rape only hurts if you fight it

[niyad]

(for those of you who haven't seen this particular piece of crap and the commentary on huffpo:

4616.1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/02/10/satire-or-just-stupid-a_e_40903.html
Is a commentary on the following story, which appeared in a college newspaper

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/hartford-courant/T9LTO0FOADIEM8G8F/p2

Most people today would claim that rape is a terrible crime almost akin to murder, but I strongly disagree. Far from a vile act, rape is a magical experience that benifits society as a whole. I realize many of you will disagree with this thesis, but lend me your ears and I'm sure I'll sway you towards a darkened alley.
If it weren't for rape, Western Civilization might not exist as we know it today. When the Romans were faced with a disproportionate ratio of women to men in the early kingdom, they had to do something, lest their flidgling society die for lack of sons. To solvetheir little dilemma, they did what any reasonable man would do: they threw a festival for their little dilemma, they threw a festival for their Sabine neighbors, and then stole and raped their women. It's quite logical; in fact I don't understand why the settlers at Plymoth didn't do the same to the local Indians--it certainly would have saved on shipping costs.

[BlueJazz]

1. Ok...That's it...Tell me who wrote that and I'll beat the shit out of them.

[niyad]

2. the huffington post link has all the information.

[nosmokes]

6. not if i get there first.n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. In my fantasy

the idiot who wrote that piece of trash is set upon by a number of people who rape him/her. (I'm assuming a cheeky young Republican male wrote that).

Whoever wrote it was dumb. When Clayton Williams ran against Ann Richards for governor of Texas, he made a joke about rape ("Rape is like the weather; there's nothing you can do about it, so sit back and enjoy it.") Even the Good Old Boys down in the Lone Star state (where I was living at the time) were distainful of Williams for his remark.

[Beststash]

5. Those Good Ol Boys are now our fearless leaders..

Yep - The first appearance of Karl Rove and his accusations of Ann Richards being a lesbian - it was the beginning of this present situation we find ourselves in - amazingly there are many in this country that still subscribe to this same old "white Boy" garbage.

Peace

[Berry Cool]

7. There was also a local weatherman, Tex Antoine

who got fired many years ago for following up a news anchor's story on a rape by saying something like, "Well, Confucius say: If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

This has got to be a joke. A stupid one, but a joke.

[keepCAblue]

4. Perfect analogy for what Bush/Cheney are doing to America

The rape of America only hurts if you fight it or resist...if you shut your eyes tight enough and numb your mind with pills, booze and FOX news, it really doesn't hurt at all.

[DaveinMD]

8. That's beyond sick

I've never posted on this forum, but I have to because of that. Someone very close to me was raped and I saw the harm that it caused. I'd kill the guy if I had the chance. This kind attitude must be stopped.

[omega minimo]

9. this is evidence for why legal definition of rape should be HATE CRIME

and this garbage as HATE speech.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Criminalising this would be not merely the start, but a long way down, a slippery slope.

"Hate speech" is a phrase that worries me - I've never seen it clearly defined, but from usage I suspect it of often being used to mean "something that I disagree with that I want to justify not including under "freedom of speech" so that I can argue for banning it".

I'm somewhat sceptical about the concept of "hate crimes" as distinct from other crimes, but rape clearly does not have the common denominators of the things that are classified as them - it's usually motivated by personal desires, not hatred of a group.

[SemperEadem]

12. in what messed up universe is that applicable?

rape is about power. Period. There is no further discussion needed on that.

to the ignore list you go.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. "A man is known by the quality of the enemies he makes"

The absence of anything approaching reasoned argument, and the absurdity of the one (unsupported) factual claim that it makes (that "power" is the sole motivation for rape is a claim that doesn't stand up to five seconds examination, although it's undoubtedly a contributing factor in many cases) makes me thing that the enmity of the poster stands me in good stead.

[LostinVA]

21. They are on mine

I think I'm glad they are.

[omega minimo]

13. nonsense

:thumbsdown:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Would you care to attempt anything along the lines of rational argument?

If not, see my #14.

[omega minimo]

16. the onus is on you to attempt anything along the lines of informed statement

Your statements:
1. "Hate speech" is a phrase that worries me - I've never seen it clearly defined

2. but from usage I suspect it of often being used to mean "something that I disagree with that I want to justify not including under "freedom of speech" so that I can argue for banning it".

3. rape clearly does not have the common denominators of the things that are classified as them

4. it's usually motivated by personal desires, not hatred of a group.


Your statements appear so completely misinformed as to not invite "anything along the lines of rational argument." Another poster clued you in to the fact that "rape is about power."


If you pride yourself more on making "enemies" than on making informed comments, there really is no point.

"the absurdity of the one (unsupported) factual claim that it makes (that "power" is the sole motivation for rape is a claim that doesn't stand up to five seconds examination....."

If you do want to be informed, it may take longer than five seconds and may include something beyond "I've never seen it clearly defined, but from usage I suspect it of often being used to mean..." and include information provided by those who have studied the subject.

[noamnety]

17. Google proves the point fairly well

rape + bitches = over a million hits.

The more confusing question is why we have a man in the women's rights forum explaining to us women that rape is about personal desire, not hate.

Is he here to take a break from explaining to the African-American Issues group how burning crosses is something people do because they love how the flames look?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. You need to think a bit about what constitutes a proof.

For what it's worth, a google search on just "rape" produces some 47.7 million hits, suggesting that the prevalence of "bitches" is not terribly significant. I'm not going to try it, because I'm on a shared computer, but I suspect there are other words related to sex but not "power" that correlate more strongly.

Also, the leap from correlation (even if it were far stronger than it is) between "bitches" and "rape" in google hits to "rape is about power, period" is a non-sequitur. The presence of the word "bitches" in such sites is, I suspect, more indicative of a desire to make it the victim's "fault" than anything to do with power.

For what it's worth, I don't for a minute deny that power is *an* element in the motivation for *some*,possibly many, rapes. However, comparing the incidence of rape to that of random non-sexual coercive demonstrations of power - "I've got a gun to your head, polish my boots" - makes it very clear indeed that the primary motivation in most cases must be lust.


As to the personal attacks - don't you think they're more than a little contemptible, not to mention stupid? The reason I'm disagreeing with you is because you're wrong, not because of psychological flaws on my part; even if it were, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether I was right or not.

[noamnety]

19. WTF

I don't for a minute deny that power is *an* element in the motivation for *some*,possibly many, rapes.

Asserting power over someone less powerful and domination is a defining aspect of ALL rape. Not some.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Think for a minute about what you're claiming.

You're saying that no-one has ever had sex with someone else against their will because they wanted to have sex and didn't care or think enough about the other person's wishes.

Are you seriously claiming that that never happens?

[noamnety]

26. Women often refer to a complete disregard for their rights

as "human rights violations."

Kind of like how we aren't apologists for slavery - even if the justification given is "they just WANTED to own slaves - it was about desire, not hate."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Yes, sure.

I agree with all that, except for the word "justification" - explaining something is not the same thing as justifying it.

[omega minimo]

29. why are rape "justifiers" on DU and why do they

like talking about rape so much? :puke:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Are you accusing me of justifying rape, or trying to?

If so, can you a) point out an instance where I tried to, and b) have the guts to do so explicitly rather than hinting darkly; if not, then stop trying to do so implicitly.

I think the short answer to your question is "they're not".

As to why I'm posting about rape, that's easy - I started by posting about freedom of speech, but the only thing I got in the way of substantive response for a considerable time was the old "rape is about power, period" canard.

[omega minimo]

35. was referring to an epidemic of ignorant behavior

as for you, you are insisting on "substantive response" although you have proven yourself willfully misinformed and purporting your uninformed opinions as fact, insulting those who answer you and dismissing the info they provide.

:thumbsdown:

In general, that sort of willful ignorance and arrogant attitude does contribute to the previously mentioned epidemic of uniformed, opinionated flamefests about women's issues.

[omega minimo]

22. again, your patently misinformed statements prevent any interest in discussion

maybe lwfern didn't find it worth the trouble to do more than recommend Google to you. So that, if in future, you want to participate in this forum, you might bring some informed comments, rather than verifiably misinformed statements that appear to be antagonisitic, rather than merely ignorant.

Flipping it around to claiming personal attack (her question was valid-- what are you doing here?) and poking back with "contemptible" and "stupid" further shows that you are not here for open and respectful-- let alone INFORMED discussion.

