The dumbest thing I've ever read

The discussion of rape was the topic elsewhere. This guy chimes in and says that rape is only tramatizing because our culture sets it up that way. His theory is that if we treat sex like a kiss or hand holding, then rape won't be so bad. That it's JUST sex so he doesn't see the big deal.Because we treat sex as something taboo, we make it out to be something more than it's not. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

when he's held down by a couple of bruisers and anally and orally penetrated against his will.

Rape has nothing to do with sex, that's only the weapon. It has everything to do with violence, power, humiliation, and degradation.

It's attitudes like his that perpetuate the myth of "just lie back and enjoy it."

Even in the freewheeling late 60s, rape was a hideous crime.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

That is the epitome of insensitivity.

Would any man say that about his sister? His DAUGHTER?

Crickets...

something like that(maybe Ann Coulter, but the jury gender is apparently still out). Where was this story, NJ?

His cavalier attitude made me wonder if he had ever raped somebody. I know that there are worser things than rape, but to totally dismiss it as something that's like falling off a bike is pretty disturbing.

Robbins, it wasn't a story but it was online discussion about the topic. Some guys just want it when they want it,and don't care whether the woman wants it or not. He sounded like one of those guys.

A graphic narative might work.

This is probably someone that feels like a woman brings rape upon herself, anyway, by the clothes she wears or the places she goes. It makes you wonder if he has ever raped a woman and salved his own conscience by saying "it was only sex" or "sure, she said no, but I could tell she really wanted it".

I think it was this past summer. Said the only reason rape is considered so heinous is because we demonize sex and if we didn't consider sex "dirty", then rape would be nothing worse than simple assault. I know the thread got locked, not sure if it got deleted or not. I'll see if I can dig it up.

No, it wasn't here that I read it. It was another site. Maybe you post there too.?

ETA, nevermind, I misread. I thought you said you posted it.

I'm telling you that it did in fact happen here. My point was to dispel the idea that those who think like this only exist "out there".

It may have happened more than once. There are some collossal assholes on DU, unfortunately.

wouldn't leave one with the sense of immense violation.

I don't know about that posterbut being assaulted in any shape or form is not something I would want anyway. In the first place, you can't compare the invasion of your body against your will with being slapped--and that is what they meant by 'simple assault'.

So far as I know there's no control to test against - I know of no human culture that hasn't placed a great deal of importance on sex, so it's impossible to be certain whether rape would be regarded as more serious than an equivalent non-sexual physical assault in such a one - but the very fact that no such culture has ever existed strongly implies that our attitudes to sex are largely innate, and hence that rape would be as traumatic for someone brought up on a desert island with no contact with other humans as for anyone else.

Unlike most of the posters on this thread, I don't think it's an inherently offensive thing to suggest, or totally absurd, but I do think it's probably mistaken.

That's where you are going wrong here.

Even taken out of its usual context (which, frankly, is stupid to begin with bc there is no separating it in reality), sex is still physical human interaction -- if a person come up and touches me without my approval, I will become uncomfortable. Sexual contact is more invasive of personal space by its very nature, therefore rape, which mimics normal sexual acts in a violent manner, is a more invasive crime than simple assault.

but that continuum _does_ operate about many other sexual matters. Like dress codes. The Victorians could (supposedly) get turned on by the sight of a female ankle. The Wahabi Muslims seem to feel that an unveiled female face leads to degredation. But if you don't make anything of it--even bikinis or mothers nursing in public-- nobody's going to get hurt or damaged by it.

Someone _does_ get hurt in rape.

with radical feminists, men who support them, and inexplicably one other guy.

We watch "Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity " at the meeting. (Recommended, btw.)
We talk about gendered violence, and somebody mentions women becoming violent and killing their attacker during a rape. Not months after, as revenge, but during.

He wants to know: Is that really constructive? Do you really accomplish anything by killing your attacker?

He also helpfully informed us that the reason women are raped is that they are afraid of rape. If they would just freely walk around at night without feeling like potential victims, apparently men would stop raping women.

One of the points in the movie was that when we think of race, we think of blacks, latin@s, etc. When we think of gender studies, we think of women. When we think of sexual orientation, we think of the GLBT community.

The result is that the dominant group (straight white males) is not examined. He demonstrated that perfectly, a number of times. What can women do so that men will stop raping women? Is it constructive for women to attack someone - but he never questioned why it was "constructive" for men to commit rape, that's just accepted as a normal thing that happens, apparently.

Mr Inexplicable had some questions:

1. Is it constructive for a woman to kill her attacker during a rape?

My answer: Not just yes, but HELL YES! By killing him, you will stop him from raping again, and also by killing him early enough, the rape becomes an attempted rape. You also have a better chance of avoiding the diseases he'd stick you with as well. Oh yes, and there's the joy of revenge without having to wait until it's served cold.

2. Women are raped because we're afraid of rape?

My answer: There is not one thing we can do AS WOMEN to prevent rape. Ugly women are raped. Women wearing burkhas are raped. Women are raped in the home, outside of the home, at all times of the day or night. Staying indoors and having male escorts everywhere as in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan will not protect you from rapists if they happen to be guests in your home or if they happen to be your male escort. Husbands can rape wives. It has happened and in many states including my own, the law doesn't recognize it as rape.

There is NOTHING women can do as women to prevent rape. No one dingdangitty thing. Men must stop raping women.

Though I do like the idea of killing rapists in the act. It will prevent the next one. Rapists are notorious for recidivism.

"Do you really accomplish anything by killing your attacker?"

Yes, you do. You make damn sure he'll never rape anybody else.

What a sadly misinformed man.

not sad.

he might find out the truth

BTW, in re: your nice sig line from Gandhi, have you ever visited this site?

http://www.mkgandhi.org/

I was just posting about it in GD.

was an Internet newbie in the early 1990s.

He asked why women couldn't just be "free and easy" and have sex with anyone who asked them. If there was a physical attraction, why not act on it immediately?

How much do you want to bet that he wasn't getting any because he creeped women out?

I guess that would solve the rape problem, if women just had sex willingly on demand. :eyes:

What he said is similar to saying, if you're in a bakery and you're tempted to grab a cookie/cupcake, whatever, why not act on it immediately?