EPTi will now happily leave this thread to not return
What is Rape? - Page 47
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
i will now happily leave this thread to not return | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On August 27 2012 04:20 McFeser wrote: Why do you think that is? And can anyone else back up that statement? I'm not sure why it is exactly. Maybe the culture among inmates has something to do with it. Also, inmates atleast in The Netherlands, usually (always?) have a private cell. Prisons are under tighter control in general, I think. You don't get much alone time with other prisoners. I don't think rape statistics for prisons exist here. It just is not percieved as a common thing. An inmate being raped would be considered pretty scandalous. On August 27 2012 04:29 Rassy wrote: nvm. i will now happily leave this thread to not return Don't know why you were in it in the first place. | ||
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On August 27 2012 03:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: Socrates was also clueless about the meaning of piety, but nonetheless had the audacity to amuse and instruct the world millenia later with Euthyphro. What the world has forgotten are the names of the jurors who sentenced him to death. Reason, my dear Kwark, has nothing to do with my not shutting up, nor with your recommendation that I do. I have not yet decided whether I'm going to be clueless with the issue or not, and in fairness you must see that I have not really offered my own perspective on the general question. This thread, indeed, demonstrates the great dangers of having too many clues about too abstract a subject. In other words, Kwark, I shall be the first to admit that I am a fool when others drop their pretensions to being wise. The idea that rape has much to do with sexual desire is one that has long since been disproved and remains only as part of the popular fantasy of a dominant man ripping open the bodice of the reluctant woman he is "seducing". This notion is perpetuated by the media and by ideas such as "legitimate" rape but it is essentially a myth. Rape is about power and it always has been. Ugly women get raped. Women not wearing sexy outfits get raped. People get raped at home. Old people get raped. Children get raped. Men get raped. This disconnect is most clearly seen in the outrage whenever society is exposed to sexual abuse of a group seen as not sexy. It's not any more rape when some old woman is raped than when some pretty young woman is, it's just way harder to fit into our fantasy narrative of what rape is. This idea that the rapist is somehow overcome by lust, that he's just too enthralled by her beauty and has to have her, is a nonsense that exists only within our own minds. We ask ourselves "how could he have raped that ugly old woman, she's not even sexy!?" as if it'd somehow be more understandable when we are instead simply misunderstanding the mind of the rapist and imposing our own fantasies upon it. That Moltke, whose existence online appears purely as a list of masturbatory buzzwords from shitty 19th Century fiction, makes this mistake is entirely unsurprising to me. The fact that when confronted with his ignorance he spews yet more of his pseudo-intellectual shit onto the topic rather than do any independent reading, embracing his ignorance rather than seeking to learn from it, is just more of the same shit he always does. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On August 27 2012 04:51 KwarK wrote: The idea that rape has much to do with sexual desire is one that has long since been disproved and remains only as part of the popular fantasy of a dominant man ripping open the bodice of the reluctant woman he is "seducing". This notion is perpetuated by the media and by ideas such as "legitimate" rape but it is essentially a myth. Rape is about power and it always has been. Ugly women get raped. Women not wearing sexy outfits get raped. People get raped at home. Old people get raped. Children get raped. Men get raped. This disconnect is most clearly seen in the outrage whenever society is exposed to sexual abuse of a group seen as not sexy. It's not any more rape when some old woman is raped than when some pretty young woman is, it's just way harder to fit into our fantasy narrative of what rape is. This idea that the rapist is somehow overcome by lust, that he's just too enthralled by her beauty and has to have her, is a nonsense that exists only within our own minds. We ask ourselves "how could he have raped that ugly old woman, she's not even sexy!?" as if it'd somehow be more understandable. That Moltke, whose existence online appears purely as a list of masturbatory buzzwords from shitty 19th Century fiction, makes this mistake is entirely unsurprising to me. The fact that when confronted with his ignorance he spews yet more of his pseudo-intellectual shit onto the topic rather than do any independent reading, embracing his ignorance rather than seeking to learn from it, is just more of the same shit he always does. http://robertwiblin.com/2010/05/25/steven-pinker-on-the-motivations-for-violence/ I would like to offer this excerpt from Steven Pinker's book ''The Blank Slate'' about the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine. I find he makes a convicing argument against it. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
