What do you do about rape?

[Metaphor]

I'm wondering if the "rape is about power" advocates feel uncomfortable saying rape is about sex because they feel that if they gave the latter any credence it would just ratchet up the slut-shaming and the "well, she shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt" talk from the other side.

But the point is the latter could be 100% true and it should not make one iota of difference to the wrongness of rape.

Let's say you're hungry and you forgot your wallet and won't be able to eat all day. You walk past someone eating a delicious looking hamburger. It doesn't matter if you're hungry. It doesn't matter how shamelessly someone has been wolfing down that delicious burger, in front of God and everybody. You've got no right to snatch it out of their hand and scoff it down.

I honestly think 'rape is about power' is a meme that makes it easy for people to dismiss rape activists as radicals preaching condescendingly to the hoi polloi from their tenured professorships ivory towers. It doesn't help that it just seems to be plain wrong, or at least totally unevidenced.

Anti-rape activists need to tackle the slut-shamers at their own game.

"Yes, she was wearing an outfit that would make a streetwalker blush. Yes, she was drinking hard and flirting shamelessly. And if you did not get consent to have sex with her, you raped her, and you are 100% culpable.

 

[ksen]

But the point is the latter could be 100% true and it should not make one iota of difference to the wrongness of rape.

Oh, I agree 100%.

I was just thinking about what the possible motivation could be for the apparent reluctance of the anti-rape activists to avoid admitting that there's a good chance that rape really is about sex.

 

[Togo]

Interesting thread. Still not sure how to put things into practice.

Let's take some real-life examples that have caused me some trouble:

1) E likes dancing in nightclubs. Each week she goes with her friends to the same nightclub, a place with a local reputation as a 'meat market' - i.e. full of people looking to meet others for romantic or sexual liaisons. She gets a steady stream of strangers trying to pick her up, which enrages her. Within an hour she is shaking, frustrated, and angry, literally shaking like a leaf, and at that point someone generally walks her home.

She asks for my advice as to what to do.

What do I say? The problem would go away if she wore extremely conservative clothing, but that's no fun to dance in, and not fair to her. The problem would go away if she didn't dance at that particular club, but there isn't another one (that had music she likes) and again, not fair on her. The problem would go away if people at the nightclub acted differently, but that's not really fair on them. The people approaching her aren't being particular obnoxious, or persistent, its just that there are a lot of them.


2) S is depressed that no one seems to want to go out with her. Taking a tip from both her upbringing and her romance novels she plays hard to get. Anyone who wants to date her will have to be persistent, trying to woo her despite her protests. Instead, everyone gives up after the first 'no'. She's at a loss as to how to chat to boys without either driving them off, or throwing herself at them, or having them assume she's not interested. She's not particularly socially apt.

The problem I'm hitting with these examples, is that the behaviours that people are complaining about such, as assuming someone is romantically/sexually available based on what they're wearing and where they are, or persisting in trying to pick someone up who has already told you they're not interested, are behaviours that some people are relying on for their romantic lives. Changing that behaviour is more than just raising awareness or haranguing people in public, it's also about providing alternatives to people who are behaving that way, or encouraging others to behave in that way, for what to them are clear and compelling reasons.

 

[Rhea]

1) E likes dancing in nightclubs. Each week she goes with her friends to the same nightclub, a place with a local reputation as a 'meat market' - i.e. full of people looking to meet others for romantic or sexual liaisons. She gets a steady stream of strangers trying to pick her up, which enrages her. Within an hour she is shaking, frustrated, and angry, literally shaking like a leaf, and at that point someone generally walks her home.

She asks for my advice as to what to do.

I was at a cowboy bar in Idaho once, to go dancing. A fellow comes up to ask me to dance and I hesitate - what kind of guy is he? He sees my hesitation and he looks me in the face and says, "I don't want to sleep with you, I just want to dance. Do you want to dance?" I smile with relief, now we agree on the rules. I'd _love_ to! It was so nice to have him get that and agree to make a boundary out loud and up front. He was a great dancer and I had a wonderful evening (man-o-man were his hands calloused! He earned that cowboy hat)

Your friend could try that. "I'm not here to be picked up, I'm here to dance. Are you okay with that?" She'll probably have to repeat it a lot, but it might make the night less frustrating. And I expect the regulars will remember and cease to come to her for anything but dancing.

2) S is depressed that no one seems to want to go out with her. Taking a tip from both her upbringing and her romance novels she plays hard to get. Anyone who wants to date her will have to be persistent, trying to woo her despite her protests. Instead, everyone gives up after the first 'no'. She's at a loss as to how to chat to boys without either driving them off, or throwing herself at them, or having them assume she's not interested. She's not particularly socially apt.
.

My preferred method of getting to know dates was for it to be at a place that had a serious activity going on, so that I could be cautious about committing. So clubs, sports and activities gave me the option to express that the EVENT was fun instead of the PERSON was fun, so that it could be half-dating until I was more sure.

Going to a club or a movie means more of going WITH THEM and a feedback is expected, that's scary. But going to a horseshoe tournament or a balloon fest or a roadside cleanup event meant that I could enjoy the event itself, and show it, without having made some commitment about saying the guy was Mr. Wonderful. She could have some ideas of where to go right off that are less threatening. So when Guy says, "do you want to go out?" She can say, "I was going to a bowling fundraiser on Friday, would you like to do that together?" or, "I've always wanted to go drive those go-karts at the park but never made the time - is that interesting to you?" Saying she's interested in an activity allows her to be interested without being forward.

 

[bigfield]

Interesting thread. Still not sure how to put things into practice.

Let's take some real-life examples that have caused me some trouble:

1) E likes dancing in nightclubs. Each week she goes with her friends to the same nightclub, a place with a local reputation as a 'meat market' - i.e. full of people looking to meet others for romantic or sexual liaisons. She gets a steady stream of strangers trying to pick her up, which enrages her. Within an hour she is shaking, frustrated, and angry, literally shaking like a leaf, and at that point someone generally walks her home.

She asks for my advice as to what to do.

What do I say? The problem would go away if she wore extremely conservative clothing, but that's no fun to dance in, and not fair to her. The problem would go away if she didn't dance at that particular club, but there isn't another one (that had music she likes) and again, not fair on her. The problem would go away if people at the nightclub acted differently, but that's not really fair on them. The people approaching her aren't being particular obnoxious, or persistent, its just that there are a lot of them.


2) S is depressed that no one seems to want to go out with her. Taking a tip from both her upbringing and her romance novels she plays hard to get. Anyone who wants to date her will have to be persistent, trying to woo her despite her protests. Instead, everyone gives up after the first 'no'. She's at a loss as to how to chat to boys without either driving them off, or throwing herself at them, or having them assume she's not interested. She's not particularly socially apt.

The problem I'm hitting with these examples, is that the behaviours that people are complaining about such, as assuming someone is romantically/sexually available based on what they're wearing and where they are, or persisting in trying to pick someone up who has already told you they're not interested, are behaviours that some people are relying on for their romantic lives. Changing that behaviour is more than just raising awareness or haranguing people in public, it's also about providing alternatives to people who are behaving that way, or encouraging others to behave in that way, for what to them are clear and compelling reasons.

#1 can learn to deflect men's advances, ideally without having to be bitchy and therefore ruining her own mood.

#2 is an example of someone who needs relationship advice.

 

[abaddon]

But the point is the latter could be 100% true and it should not make one iota of difference to the wrongness of rape.

Oh, I agree 100%.

I was just thinking about what the possible motivation could be for the apparent reluctance of the anti-rape activists to avoid admitting that there's a good chance that rape really is about sex.

Same motivation as you, I would guess. People project into the situation and figure out what "seems obvious" to their own sensibilities.

"The motivation is sex" seems obvious to you. It seems obviously false to me, and not for ideological reasons but because denigrating someone so extremely in such a personal manner is sadistic, not merely lustful. Stealing a wallet doesn't remotely compare, if I'm not both psychologically torturing and molesting the person's genitalia to get his wallet.

Of course it can be either or both. But in the end, isn't it the evidence that decides and not "seems obvious to me"?

 

[ksen]

Well, I didn't say it was obvious to me. But I do think the "rape for sex" possibility shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

 

[Sabine Grant]

But the point is the latter could be 100% true and it should not make one iota of difference to the wrongness of rape.

Oh, I agree 100%.

I was just thinking about what the possible motivation could be for the apparent reluctance of the anti-rape activists to avoid admitting that there's a good chance that rape really is about sex.

Same motivation as you, I would guess. People project into the situation and figure out what "seems obvious" to their own sensibilities.

"The motivation is sex" seems obvious to you. It seems obviously false to me, and not for ideological reasons but because denigrating someone so extremely in such a personal manner is sadistic, not merely lustful. Stealing a wallet doesn't remotely compare, if I'm not both psychologically torturing and molesting the person's genitalia to get his wallet.

Of course it can be either or both. But in the end, isn't it the evidence that decides and not "seems obvious to me"?

Speaking of evidence that the power/control drive plays a major role in stimulating the rapist would be:

-The man who raped me was NOT a male deprived of opportunities to have sex with several partners. He was very attractive, popular and did not lack an entourage of females who would have consented. However, I became a prime target when in the course of our couple of months dating, I made it clear I was not ready for sex with him or anyone else. He totally exercised power and control over my person when he premeditated to drug me and raped me. That was his sole motivation and stimulation : he got his jollies subjecting me to his power and control. He was going to get what I was refusing to give him.

In each rapist, there is an ABUSIVE personality. Sex is the way to manifest the need to exercise power and control. Abaddon, you hit the nail on the head when you stated :

It seems obviously false to me, and not for ideological reasons but because denigrating someone so extremely in such a personal manner is sadistic, not merely lustful

The DSM defines sadism in direct relation to sexual satisfaction. It is not a matter of lust indeed but the knowledge that the victim is suffering which becomes the ultimate sexual stimulation and resulting sexual satisfaction. Some rapists will keep a "trophy" from an object belonging to the victim. Such trophy allows them to experience sexual arousal while reliving their experiencing of power and control over the suffering victim.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Well, I didn't say it was obvious to me. But I do think the "rape for sex" possibility shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

It is not being "summarily dismissed". "summarily" implies that there are no scientific studies supporting the power/control drive aspect of sexual crimes. Do you think that it is "sex only" which motivates some partners to simulate a rape situation?

 

[ksen]

Oh god, I've attracted the laserbeam focus of sabine.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Oh god, I've attracted the laserbeam focus of sabine.

Not really...but you did attract my usual drive to address misperceptions when you ventured into attributing an ideologically based motivation. To also add that in some cases, and that addressing specifically male on male rape, the motivation is often to humiliate the victim by hurting them in the most demeaning way. What do you think motivates a bunch of straight guys in sodomizing a male victim? Lust?

 

[ksen]

Do you think that it is "sex only" which motivates some partners to simulate a rape situation?

Who cares what motivates rape fantasy roleplayers? People who indulge in consensual rape fantasies probably don't have the same mindset as actual rapists. Unless you are arguing people who engage in rape fantasy roleplay are just rapists who lucked into finding a willing girl.

On the other hand, wouldn't the fact that rape fantasy involves two willing participants undermine it being about power?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Rape is about power and control. Sex is just the means, not the end.

I also have a hard time with this. I can see where many cases that appear to be about sex rely on power-grab to take place, but for very many of these cases, the rapist himself does think it is about an entitlement to sex. So to reach that group, we need to understand that TO THEM, Rape is about Sex. Power and control is just the means, not the end. And if we want to change THEM before they rape, we need to understand this about them.

There may still be a difference between someone who thinks they are entitled to sex and someone who can actually enjoy sex with an unwilling partner. I am willing to concede that this might be a fine line.

 

[Unbeatable]

"A woman has the moral right to walk naked down the street if she wants. If you think you're entitled to sex because she is naked and that made you horny, you're fucked in the head. You do not have the right to fuck someone without their permission."

Maybe a lot of people are fucked in the head. So many that you can't afford to just write them off and target your memes only at the people who've yet to become fucked up in the head.

But the other side has already claimed "rape is about sexual gratification" as one of their own memes,

But what's the other side

I guess the other side would be the rape-excusing/enabling side. I guess in the developed world, that would mainly be the heterosexual male sexual entitlement meme complex, with some help from the patriarchal religious sexual shame meme complex. It's a bit of an odd conflict in that the side making rape more appealing and easier to get away with isn't technically pro-rape.

, and why is it supposed to be obvious that rape is about power rather than sexual gratification?

I'm the wrong person to ask about that. I don't even understand how people can think of "power" and "sexual gratification" as separate things.

But more importantly, what precisely has changed if someone claims that rape is about sexual gratification? Is it less heinous a crime? Is it okay to rape people if it's about sexual gratification? Of course it isn't.

So what? Morality is a matter of opinion. And people make contextual excuses for their own failure to live up to their moral standards all the time. I can see a guy telling himself that she really wants it (when she doesn't) based on things like manner of dress and the ambiguity of "no" in a culture of slut-shaming, or that at that moment he just can't control himself. And I can totally see his victim telling herself that if she comes forward, nobody'll believe her and everyone she knows'll just think she's a slut.

just like bigots have claimed "there are biologically-based psychological differences between the races" as one of theirs. The anti-rape side can't reclaim it without looking like they're ceding ground to the enemy.

Conceding you are wrong about something is not an admission that your enemy is right about everything else.

I think that's true in some contexts and false in others. You seem to be talking about rational debates between rationalists with an audience of rationalists. I'm talking about politics/culture/rhetoric/marketing.

I feel an analogue of this is the 'being gay is not a choice' meme. The LGBT movement has embraced this, but I find it a copout. The implication is that LGBT people can't help their moral failings, so give us a break. We need to be more radical about jolting people out of this kind of moral idiocy.

People's opinions about whether something is moral or not are more difficult to change than their opinions about whether there are some sorts of extenuating factors that absolve a person of blame. I don't think there was a centralized meeting where someone decided to popularize the meme. I bet the way it happened is that people using the meme found that it worked, in the short term, at placating people who weren't going to come around to seeing homosexuality as morally neutral anytime soon. If you have one tactic that gets you grudging tolerance now and another that gets you acceptance in many decades, I can see how the former would be harder to resist.

 

[Unbeatable]

But the point is the latter could be 100% true and it should not make one iota of difference to the wrongness of rape.

Oh, I agree 100%.

I was just thinking about what the possible motivation could be for the apparent reluctance of the anti-rape activists to avoid admitting that there's a good chance that rape really is about sex.

Same motivation as you, I would guess. People project into the situation and figure out what "seems obvious" to their own sensibilities.

"The motivation is sex" seems obvious to you. It seems obviously false to me, and not for ideological reasons but because denigrating someone so extremely in such a personal manner is sadistic, not merely lustful.

It strikes me as callous, not sadistic. What you're probably projecting onto rapists is the fact that you both understand what the victim is feeling, and you think that it's important. I don't think the average rapist is likely operating from a similar position of objectivity and compassion.

I also have a hard time with this. I can see where many cases that appear to be about sex rely on power-grab to take place, but for very many of these cases, the rapist himself does think it is about an entitlement to sex. So to reach that group, we need to understand that TO THEM, Rape is about Sex. Power and control is just the means, not the end. And if we want to change THEM before they rape, we need to understand this about them.

There may still be a difference between someone who thinks they are entitled to sex and someone who can actually enjoy sex with an unwilling partner.

It seems like it's a trivial matter for the former to become the latter via selective perception and rationalization serving to convince themselves that their unwilling partner is actually willing on at least some level. It's not as if everybody actually believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that "no" always means "no".

 

[Shadowy Man]

It seems like it's a trivial matter for the former to become the latter via selective perception and rationalization serving to convince themselves that their unwilling partner is actually willing on at least some level. It's not as if everybody actually believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that "no" always means "no".

You did crop the sentence where I said I was willing to concede it was a fine line.

 

[Unbeatable]

Does "it's a fine line" mean that one thing can actually become another thing? I thought it just meant that the difference was small.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Does "it's a fine line" mean that one thing can actually become another thing? I thought it just meant that the difference was small.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not a necessarily true statement that someone who thinks they are 'entitled' to sex will also be one who can enjoy that sex with an unwilling partner. I think it is much more likely that those who can enjoy it that way are also those who think they are entitled to it.

 

[Metaphor]

People's opinions about whether something is moral or not are more difficult to change than their opinions about whether there are some sorts of extenuating factors that absolve a person of blame. I don't think there was a centralized meeting where someone decided to popularize the meme. I bet the way it happened is that people using the meme found that it worked, in the short term, at placating people who weren't going to come around to seeing homosexuality as morally neutral anytime soon. If you have one tactic that gets you grudging tolerance now and another that gets you acceptance in many decades, I can see how the former would be harder to resist.

Well -- you are correct that as a general rule, people who think gays have no choice are more tolerant of gay people -- that's actually established empirical fact.

But, as a gay man, I find tolerance based solely on 'you can't help it' rather demeaning. I feel it's like being told that I'm a moral failure but it isn't as if my moral failings were deliberate, so they are less bad than they would otherwise be.

If someone thinks I'm a moral failure but is tolerating me only because they think I can't help it, like some poor rabid dog who can't help foaming at the mouth, I'd prefer in fact that they did not 'tolerate' me -- that they kept the fuck out of my way.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh god, I've attracted the laserbeam focus of sabine.

Not really...but you did attract my usual drive to address misperceptions when you ventured into attributing an ideologically based motivation. To also add that in some cases, and that addressing specifically male on male rape, the motivation is often to humiliate the victim by hurting them in the most demeaning way. What do you think motivates a bunch of straight guys in sodomizing a male victim? Lust?

Ah! I agree Sabine that a heterosexual man sodomizing another man against his will is not about lust -- it probably is about humiliation and expression of power via physical and sexual dominance (we will leave aside men in prison for the moment).

But do you really think that a man who rapes an unconscious woman is doing it as an expression of 'power' over her? That he would prefer that she was awake so she could experience humiliation and fear?

There's one experiment that is actually a thought experiment but it shapes the way I think about rape. Imagine a man who is on a date and is especially lustful at the moment because he and his date are making out. His partner decides that although she wants to make out, she does not want to go further that night. The man, at this point, still really wants to have sex.

Now, let's say that the man has the opportunity to magically replace the unwilling partner with a lifelike, indistinguishable from biological, robot clone of his date who does not have any feelings but does respond and act like his partner, except that the robot clone expresses that it wants to have sex that night.

So there are now three choices:

i) Go home without sex
ii) Sex with the unwilling partner
iii) Sex with the robot clone

The difference between any man who chooses ii) over iii), it seems to me, is that the one who chooses ii) wants to assert his dominance and does want to use sex as a means of asserting dominance and power.

I think sadists and serial killers would choose ii).

I think many other rapists would choose iii), and in that case I think for them rape was about sexual gratification, not dominance.