bev@hlexa.UUCP (Beverly Dyer) (09/19/84)
Following are some excerpts and some summarizing of an article published in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago describing some research on violence against women and rape and men's reactions to films and attitudes in surveys. I read a fair amount about violence against women, and think about it, and although I dont necessarily trust statistics and psychological research, it might open some of the readers of this newsgroups' eyes to read or hear about more studies. I find incredulity here and in lots of other places about the pervasiveness of violence against women. Recent comments expressing ideas like "not that many women are raped" or "Redbook says women want to be raped" or "old women wont get raped, young sexy ones do" or "rape is not violence" are examples. Studies at the U of California by Dr Neil Malamuth found that a third of the men watching films which showed extreme violence against women, but contained nothing explicitly sexual, were sexually stimulated. "Psychologists had previously thought that this pattern was unique to men who actually raped women." "Several researchers have found, moreover that repeated viewings of films such as "Friday the 13th" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" instill attitudes in the minds of the viewers that are similar to those found in rapists." Studies at the U of Wisconsin by Edward Donnerstein showed 5 "slasher" type movies to men over a period of a few days with psychological tests before and after. The men found the movies "progressively less upsetting, more enjoyable and less debasing to women." They more often blamed the woman after the movies in a mock rape trial. "A guy who has raped 20 women is at the extreme of where those attitudes point," says Dr. Gene Abel of Emory U., and "straightforward pornography movies dont seem to have that effect on peoples attitudes towards women. Women also were found to have a desensitized reaction to progressive showings of violent movies, and to more often judge a rape victim to be at fault. (Some of the men in the "slasher" film study were not allowed to see all 5 films because they exibited strong similarities to the profiles of men willing to commit rape in initial testing.) John Briere of the U. of Manitoba reported that 10 percent of college men admitted to having "physically forced a woman to have sex against her will" in a survey. He also found that "attitudes among men that were once thought to signify the thinking of rapists were held in some degree by many men." The men who admitted to having raped shared attitudes held by convicted rapists, including myths such as that women enjoy sexual violence and want to be raped, and that rapes do not occur but women lie about them. Almost 50 percent of college men subscribe to similar myths. In a survey of 2000 men, "35 percent said they might rape a woman if they could get away without being caught." Men who watched films combining sex and violence became more callous towards women. (The film "Swept Away" is mentioned.) Rapists are aroused by the fantasy of violence against women, but do not seem to be among the most frequent users of violent pornography in entertainment. Most rapists were victims of sexual abuse as children. *************************** These are some of the more interesting points to me. It doesn't surprise me that people become more callous as they are shown violent films. It doesn't even surprise me too much that women also blame the rape victim for the crime ... this attitude seems to be entrenched fairly deeply. That (30%) men are sexually aroused during violent non-sexual scenes surprises me, also that (35%) men would like to rape if they could get away with it. Watching violence against women in films has become a horror story for me. I cover my eyes, and if the movie is a bad one I am afraid for a few days afterwards. I often go to a movie with some friend, not knowing that the content includes some scene where a woman is (killed/raped/cut up/ kicked around) and spend 3/4 of the movie with my head down, while my friend is saying "it's just special effects, it's not really blood." (We all lauph about it now ....... Beverly's going to spend the movie looking at the ceiling) Beverly Dyer ihnp4!hlexa!bev
colucci@eosp1.UUCP (Lisa Colucci) (09/20/84)
I cannot understand that any supposedly intelligent person could possibly believe that rape is not a crime of violence. Whether or not a weapon is involved is unimportant in the classification of this crime as one of violence. Rape is a crime committed mostly by insecure men. What better way to assert one's 'power' than to totally degrade and humiliate another human being? The fact that many rapists were victims of child abuse (pointed out in an earlier article) only supports my statement. Children that are abused generally think of themselves as deserving of their punishment. They believe they are inferior to their friends who they believe are not abused, and their siblings who may not be abused. They are also very aware of the powerlessness of their situations. When they become adults, they are generally insecure and still feel somehow inferior to other people. Some may try to prove to themselves and others that they are no longer powerless by raping women and/or abusing children. Many women who fight a rapist are killed because the rapist becomes enraged that he is not in complete control of the woman's body and emotions. He is gratified by her fear of him and THAT is the main reason people rape. The act of sexual abuse, whether penetration or some other method, is used for its emotional affect on the victim. If cutting a woman's hair were the most fear-provoking attack imaginable, a rapist would be content to cut hair. Also, ihuxe!rainbow (Robert) mentioned that if a woman doesn't fight a rapist but instead gives in to save herself from more standard physical abuse, then no bodily harm (damage, pain) is inflicted. WRONG! Unless this rapist is kind enough to carry and use K-Y Jelly at all times, a great amount of physical pain and damage can and is inflicted. (Not that I really mean that, I'm just mad and being sarcastic but :-) was not appropriate at the time.) Until people realize the emotional implications of rape for both the victim and the perptrator, we're far from realizing a means to prevent it. Lisa Colucci Let me say that I have no specific references for any of the assertions that I have made but have based this article on information gathered over several years and from many different sources.
rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP (09/21/84)
>Whether or not a weapon is involved is unimportant in the classification >of this crime as one of violence. A weapon is not necessary to physically abuse someone. Hence the definite threat of the possibilty of violence should make the punishment for rape appropriately more severe. However, the threat of violence does not in itself make it a crime of violence. This holds true for all crimes. >Many women who fight a rapist are killed because the rapist becomes >enraged that he is not in complete control of the woman's body and emotions. That is why it is best not to risk resistance. Once again true in all cases. If you are a bank teller and someone hands you note to put money in a bag and it appears he his holding an object in his pocket, I suggest you don't resist. Why risk turning the robbery into a crime of violence also? So why try and make things worse by risking violence in addition to the rape? >He is gratified by her fear of him and THAT is the main reason people >rape. The act of sexual abuse, whether penetration or some other >method, is used for its emotional affect on the victim. If cutting a >woman's hair were the most fear-provoking attack imaginable, a rapist >would be content to cut hair. Here also, emotional impact upon the victim is not justification for classifying a crime as violence. All sorts of crimes can have severe emotional effects. Kidnapping for instance. >Unless this rapist is kind enough to carry and use K-Y Jelly >at all times, a great amount of physical pain and damage can and is >inflicted. Well, I certainly am not a women, so I cannot answer for the amount of physical pain and damage involved. All I can go on is the vast number of rape cases written up in the paper of which the victim does everything but mention pain and/or damage endured. But I will give you this point and it is the main reason I said there is a very narrow line between rape and violence. Robert
greenber@acf4.UUCP (09/21/84)
<> An interesting thought (perhaps!). Apparently the woman in the New Bedford rape incident willingly had sex with SOME of the men. And MAY have been raped by some of the men. Whether this is true or not is not the issue. Consider the following scenario: A woman goes into a bar. Gets a little drunk, and decides to have sex with a number of men. She has sex with perhaps the first and second man. No rape has been committed. Whilst the third man is having intercourse with her she changes her mind. She demands that the man cease. He doesn't. He is in the middle of intercourse, and (perhaps for those male animailistic reasons!) opts to continue. Has she been raped? Does the man have any rights. He is sexually aroused, and "merely" because the woman has decided to stop, must he??? If he does not stop, then he is having sex with the women "against her will" (a common definition of rape). But she did initiate the action. Because she changes her mind ar any time she wants to, does that define rape? I'm confused. What are the man's rights here? Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
zurko@glivet.DEC (09/24/84)
I am totally confused about how anyone can consider rape NOT a crime of violence. These people seem to think that if a woman doesn't actively resist, she will not experience any physical harm. That's absurd! Do you think women work like Disney time lapse flower photography; they just open wide at will??? If a women holds a gun to your head (assuming you're male) and says put out or die, are you SURE you'll be able to get it up? Even when not actively fighting off an attacker, fear, rage, shame, etc. combine to make the whole experience phyiscally painful and damaging for a woman, because those are just the emotions that make it more difficult for her to ALLOW the whole nightmare to proceed with as little pain as possible. Mary Ellen Zurko
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/04/84)
How do you go about proving "psychological" rape? What the hell is
"psychological" rape?!!! Is that rape of someone with the mind?
In what sense? I think it's utterly ridiculous if you're implying
that dreaming of having sex with someone (forcibly or non-forcibly),
even though that person says no (in real-life or the dream) should be
illegal. I think maybe you were trying to say (at least it's more
logical) that you psychologically (playing mind games and the like)
convince a girl(or guy) to say "yes". At this point, I'm still not
sure you have grounds for rape. I mean the guy didn't do anything
until he got a "yes". It seems like a bit of an underhanded and cruel
technique, but I don't see how you could convict on it!! Or is
psychological rape when screw her brains out (no, arrrggggghhhh, I know it
was bad, sorry!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz
Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You lock the door, you hold the key,
There's someone in my head, but it's not me ... "ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/05/84)
-- >> She demands that the man cease. He doesn't. He is in the middle >> of intercourse, and (perhaps for those male animailistic reasons!) >> opts to continue. >> Has she been raped? Does the man have any rights. He is sexually >> aroused, and "merely" because the woman has decided to stop, must he??? >> If he does not stop, then he is having sex with the women "against her >> will" (a common definition of rape). But she did initiate the action. >> Because she changes her mind ar any time she wants to, does that define >> rape? >> I'm confused. What are the man's rights here? >> Ross M. Greenberg It's idiocy like this that makes net.women so aggravating these days. What the hell do you care, Ross? Are you planning to get yourself in such a situation? That's got to be it, otherwise a bright guy like you would have added some imaginative twists, say, he sics Rex the Wonder Dog on her, has 2nd thoughts, tries to call the dog off, but the dog also, for "those male animalistic reasons" chooses to continue, etc, etc. So the answer, Ross, is: You get a free phone call--call your lawyer. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Oct 84 [13 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
dls@hocse.UUCP (10/05/84)
REFERENCE: <3029@hlexa.UUCP>, <10400010@acf4.UUCP>, <1263@ihuxq.UUCP> No, Ken, it's you that are aggravating. Ya, if she says nay its rape, ya, ya we hear you. But for every case where the guy actually rapes someone in a situation like this, there are probably 100s where he meekly backs off and respects her wishes. Most men, I expect, would prefer a more open and honest relationship that did not include either threats/blackmail from men or women being coy/teasing. It is just plain wrong for women to toy with men sexually. Let's stop arguing about all this nitpicking stuff(is it rape?, is she a slut?, etc) and get on to some higher level discussions.
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/08/84)
-- >> No, Ken, it's you that are aggravating. >> Ya, if she says nay its rape, ya, ya we hear you. >> But for every case where the guy actually rapes someone >> in a situation like this, there are probably 100s where >> he meekly backs off and respects her wishes. Say what? I was just accusing the nerd who went to great lengths to concoct an "Is it rape or isn't it?" scenario of closet misogyny. The misogyny above is a lot more blatant. What's this "meekly backs off" crap? If these guys were "real men" what would they do? >> Most men, I expect, would prefer a more open and honest >> relationship that did not include either threats/blackmail from men >> or women being coy/teasing. It is just plain wrong for >> women to toy with men sexually. And vice versa. No, wait! What does "wrong" mean? It's a crime? It deserves punishment, as in "she was asking for it"? That's sick. >> Let's stop arguing about all this nitpicking stuff(is it rape?, >> is she a slut?, etc) and get on to some higher level discussions. Good idea. In fact, that was the whole point of my original article. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 08 Oct 84 [17 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (10/09/84)
> > How do you go about proving "psychological" rape? What the hell is > "psychological" rape?!!! Is that rape of someone with the mind? > In what sense? I think it's utterly ridiculous if you're implying > that dreaming of having sex with someone (forcibly or non-forcibly), > even though that person says no (in real-life or the dream) should be > illegal. I think maybe you were trying to say (at least it's more > logical) that you psychologically (playing mind games and the like) > convince a girl(or guy) to say "yes". At this point, I'm still not > sure you have grounds for rape. I mean the guy didn't do anything > until he got a "yes". It seems like a bit of an underhanded and cruel > technique, but I don't see how you could convict on it!! Or is > psychological rape when screw her brains out (no, arrrggggghhhh, I know it > was bad, sorry!) > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz > Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "You lock the door, you hold the key, > There's someone in my head, but it's not me ... " you've missed the point! You espouse the "protect the criminal, to hell with the victim" philosophy usually applied by the (usually) male justice system to the crime of rape. the point is not how you prove shit is shit in court, but to pay attention to the fact that there IS shit laying all around you, whether the courts know about it or not!. MY WHOLE POINT was that there IS a psychological form of rape, and that you and the courts haven't got the foggiest idea of how to deal with it!. Rape is a crime of DOMINANCE. It may manifest as SEXual dominance, and / or it may manifest as VIOLENTce dominance, but it is nevertheless a crime of one person asserting control over the other person's body/mind where there is no legal right for that dominance. The rapist MUST assert mental dominance OR physical dominance to achieve rape (the non-consensual dominance of another person), but our laws deal only with the SEXUAL aspects of the crime, none of the victims PSYCHOLOGICAL rape. The psychological dominance may occurr quickly... 1: Do exactly as I tell you or this knife punctures your heart, etc... 2: Oh shit! I'll do EXACTLY what he says, and maybe he won't knife me... 3: No further protest is registered, (take THAT to court!) to stay alive. Or may be the entirety of the crime... But there has to be some point where Psychological rape has occurred (reduction of victim to mental submission) in almost EVERY physical rape. Because rape IS a crime of dominance, it seldom goes to the point of sex with the victim still fighting...because that fails to satisfy the attacker's need to dominate...(getting sex without submission), so he will usually escalate the violence until the victim yields. Thus MOST rapes involve violence, and some involve sex, but ALL involve dominance. For yet another storm in net.singles, we could look at the cause of the need to dominate, why that's related to sex, and why men usually take it out on women. Remember, psychological illnesses are usually only the symptoms of the victims failure to deal with the mental illnesses of the family in which he was raised. The rapist is as much a psychological victim as the rapee. That's also why these things run in families (e.g. wifebeating). But I digress. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/16/84)
> you've missed the point! > MY WHOLE POINT was that there IS a psychological > form of rape, and that you and the courts haven't got the foggiest idea of > how to deal with it!. Rape is a crime of DOMINANCE. It may manifest as > SEXual dominance, and / or it may manifest as VIOLENTce dominance, but it > is nevertheless a crime of one person asserting control over the other > person's body/mind where there is no legal right for that dominance. You have missed my whole point!! I won't argue with your definition of rape. I'm still going to pick nits over your definition of psychological rape, though. Will you please explain how you can convict on psychological rape? If the girl (or guy) says "yes" and is not threatened (since threatening DOES start coming into the physical grounds), how, in court, is it going to be proven that she didn't mean yes. And that is what will have to be proven. She brought the charges up, that means she has to back them up, and PROVE that she waas psychologically manipulated into performing the act!!! > 1: Do exactly as I tell you or this knife punctures your heart, etc... > 2: Oh shit! I'll do EXACTLY what he says, and maybe he won't knife me... > 3: No further protest is registered, (take THAT to court!) to stay alive. How canyou say this is psychological? It is in a sense, but the THREAT of physical abuse was there. I'm talking about when physical abuse is never mentioned. It may get to the point where the woman thinks that violence may occur if she doesn't agree, but she has not been threatened physically or physically injured! Sorry, our law is not built around mind games. I have to admit that if this WAS his actually intention, something should be done. But you're going to have one HELL OF A TIME proving this in court. Gut feelings and unspoken communication is not valid evidence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been."
mbets@pyuxn.UUCP (Mary Beth Fifield) (10/19/84)
Well, okay. You want a concrete example of pyschological rape? 1. Father says to daughter "If you don't then daddy won't love you any more". 2. Boy says to girl (on date) "If you don't then I'll tell everybody at school you did it with the football team." (believe me, this sort of thing does happen). 3. Man says to women, "If you don't then I'll tell your husband that you did anyway." These things do exist. Sad, but true. ...pyuxww!mbets
owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (10/19/84)
> > > > How do you go about proving "psychological" rape? What the hell is > > "psychological" rape?!!! > > Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz > > Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. > > you've missed the point! > > You espouse the "protect the criminal, to hell with the victim" philosophy > usually applied by the (usually) male justice system to the crime of rape. > the point is not how you prove shit is shit in court, but to pay attention > to the fact that there IS shit laying all around you, whether the courts > know about it or not!. MY WHOLE POINT was that there IS a psychological > form of rape, and that you and the courts haven't got the foggiest idea of > how to deal with it!. > -- > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny :-> Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.) I say "protect the victim AND the criminal". It's not either/or. The problem is: if psychological rape is wrong and is to be outlawed, how can we JUSTLY determine it has happened and who did it?? I can hear it now: "I SAY he did it, and that's proof enough!" To be sure, the rules of evidence must be fair and realistic. In the Law of Moses, a person was NEVER convicted of a capital crime on the word of ONE witness. If I recall correctly (muslims please correct if I'm wrong) it takes *5* witnesses (men unfortunately :-( ) to convict a woman of adultry. To say that a woman's word is good enough is to be reverse sexist (Women ALWAYS tell the truth while men MIGHT not.), just as sexist as to say that it is NEVER good enough (Islamic law concerning witnesses says that it takes >1 woman testifying to the truth of X to equal the veracity of 1 man.) The truth of the matter is that it's TOUGH to determine mental harm OBJECTIVELY. All we have is the word of the victim. I find it difficult to accept *just* that on the same level as: "His fingerprints were all over the place, we found the goods in the car he was driving, and he stopped for us only when his car hit the telephone pole at 90 MPH." For a TRULY just society, Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/19/84)
If a woman is induced through violent means to engage in sex, I think we're all agreed that this is rape. If a woman is threatened with violence in order to induce to have sex, I think we're still agreed that this, too, is rape. If a woman FEELS threatened that someone would threaten or use violence on her if she refused to have sex, is it rape (if she consents to have sex in order to, from her perspective, save her neck)? 1. It could be a big burly male (but really a nice guy and not a "macho asshole") approached her, and she was afraid that he might be the type who *would* threaten/attack her. In reality, he was just a big lug who liked her, who would have politely understood if she had said no. 2. It could be any type of male who really *would* use violence to induce the woman to have sex, and knows that the woman would be too frightened to say no. The woman would "consent" unwillingly, but not due to DIRECT threats of violence. In case 1, it's not rape, at least not on the part of the man involved. What it is is yet another sad case of miscommunication and misinterpretation between human beings. (The woman's body *was* violated, in that she had sex against her will, but the man was not "at fault".) In case 2, in my book, it's just as much rape as in the original examples from the beginning of this article involving direct violence or threatened violence. But would the man in case 2 get convicted? Probably not. Because (in my understanding) rape involves violence or threats of violence, and there simply would be NO LEGAL PROOF of this. This doesn't mean it's not wrong; it's no better than the other examples of rape. Unfortunately, it would probably not get a conviction. What's interesting is that I know that there are several people on the net (readers of this newsgroup, I believe) who firmly believe that there is NO SUCH THING as psychological violence of this kind. "No one can force you to do something you don't want to do against your will without physical violence." I wonder why these people haven't stepped forward to proclaim: "A woman cannot be forced to have sex against her will unless violence or threats of violence are applied." I wonder what the many women who are stuck in relationships where intimidation of that nature is a daily fact of life might think of that. I digress... -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxd!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (10/27/84)
I personally believe that the "desperation for sex" really
comes out of profound lonliness and/or fear and/or rage. (Primarily
the first two.) Men don't need sex to live. Celibacy is not a
suicidal path. Sure, it's a drive, and one that's nice to satisfy,
but is is not a need of the calibre that, say, hunger is.
I do believe, however, that human contact and nurturing are
primary needs that we have.--*nourishment for the spirit*, one might
call it. The problem in our culture is that we learn to channel
all sorts of funny things into the category of sex that aren't
really sex at all, like the need for nurturing. For most of us,
it is a lot scarier to admit that we want to be held or touched
than that we want to make love. In persons who are proufoundly
lonely and in need of human contact, violence can be resorted to.
I do not believe, and I will be nearly impossible to convince,
that a person with enough close, intimate, loving non-sexual relation-
ships in which his/her needs are expressed and met, will resort
to violence to get sex. Sex simply is not that important. Also,
I will not easily be convinced that anyone ever engages in violence
merely for the sake of violence. One violates another person out
of some sort of distress or need, in an attempt to relieve that
distress. It doesn't work, but that is the motivation.
Rape is a violent act. It involves a violation of another
person's bodily sovereignty. But violence is only the mode, not
the motivator.
-Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf College
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densingeecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/27/84)
Reference: <2070@stolaf.UUCP> If, as Densinger claims, rape is based on a lack of close human contact, then we have to ask why people try to substitute forced sex for unforced affection. It seems to me that the answer is that somewhere along the line, people have been convinced (brainwashed) that sex equates with love (as in "if you love me, you'll..."). If people were convinced that dancing were a sign of love, they might very kidnap people and force them to dance with them. (I'm not trying to trivialize rape, but to draw an analogy. No flames, please.) It does seem that when people say they "aren't getting any," they mean "love" rather than "sex." Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (10/29/84)
>>From: densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) >> I do not believe, and I will be nearly impossible to convince, >>that a person with enough close, intimate, loving non-sexual relation- >>ships in which his/her needs are expressed and met, will resort >>to violence to get sex. I think you are basically right here. But most rapists are *not after sex*. >> ... Also, >>I will not easily be convinced that anyone ever engages in violence >>merely for the sake of violence. I don't agree with this at all. Violence for the sake of violence happens all the time. Why do people drive down the street and shoot others at random? It seems they just get a thrill out of it. People are shot and stabbed for no reason with alarming frequency. >> One violates another person out >>of some sort of distress or need, in an attempt to relieve that >>distress. It doesn't work, but that is the motivation. >> Rape is a violent act. It involves a violation of another >>person's bodily sovereignty. But violence is only the mode, not >>the motivator. I take this to mean that you think sex is the motivator. **Wrong!!** It is a very well documented fact that many rapists are having their sexual "needs" met. But they rape anyway! Why? They are not after sex. *They are after control.* They don't feel in control of their own lives, and many of them feel that women are the "cause" of their lack of control. So they decide to subjugate a woman, to show her (and thereby, all women) that he has power over her. Forcing her to have sex with him against her will is one of the "best" ways to show power. The fact that the mode that the rapist chooses is sex is not that important. Sex is chosen as the mode mainly because it is so humiliating for the woman. If shining shoes were more humiliating, the rapist would choose that instead. *Control* is the motivation, not sex. Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA decvax!randvax!rohn
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/30/84)
> I will not easily be convinced that anyone ever engages in violence > merely for the sake of violence. One violates another person out > of some sort of distress or need, in an attempt to relieve that > distress. It doesn't work, but that is the motivation. This has been an argument for a long time. I remember having a long argument with a woman once who maintained that people want power only for what that power can give them. I said that some people want power for its own sake, even if they get nothing tangible by weilding it. Just KNOWING that they have the power and can weild it if they want, seems to be enough. Watching a bully walk around the school enjoying the way people defer to him would seem to indicate that he derives stisfaction from the intangible results of the power as much as the tangible, or more, since he may only actually use his power occasionally. I think that in the same way some people use violence to attain ends, but others like violence for its own sake. I suppose you could call this a "distess or need", but I think that it is so closely tied to the violence itself that it's like saying "I like ice skating because I like sliding over slippery surfaces"--that's the POINT of the skating! Mike Ciaraldi sesimo!rochester!ciaraldi
densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (11/05/84)
Response to Lauri Rohn and others:
I agree with you that rape is an issue of *control*. In fact,
many feminists argue that rape is not a behavior which is considered
to be `abnormal' in our culture, but is the prototypical
relationship--at least traditionally--between men and women; i.e.,
men have all the control financially and politically and this
control is exercised through sex; women are supposed to provide
their husbands with sex whenever they want it and on their (the
husband's) terms, etc. It is also, they argue, why our legal
system is reticent to punishing rapists.
I dont't wholly agree with this analysis, but there is, I think,
a grain of truth to it.
I must emphasize that in the article I posted, I did not mean to
suggest that sex is the motivator for violence. Neither do I
believe that violence for violence's sake is a real phenomenon. I
believe that violence is aberration in human behavior, not a part of
healthy human functioning.
Why would someone rape to feel powerful, or in control? I ask
this question because I believe that power, like violence, is not
something that humans want merely for its own sake. I believe that
any person who seeks *coercive* power, power which usurps another's
sovereignty, does so out of fear (primarily--perhaps also out of
emotional need, which probably cannot exist in extreme without
fear.) This is what I meant--albeit, I was not very clear in saying
it--when I suggested that one rapes not out of sexual desire itself,
not merely for the sake of violence, but out of profound distress.
To Lauri and others, please read with care. I think all but one
of the responses I've seen to the articles I've posted commented on
issues I'd dealt with in the article itself. I think people often
want to argue and criticise merely for the sake of arguing and
criticizing. (Or is there a deeper motivation...?)
-Chuck Densinger @ St. Olaf
{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge