rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP (09/20/84)
Rape is not a crime of violence in the standard case. Next you're going to be telling me pick-pocketing is a crime of violence. Or purse snatching. Or robbery. While all of the above can be accompanied with a crime of violence(you know, guns, weapons, beatings, etc), they generally are not. A rapist tends to flee when met with strong resistance(ie screams, struggles, etc) to avoid the violence. A person wanting to commit an act of violence has a lot of options other than going via the rape route which may not satisy that need if the victim is submissive. Rape is a sex crime. Nothing more or less by itself. Rape is a method chosen by a person wanting to commit a sex crime. Their motivation is different in most cases from those wanting violence(though I admit at times there is overlap). Now, if you can convince me that bodily harm is a direct result of rape, then I'll classify rape as a crime of violence. But then you're saying that all "the ladies of the night" are masochists or sadists. I doubt that. Just because one is an unwilling participant as opposed to volunteering does not make the act a crime of violence. However it is all probably a matter of definition. If you are stopped by a big hefty guy in the middle of the night all alone who grabs your purse or wallet or belongings and you let him, I don't call this a crime of violence. Just because of the fear factor that there might be an act of violence makes no difference. This is understood when the guy is charged with robbery(I believe there is a even a differentiation in the charge with regard to whether or not there was a weapon involved). It seems to me rape is or should be no different. We all know what is involved in a rape. It has its own classification. To me a crime of violence covers the broad range of possible non-discript physical abuse. However I won't argue with anyone who removes the fine line between rape and physical abuse. Robert
adm@cbneb.UUCP (09/20/84)
Before you put rape into a class by itself, consider this definition
of violence:
Unjust use of force or power, as in deprivation of rights.
I found this in a dictionary and I think it speaks for itself.saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/26/84)
The point that many people try to make that rape is an act of violence
rather than a sexual crime is that the rapists are often motivated, not
by a strong sexual attraction to the woman they are raping, but rather
by a desire to dominate that person. So it is very often a crime of
"power" rather than sex. Sex is only the medium.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleysaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/26/84)
In my previous article, I meant to say, sex is the "means" rather than the
"medium".
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigleydls@hocse.UUCP (09/28/84)
REFERENCE: <848@ihuxe.UUCP>, <9160@watmath.UUCP> I agree with the sentiments expressed, ie that the proximate motive for rape is "power," "dominance," or whatever, rather than sheer lust. However, let's take this one step further back, and look at *why* men(and apparently many men) feel such a strong need to "get back at women" that they are willing to risk severe penalties to do so. Many people talk as though "power" and "sex" had nothing to do with each other. I suggest that a "power struggle" for control of the woman's body is INTRINSIC to the relationship between the sexes on a very primitive level. It is impossible to take separate the two. Women struggle for exclusive control over their bodies, a very reasonable thing -- from their point of view. Men struggle to impregnate women -- which amounts to gaining control over their bodies and forcing pregnancy upon them. Usually a compromise is worked out that is satisfactory to both. But not always. Some men, rather more than you might expect, lose out: the ugly, the fat, the stupid, the emotionally disturbed, the insane, the poor, etc. They become desperate men, injured by women on many levels, terribly insecure, and they turn to desperate means. They may indeed lust after women, but mainly they lust after revenge. Much as war is the extension of politics by violent means, rape is the extension of the power struggle between the sexes by violent means. And as we all know, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ******* Special Note ******* I am as opposed to rape as the next person, if not more so. I am suggesting that rape must be understood before it can be fought, and that many people don't understand it. One myth in particular is that rapists are a small, weird group of perverts. Read Susan Brownmillers book, "Against Our Will," especially the sections of rape during wartime. The conclusion is that a very high proportion of men would rape women IF they thought they could get away with it, and in wartime they think they can, and do. What to do about rape? Castration won't work. Not only is it cruel and unusual, appealing to the sadistic streak in people, but useless as well. If rape is a crime of power, then castration is irrelevant! You can brutalize someone equally well before and after the castration. Two kinds of solutions exist: 1)make it harder to get away with rape. 2)change society/men so that fewer men want to rape women. Under the heading of making it harder to get away with come: a)sure and swift punishment for rapists b)work against the "victim" mentality in women c)teach as many women self-defense as want to learn. Under the heading of societal changes comes: a)push for the equality of men and women, esp in child raising b) ??? usually feminists suggest censorship of porn here ??? but I think this is superficial, treating a symptom rather than a cause while erroding our fundamental freedoms. Still,these are solutions that do nothing to address the fears and insecurities that exist in millions of men right now, waiting only for the right circumstances to come to the fore.
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (10/01/84)
[] For those of you who believe that the sole motive for all rape is violence: Do you honestly believe that there are no men in the world that are so desperate for sex that they would, and do, force a woman into unwilling sexual intercourse?
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (10/13/84)
[To fail Darkseid is to fail yourself.] > For those of you who believe that the sole motive for all rape is violence: > > Do you honestly believe that there are no men in the world that are so > desperate for sex that they would, and do, force a woman into unwilling > sexual intercourse? This is an extreme position. You will find many who believe that the _dominant_ motivation for _most_ rapes is violence. What does it mean to be "desperate for sex," except that one wants to resort to violence to correct what one believes to be a denial of a right? -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/16/84)
> For those of you who believe that the sole motive for all rape is violence: > > Do you honestly believe that there are no men in the world that are so > desperate for sex that they would, and do, force a woman into unwilling > sexual intercourse? I'd like to introduce a new, important point of view into this discussion. Have all of you had the experience of trying to force a living organism with reasonably strong muscles to do something against its will? Don't you realize what an unpleasnt experience this is? For purposes of this discussion, let's assume that a man tries to force a woman who is unwilling, and she attempts to resist him with her strength. If you have even tried to force a squirrel or a dog to do something it doesn't want to do, you know that regardless of the original intent, one is soon aware of a STRUGGLE. The other creature, or person, is fighting, and is indicating a total mental disengagement from whatever the forcer has in mind. Even if you are simply feeding a pill to an unwilling dog, you must concentrate primarily on the struggle, and it is impossible to avoid receiving the communication of the other creature that it detests what you are doing and is trying to thwart you in every way it finds acceptable. If a man is trying to force a woman who is a stranger to him, the violence, and the lack of communication, are surely even more notable than if the woman is known. To get a vague idea of the difference, one might compare forcing a strange dog, as opposed to your own beloved pet, to do something. My point in all these cases is this: You can surely realize, from your own comparable experience, that for any sane person, the attempt to force a woman would become a stuggle concerned with violence. Only a man who is mentally quite maladjusted could tune out the message of the struggle and continue to behave as if the circumstances of the encounter were essentially sexual. Now look at this situation from the woman's point of view. Her attacker is either satisfied to engage primarily in an event of violence, or is behaving so insanely that the violence occurring is irrelevant to what he is observing. In either case, the woman is a victim of violence. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/24/84)
> > > For those of you who believe that the sole motive for all rape is violence: > > > > Do you honestly believe that there are no men in the world that are so > > desperate for sex that they would, and do, force a woman into unwilling > > sexual intercourse? > > This is an extreme position. You will find many who believe that the > _dominant_ motivation for _most_ rapes is violence. What does it mean > to be "desperate for sex," except that one wants to resort to violence > to correct what one believes to be a denial of a right? I think you're missing the point. It is one thing to say "My family was starving, so I had to resort to violence in order to steal food for them", in which case your desperation for food (a real need) drives you to overcome your aversion to violence. It is another thing to say, "My desire for a new Porsche was so strong, I had to resort to violence to steal one", in which you are justifying violence because of desire for a luxury. And it is yet another thing to say, "I like beating people up, so I do it, and whatever things I happen to acquire along the way are just fringe benefits." Whahehter you buy any of these arguments or not, it is still three different arguments. On the original topic: If there are men "desperate enough for sex" that they will 1) pay a prostitute for it 2) marry someone they don't really love 3) pick up random women in singles bars or any of the other ways of having sexual contact without forming a long-term loving relationship (the way most men seem to prefer it, although if tyehey find someone through 1), 2), or 3), that's their business) then I would assueme that there are men desperate enough to have sex with a woman by force. Some might do it because they feel they have a "right" to it, some might just claim to feel that way, and some might know it's wrong but do it anyway. As a further continuation, there are occasional drives to castrate rapists. If rape is a crime motivated by violence rather than sexual desire, what good will this do? A man can still get an erection without testicles, so it wouldn't prevent him from raping again. Since he did it supposedly not because of his sexual desire, the castration won't reduce his motivation. If castration reduces his tendency toward violence, then we might as well advocate castrating all violent criminals. Now that's a thought, just not one I care to dwell on for long! As always, comments welcome. Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochester seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (10/26/84)
> As a further continuation, there are occasional drives > to castrate rapists. If rape is a crime motivated by > violence rather than sexual desire, what good will this > do? It's motivated by both > A man can still get an erection without testicles, > so it wouldn't prevent him from raping again. Since > he did it supposedly not because of his sexual desire, > the castration won't reduce his motivation. Male hormones promote both sexual desire and agressiveness (dominance) and therefore the propensity to enact via physical dominance (violence). Castration therefore reduces hormonally, the propensity to rape. Do not confuse erectability with desire. Just because it still works doesn't mean the same level of desire to be agressive and have sex will exist. The facts speak to the contrary. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/27/84)
Reference: <328@mako.UUCP> <597@gloria.UUCP>, <2484@rochester.UUCP> hocsj!dls says: >>> For those of you who believe that the sole motive for all rape is violence: >>> >>> Do you honestly believe that there are no men in the world that are so >>> desperate for sex that they would, and do, force a woman into unwilling >>> sexual intercourse? gloria!colonel replies: >> This is an extreme position. You will find many who believe that the >> _dominant_ motivation for _most_ rapes is violence. What does it mean >> to be "desperate for sex," except that one wants to resort to violence >> to correct what one believes to be a denial of a right? rochester!ciaraldi then says: > If there are men "desperate enough for sex" that they will > 1) pay a prostitute for it > 2) marry someone they don't really love > 3) pick up random women in singles bars > or any of the other ways of having sexual contact without > forming a long-term loving relationship (the way most men > seem to prefer it, although if tyehey find someone through > 1), 2), or 3), that's their business) > then I would assueme that there are men desperate > enough to have sex with a woman by force. > Some might do it because they feel they have a "right" to > it, some might just claim to feel that way, and > some might know it's wrong but do it anyway. And some might not have the money for #1, or want to bother with #2, or can't manage #3 (the people dls earlier referred to as: >>> the ugly, the fat, the stupid, the emotionally disturbed, >>> the insane, the poor, etc. They become desperate men, injured >>> by women on many levels, terribly insecure, and they turn to >>> desperate means. They may indeed lust after women, but >>> mainly they lust after revenge. Also, since rape was an "accepted" way of getting sexual partners throughout most of man's existence (going back to pre-historic times, but even up until recent times)--attack an opposing tribe, kill the men, take the women--it is understandable that some men may consider that it is still their right. Note that I said 'understandable', *not* 'excusable'. Those who claim that rape is something new, caused by the mass media's emphasis on pornography, haven't read their history. ciaraldi again: > As a further continuation, there are occasional drives > to castrate rapists. If rape is a crime motivated by > violence rather than sexual desire, what good will this > do? A man can still get an erection without testicles, > so it wouldn't prevent him from raping again. Since > he did it supposedly not because of his sexual desire, > the castration won't reduce his motivation. > If castration reduces his tendency toward violence, then we > might as well advocate castrating all violent criminals. > Now that's a thought, just not one I care to dwell on > for long! I suspect that at least some of the people who are saying 'castration" actually mean 'amputation'--in either case it's an ineffective punishment. But certainly many people want it both ways--rape is a crime of violence, not of sex, they say, but we should castrate the rapists. To which my reply is, "Make up your f***ing mind!" ('***' = 'lip') Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (10/28/84)
Mike, I think you are missing an essential point here. A rapist could have any of a number of motivations; I'll agree with that. However, the victim experiences it as an act of violence. Without exception. That's what makes it rape. All this wordplay just clouds the issue. Why insist on viewing things from the criminal's point of view? When you claim that rape is an act of sex, you aren't giving any more insight than if you say robbery is an act of greed. It is the violence experienced by the victim that defines the crime, *not* the motivation of the criminal. The reason that feminists underscore that rape is a crime of VIOLENCE and not SEX is to counteract common myths that there is something normal about rape, and that it is merely a matter of sexual aberration, or of over-strong male sex drive, or (and these are the sickest) that it is a matter of a woman not knowing what she should like, or even that women secretly like to be raped. These myths are all execrable nonsense. And, unless my experience of other men is exceptional, very common. I have to admit to being damned tired of these trivializing academic discussions which utterly fail to address this extremely important issue. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/30/84)
> > As a further continuation, there are occasional drives > > to castrate rapists. If rape is a crime motivated by > > violence rather than sexual desire, what good will this > > do? > > It's motivated by both That's what I had thought, but there has been a tendency, when someone accused of rape says "Well, she was asking for it, dressed like that, acting that way, etc.", to say "That doesn't matter, becausde rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of sexual desire", rather than saying, "That doesn't matter, because sexual desire is no excuse for raping someone." The second seems to me to be a stronger and more defensible position. It clearly contrasts someone's desire for a non-essential with someone else's right to have one's own body under one's own control. Trying to distort the nature of something in order to bolster one's argument is slef-defeating because it only works with those willing to accept the distortion. I am sensitive to this because of my expeience back in high school on the debate team. In debate you try to define your terms in a manner advantageous to your side, because then you force your opponents to argue on your terms. However, there is only so far you can push the definitions from those generally accepted, or the judge will allow the other team to throw yours out. A recent example of this is the campaign to ban pornography as degrading to women, then defining porno as any erotica that degrades women. Someone replied to me via private E-mail. saying that some rape victims, when asked whether they felt castration or hormone therapy was sufficient punishment for their attackers, had said they did not consider this sufficient punishmemt. The Biblical directive of "an eye for an eye" espouses the principle that the offender should suffer a lost equal to that of the offended. Others maintain that any sort of punishment must be worse than the offense to be effective, either as punishment or deterrent. I don't know the answer to this, but it makes me think of the recent ad for Time-Life Books' series on the Old West, which pointed out that John Wesley Harding killed X-number of men, "including one for snoring too loud." HE obviously thought the punishment appropriate to the offense, but I hope some married woman don't find out about this! :-|) (that's a smile with a moustache!) Mike Ciaraldi seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/05/84)
Ed Hall asks: > Why insist on viewing things from the criminal's point of view? When > you claim that rape is an act of sex, you aren't giving any more > insight than if you say robbery is an act of greed. It is the violence > experienced by the victim that defines the crime, *not* the motivation > of the criminal. Now pay attention, because I don't want to have to repeat this: BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE MOTIVATION, YOU HAVEN'T A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL OF STOPPING IT! (The ASCII equivalent of screaming at the top of my lungs.) If you have a broken leg, what you perceive is *pain*, but merely treating the pain won't make it go away. If my home is robbed and I perceive it as anti-semitism (because I have a mezzuzah on the door), but in fact the burgler was just looking for money, my perception of what has happened is just so much dingos' kidneys. The victim's perception may be valid to point out, but it has *nothing*, repeat *nothing*, to do with the causes. Lest someone out there accuse me of insensitivity, I will say that nothing I say denies any of the pain, violence, or humiliation that the victim feels. But talking about that won't end the problem; looking at the causes will. That's what we should be working on. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (11/07/84)
> Mike, I think you are missing an essential point here. A rapist could > have any of a number of motivations; I'll agree with that. However, > the victim experiences it as an act of violence. Without exception. > That's what makes it rape. All this wordplay just clouds the issue. > > Why insist on viewing things from the criminal's point of view? When > you claim that rape is an act of sex, you aren't giving any more > insight than if you say robbery is an act of greed. It is the violence > experienced by the victim that defines the crime, *not* the motivation > of the criminal. > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall I maintain that this is more than "Wordplay", but is rather an attempt to discuss a issue which is highly emotionally-charged in a way that is somewhat more dispassionate. It is not to reduce the emotion that I do this, but to reduce the effect of the emotion on the reasoning process. After all, the things we do under the passions of the moment are those most likely to cause regret later. On to more substance: "It is the violence experienced by the victim that define the crime, *not* the motivation of the criminal." This is wrong for two reasons: 1) If we want to reduce the amount of rape, it helps to know why people rape other people. Attributing all rapes to one "politically correct" motivation reduces the effectiveness of measures against rape. If a variety of motivations exist, a variety of tactics might be employed, in various situations. Those tactics appropriate on a college campus might be relatively ineffective in a slum, and vice-versa. 2) It is a principle of American justice, and of most systems of morality, that motivation is VERY important in defining a crime. e.g. the victim experiences "homicide" the same way in all cases, by dying (ignoring for now exactly how they die). Motivation is what distinguishes first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, involunatry manslaughter, and so on, with their correspondingly lesser penalties. Surely someone who accidentally causes a death (e.g. he knocks something over, which lands on someone else and kills him) is not as culpable as someone who spends weeks planning to kill someone, and takes elaborate steps to do so, and maybe even gets paid for it. The exact analogy to rape is unclear, since I doubt there are "hit men" who make a living raping instead of murdering, but the principle is still valid: motivation is important in defining crime. Mike Ciaraldi via ARPAnet: ciaraldi@rochester via Usenet: seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (11/15/84)
[Hey, you! Why aren't you home in jail?] > 2) It is a principle of American justice, and of most systems of morality, > that motivation is VERY important in defining a crime. Law and custom make poor guides to understanding the human heart -- is your principle _sound_? -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
joe@zinfandel.UUCP (12/15/84)
I liked your response. I get a nauseated feeling that the world is filled with whiners when they start defining the whole world by how *they* individually feel about it. It's crucial to *understand* criminals. Rapists and death camp operators are human beings. This means *WE* are capable of that evil too. We need to see exactly how *they* feel if we are to avoid it happening. I think the greatest danger and perhaps a necessary precursor of inhumanity to man is segregating *any* segment of mankind from one's definition of "people", be they women or blacks, or be they rapists and republicans. Again, I thank you for your letter. You got me going too... " Cogito ergo Spud. " ( I Think, therefore A Yam. ) Joseph Weinstein Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!joe) P.O. Box 8016 (415)932-6900 Walnut Creek California 94596