Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 11:28:09 +1200 From: Hugh.Roberts-AT-vuw.ac.nz (Hugh Roberts) Subject: Re: Rape Malcolm writes: >dear jln, >you bring up the curiously antiquated notion that (I paraphrase) "we are >sexual beings with sexual drives" in defence of the claim that not all >heterosexual sex is coercive. does this not sound strangely similar to >the oft-heard claim that men who rape "just can't help themselves"? or >that "she was asking for it, even if she said she wasn't, even if she >didn't know she was - look at how she was dressed"? Not that I particularly agree with jln's argument, but this is positively absurd, Malcolm. An argument that violence is not and should not be seen as an integral part of heterosexual sexuality - an argument which hinges upon the possibility of making a rigorous distinction between "violence" and "sex" - "power" and "desire" - you manage to turn into one which makes violent rape simply an extension of "normal" heterosexuality. I know you find it hard to resist the opportunity to trumpet your gay purity of purpose, Malcolm, but you could at least answer the argument as written. > It is precisely the >cosntruction of predatory male sexuality as a natural drive that is the >problem, and of course, if something is natural, how can it be wrong? And >perhaps you are not in the best position to know whether you are violent >during sex, or even what that might mean. Is this not a bit self-serving? > >bye, malcolm > >p.s. by the way, yes this does mean that i think all men should be gay. Speaking of being "self-serving"! But what is your point here? Are we to suppose (rather naively) that violence is impossible in male-male sexuality? Or are we to suppose that it doesn't really matter if its just between men - keeping it all in the family? Personally I think the *problem* is violence and constraint - no matter who the perpetrator, and no matter who the victim. To that extent I think I agree with the notion of defining rape as a crime of violence rather than a "sex crime" per se. Of course, rape's peculiar power - and particularly abhorrent nature - does stem from it's particular nature. A simply physical assault, in the course of, say, a mugging - though it can be deeply traumatic - does not represent the same degree of violation and betrayal of trust. (This due in part - I think - to the regrettable fact that our society still has a hangover of the absurd notion that the victim is "defiled" by the act of rape - but as I understand it, part of the argument for defining rape as simply "assault" is precisely to undermine this notion; no one feels that victims of simple assault are somehow morally compromised). So to call rape a crime of violence is not to suggest that an act of rape which does not include any overt acts of physical battery is somehow less of a rape. Enforced "sexual" contact of any kind - whether enforced by actual physical battery or by the threat (explicit or implicit) of such battery is rape, and is an "act of violence" - whatever the gender of those involved. Cheers Hugh Roberts hugh.roberts-AT-vuw.ac.nz
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005