down when the soldiers are in a well-disciplined army, it’s still pretty high.
The article I read about said researchers were puzzled, but if you accept the idea that rape is linked to sexual desire, the answer is obvious. In war, soldiers are literally in life-and-death situations. Adrenaline and other hormones are pumping through their veins to keep them alive. Is it any wonder that the desire for sex would also go up, too? In situations like this, cultural messages like “I must be faithful to my wife”, “I must be faithful to my girlfriend”, “I should only have sex with someone I am going out on a date with”, and even “Any sexual pleasure is inherently evil and sinful” get overridden with this message: “I may die at any moment, so it is imperative that I pass my genes on to the next generation before I do.”
P.S. If somebody does know the study I’m talking about, please post a link in the reply. I don’t think it’s the one I found on Google which claims one in three American female soldiers are raped.
The biological and psychological factors you mention undoubtedly play a part, but some factors inherent to the nature of war itself need to be taken into account.
In war, it is ususal for both sides to portray the other side as sub-human monsters, deserving of death and destruction. This in turn makes it easier for soldiers to justify rape of the enemy’s women (or even men).
In many wars, rape has been actively encouraged, both as a weapon to demoralise the enemy, and to “pollute” the enemy’s women.
This is most often seen when there is a strong tribal or religious basis for the war.
Reblogged this on The AtheFist and commented:
Skewers many of the problems I see with modern feminist argumentation and its abuse of stats and moral panic.
[…] the way for the anti-sexual, anti-humanistic tyrannies of neofeminism. Rape had to be absurdly presented as an asexual power exercise, which of course meant that BDSM had to be rejected because its very nature refuted the claim that […]
I already mentioned on another post being sexually harrassed as an adolescent in school, but I was also manipulated and sexually assaulted. I also know that this “rape culture” line is a bag of bollocks. What we have instead, is a society that at doesn’t understand sexual abuse, because it’s too horrible.
So it turns away from it, and in doing so, turns a blind eye to many aspects and cases. But because we think to ourselves “why would anyone do such a thing?” from time to time (I did so in floods of tears when it happened), we (and neofeminists) end up cooking up thoughtless garbage like “rape culture”, which make zero sense. If we had a rape culture, Josef Fritzl wouldn’t have had to be so furtive about his lurid exploits.