Question About Rape

[Freakshow]

I notice the whole line is this (emphasis is mine): "A survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught."

The term "date rape" can have many meanings. I remember some arguing in college that any sex with an intoxicated female, even if she does not regret it later, to be "date rape". Just the fact that a man has sex with an intoxicated woman makes it "date rape", in their opinion. So without knowing what that survey actually said, there's no way to know what it really means.

I mostly disregard reports of surveys, unless they give me the exact questions that were asked, and what the possible responses were. I could try and go look up the actual survey, as they do list it as a reference. But I don't care enough to spend the effort doing so.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Good post, C.J.

Radical feminists are just that: radical. Many feminists are not going to argue that all heterosexual sex is rape, or that all men consciously use rape as a tool to oppress women. Certainly researchers in the area are not going to take that view. A quote from one of the more prolific and respected researchers in the area notes this:

No doubt about it. That's why I qualified "feminists" with "radical." The ones I described are nuts in my book.

Now, Koss is not considered a radical feminist, but this excerpt may serve to show why power should be the focus. Most will acknowldege that rape is forced sex. Before the 1970's, the focus was often on the "sex" part of that phrase, which served in many cases to silence the crime. Putting the focus on "forced" was, from how I understand it, an effort to get people to recognize that rape is a crime of violence.

I don't know Koss.

One kind of rape has always involved violence, whether it was before or after the 1970s. My point was that the "power" thing is largely a construct of some feminists which portrays violent rapists as overgrown little boys who are socially impotent and who feel a need to subjugate women physically in order to make themselves feel important. As a primary motivation for rape, I suspect that in most cases that is simply a convenient fiction which suits some feminist worldviews.

Anyway, usually rape statutes define two broad kinds of rape: 1) Those in which force or the threat of force is used to overcome the will of the victim; and 2) those in which consent cannot be given due to incapacity (being drugged or mentally incompetent or unconscious, which has in some cases been applied to being asleep -- don't look so puzzled; I tried one with that very theory). What is commonly called "statutory rape," meaning the victim is below the age of consent and is thus deemed to be unable to grant consent, is often defined by a separate code section.

Yes, rape is usually categorized as a crime of violence, but it doesn't necessarily involve violence, as it can be the latter kind of rape simply because of the lack of ability to consent.

True. In feminist writings, you can find many different definitions of rape, and you have to see if the particular philosophy of feminism that claims these definitions is one you agree with. Psychologists doing research on rape prevalence and incidence, however, use rather restrictive definitions.

Yes, when I said "overbroad" I had some feminist writings and studies in mind.

I don't know why psychologists doing research on rape would use any definition other than a legal one. Rape is a legal concept; it's a crime. Surely psychologists don't define murder differently from lawyers and legal scholars.

As one of my old professors used to say, this is an empirical question. If you believe that researchers are using definitions of rape that are too broad, it's very easy to tell. Just go the the methods section of the studies you have issue with. You'll find that many of the figures people have such a "I can't believe it!" response to tend to combine percentages for rape and attempted rape. In some cases, all kinds of unwanted sexual contact is counted.

Yes, that's precisely the problem. It sometimes seems that some women's studies materials deem all unwanted "sexual contact" to be equally repugnant and morally reprehensible. I suspect many of the surveys that suggest that upwards of 50% or more of college age women have been victims of sexual assault include even relatively innocuous activities such as unwanted advances at parties that are rebuffed. That's ludicrous, of course. A drunk, horny college kid asking a girl back to his room but who is rejected in the hallway is not necessarily committing a sexual assault.

This statement is one I can almost agree with, but you need to tell me who a "real victim" is first. Would you consider a woman who was forced to give oral sex to her perpetrator as a "real victim?" You're obviously working from a definition of rape/sexual assault you find acceptable. What meets your criteria?

I wasn't focused so much on the kind of contact as I was on the real (and I'm tempted to say "objective") trauma inflicted at the time of the rape or assault. I meant to contrast victims of force or threats of force ("real victims") with the morning-after remorseful "victims" who later claim rape or assault, or those who define sexual assault so broadly that virtually any advance by a male which is spurned is somehow deemed to be an assault. I don't consider the latter two to be victims of male behavior. Their inclusion in rape or sexual assault statistics trivializes the real problems of rape and sexual assault against women.

Maybe you should try some of the psychology literature (Psychology of Women Quarterly, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, to name a few). All the statistics do say and can say is what should be obvious: rape is crime where most victims are women and almost all perpetrators are men. It does not necessarily follow from the stats that men in general are therefore the enemies of women in general. I'd suspect that this argument is not made in association with scientific research, but rather philosophical writing or position pieces. It's an important distinction.

Thanks for the suggestions. Of course, I don't need to read such studies to understand the obvious. I'm quite sure women are the victims in sexual crimes more often than men. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My comment about men in general and women in general was about the victimization culture some feminists seem to encourage among women and the concurrent demonization of men which so often goes with it.

I agree that scientific researchers are not likely to make that argument, as I don't think scientific research supports it. It's rhetoric.

AS

 

[epepke]

I'll be back with more later, but you really need to read the whole statute, not just the part that defines the terms used in the statute. Sexual battery in Florida is only criminal when the victim is under the age of 12 or when a victim over the age of 12 does not give consent, is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated, etc.

I know that already. I've read the whole statute. I know exactly the categories for which it is criminal.

Euromutt put it very well. One must be careful about the reports of surveys. I reported on one particular survey, which I found to be using a legal loophole to make a statement that is literally true (except for some poetic license) while still being misleading.

Now if the study had said, "met the legal definition for criminal sexual battery under Florida law," then you'd have a point, but that's not what it said.

The reasons pollsters can do this is that people make assumptions, such as the one that you are admonishing me for not making (on a skepticism site, no less!) Pollsters exploit this tendency of people.

I don't know if this applies to the Canadian study or to the study that you quoted, but it does apply to the one I remember. If I run across the old papers, I'll post more details so that other people can find it in their libraries if they are so inclined.

 

[epepke]

As for the wording of the rape law--though I agree it effectively states that anything fitting the physical description is a battery--I bet it could be successfully argued in court that the definition referred to the "sexual" part of the term, whereas "battery" is already defined elsewhere in statutes, including the issue of consent.

You can look up the statutes if you want. The structure is basically this. First the definition for the term "sexual battery" is given in the definitions section. Then there are a variety of categories where sexual battery is criminal. Here's one:

(2)(a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 and 921.141.

As far as I know, this is the only instance of capital punishment for sexual batter, although it's effectively blocked by a Supreme Court opinion.

But anyway, yes, sexual battery of an adult with consent is not a crime under Florida law, and nobody can justly be convicted of it in Florida.

However, the only court that pollsters are subject to is the court of public opinion, so this is a bit of a non sequitur.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I notice the whole line is this (emphasis is mine): "A survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught."

The term "date rape" can have many meanings.

One study pushed in the 90's on several college campuses and used in literature for date rape seminars (I don't have it at hand, unfortunately) gave unbelivable figures regarding the number of rapes on campuses nationwide. Reading further, this included date rapes (including some cases where the sex may have been consensual at the time, but one party later decided differently). Looking even further, the numbers included numbers for "violence" directed at women. Chasing that reference down, you finally got to see that the final "violence" numbers included any time where a girl felt that hurtful language had been directed at her because (in her opinion, at least) she was a woman.

The studies purposefully inflated their numbers to make it more shocking -- to make their message more important. Hurtful language may be a lot of things, but most people don't assume that it is "rape."

[I'll take a quick look for something over that controversy, but I haven't got much energy for the search tonight, so no promises.]

 

[epepke]

Aha. Actually that is the question I was really curious about. I think I may now look up that other study once I'm in the library, but the "rape is all about power" theory is really where my skepticism lies. Is the study from the OP the sole source of this idea or is it a feminist mantra, or what?

That's an interesting question.

I think that it would help to know what "rape is all about power" is supposed to mean. "About" is kind of a trendy word in social, feminist, and po-mo analysis.

If we are to consider Nietzsche, then everything is about the will to power. In even a more general sense, doing anything is about power. If I stand up, it's about the power to stand up. (I've been in the hospital without the power to stand up, and it's not a nice thing.)

They might mean, though, that it's about political power. This is what I think Susan Bronmiller meant when she wrote (from memory, so it may not be exact): "The ancient discovery that the penis can be used as a weapon must stand as one of the greatest discoveries of all time... From ancient times to the present, [rape] is a crime by which all men keep all women in a constant state of fear." [italics hers]

She went on to say that rapist are the "myrmidons" of all men (she helpfully explains that a "mrymidon" is someone who does what you want them to do).

Now, of course there are some problems with the accuracy of this statement. A certain large portion of my life has been devoted to getting along as well as possible with a particular woman, and as far as I can tell, the existence of rape has only made that harder, especially when the woman in question was raped in the past. And, of course, if rapists were to do what I wanted them to do, they would go away and never come back and spare the rest of us these horrors.

Nevertheless, Brownmiller's book Against Our Will has been used in colleges as a textbook, such as in a University of Illinois criminology class called "Patterns of Forcible Rape."

It's hard to see why, but historical differences y'all. This stuff came out around the end of the 60s and the 70s. The sixties were still strongly in the public memory. One of the "must read" books at the time was Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, who wrote about raping White women as a protest against oppression of Black people.

At that time, a variety of radical, yippie, Engellian, and other feminists were converging on a single idea, that of patriarchy. In its stronger forms, the idea of patriarchy involved the idea that oppression of women by men was the underlying source of all oppression. So, oppression of women was just what men did, oppression of Blacks was because White men though of Black women as sex toys and Black men as sexual threats, oppresion of Gays was because they violate gender lines, oppression of workers was related to the fact that homemakers don't draw salaries, etc. and so forth and so on.

Now, before someone once again fails to understand that I am commenting on things that other people have written, let me assure you that I do know better than to believe in any of this BS, and I'm using the "past presumptive" tense and mood as a clue when I talk about what other people wrote. In fact, I consider it quite offensive for White women to cash the checks on the oppression of Black people in this country. A few years ago in this town (which isn't called the "Berkeley of the South" for nothing) there was a city minority set-aside program, and ten out of the eleven contracts that year were awarded to a construction firm run by two White women.

But it did happen, and it was influential, and while the majority of people think of those times as nothing more than a bad acid trip, it still maintains in academia which is, amongst other things, a haven for people who never grow up.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The studies purposefully inflated their numbers to make it more shocking -- to make their message more important. Hurtful language may be a lot of things, but most people don't assume that it is "rape."

[I'll take a quick look for something over that controversy, but I haven't got much energy for the search tonight, so no promises.]

I found nothing definitive. In talking about arguments that erupted on UCLA campus after someone questioned the rape statistics, apparently WRC Director Tina Oakland used a campus statistic that the University received reports of between 60 and 90 "sexual assaults" per year.

The center itself included whistles, cat calls, and similar items as part of "sexual assault" -- far broader than rape. While such things are not trivial and are something to discourage (to say the least), they should not be equated with rape.

I did not find anything more specific. A search on Oakland's name should lead to several articles on the controversy.

 

[C.J.]

Good post, C.J.
No doubt about it. That's why I qualified "feminists" with "radical." The ones I described are nuts in my book.

Thanks for the compliment. And as regards this first comment, I guess I have too many discussions with people who believe that "radical feminist" is somehow redundant and so I get used to highlighting the range of feminist beliefs, even if you didn't need the lesson. No insult meant.

I don't know Koss.

Mary Koss is a clinical psychologist, currently at University of Arizona, I think. The "1-in-4" statistic for victims of rape and attempted rape you often hear bandied about is from the Ms. study mentioned earlier. It was published in full detail in 1987 in the Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology and is still notable for sampling from all over the country and having over 5000 participants, which is pretty good for a psychology study of this nature. She hasn't rested on her laurels, though, and to my knowledge still continues to publish.

One kind of rape has always involved violence, whether it was before or after the 1970s. My point was that the "power" thing is largely a construct of some feminists which portrays violent rapists as overgrown little boys who are socially impotent and who feel a need to subjugate women physically in order to make themselves feel important. As a primary motivation for rape, I suspect that in most cases that is simply a convenient fiction which suits some feminist worldviews.

Here's where I disagree with you. I don't doubt your assertion that some feminists take this tack toward rapists (indeed, you only have to look at some of the more radical writers to get this view). Where I have a problem is in your claim that the "power thing" is a convenient fiction.

If I want something or yours and you don't want to give it to me, but I use force to take it from you anyway, that's an exercise of power. If that thing is your wallet, the crime is robbery and is called so because money is involved. However, the thing that makes robbery criminal is that power (as force) is used to obtain it. Similarly with rape: the thing involved is sex, and so we call the crime rape, but it's criminal because of the use of power (as force) to obtain it. By moving the definitional focus to the basis for the crime (force) rather than the character (sex), you put the onus where it belongs: on the one useing force, the perpetrator. It's not been that long since the virginity status of a victim or the clothing the victim was wearing at the time of the assault was considered germane to the question of whether a rape was committed or not. Such things are completely irrelevant, and the legal system recognizes them as such...now. I do not think that such a change would have occurred were it not for this attempt to focus on "power."

I don't know why psychologists doing research on rape would use any definition other than a legal one. Rape is a legal concept; it's a crime. Surely psychologists don't define murder differently from lawyers and legal scholars.

No, but do legal scholars and lawyers define rape differently than the general public? Were someone to force anal intercourse on his girlfriend here in Missouri, his crime would not be rape in the legal sense, it would be forcible sodomy (note that the two crimes have the same punishment). But if you asked people with no legal background if this guy raped his girlfriend, I'd be surprised if most people didn't respond affirmatively. Where do we draw the line with defining rape? Do we use the definitions most of the public uses? Should we draw on feminist literature? Traditional religious texts? Psychologists (many of whom are or were inspired by feminists) argued quite a bit about what really constitutes rape, and I think wisely decided to use legal definitions. They have the advantage of being very specific.

It sometimes seems that some women's studies materials deem all unwanted "sexual contact" to be equally repugnant and morally reprehensible. I suspect many of the surveys that suggest that upwards of 50% or more of college age women have been victims of sexual assault include even relatively innocuous activities such as unwanted advances at parties that are rebuffed. That's ludicrous, of course. A drunk, horny college kid asking a girl back to his room but who is rejected in the hallway is not necessarily committing a sexual assault.

A valid point. Speaking to the research, some unwanted contact (e.g.; grabbing a breast or crotch) must occur for it to be considered a sexual assault. Certainly not all women's studies materials use this definition, and most certainly such an occurrence would not be considered on par with forced penile-vaginal intercourse in terms of the effects on the victim (more on this below). Although we might use the terms "rape" and "sexual assault" interchangably, in the technical sense (well, for psychology) one is a subset of the other, and there are uses for such a blanket term.

I wasn't focused so much on the kind of contact as I was on the real (and I'm tempted to say "objective") trauma inflicted at the time of the rape or assault. I meant to contrast victims of force or threats of force ("real victims") with the morning-after remorseful "victims" who later claim rape or assault, or those who define sexual assault so broadly that virtually any advance by a male which is spurned is somehow deemed to be an assault. I don't consider the latter two to be victims of male behavior.

Indeed. Then we have some common ground here. I mentioned the woman in the earlier post who was forced to give oral sex to her perp for a specific reason: of all the acknolwedged victims I've met, she appeared to have the most lasting trauma, though her assault wouldn't be technically considered rape in my current state of residence (though it was in the state where this occurred). Still, she'd certianly meet your criterion of "real victim," and mine as well. If we're using legal definitions (which we are), absent statutory considerations, force or threat of force, or incapictation, there can't be rape. I will say that to the best of my knowledge of the available data, there aren't a whole lot of women who falsely claim rape because of morning-after remorse. As for the spurned advances...well, while such things might meet a definition for sexual assault, it certainly doesn't meet the criteria for rape.

Their inclusion in rape or sexual assault statistics trivializes the real problems of rape and sexual assault against women.

Their inclusion in rape statistics would. Their inclusion in sexual assault statistics wouldn't. Few people in my experience would argue that forced intercourse is as problematic as (or less problematic than) unwanted touching. The numbers on rape are indeed bad enough as it is.

Yet, there is something to be said for research on sexual assault that indicates that over half of all college age women have men touching them seuxally (or more) when they don't want them to. It addresses a different question, a question over the extent of (or existence of ) a sense of male sexual entitlement, or of the imposition of the role of sexual gatekeeper on women. These aren't perhaps as immediate or as crucial concerns as rape, but they are valid concerns nonetheless.

Thanks for the suggestions. Of course, I don't need to read such studies to understand the obvious. I'm quite sure women are the victims in sexual crimes more often than men. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. My comment about men in general and women in general was about the victimization culture some feminists seem to encourage among women and the concurrent demonization of men which so often goes with it.
I agree that scientific researchers are not likely to make that argument, as I don't think scientific research supports it. It's rhetoric.

Yeah, you get the fringe in every area, and the demonization of men is really counterproductive. If you want rape to stop, you've got to get guys to not do it, and telling them they're giant [rule 8's] isn't likely to get them to rethink the way they understand sexual consent.

 

[C.J.]

I found nothing definitive. In talking about arguments that erupted on UCLA campus after someone questioned the rape statistics, apparently WRC Director Tina Oakland used a campus statistic that the University received reports of between 60 and 90 "sexual assaults" per year.

The center itself included whistles, cat calls, and similar items as part of "sexual assault" -- far broader than rape. While such things are not trivial and are something to discourage (to say the least), they should not be equated with rape.

I did not find anything more specific. A search on Oakland's name should lead to several articles on the controversy.

Man, this cheeses me off. This is the kind of thing AS mentioned in (his? her?) post. If people are out there representing sexual assault figures as sexual assault figures (in the technical meaning of that term), then that's one thing. But if they're representing them as rape figures, or worse, not clearing up people's misapprehensions, that's something else, something inappropriate and damaging to the cause of stopping rape andsexual assault.

I've got to get to sleep, and I just know this is going to keep me up....

 

[CBL4]

Rape is a emotional word because it signifies a horrible crime. Once relatively minor things such touching are included, it minimizes the true rapes.

Here are two more examples:
1) A radical feminist, Catherine MacKinnon, wrote that imagining rape was the same as rape. Carlin Romano reviewed her book and wrote about a writing a book where MacKinnon was raped. Sure enough, Romano was called a rapist for his, IMO, effective rebuttal of MacKinnon.
2) Another radical feminist said that if a man used words to convince an initiallly reluctant woman to have sex, he raped her.

In these cases, radical feminist have trivialized the real impact of rape.

CBL

 

[C.J.]

Yes, they have. The term should be used where it's appropriate, and only there. I find (and so too should everyone) the true incidence of legally-defined rape horrible enough without having to pad the numbers by playing fast and loose with definitions. Yet, don't make the mistake of thinking that radical feminist positions define the question. They're notable and memorable precisely because they're so out there.

I can't agree with Mackinnon's position; it makes no sense to me. The second position also is over the top (to my way of thinknig) in that the person mentioned includes verbal coercion in a rape definition. However, it does suggest an interesting and important question: to what extent is it okay to badger someone into having sex? It's not a crime, nor should it be (IMO), but it's also not...kosher? I don't know the word I want to use, but there's a difference between two people both agreeing to have sex and one person finally giving in to repeated pressure from a partner for sex. Even though the "give-in" be clearly consensual, it's still something you initially resisted.

To call this rape is a grave injustice. But it is productive to ask why guys think that when a woman says they're not interested in having sex, it's somehow acceptable to keep pushing for it. Radical feminists who combine the two things keep people from seeing that issues at both levels are important.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by CJ
To call this rape is a grave injustice. But it is productive to ask why guys think that when a woman says they're not interested in having sex, it's somehow acceptable to keep pushing for it.

Sometime saying no is a game that woman play. Sometimes, women intentionally send mixed signal. This part of our society whether we like it or not. Coercive pushing (e.g. have sex or I will never see you again) is not OK but flirtatious talk seems fine to me.

CBL

 

[C.J.]

You're right, CBL4, some women who fully intend to have sex with men say no at the outset. Some send mixed signals, deliberately or unintentionally. Such a thing is a part of our society, and I believe it grows out of a sexual double standard where women are (or have been) taught that expressing a desire for or interest in sex makes them a slut. These mixed signals and token "no's" are shots fired for the honor of the flag, as it were. It is my opinion that this behavior should be firmly dissuaded. Fortunately, it's simple (though not necessarily easy!) to do so.

A woman says "no," say "okay." You may miss out on getting some, but she will too. If she looks disappointed or puzzled, you might even say: "I'd appreciate it if you'd just let me know whether you want to or not and not be messing with me." Maybe she'll come around, maybe not, but you are helping to break that cycle where the "token no" is reinforced. As an added benefit, you won't make the mistake of pursuing someone who genuinely has no interest in sex. Mixed signals can be similarly dissuaded by inquiring, bluntly or romantically, whether she is telling you "stop" or "go." Put some thought into it, and you won't even have to break the mood. I firmly believe (though some other feminists may not agree) that women have an obligation to be straight about their sexual desires and intentions, regardless of how awkward or uncomfortable it is for them. I believe this just as strongly I believe a guy has to respect a "no," regardless of how horny he is at the moment.

Yeah, flirtation can be fun, and it's so often a part of the dating experiencey. Many women won't mind, as long as you pay attention to how they're responding. Ask some female friends (I'm guessing you're male; my apologies if I'm incorrect) to tell you about those guys who just don't get that they're not only not interested in sex, but are tired of the flirting. If these women are anything like the friends I discussed this with, you'll get an earful about how negatively they view it.

 

[CBL4]

A woman says "no," say "okay." You may miss out on getting some, but she will too. If she looks disappointed or puzzled, you might even say: "I'd appreciate it if you'd just let me know whether you want to or not and not be messing with me."

I think if I could pout a little while saying OK it might be a great way to get some but aince I am married, I will not be able to try it out.

My main point was that even coercive talk would not be anywhere near rape (assuming there is no real blackmail going on.) It is possible to convince people to do stuff that they really do not want to do. It is not a good thing to do but it is not criminal.

The radical feminists risk trivializing rape.

CBL

 

[C.J.]

Yes, they do, sad to say.

 

[Kiless]

I think many things trivialise rape. I have three novels, that I took from the romance book collection from my library, that turn rape into a form of romantic entanglement. The novel 'Easy Connection', by Liz Berry, was highly popular in my high school, for example. In it, the main character is raped when both she and her assailant, a highly attractive rock star, are under the influence of alcohol. She eventually marries him. He is, indeed, apologetic for what he did - but Berry recieved a lot of criticism for her story.

I have seen several television shows that trivialise rape and remember one rather pathetic film that had the female lead shake off a pack rape with a sneer... wish I could remember the title but I turned off in disgust. The novel 'Friday' by Heinlein made me furious.

 

[slingblade]

I think many things trivialise rape. I have three novels, that I took from the romance book collection from my library, that turn rape into a form of romantic entanglement. The novel 'Easy Connection', by Liz Berry, was highly popular in my high school, for example. In it, the main character is raped when both she and her assailant, a highly attractive rock star, are under the influence of alcohol. She eventually marries him. He is, indeed, apologetic for what he did - but Berry recieved a lot of criticism for her story.

Part of me thinks she should have been criticised, and (not having read the story) part of me gets a little irritated when things a writer writes are accepted as representing what the writer actually thinks or feels. The line is too easy to blur . . . which is part of my thesis in my paper on Heinlein and feminism, which happens to incorporate "Friday." Heinlein might have based Friday on someone he knew, or a composite of women he knew, and might just be telling "her" story, rather than personally espousing the opinion that women like to be raped. Did he ever express this view as his own in an interview or lecture? I'm still doing my research, so I don't know this, yet.

Since I haven't read Berry's book, I can't say what she was doing or trying to do with her writing. But speaking strictly hypothetically, there has to be room in the literary world to write (at least fictionally) about people who do things we'd consider socially wrong, or even evil, because there are people in life who do. Just. That. And they don't always get a comeuppance, or have to pay for their wrongs. There must be, statistically speaking, at least a handful of women out there who do get turned on by being raped . . . just as there are a handful of those who get turned on by fecal matter. Many of us would say "that's sick!" I'd be one of those. But I can't ignore that the others are out there, and if I want to write fiction about them, it doesn't mean I condone their thinking or actions. And if you want to read that fiction, it doesn't mean you condone it either, OR that you should run right out and rape someone because I wrote a book in which it seems okay.

I have seen several television shows that trivialise rape and remember one rather pathetic film that had the female lead shake off a pack rape with a sneer... wish I could remember the title but I turned off in disgust. The novel 'Friday' by Heinlein made me furious.

I'd like to think I could shake off any violent act with a sneer. For a character to say "So, you raped me. You think that hurt me?" doesn't condone rape, or say that rape doesn't harm the victim. To me, it just says this victim is different, and handles it her way. But again, I haven't seen this movie, and might feel differently if I actually saw what you did.

The statement that "rape is all about power" comes out of the social change wrought by feminism in the '60s and '70s. Once upon a time, it was too easy to go into court as an accused rapist and say, "But she wanted it, she was dressed like a whore, she said yes at first and then changed her mind, c'mon, Judge, it was just a little harmless sex, you know women!" and walk right out of court again, a free man. People had to be educated that rape wasn't about "getting a little" from a reluctant partner, but about force, about violation, and about power. Sex is not the motivation in rape, but the tool, the weapon.

Why is it said that "Rape is all about power?"
"All about" means "motivation." What motivates rape?
Power over another being.

So that's why it's all about power and not all about sex.

 

[Mycroft]

I have seen several television shows that trivialise rape and remember one rather pathetic film that had the female lead shake off a pack rape with a sneer... wish I could remember the title but I turned off in disgust. The novel 'Friday' by Heinlein made me furious.

Yeah, "Friday" was misogynist on many levels, not the least of which is the main character critiquing the sexual techniques of her rapists.