Turning 'rape culture' towards the plight of men, male rape victims can be vastly under reported compared to female rape victims (which are also under reported) because a man can't admit to that shame.
Men are often defined by their masculinity. A common attribute of which is often strength. Being a rape victim robs the victim of that strength, because if they had been stronger, they wouldn't have been raped. The thing is though, admitting that they were a victim robs them of their strength a second time, and a third, a fourth, etc. Each time they have to tell their story, or be reminded of it by someone else, their apparent strength is diminished all over again.
It also serves to continue the subjugation of women at the same time, because if being a rape victim removes your masculinity, then you are gaining the opposite of masculinity, femininity. The process implies that women are supposed to be the victims of rape, and that a man should be ashamed for being reduced to the level of a woman.
This also starts getting into how rape is about power, not sex. Consider prison culture, where power and strength are difficult to come by for inmates, but the need to display your power is constant, if only as a form of protection. Raping another man isn't just about getting your jollies off in prison, it's about displaying how you can bend others to your will.
My point is we're arguing about jury trials and whether or not they meet the definition rather than addressing the fact that we have 13 year old girls being called whores for being raped.
Not the worst that can happen. 5 years ago a 13 year old girl got stoned to death for the crime of adultery when she was raped. A young boy who attempted to help her during the execution was also executed (by gunfire).
This also starts getting into how rape is about power, not sex.
This is one of those catchphrases that gets thrown around that doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.
Who gets assaulted more men or women? Women. Do they have more power? No. They're who men want to have sex with.
What age category of women gets assaulted more? The category with power? No. 80% of victims are under 30.
I don't think its entirely a coincidence that prevalence of rape corresponds with prime child bearing years. It really is about the sex.
My point is we're arguing about jury trials and whether or not they meet the definition rather than addressing the fact that we have 13 year old girls being called whores for being raped.
And why is that happening? You say its because we tolerate and condone rape. I think its because of dissonance: people like heroes. Heroes don't do bad things. Therefore there was no rape.
As evidence for my position, look at the specific insults. They imply consent to the act, suggesting that there was no rape at all.
As to what this implies for a solution it means you can't just get people to say "rape is bad" because in what passes for these peoples thinking there is no rape. Their thinking completely evades the issue.
But just to play along briefly, rape trials often turn on "he said, she said" evidence. That's hard to prove and thus hard to get convictions.
And thus leads to a legal system that effectively tolerates and excuses rape.
That said, I have no idea what argument you're making? Are you saying that if it's about power rapists should be targeting the most powerful? To demonstrate their greater power or something?
Yes.
More broadly, since sex is a biological imperative, changing it by changing society is likely to be ineffective without taking some drastic measures. (hence my suggestion for off with their heads)
|
It doesn't seem to work, I was going to link it for you.
It seems to have been removed, as a search on the site has nothing.
Seems to suggest the same thing we already know. There are a lot of claims to rape, but things stop when it comes to getting or showing evidence.
The question then becomes who is lying, and if the accused is innocent, is it better to punish them anyway, to withhold their rights just in case, or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I have no idea what argument you're making? Are you saying that if it's about power rapists should be targeting the most powerful? To demonstrate their greater power or something?Yes.
More broadly, since sex is a biological imperative, changing it by changing society is likely to be ineffective without taking some drastic measures. (hence my suggestion for off with their heads)
Hang on.
Firstly rape is not just under-reported it is under-convicted, even with irrefutable medical evidence. Here is up to date research from the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sen tenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html
I'm pretty sure thats the same study.
First off, a bit of a headscratch as to why you're showing me this. I've been saying its a major impedement to changing anything.
Let's start by changing our outmoded, male dominated, legal system (social change enough?) in order to give faith and credibility to the victims, so that reporting rates will rise and so will conviction rates.
THEN male behaviours will change we will live in a fairer, more equal society.
I'm not sure exactly what this would entail. Is the alleged victims word supposed to be enough for a conviction on its own? Are we going to abrogate the jury system for just this one instance? How would a non male dominated legal system work differently?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing MMOS in another thread, I pointed out that the word rape has become synonymous with "beat decisively."
For the rest of the world that remembers a word can have more than one meaning, they'd know that this is also (fairly close to) the correct definition, and indeed ORIGIN OF the word. The sexual aspect came in much later.
It's a word of French origin 14th Century - "seize prey; abduct, take by force,"
So the MMO players are correct.
If you want to then say there is 'Rape Culture', well yes there is, but it wouldn't mean what you think it means.
If I go up to random people on the street and ask them to give the definition of "rape" I am pretty sure it's not going to be "beat decisively"
It doesn't seem to work, I was going to link it for you.
It seems to have been removed, as a search on the site has nothing.
Seems to suggest the same thing we already know. There are a lot of claims to rape, but things stop when it comes to getting or showing evidence.
The question then becomes who is lying, and if the accused is innocent, is it better to punish them anyway, to withhold their rights just in case, or not?
Are you playing Devil's Advocate FOR rape?
If I go up to random people on the street ..."
What, you mean like these people?.
Vox Pop all you like, but really...
This also starts getting into how rape is about power, not sex.This is one of those catchphrases that gets thrown around that doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.
Who gets assaulted more men or women? Women. Do they have more power? No. They're who men want to have sex with.
What age category of women gets assaulted more? The category with power? No. 80% of victims are under 30.
I don't think its entirely a coincidence that prevalence of rape corresponds with prime child bearing years. It really is about the sex.
And 15% of victims are under the age of 12.
Another 29% are 12-17.
93% of juvenile victims knew their attacker.
34% of those attackers were family members.
The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?
The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?
From a male biological perspective, "enough" is an oxymoron. There's always more opportunities for reproduction.
12-17, while deemed a child in our culture, are capable of reproducing.
And no, that does not condone it. A LOT of reproduction strategies and behaviors in biology are morally reprehensible. I am NOT making an appeal to nature here. I'm arguing the IS, not the ought.
That said though BNW, I think there is a link to 'power', because weak and gutless individuals will always target weaker people against whom to inflict their frustrations, and no one is more vicious than a coward.
Hence they attack minors.
How would a more equal rape trial system work differently - here's another (hopefully working) link which is a bit dated but shows the sort of barriers women face:
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Courtprocedures2.php
I don't see any sweeping changes there. A victims advocate would be a good thing but I think its swimming against the tide.
The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?From a male biological perspective, "enough" is an oxymoron. There's always more opportunities for reproduction.
12-17, while deemed a child in our culture, are capable of reproducing.
And no, that does not condone it. A LOT of reproduction strategies and behaviors in biology are morally reprehensible. I am NOT making an appeal to nature here. I'm arguing the IS, not the ought.
Counterargument: From a purely biological/procreatory perspective, there is greater drive to 'mate' with females who do not share genetic ties; which shifts it back to power.
Counterargument: From a purely biological/procreatory perspective, there is greater drive to 'mate' with females who do not share genetic ties; which shifts it back to power.The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?From a male biological perspective, "enough" is an oxymoron. There's always more opportunities for reproduction.
12-17, while deemed a child in our culture, are capable of reproducing.
And no, that does not condone it. A LOT of reproduction strategies and behaviors in biology are morally reprehensible. I am NOT making an appeal to nature here. I'm arguing the IS, not the ought.
Its a cost/benefit thing. The benefit may be slightly less because of inbreeding depression, but the cost is far FAR lower because the access is so easy.
and again, I'll apologize for the horror of thinking about it like this, but humans are largely a product of our evolutionary history.
This also starts getting into how rape is about power, not sex.This is one of those catchphrases that gets thrown around that doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.
Who gets assaulted more men or women? Women. Do they have more power? No. They're who men want to have sex with.
What age category of women gets assaulted more? The category with power? No. 80% of victims are under 30.
I don't think its entirely a coincidence that prevalence of rape corresponds with prime child bearing years. It really is about the sex.
It's not about gaining power, but about feeling powerful. People who want to feel powerful, and see violence as a means to achieve that feeling, obviously target those who they see as weakest, because it's easier to overpower them.
It's not about gaining power, but about feeling powerful. People who want to feel powerful, and see violence as a means to achieve that feeling, obviously target those who they see as weakest, because it's easier to overpower them.
So why not attack little old ladies who are less able to run away and less able to fight back?
So why not attack little old ladies who are less able to run away and less able to fight back?
They do that too, which is also disturbing.
They do that too, which is also disturbing.
So why not attack little old ladies who are less able to run away and less able to fight back?
I keep forgetting how pedantic this crowd is...
So why are they attacked so seldomly compared with other age groups that are fitter, more capable or running away or fighting back?
The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?And no, that does not condone it. I am NOT making an appeal to nature here.
I edited your post. I removed your appeals to nature for you because you accidentally left them in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I edited your post. I removed your appeals to nature for you because you accidentally left them in.The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?And no, that does not condone it. I am NOT making an appeal to nature here.
An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'".-wiki.
Clearly, I did no such thing. I clearly pointed out the difference between my statement and the fallacy. Clearly you are not qualified to edit my statements.
So why are they attacked so seldomly compared with other age groups that are fitter, more capable or running away or fighting back?
Accessibility can be an issue, as well as the other factors that tend to go hand in hand with poor human behaviour.
The older people aren't playing in the street like the kids, nor are they in a social/party environment where people are getting on the booze.
Not saying that these are the only circumstances under which people get assaulted, but once people have a skin full of liquor it is amazing the sorts of activities they will then engage in.
Where was this? In the US? I know there was a similar case in Somalia.
I freely admit there are places far worse for women than the US or the West in general. So what? Should we ignore our own problems?
Not the U.S. It was Somalia.
So why are they attacked so seldomly compared with other age groups that are fitter, more capable or running away or fighting back?Accessibility can be an issue, as well as the other factors that tend to go hand in hand with poor human behaviour.
The older people aren't playing in the street like the kids, nor are they in a social/party environment where people are getting on the booze.
Not saying that these are the only circumstances under which people get assaulted, but once people have a skin full of liquor it is amazing the sorts of activities they will then engage in.
What you have is an act related to reproduction that disproportionately occurs to females of historically childbearing age. While accessibility is a big factor, I don' think that's a coincidence i can blow off in favor of some ill defined hypothesis of power.
IF its about reproduction then you would expect to see what we see. You have a hypothesis that largely fits the evidence.
If its about power... then what? What do you expect to see? Is that what we see?
See I'd put it to you that there isn't a 'one true god' answer, but rather we will have a range of reasons, and that range will include both the 'reproduction wiring' as well as a power aspect - and the two have a chicken and egg relationship.
Not everyone set on asserting their anger on people will rape, and nor will people following a reproductive drive, however when one combines the two...
We wont ever get to a simplified answer, because it is not a simple issue; it's like when I see the terms 'rape culture' and I wonder if those people are getting tunnel vision and miss the bigger picture of the changing attitudes of people towards their fellow man.
Take a look at the massive buy up of firearms and ammunition over there in the US, what are the main reason people buy all those guns?
Even going down the path 'rape culture' is a bit silly, its like looking at a horrible carpet and then trying to suggest that a couple pf the threads are to blame - you can try fix them all day and it wont make a lick of difference, you need a whole new carpet mate.
'Rape culture' can only exist in the presence of a broader culture built on disliking (and living in fear of) your fellow man. Fix the big picture and the rest will follow, keep trying to target the smaller issues and it's going to be futile. When people can happily justify murder, and even murder on a grand scale, rape is just a nothing to them.
Discussing MMOS in another thread, I pointed out that the word rape has become synonymous with "beat decisively."For the rest of the world that remembers a word can have more than one meaning, they'd know that this is also (fairly close to) the correct definition, and indeed ORIGIN OF the word. The sexual aspect came in much later.
It's a word of French origin 14th Century - "seize prey; abduct, take by force,"
So the MMO players are correct.
If you want to then say there is 'Rape Culture', well yes there is, but it wouldn't mean what you think it means.
Shifty, are you really explaining etymological drift, and telling me that the 700 year old foreign language origin (it has much earlier roots, in Latin) of a word should supersede the modern english usage, in the same post? :P
Geez you mean there can't be both?
Point being that obviously in certain contexts the same word will have different meanings, and that in that context there will be an understanding of which meaning is appropriate.
In the context of MMO's or the sporting arena, "Wow, he totally raped that guy!" will be broadly understood (by wider society) to mean "seize prey; abduct, take by force" rather than one man just literally had sex with the other. Language in motion.
It's why the 'man in the street' point made earlier falls over, because without there being any other stimulii to provide context to the person answering the question they will take the most obvious answer.
No. They're both valid since theyre both still in use.
|
|
Are you playing Devil's Advocate FOR rape?It doesn't seem to work, I was going to link it for you.
It seems to have been removed, as a search on the site has nothing.
Seems to suggest the same thing we already know. There are a lot of claims to rape, but things stop when it comes to getting or showing evidence.
The question then becomes who is lying, and if the accused is innocent, is it better to punish them anyway, to withhold their rights just in case, or not?
I'm not sure why you would say that? I was pointing out that the article didn't really seem to indicate anything at all beyond there are a lot of claims to rape, but when it comes to finding any sort of evidence, that's where it usually stops. Either as there is no evidence or because in the case of rapes that are legit, there is little actual evidence what that there is is very time sensitive, which is common sense. Appeals more to emotion than presenting anything. I wasn't really playing devil's advocate to anything as much as just saying that there are two (or more) ways to see things. Is it better to forego due process and human rights to protect an alleged victim or to protect an alleged victimizer? Note the alleged on both parts.
|
|
And how is the article, or the parts you quotes contradicting what I said, or has alreayd been said? Not trying to be a douch here, guy but it pretty much boils down to there are a lot of claims (and I don't mean false claims, just claims) but there is rarely, comparitevly any evidence.
I was posing a seperate (rhetorical really) question, in relation to that and other comments, not saying that the question was the focus of the article.
What has been done here in the utopian state of Sweden is pretty special. Our government has called itself feminist for quite a while, and we have had periods of that being pretty radical. Our politicians have suggested things like not doing trials in rape cases, which thankfully did not pass that time. One time, they changed the definitions of sexual crimes so that even the lesser crimes in the area are considered rape if against minors (<18). As a consequence of this, whaddyaknow, the incidence of rape increased!!! I know, it came as a shock to all of us that it did! Half a year after this, when the stats came in, the feminists started screaming about how the patriarchy was punishing women for this law by raping more women...
Meh Don Juan, nice of her to take one for the team, but what would a minutes silence buy? Frankly I think it would just make trollbait.
I... COULD see that getting a whole minute of silence during a race day MIGHT be a problem.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(warning: the following is not one of my more cogent rants. blame the late hour.)
My problem is the vagueness heaped upon vagueness.
I mean, really, let's unpack some stuff here.
Rape culture, which we've already shown (and apparently Sweden almost agreed) means that due process is part of the problem.
Coined by someone who (thanks DBAB) apparently thinks rape is, itself, the pervasive and continual intimidation of ALL women by ALL men. Hmm...okay.
De facto everyone is in on this rape culture thing, by virtue of having penises. Oh boy, we're back on that again are we?
We're not allowed to think that rape isn't convicted because it's difficult to prove.
We're not allowed to think that sometimes women lie about being raped.
We're not allowed to think that in rape cases the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
We're not allowed to believe that rape is even somewhat about sex as opposed to power.
We can't admit to ourselves that there are degrees of sexual assault: that rapist could be chloroforming little old ladies or he could have been 17 and fingered his 15 year old girlfriend. It's all rape under the law!
The truth is that being accused of rape can ruin someone's life, even if it's unwarranted. The truth is that some women use rape claims, or threats thereof, to manipulate men around them. The truth is that for every Steubenville there's a Duke LaCrosse.
There's so much absurd propaganda floating around right now, trying to make us all think that we live in a nation where people overwhelmingly condone rape. Do I think we still have a long ways to go? Sure, but lying about the situation doesn't do anyone any good.
We should have learned that with the drug war.
Want to talk about rape culture? What about the pervasive culture I grew up in that told me rape is worse than murder? Get some freaking perspective, people.
I say this all as someone who was raped (by a woman), who was accused (not in the legal system, just personally) wrongly of rape, and who apparently is a rapist (my first girlfriend was 17 when I was 18).
So you want to paint me as some pro-rape guy or something, get your licks, because I'm just willing to do what no one ever seems to: insist that you're innocent until proven guilty EVEN in a rape case.
The majority of rapists have access to a consensual sex partner. Is it your claim they just aren't getting enough from their wives that they start looking at their daughters and nieces?
I'm really trying to figure out what this even means.
Access to? As in, they're not in prison or something?Or do you mean the majority of rapists are in healthy, long-term, sex-positive relationships. Because I can't imagine how you could possibly know that.
Also, most unreported incidents of rape are marital rape.
If we are discussing culture absurdities, I think it's far more relevant to discuss the culture of fear. The basic idea is as old as leadership: Divide and conquer. The end point of this is a society where nobody dares trust anyone else, and where uncertainty is omnipresent, because education and understanding is hard to come by. One of the greatest tools to implement this is the sexual field, and amounts to a great "breaker" argument, one that justifies further intrusion into people's lives. Sex is a good area to work with because it's a private activity and because the emotions involved run deep. Privacy means that whatever happens, there will rarely BE evidence as such of it, which includes non-consensual activities. Thus, many people will feel that the justice system (which operates on, nominally, innocent until proven guilty) doesn't resolve their grievances satisfactorily, meaning that there will be dissatsifaction with how the justice system works. Those in power, as always, LOVE ways of removing the protection that the accused have in the principles of rule of law.
In a further view, we are rapidly becoming aliens to one another. Building a humane society absolutely requires us to be able to trust each other. And today? Would you trust a policeman? Would you help a child alone on the street? Would you as a teacher talk to a student in private? Many things that were matters of course just a few decades ago are now far more rare. Laws exist that make it more dangerous to trust others than ever before. A further consequence of this is that people who no longer feel safe in their daily lives will seek the answer in absolute black and white political rhetorics and groups that think that way.