On August 27 2012 04:41 Crushinator wrote: I'm not sure why it is exactly. Maybe the culture among inmates has something to do with it. Also, inmates atleast in The Netherlands, usually (always?) have a private cell. Prisons are under tighter control in general, I think. You don't get much alone time with other prisoners. I don't think rape statistics for prisons exist here. It just is not percieved as a common thing. An inmate being raped would be considered pretty scandalous. And if someone was raped here in prison it would almost be seen as the punishment that goes along with being there. Interesting. On August 27 2012 04:51 KwarK wrote: The idea that rape has much to do with sexual desire is one that has long since been disproved and remains only as part of the popular fantasy of a dominant man ripping open the bodice of the reluctant woman he is "seducing". This notion is perpetuated by the media and by ideas such as "legitimate" rape but it is essentially a myth. Rape is about power and it always has been. Ugly women get raped. Women not wearing sexy outfits get raped. People get raped at home. Old people get raped. Children get raped. Men get raped. This disconnect is most clearly seen in the outrage whenever society is exposed to sexual abuse of a group seen as not sexy. It's not any more rape when some old woman is raped than when some pretty young woman is, it's just way harder to fit into our fantasy narrative of what rape is. This idea that the rapist is somehow overcome by lust, that he's just too enthralled by her beauty and has to have her, is a nonsense that exists only within our own minds. We ask ourselves "how could he have raped that ugly old woman, she's not even sexy!?" as if it'd somehow be more understandable when we are instead simply misunderstanding the mind of the rapist and imposing our own fantasies upon it. That Moltke, whose existence online appears purely as a list of masturbatory buzzwords from shitty 19th Century fiction, makes this mistake is entirely unsurprising to me. The fact that when confronted with his ignorance he spews yet more of his pseudo-intellectual shit onto the topic rather than do any independent reading, embracing his ignorance rather than seeking to learn from it, is just more of the same shit he always does. So I think I am pretty much in agreement with you now (I was uneducated before) but the issue for me is how do we prove in court that the sex was not consensual? It's easier to proof if for instance the woman had never met the man that raped her but if what if it was her boyfriend? Or a good friend? Also specifically, I once had a boss that was fired because of sexual misconduct but no one believed that he did it because the women in question were considered "ugly". Which do you think is the greater problem - Convicting a rapist and believing the story of the person who was raped or society's beliefs/attitudes toward rape? | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:03 Crushinator wrote: http://robertwiblin.com/2010/05/25/steven-pinker-on-the-motivations-for-violence/ I would like to offer this excerpt from Steven Pinker's book ''The Blank Slate'' about the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine. I find he makes a convicing argument against it. I'll list the things I think are clearly wrong with what he's saying as I see them "people who believe sex is good believe it is because all natural things are good" Speaking for myself, I believe sex is good because it feels good and forms an important part of some healthy relationships. "rape is bad therefore rape cannot come from human nature" This presupposes that nothing bad can come from human nature. I disagree with this assumption which at no point he made any effort to show. It also presupposes that desire for power cannot come from human nature which again he made no effort to show. "(long list of violent things people do to make other people do what they want) none of these are about power, why should rape be" Some of those are actually ultimately about power. The idea that you can look at an act like theft and say "does it make him any more powerful?" as if there was some attribute called power that would go up a few points is absurd. Yes, theft does make you more powerful, it gives you the power to make someone make and give you a coffee in Starbucks to put it in its simplest terms. Deliberate mischaracterisation of the nature of power in order to show that he can't see any. "Let’s also apply common sense to the doctrine that men rape to further the interests of their gender." What? I'm not sure there's any call to arms for men to carry out rape to further our collective interests, arguing against that is pretty off topic. He goes on to use this as a proof against rape culture. I don't think anybody (maybe some nutjob feminists) believes rape culture involves a shadow government of people who want to oppress women and that all rapists are rational actors in their service who want to encourage women to stay in the kitchen by sometimes raping them if they don't. The people who believe in rape culture believe that there are a series of cultural problems which collectively make rape more likely due to impacting views on women, gender relations and rape itself, rapists aren't out there trying to further rape culture, they're a product of it. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:03 Crushinator wrote: http://robertwiblin.com/2010/05/25/steven-pinker-on-the-motivations-for-violence/ I would like to offer this excerpt from Steven Pinker's book ''The Blank Slate'' about the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine. I find he makes a convicing argument against it. I thought it was a highly speculative and unconvincing piece of writing. There's several logical fallacies (or at least very suspect reasoning in there) That he also brings up "common sense" and "from an evolutionary perspective" doesn't help his argument when I can easily find people turning those around to the other side of the argument. Maybe the full piece have it more fleshed out but the excerp itself should not be convicning anyone. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote: Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_- "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. Do you believe rape sex is good? Sex with an unconscious girl? Sex with a girl who just lies there in shock? Sex with a girl who is completely dry? Sex with a girl who is clearly distraught? Sex where you have to struggle just to hold her down? Sex with a girl who actively hurts you to in the lead up to the sex? You'd get more pleasure from your hand every time. Sexual pleasure from the fulfillment of the specific rape fantasy is another matter of course but I'd argue that's the fetishistic aspect of a generic desire for control over women. If I may explain with an example. Say a man has a physically abusive mother and grows up with a load of trauma based desire to impose his power on women in their early 40s which is then fetishised to process it and becomes the desire to rape them. The desire to seek sexual fulfillment through the rape of the woman is not about the immediate sexual pleasure of his dick inside her but rather the pleasure from the fulfillment of the fantasy of the rape which ultimately comes back to imposition of power. The fact that he got off doesn't make it any less about power. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:31 KwarK wrote: I'll list the things I think are clearly wrong with what he's saying as I see them "people who believe sex is good believe it is because all natural things are good" Speaking for myself, I believe sex is good because it feels good and forms an important part of some healthy relationships. "rape is bad therefore rape cannot come from human nature" This presupposes that nothing bad can come from human nature. I disagree with this assumption which at no point he made any effort to show. It also presupposes that desire for power cannot come from human nature which again he made no effort to show. "(long list of violent things people do to make other people do what they want) none of these are about power, why should rape be" Some of those are actually ultimately about power. The idea that you can look at an act like theft and say "does it make him any more powerful?" as if there was some attribute called power that would go up a few points is absurd. Yes, theft does make you more powerful, it gives you the power to make someone make and give you a coffee in Starbucks to put it in its simplest terms. Deliberate mischaracterisation of the nature of power in order to show that he can't see any. "Let’s also apply common sense to the doctrine that men rape to further the interests of their gender." What? I'm not sure there's any call to arms for men to carry out rape to further our collective interests, arguing against that is pretty off topic. He goes on to use this as a proof against rape culture. I don't think anybody (maybe some nutjob feminists) believes rape culture involves a shadow government of people who want to oppress women and that all rapists are rational actors in their service who want to encourage women to stay in the kitchen by sometimes raping them if they don't. The people who believe in rape culture believe that there are a series of cultural problems which collectively make rape more likely due to impacting views on women, gender relations and rape itself, rapists aren't out there trying to further rape culture, they're a product of it. He uses "rape is bad therefore rape cannot come from human nature" as a reason for why people think rape must be unnatural, he is not claiming that himself. The list of violent things is to illustrate that people take the things they want. Why would sex be an exception? Also note that he argues not necessarily against the position that rape is about power, but against the position that rape is NOT about sex. You also need to see the book in the context of a man arguing againt notions in academia about ''human nature'', particularly the notion that it does not exist. Here he is arguing against academia who are appalled by the notion that rape is not a purely cultural thing. Many aspects of the book are from evolutionary psychology, and in this context the quote "Let’s also apply common sense to the doctrine that men rape to further the interests of their gender." must be seen. Supposedly there is a genetic component to rape. If you are interested in the full argument about the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine, you should be able to find the full text of the book by following the pdf link to ''The Blank Slate''. The full argument starts on page 359 of the book (387 in the pdf) and is about 15 pages long. He at some point offers a list of evidence which may be quite interesting. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:36 nam nam wrote: I thought it was a highly speculative and unconvincing piece of writing. There's several logical fallacies (or at least very suspect reasoning in there) That he also brings up "common sense" and "from an evolutionary perspective" doesn't help his argument when I can easily find people turning those around to the other side of the argument. Maybe the full piece have it more fleshed out but the excerp itself should not be convicning anyone. Wait, what? You're not going to elaborate? Talk about an unconvincing fragment of what ought to be a larger argument... | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
There is no rape culture of course though there definatly is a widespread culture of man dominating women,wich has its origins in christianity and islam. The author makes a great effort to redicule the existance of a "rape culture" though this is just a smoke screen. Noone genuinly believes in a rape culture as rediculous as he described it,so he dont need to attack it in the way he does, it is alot more subtle. Rape could maybe be seen as more or less a result of the culture of man dominating women, and this has brought the misleading term "rape culture" What is meant is just the general culture of man dominating women, with rape beeing one of the results of such a culture. | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
Speaking for myself, I believe sex is good because it feels good and forms an important part of some healthy relationships. "rape is bad therefore rape cannot come from human nature" Of course you are speaking for yourself, but taken as a general view, just because something feels good and forms an important part of some healthy relationships does not make it good. The author's statement, that sex is good because it is natural, and all natural things are good, comes from the viewpoint of the noble savage doctrine. Now, I'm not convinced that contemporary notions of sex stem from that doctrine, but that is the author's argument. "rape is bad therefore rape cannot come from human nature" This presupposes that nothing bad can come from human nature. I disagree with this assumption which at no point he made any effort to show. It also presupposes that desire for power cannot come from human nature which again he made no effort to show. Again, this is not his argument; he is presenting this statement as the viewpoint of the noble savage doctrine. "(long list of violent things people do to make other people do what they want) none of these are about power, why should rape be" Some of those are actually ultimately about power. The idea that you can look at an act like theft and say "does it make him any more powerful?" as if there was some attribute called power that would go up a few points is absurd. Yes, theft does make you more powerful, it gives you the power to make someone make and give you a coffee in Starbucks to put it in its simplest terms. Deliberate mischaracterisation of the nature of power in order to show that he can't see any. Power is only ever a means to an end, to achieve some benefit at negligible cost. "Let’s also apply common sense to the doctrine that men rape to further the interests of their gender." What? I'm not sure there's any call to arms for men to carry out rape to further our collective interests, arguing against that is pretty off topic. He goes on to use this as a proof against rape culture. I don't think anybody (maybe some nutjob feminists) believes rape culture involves a shadow government of people who want to oppress women and that all rapists are rational actors in their service who want to encourage women to stay in the kitchen by sometimes raping them if they don't. Here he is directly addressing Brownmiller's argument on rape. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote: Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_- "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
| ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:59 Chargelot wrote: What I don't understand is how anyone can say "power therefore not sex", or vice versa. An ice ax to the skull imposes more power upon a person than rape ever could. Therefore there must necessarily be a reason forcible sexual intercourse is the medium through which this power is imposed. Cases of rape generally don't leave lasting, physical signs of damage, which would allow the perpetrator to achieve his goal at a much lower cost (assuming his goal were merely a demonstration of power). Do you believe rape sex is good? Sex with an unconscious girl? Sex with a girl who just lies there in shock? Sex with a girl who is completely dry? Sex with a girl who is clearly distraught? Sex where you have to struggle just to hold her down? Sex with a girl who actively hurts you to in the lead up to the sex? You'd get more pleasure from your hand every time. Sexual pleasure from the fulfillment of the specific rape fantasy is another matter of course but I'd argue that's the fetishistic aspect of a generic desire for control over women. Sexual desire is more than just genital stimulation. Otherwise, why would the level of outward attractiveness matter at all? | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:59 Chargelot wrote: What I don't understand is how anyone can say "power therefore not sex", or vice versa. An ice ax to the skull imposes more power upon a person than rape ever could. Therefore there must necessarily be a reason forcible sexual intercourse is the medium through which this power is imposed. Your argument is that the lack of physical violence against women done by rapists is proof that it's not about power? If I may turn that on its head by agreeing with the starting assumption, the fact that rapists are by and large violent against women confirms that it is about power. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:53 HULKAMANIA wrote: Wait, what? You're not going to elaborate? Talk about an unconvincing fragment of what ought to be a larger argument... I wasn't trying to convince anyone and Kwark had already done a decent job at some of the problems with the article. I also wasn't actually arguing for anything, only against a badly written excerp and felt like people actually can read it themselves and make up their mind (especially since I'm mostly focusing on MLG here). Pointless? Maybe. Not that your reply was much more constructive but thanks for pointing out my laziness, I'm well aware of it. | ||
| ||
