|
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.
You can't lord your power over someone if they're dead. Killing for the purpose of power games is used as a way to impose power over others, not over the dead.
The rapist wants to impose power over a particular woman, not women in general. It's more... intimate and personal than murder.
|
United States43211 Posts
On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree with this post.
If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component.
Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off.
|
On August 27 2012 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't personally think rape sex would be any good but there are people who get enjoyment from murdering others, theft, and watching anime [edit: that was a strange juxtaposition], how can I know how rapists feel about "rape sex"? I mean, pardon me for being crude but they do get off. I understand that they might be getting off because they're getting a rise out of the other person or whatever, but you can't deny that they're getting off regardless. What I'm saying is, even if power is the primary reason, it doesn't change the fact that there may be a secondary or a third reason. And in the end, rape is forcible sex - sex is involved somehow. It's very much a resent part of the equation.
So say that forcible sex is 100% power and 0% sex seems ridiculous, seeing how it's forcible sex. Why not just beat people up? Seems to me like rape is awfully specific and closely tied to sexual desire since it results in sex and sometimes procreation.
|
On August 27 2012 06:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Your argument is that the lack of physical violence against women done by rapists is proof that it's not about power?
What I don't understand is how anyone can say "power therefore not sex"
My argument is "one therefore not the other" is an argument based on the foundation that if one is true, the other must necessarily be false. Where is your evidence that rape is 100% about power, but it has 0% to do with sexuality? How could you ever prove that, if sex is still involved? There is power without sex. So why is there sex in this particular expression of power? Was that actually difficult to understand?
|
On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My post was a 2-parter, the Susan Brownmiller was just a random thing I threw in there.
|
On August 27 2012 06:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think it is a bit more subtle than that. From Pinker's book:
Rapists generally apply as much force as is needed to coerce the victim into sex.They rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth. Only 4 percent of rape victims sustain serious injuries,
and fewer than one in fivehundred is murdered.
Again I am not arguing that rape cannot be about power, but I would argue that rape is pretty much always about sex. Though they are excercising power over someone, rapist seem primarily interested in sex.
|
On August 27 2012 06:11 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:04 KwarK wrote: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. I think it is a bit more subtle than that. From Pinker's book: Show nested quote + Rapists generally apply as much force as is needed to coerce the victim into sex.They rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth. Only 4 percent of rape victims sustain serious injuries,
and fewer than one in fivehundred is murdered. Again I am not arguing that rape cannot be about power, but I would argue that rape is pretty much always about sex. Though they are excercising power over someone, rapist seem primarily interested in sex.
I agree. And what I'm saying is hypothetically, even in the event that their primary interest isn't sex, it's still there somewhere.
|
On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off.
Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it.
|
I would question the first hypothetical as well. Perhaps the subject sexually desires the victim so much that her drugged, inconscious state is not enough to dissuade him from acting on his desires.
|
United States43211 Posts
On August 27 2012 06:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 05:51 KwarK wrote: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. I don't personally think rape sex would be any good but there are people who get enjoyment from murdering others, theft, and watching anime [edit: that was a strange juxtaposition], how can I know how rapists feel about "rape sex"? I mean, pardon me for being crude but they do get off. I understand that they might be getting off because they're getting a rise out of the other person or whatever, but you can't deny that they're getting off regardless. What I'm saying is, even if power is the primary reason, it doesn't change the fact that there may be a secondary or a third reason. And in the end, rape is forcible sex - sex is involved somehow. It's very much a resent part of the equation. So say that forcible sex is 100% power and 0% sex seems ridiculous, seeing how it's forcible sex. Why not just beat people up? Seems to me like rape is awfully specific and closely tied to sexual desire since it results in sex and sometimes procreation.
To challenge the "why not beat people up?"
Firstly, that should be women because the rapist in question wants power over women.
Secondly, rapists often beat women up so that makes absolutely no sense as a point.
Furthermore you seem to be making a bizarre assumption that the mental component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage. Do you deny that sexual fetishism has any connection to issues that a person may have? I believe that desires which are not explicitly sexual can be fetishised and can be fulfilled through sexual means. This can be a healthy means for the brain to process shit but is not in the case of fixations with power over women being fetishised into rape.
You actually make my point for me when you compare it to people who get enjoy murdering, stealing and the like, the pleasure is not necessarily tied to the sexual act.
|
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.
I've been thinking this as well. (not too sure about the ice axe thing, though, lol) Perhaps we're trying to rely on one reason (power, OR sex) rather than both. The way I see it, if it weren't about sex, the criminal would use a different method. If it weren't about power, the perpetrator wouldn't force the victim to have sex without consent.
The point I'm trying to get at is, both arguments (sex and power) are necessary, but insufficient on their own.
|
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me.
In fact if murders lead to sexual release I'd say that even in the case of murder there can be a sexual element. To say that rape never has any sexual element seems like the thoughts of someone who's trying to come to terms with something they don't like.
|
United States43211 Posts
On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it.
If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.",
|
On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me.
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does not on its own suggest that the primary motivation is sex. The sex may just be the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power.
But if this were true we would expect, that rapists prefer raping over consensual sex, but we do not see this at all. We would also expect many of them to be power fetishists in other aspects aswell, but most rapists will do their thing, and then leave.
|
On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.",
Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it.
|
On August 27 2012 06:32 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me. The fact that the act is sexual in nature does not on its own suggest that the primary motivation is sex. The sex may just be the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power. But if this were true we would expect, that rapists prefer raping over consensual sex, but we do not see this at all. We would also expect many of them to be power fetishists in other aspects aswell, but most rapists will do their thing, and then leave.
But if consentual sex is about sex and non consentual sex is about something else, why would they prefer raping all the time? Why can't they want both for seperate reasons?
|
On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.",
I do not dispute that ideas of sexual entitlement and desire to punish would be very common. That makes perfect sense. However, I think the primary motivation is, plainly, sex.
|
United States43211 Posts
On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me.
In fact if murders lead to sexual release I'd say that even in the case of murder there can be a sexual element. To say that rape never has any sexual element seems like the thoughts of someone who's trying to come to terms with something they don't like.
I'm not claiming that sex isn't involved, I'm claiming sexual pleasure is not their motivation, I argue that their motivation is fulfillment of a sexual fantasy but that the fantasy itself is the fetishisation of a non sexual need. The act of rape does not maximise sexual pleasure, you'd be better off with a consenting prostitute, only once the fetishised aspect is taken into account does it make any sense.
|
United States43211 Posts
On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it.
So you think it's believable that someone who has no fetishised desire to impose his power over a non consenting woman would, when really horny, think the simplest solution was rape and not consensual sex with a prostitute or masturbation? I think that's absurd. Firstly you need to overcome whatever empathy you have that's telling you not to rape someone (assuming it's not about power and you don't think you have the right to take what you want) and secondly you have to deal with all the drama post-rape about how to avoid getting punished. The simplest solution for someone who wants something other than rape is never to rape someone. The only reason to rape someone is because it is the specific act of rape that you want, fetishisation rather than horniness.
|
On August 27 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote: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. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. So you think it's believable that someone who has no fetishised desire to impose his power over a non consenting woman would, when really horny, think the simplest solution was rape and not consensual sex with a prostitute or masturbation? I think that's absurd. Firstly you need to overcome whatever empathy you have that's telling you not to rape someone (assuming it's not about power and you don't think you have the right to take what you want) and secondly you have to deal with all the drama post-rape about how to avoid getting punished. The simplest solution for someone who wants something other than rape is never to rape someone. The only reason to rape someone is because it is the specific act of rape that you want, fetishisation rather than horniness.
You are trying to make it sound like a rapist makes a well-reasoned decision that maximizes fulfilment of desire against risk. I think our evolutionary past is relevant here. Rape is a widespread phenomenon in nature, rape has been viable strategy for the spreading of genes. In our our evolutionary past, prostitution was not the same as in current time, if it existed at all, masturbation has its obvious problems aswell. Much of the decision to rape or not to rape may be an unconscious process with a genetic component. The cost-benefit analysis you make is not so obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