This would make a good sigline for you, Mr. Rankin:

"The reason I'm disagreeing with you is because you're wrong, not because of psychological flaws on my part; even if it were, that wouldn't have any bearing on whether I was right or not."

:rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. What are *you* doing here?

Fow what it's worth, I mostly frequent this subforum because it's useful intellectual exercise - arguing and debating is something I enjoy, and here I can do it without too much risk of being refuted. I am here for open discussion; I make a point of expressing no more, and usually considerably less, disrespect than the people I'm arguing with.

I think that there are all sorts of extremely important women's rights issues, but that most of the threads in this subforum are to them as Monty Python's Judean People's Front is to getting rid of the Romans - an embarrassement, and more of a hindrance than a help. Occasionally I learn something from one of them, though.

I freely admit to being "antagonistic", in the sense that I'm largely here to disagree, although (unlike most of the people replying to me, including yourself) in a constructive and substantive fashion. I'm certainly not misinformed on this occasion, though - the claim that all rapes are all about power, or even that most rapes are mostly about power, is clearly untrue; I note that neither you nor anyone else has yet provided any valid evidence to the contrary, and only one post has even attempted to do so.

What about you? Why are you here?

[omega minimo]

27. Your "freely admitted antagonism" is duly noted

as is your insistence somehow that you are "certainly not misinformed on this occasion"
and that a well-researched fact "is clearly untrue" based only on your personal assumptions
and yet you insist -- after being told the onus is on you to ground yourself in some BASIC information before coming "largely here to disagree"
-- yet you insist that OTHERS "provide valid evidence" rather than informing yourself or even bothering to use Google as suggested;
and the "only one post has even attempted to do so" you sneered at and insulted the person you pretended was insulting you.

And to insult me, who has always treated you with respect in several discussions where we disagree,
and pretend that only YOU "(unlike most of the people replying to me, including yourself)" are able to disagree "in a constructive and substantive fashion"
just underscores the impression that you do not intend to be taken seriously or be "constructive and substantive" at all.

:evilfrown:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. That's fair enough.

That I have never seen a definition given proves little, I admit. Allow me to try and refine my point. I have no doubt that definition*s* of "hate speech" exist, but no one definition is authoritative, and no one definition fits all the contexts I've seen it used in and no others. It may have definitions, but it's not well-defined.

One shouldn't aspire to be *informed*, one should aspire to be *correct*. It's a subtle but important difference - one can read as much as one likes about a subject, but if one still draws incorrect conclusions - as one inevitably will if the things one reads are incorrect - it has done one no good. Being informed is, of course, usually the best way to arrive at correct conclusions, but the emphasis is one worth bearing in mind.

As to the actual question at issue - do you believe that no-one has ever had sex with someone else simply because they wanted to have sex with them, without concern for their wishes, and without thinking about power? Do you believe that the reason rape and other coercive sexual offences are so much more common than coercive non-sexual demonstrations of power is not lust?

[mongo]

30. Hang on a minute

As to the actual question at issue - do you believe that no-one has ever had sex with someone else simply because they wanted to have sex with them, without concern for their wishes, and without thinking about power? Do you believe that the reason rape and other coercive sexual offences are so much more common than coercive non-sexual demonstrations of power is not lust?

Um, when you have sex with someone "without concern for their wishes", you are implicitly exercisisng POWER OVER them -- whatever you think the motivation is, the domination is still there, whether you're "thinking" about it or not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Yes, sure.

Obviously, you can't make someone you don't have some power over do anything against their will, including having sex you. I haven't at any point tried to deny that.

What I did, and do, deny is that "rape is about power, period", or, to paraphrase what I think that was intended to mean, that the primary motivation for all rapes is power. That's a very different claim indeed.

[noamnety]

33. sigh.

plunk

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. actually rape is hatred directed towards a group : WOMEN

the statistics of rape pan out, the more sexist the country the more incidents of rape. there have been several studies done on this subject.

[SemperEadem]

11. wtf?

the premise of that article is revolting and there is nothing that would bring me to read the rest of what that idiot had to say. It is a complete offense to females everywhere.

[NMMNG]

20. I am utterly aghast.

Whoever wrote that mess is a twisted, demented, depraved f*ck. :yoiks: