http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/24/prison.population.reut/index.html

(snip)WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. penal system, the world's largest, maintained its steady growth in 2004, the Department of Justice reported Sunday.

The latest official half-yearly figures found the nation's prison and jail population at 2,131,180 in the middle of last year, an increase of 2.3 percent over 2003.

The United States has incarcerated 726 people per 100,000 of its population, seven to 10 times as many as most other democracies. The rate for England is 142 per 100,000, for France 91 and for Japan 58.(/snip)

Yeah, I think we've been #1 for quite a long time. Its amazing how much bigger our prison population is compared to other countries.

I was trying to find the report that CNN was talking about with no success. I'm assuming it should be here: http://www.bop.gov/news/publications.jsp - but I could only find the 2003 version.

A different article I was reading about the same subject (which I'm too lazy to locate/link to) was discussing how our prison population bloomed in large part due to the 'get tough on crime' laws of the 80s and 90s when crime was on an upswing. Now they say those laws aren't as useful as crime is on the downswing.

It makes me wonder if there's a link between having more people in jail and crime being on the downswing. Maybe those committing the crimes are in jail?

Or maybe it's fear of ending in jail that's caused otherwise-criminals to not do the things they were doing?

Or maybe there's no correlation at all.

There are cycles in crime and every politician likes to assign them to whatever agenda they have. It probably has to do with the economy and the average age of the population.

The causes of high levels of incarceration in the United States has been a mystery to me.

The Canadian incarceration rate is 133 per 100,000 people (compare U.S. 726 per 100,000 people). The two societies and cultures aren't that much different, so why the big differences in prison populations?

There are potential reasons.

* Crime rates in the U.S. are higher. It's a more violent, law-breaking society. (People may not want to hear it, but this is probably true)

* Crime in the U.S. is higher because of the abundance of guns. (Not sure, but guns would be a symptom of a violent society, not a cause.)

* The U.S. is tougher on crime, and more law-breakers are incarcerated. (Probably true.)

* The economic disparity between rich/poor in the United States results in higher crime, especially in disadvantaged minority groups. (Again not sure, but probably true. Canada certainly has its equivalent issue. Canadian aboriginal adults make up 2% of the general population, and 18% of the prisoner population.)

It's an interesting topic, and I'm primarily a neophyte wondering what to make of it.

The causes of high levels of incarceration in the United States has been a mystery to me.It's no mystery. About 20% of State prisoners and 80% of federal prisoners are there for drug crimes, i.e., probably should not be there in the first place. And prison terms for all crimes in the U.S. are generally way out of whack compared to the world average.

The "War on Drugs" is just a new way to piss away taxpayer dollars.

During the Regan administration they started imprisoning drug users, not just drug sellers. And their sentences were incredibly long. I thought that had changed though.... maybe not.

During the Regan administration they started imprisoning drug users, not just drug sellers. And their sentences were incredibly long. I thought that had changed though.... maybe not.Not. The U.S. system is still ridiculous, and laws such as California's Three Strikes Law (recently nerfed, thankfully) make it even more ridiculous.

The illegal recreational drug "industry" accounts for a lot of the U.S. prison population. But that will be a hard nut to crack when you consider how much politcal and economic capitol is involved with the trade itself and the govermental infra-structure supposedly fighting it.

On the other hand, the habitual sex offenders should be locked up forever imho.

Would like to know what the comparison in terms of number of prisoners is to China. I understand they execute a lot of criminals for relatively petty things, but then you always hear they use prison labor to manufacture a lot of thier goods.

If we used prison labor we'd through a lot of illegal immigrants out of work and then we'd have a huge mess! :D

Didn't you watch Shawshank Redemption? Prison labor will just lead to corrupt wardens who blow their heads off after a banker who is wrongly accused of murder escapes from the jail with incriminating evidence against him.

If we would switch to a national sales tax, at least illegal drug dealers would be paying taxes, which they're certainly not doing now, and the 'revenooooooers' wouldn't have to be chasing down guys making moonshine.

As for predatory sex offenders, I'm with Sunglo on that one, lock 'em up and throw away the key.

OK - was not, repeat not, wanting to start a discussion on using prison labor.

If we would switch to a national sales tax, at least illegal drug dealers would be paying taxes
Not sure how it works in other states, but in Wisconsin one thing you will be criminally charged with as a drug dealer is for not collecting and paying the state sales tax. And to combat the defense of "but if I reported what the income was from that would be self-incrimination", drug dealers are expected to buy state tax stamps that basically pre-pay the state sales tax regardless of what you are selling - legal or not.

The "War on Drugs" is just a new way to piss away taxpayer dollars.

I am sure that all the people employed by the Drug Employment Program would disagree with you.

Over half of those incarcerations are drug crimes.

If you declared a truce on The War on Drugs, that is to say de-illegalized them; you would ostensibly need half of the defense lawyers, half the wardens, half the prosecutors, half the guards, half of everything that the legal, criminal, and penal systems employ. And none of the DEA agents.

I am sure that ALL of both of those halves say that that money is not being pissed away. Hell, they are the people who are pushing for MORE of that junk, even a making OTC drugs illegal now(see psuedephed).

Follow the money. Those people get paid to put people in prison, or keep them out of prison.

As for predatory sex offenders, I'm with Sunglo on that one, lock 'em up and throw away the key.

I am not so sure about that one.

We just had a case where a female highschool teacher at a local highschool got discovered trying to seduce a 15 year old former student.

A woman, who I had a crush on back in 7th grade btw.

But anyways, she actually did not get to go through with it. But part of the plea bargain was that she is not a registered sex offender. For life.

She lost her career, and is labeled for life, and will serve prison time, and pay restitution---and the kid did not even get to have sex with her. F that!

On the other hand, the habitual sex offenders should be locked up forever imho."Sex offenders"? You mean 16-year-olds who have consensual sex, and anyone who engages in oral/anal sex (in some states)?

When the religious zealots stop poking their noses into everyone's bedrooms, and "rape" takes on its true meaning (i.e., a violent sexual assault, not just any encounter where you're drunk and regret it later), I might agree with you.

You really think Michael Jackson should be "locked up forever", when all he did (even assuming all the allegations are true) is solicit young male prostitutes?

It's no mystery. About 20% of State prisoners and 80% of federal prisoners are there for drug crimes, i.e., probably should not be there in the first place. And prison terms for all crimes in the U.S. are generally way out of whack compared to the world average.

That would only explain the difference between US incarcerations and other nations' if those other nations didn't have a "war on drugs".

Which, of course, they do. So nop, no dice - that ain't it :)

That would only explain the difference between US incarcerations and other nations' if those other nations didn't have a "war on drugs".
Which, of course, they do.No, fortunately that stupidity hasn't crossed U.S. borders yet. In Western European countries, for example, possession of recreational drugs is either not enforced, or involves very light penalties, like a traffic ticket. They reserve the harsher penalties only for large-scale dealers of more hardcore drugs, and even in those cases the penalties are nowhere near as harsh as those in the U.S.

This thread has wandered really fast.

I'd say that a serial sex offender shouldn't be released without a psychological assessment, and even then the burden of proof would lie on the offender to show they are now safe. If Michael Jackson was found guilty of serial child abuse then I would definitely include him. Even if he was proved innocent I can't believe any parent in their right mind would ever want him near their children again.

In the UK the police would usually give a caution for drug possession for personal use. Arrests would come if it was associated with smuggling or other crimes. Putting drug users into prison isn't going to help much as the levels of drug use inside are mind bogglingly high. Magistrates are already encouraged to give non-custodial sentences as our prison population is too high. On the other hand, we have sent mothers to prison because their children played truant from school, and even more unbelievably the children still didn't go to school and courts had to intervene again!

If Michael Jackson was found guilty of serial child abuse then I would definitely include him. Even if he was proved innocent I can't believe any parent in their right mind would ever want him near their children again.But that's just it. The parents <i>did</i> want him to be near the child. Even if we assume something sexual was going on, it was probably consensual and more in the nature of prostitution than assault. Frankly, I don't even see why the prosecutors are wasting their time with this.

Which, of course, they do. So nop, no dice - that ain't it :)

There is no chemical(real) difference between crack and cocaine.

But the prison terms for possessing and taking crack are approximately 10 times as severe. You need a fraction of crack in possession compared to powdered cocaine for the same punishments.

Crack cocaine is predominately a black drug(crime) in the US. It is a drug of choice of African Americans that is targeted.

Hence, I would assume our(the US) dice are just loaded. We have more blacks percentage wise than other Western countries, and especially more blacks who use crack.

So ya, on the surface, your conclusion may seem valid. And it might be, if the facts were different.

Which leads me to another point.
I was watching Reno 911, they had a British Bobbie on this one episode checking out how 'Mercans do cop stuff. One of the Reno cops ask the Bobbie, "Do you have crack whores in England?"
The Bobbie says, "Yes, but we don't call them crack whores, we call them crack wenches"

In Canada getting jailed for drug use would pretty much mean they wanted you for something they couldn't prove. Where I live it is pretty much understood that two plants on the porch for personal use is acceptable, and a small amount on you is fine. Smoking pot in public is about as acceptable as drinking in public ie: you might get your stash confiscated like you get your beer poured out. We are finally getting around to setting up safe injection centers in bad neighborhoods.

Sending drug users to jail seems counterproductive. They are already dependant which makes them easy targets for real criminals to manipulate and in jail they get socialized to a criminal lifestyle, which increases their risk of doing real crimes when they get out.

Maybe the USA's crime rate, especially amongst some minority populations with high incarceration rates is stuck in a bit of a socialization cycle... if a certain percent of a neighborhood has "done time" it becomes almost a coming of age thing, or at least the stigma goes away, plus contacts are made with criminals, thus ensuring that when people get out they are more likely to spread the negative socialization.... viscious cycle.

Probably just one facet of a complex problem.

I'd say that a serial sex offender shouldn't be released without a psychological assessment, and even then the burden of proof would lie on the offender to show they are now safe.

You have to define "serial sex offender" first. We are putting people on these lists for some really stupid ****. I'm sorry, but even violent rape should not be a more serious crime than aggrevated assault (unless it resulted in death). The idea that sex makes a crime worse is fairly silly.

I'm sorry, but even violent rape should not be a more serious crime than aggrevated assault (unless it resulted in death). The idea that sex makes a crime worse is fairly silly.In your opinion. Personally, I would rather be shot (and recover) than be a victim of a violent rape. You can recover from a gunshot.

But then... the likelihood of YOU getting raped is pretty minimal so I can see how you might think it was a relatively insignificant crime. I, on the other hand, am female and have been and will be at risk of rape all my life. I'm sure glad that women have more influence in "the system" today than we used to have when everything was run by men. :) I personally feel that rape should carry a much higher penalty than armed assault. It's the worst violation that any human can suffer. It's never over.

No, fortunately that stupidity hasn't crossed U.S. borders yet. In Western European countries, for example, possession of recreational drugs is either not enforced, or involves very light penalties, like a traffic ticket. They reserve the harsher penalties only for large-scale dealers of more hardcore drugs, and even in those cases the penalties are nowhere near as harsh as those in the U.S.

It sounds like you think this is because our governments see recreational drug use in a different light than yours, I believe that assumption to be incorrect. Here in Western Europe -all- sentences are generally much lighter than their US counterparts, so it'd be hard to argue for 3years of jail time for a party-cocaine user when we don't send rapists to jail for much longer than that.

Skipping past the debate of whether one crime is worse than another, prisons are there partly to protect the public from criminals. Serial sex attackers have extremely high reoffending rates when released from prison and their crimes are abhorrent too. There is a strong case for keeping offenders away from the public in these specific cases.

When you look at a paedophile who has been using child ****ography for years and molests children, all the prison term might do is make him more deliberate in evading capture when he offends again. His fixation on children is extremely difficult to remove even with medical and psychological treatment. A burden of proof should be upon serial sex attackers to show that they are fit for release rather than having automatic release at the end of their term.

Unpremeditated, single offence sex offenders shouldn't be in the same category as they have lower rates of reoffending upon release. They pay for their crime while in prison and I think they should be given a chance to reintegrate into society.

I personally feel that rape should carry a much higher penalty than armed assault. It's the worst violation that any human can suffer. It's never over.

Many(most?) men will never understand that.

Not because the are all rapists or anything.

But because, except for the very fact that choice is removed, many women consent to and enjoy sex every day.

Nobody, male or female, enjoys getting shot. Certainly, you would not roll over to your partner "Honey, I'm feeling a little frisky, can you get the Glock and cap me, and if you are a good boy, you can even do it twice". No one ever really consents to being shot. Or virtually every other crime.

Nobody goes out to a club thinking, "I sure hope I get robbed tonight, maybe if I wear this dress"
Nobody goes out to a bar thinking, "Ladies night out, I might get stabbed"
Nobody goes to a fraternity party thinking, "...erm, nevermind, maybe they were just not thinking.

Well... Are you saying that men raping strange women they don't even know is because they're confused? Ok, you might be able to make a coherent argument about that and date rape, but being attacked and raped in an alley, your car, having someone break into your home and do it... I don't think that is because they're confusing consensual sex with rape.

Do you think the "squeal like a pig" man was confused about having consensual sex with pigs and having sex with chubby men?

Imagine if you were overpowered and sodomized against your will.... would you call that confusion over consensual sex?

You are missing the point, like I expected you to.

I know why it is as horrible as you women say that it is.
But it took me years to figure it out. And NO ONE told me why.

There is nothing innate in men, that allows them to see that rape is far worse than ANY other crime. From the womans perspective.

And for many men, consent is removed from many of the things that they do or have to do. So HOW the **** is consent such a big deal? (that is a rhetorical question, I don't think that)

Even in your(expected) scenario here is what typically goes through a guys head
"OMG, this is gonna hurt"
"I'm going to be a homo now"
"Is everyone else going to think Im a homo now"
"Man, this is ****ed up"

Rape for men is different than rape for women. We don't see it the same as you, naturally. It took me 20 years to figure out why.

She said it was worse than any other crime. Remember that.

Are you saying that men raping strange women they don't even know is because they're confused?
You are missing the point.

date rape, but being attacked and raped in an alley, your car, having someone break into your home and do it
Women have sex all the time on dates. It really is the point of dating. Women have sex in alleys. They certainly have sex in cars and homes

Imagine if you were overpowered and sodomized against your will.... would you call that confusion over consensual sex?
That is different. Many women are raped and never overpowered. Many women are raped and never sodomized. Many women enjoy and consent to anal sex. I did not use the word confused, you did.

You and I are talking about 2 different things.

I told you back in October why. The fundamental reason why. But you glossed it over, and dismissed and diminished its importance.

Nobody, male or female, enjoys getting shot. Certainly, you would not roll over to your partner "Honey, I'm feeling a little frisky, can you get the Glock and cap me, and if you are a good boy, you can even do it twice". No one ever really consents to being shot. Or virtually every other crime.
I wanna call BS on this one Fyyr - at least the "guy" part of it. I've met several guys (and seen several more) who would shoot themselves just to see what it feels like. Paintball pellets hurt like a #()*$#)($* for a reason :(

But because, except for the very fact that choice is removed, many women consent to and enjoy sex every day.

I'm not sure i'm reading you right, but it seems you're saying that because consent isn't there to do something that she sometimes consents to, that in itself makes it so horrible?

If so - that's not the half of it. I consented to my sister taking 4-5 pieces of my old clothes the other day, I do that on a regular basis. If my gym bag gets stolen, I won't feel more violated than if I'd never given away a single garment.

Rape is about so much more than that. It's about the stigma society still places on women who have sex. It's about the "dirty"-stamp we get and the "Uh oh, I don't wanna touch that"-crap men pull when they meet someone that has suffered through rape and/or other sexual abuse. It's about the society that allows for people to actually say "Dressed like that, what else did she expect?" without getting punched in the face. It's about the unspoken "whore" that you see in people's eyes. And it's about violating the one thing that by far is our biggest non-verbal way of saying "I love you".

And that's before we get into the broken-trust issues if it's someone you know, and wayyyy before we get talking about rape number2 - the trial (and in most cases - the following aquittal.)

I think the fact that most women try and create equation for men to understand belies my point. There are no comparable(valid) analogies that you can give.

If you asked me

"Fyyr, if you went up to a beautiful rich female athlete's room at 1AM in the morning."
"And she gave you alcohol"
"And she tried to have rough sex with you"
"And you tried to say, NO"

The first question is WHY would I say NO, in the first place.

Men and women are wired differently.
Until you understand why, you will never make any real progress.

Tinsi, your explanation does not work fundamentally. Prostitutes, experts at sex, professional sex women GET RAPED. All the time. Probably moreso than non-prostitutes(definately per capita). They ARE whores, your explanation does not explain why actual whores can be raped. But they can, and do.

Deliverance and Shawshank Redemption analogies are fundamentally flawed for comparing male on female rape. They give insight, sure. Both of those are male on male rape. We are discussing something different.

Men and women are wired differently.
Until you understand why, you will never make any real progress.

You said it. You understand it. You're the one who has a severe misunderstanding of rape.

You said it. You understand it. You're the one who has a severe misunderstanding of rape.

Explain it then. What misunderstandings go I have?

And then explain all the inconsistencies.

Why is rape not one of the 10 Commandments?
Why do most women have rape fantasies?
Why do many men think "She has to finish what she started"?
Why do many men think that "she asked for it"?
Why do most women feel that they can stop sex at any point, and at any time(even after coitus), that that sex can become rape?
Why can prostitutes and other sex workers be raped? Women who have sex with thousands of men.
Most male on female rapes are NOT like Deliverance or Shawshank Redemption rapes, but women(and men) have to use those extreme charicatures to explain it to men. Why?
Why are comparisons of female on male rape, not comparable?
Why are there not versions in film(like above)?*
Why is rape NOT about sex?
Why is power NOT about sex?
Why would MOST men rape if they could get away with it?
Why is rape used as a socially acceptable form of punishment of crimes in some cultures? But we find that notion barbaric?
Why is rape worse than ANY other crime?
Why is abortion supported for rape victims, from ANTI-abortionists?
Why do we, as a culture, joke about males being anally raped as punishment?
Why is castration an acceptable form of punishment for rape(child molestation), but removing a women's genitals in our society, not acceptable?

If you wish to have a discussion on the subject, by all means. I would certainly like to. But if you are not prepared to discuss the matter intelligently, please sit this one out.

If you think you have the answers to those inconsistencies(and there is a pattern to them all), then by all means enlighten us. I have more examples, but those should keep you busy for a while.

*Disclosure is close. But the angst that the male character feels is certainly different than what most female women rape victims express. If Demi Moore forced herself on you and sucked your dick, would you feel the way that Michael Douglas felt? Do you think you would feel the way that any woman rape victim feels?

Tinsi, your explanation does not work fundamentally. Prostitutes, experts at sex, professional sex women GET RAPED. All the time. Probably moreso than non-prostitutes(definately per capita). They ARE whores, your explanation does not explain why actual whores can be raped. But they can, and do.

My short post did not even attempt to list -everything- it is (or can be) about. You seem to think you can narrow it down to one fundamental thing that explains it all. With all due respect, sir - you are mistaken.

My short post did not even attempt to list -everything- it is (or can be) about. You seem to think you can narrow it down to one fundamental thing that explains it all. With all due respect, sir - you are mistaken.

With all due respect - do you know what that one thing is?

You should,
You are a woman.

Both of those are male on male rape. We are discussing something different.

Are we? If rape isn't about sex for any of the parties involved, then it makes no sense that the gender of the rapist should make the trauma any worse (or better). It is EXACTLY the same as man on man rape. Only difference is in the way society judges the victim. She's a whore that asked for it, he's a weakling that can't defend himself and potentially a dark and dirty closet homosexual.

The act and the violation itself however, is exactly the same. Maybe the extreme "it's not the same"-thing is a natural (male) reaction to being forced to think about just how horrible it'd actually be to be raped*, and as such it's easy to say "well, that's different". But it isn't.

*especially if what you say is true, that most men actually would rape if they could get away with it. Being forced to think and feel what it actually is can't be all that cool if it's something you'd actually do.

With all due respect - do you know what that one thing is?

You should,
You are a woman.

You know what, after all these years of posting on TDG, I'm going to say something I've never even had a slightest little URGE to post before. It might get me in trouble with Sobe, but so be it. It needs saying in this situation:

**** you, Fyyr.

Maybe the extreme "it's not the same"-thing is a natural

Why is that extreme?

They are not the same.

I don't have consentual sex with men.
Most women do. Well, most sexually active women, that is. I mean nuns and lesbians usually do not have sex with men, duh.

They are not the same.

**** you, Fyyr.

Well, I do deserve that, but for other things.

You are misunderstanding me obviously. I am certainly not going about this the right way.

Concisely, it is innate.
It is code that is written in your genes, your female genes.


And, no, you should not get in trouble with that post. I can handle that.

Well, I do deserve that, but for other things.

No, you deserve it for patronizingly telling me what I, as a woman, should know about what it is like to be raped and what it is about from a rape victim's point of view. Before you step on your high horse and preach about how right you are and how wrong I am, and start telling me what I "should" know, ask yourself "Fyyr, how do you really know that you know what you are talking about?" and then ask wether it's possible that others, women in particular, might - just MIGHT - have their knowledge from a better source than you.

Oh you deserved it for that comment.

Concisely, it is innate.
It is code that is written in your genes, your female genes.You are greatly oversimplifying it. Sure, <i>part</i> of it is because women have to bear the burden of pregnancy, and therefore they have to be selective about sex whereas men don't, and that might be instinctual.

But a larger part is society, and the shame it places on women who have sex. If, hypothetically speaking, society didn't care how many times and with whom a woman had sex, rape wouldn't have nearly as much stigma as it has today (much in the same way that you see more homosexual activity in cultures that don't stigmatize that activity).

In this case, society > genetics.

you deserve it for patronizingly telling me what I, as a woman, should know about what it is like to be raped

I did not say that.

Calm down, and re-read it.

You are greatly oversimplifying it. Sure, <i>part</i> of it is because women have to bear the burden of pregnancy, and therefore they have to be selective about sex whereas men don't, and that might be instinctual.

But a larger part is society, and the shame it places on women who have sex. If, hypothetically speaking, society didn't care how many times and with whom a woman had sex, rape wouldn't have nearly as much stigma as it has today (much in the same way that you see more homosexual activity in cultures that don't stigmatize that activity).

In this case, society > genetics.

Tudamorf.

What is the fatality rate of just giving birth(do not include even gestational pregnancy time) that human females will encounter without doctors, nurses, or medicine? Just the act of labor and giving birth, without any medical assistance? What is the mortality or fatality rate?

Additionally, if society is truly greater than genetics...

Then it is conceivable that all stigma of being a rape victim could possibly be removed. That with enough social engineering and behavioral modification, that women could be conditioned to NOT think that non-consentual sex is NOT rape.

You know that does not work.

society didn't care how many times and with whom a woman had sex, rape wouldn't have nearly as much stigma as it has todayHow can prostitutes be raped then. If stigma is the core, then why the hell would/could they ever be raped. But the ARE raped. They file police reports. Prostitutes get raped all the time, they know the difference between consentual sex and forced sex-more than anybody.

What is the fatality rate of just giving birth(do not include even gestational pregnancy time) that human females will encounter without doctors, nurses, or medicine?"<a href=http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/604S>In the developing world, rates are as high as 700 per 100,000 live births in many parts of Africa and in some countries in south Asia</a>." What's your point? That the <1% risk of death from pregnancy makes rape worse than murder, which has 100% risk of death? I think it's more about being forced to bear the burden of pregnancy to carry on the genes of someone whom you didn't choose.

[Edit] I.e., if a man could only ejaculate once every 9 months, I'd think you'd see a different attitude if he were forced to do so at a time not of his choosing and/or with someone not of his choosing.How can prostitutes be raped then. If stigma is the core, then why the hell would/could they ever be raped. But the ARE raped. They file police reports. Prostitutes get raped all the time, they know the difference between consentual sex and forced sex-more than anybody.Precisely. And no one gives a damn if they are. If all women were prostitutes, we may not even have a crime called "rape", it would just be breach of contract.

One third.

One third of the women I know, who have given birth.

Would be dead today, if there was not somebody there skilled with childbirth to help them.

One third.

Multiply that selection quality over 10 thousand generations. If you want to go back to Lucy, 200 thousand generations. Genetics is much more important that you give it credit for.

And their children would all be dead too, most of them.

And that is not even taking into the equation that 9 months gestation period, waddling around making a Humey McNugget for any hungry sabre toothed bobcat kitty to eat.

If your hypothetical male, who got to ejaculate once in 9 months, had a one in three chance of dying at each time he did, ALL the males I know would be dead already.

One third.

One third of the women I know, who have given birth.

Would be dead today, if there was not somebody there skilled with childbirth to help them.Then you must know some very unlucky women. (Or, the doctors overhyped their importance to justify their bill.)

If less than 1% of women die in the most primitive areas of Africa, where there is no modern medicine and famine/bacterial infections are common and fatal, there is no way 1/3 of women in a highly developed country would die without medical care.

And no one gives a damn if they are.

It does not matter what we as society thinks or gives.

These women know that they are raped. You, or society, do not give permission to women to 'feel' that they have been raped, when they have been raped.

They do not feel anything differently than Katlyn Whatsersname. Or your friend, or your mother, or you wife, or your girlfriend, or your daughter, who has been raped.

They feel the same way that any of you women who have been raped, feel.

They do not care about social stigma. They can give a **** about social stigma, they don't give a **** about it. But they are raped.

That is not some analogy, not a comparison, not an almost the same. It is not even 'it is the same thing'. It is.

They feel the same way that any of you women who have been raped, feel.Right, but their "feeling" has been shaped by society. After all, they weren't born prostitutes, or segregated from society as they were learning its rules.

Then you must know some very unlucky women. (Or, the doctors overhyped their importance to justify their bill.)

If less than 1% of women die in the most primitive areas of Africa, where there is no modern medicine and famine/bacterial infections are common and fatal, there is no way 1/3 of women in a highly developed country would die without medical care.

Ask your female friends. You will be amazed.

But remember that a lot of my female friends have what we consider normal everyday diseases and syndromes that if left untreated, are themselves fatal. Seizures and Diabetes Mellitus are fatal at a very young age if not treated. And are normal everyday stuffs in our highly developed country.

You will find many of them will say "Ya, I had this such and such condition that flared up, and I would have died without a doctor, nurse, or midwife there". Much more than you thought.

For the vast amount of human time on this planet, we did not even have midwives. From 10,000 BCE back to 100,000 BCE we have been almost as we are today, but had not a single OB/GYN on the entire planet.

Right, but their "feeling" has been shaped by society. After all, they weren't born prostitutes, or segregated from society as they were learning its rules.

Their feelings of being raped, when they are raped, are NOT shaped by society.

I did not say that.

Calm down, and re-read it.
OK, let's see what happened. I said:

My short post did not even attempt to list -everything- it is (or can be) about. You seem to think you can narrow it down to one fundamental thing that explains it all. With all due respect, sir - you are mistaken.
("It" being a reference to rape, see the original posts for context)
And you quoted this, and felt the need to reply:

With all due respect - do you know what that one thing is?

You should,
You are a woman.
OK, I've re-read it and if your claim is that by this you aren't telling me what I "should" know about what rape is about, then you've got to work on your formulating-sentences-skills. Because that's exactly and precisely and most pointedly what you are saying.

Oh **** it, it's obvious you're just out to be an ass here. If you truly believed that there is no analogies, no proper explanations that men can get, and that it's purely biological and genetic, you'd be the very very first in line to step out of the way and virtually bow to those wiser than you for every woman that posted on the issue. Because if your explanation is right, that's the only thing you COULD do. Because, according to you - you cannot get it, and she does know by virtue of simply being female. But you don't do that, you keep insisting that they are wrong. You claim you are correct, yet insist on acting in a way you'd only do if you weren't. Such an utterly tasteless topic to troll about too. Shame on you.

Their feelings of being raped, when they are raped, are NOT shaped by society.Of course they are, in exactly the same way you described your fear of being a "homo" if you were raped. Now, they may not be shaped <i>entirely</i> by society, but society is a major factor.

You are greatly oversimplifying it. Sure, <i>part</i> of it is because women have to bear the burden of pregnancy, and therefore they have to be selective about sex whereas men don't, and that might be instinctual.

But a larger part is society, and the shame it places on women who have sex. If, hypothetically speaking, society didn't care how many times and with whom a woman had sex, rape wouldn't have nearly as much stigma as it has today (much in the same way that you see more homosexual activity in cultures that don't stigmatize that activity).

In this case, society > genetics.

It's hard to say how much is nuture and how much is nature. People who actually know something about the subject can't even agree. Women also tend to get sexually transmitted diseases more easily than men also, well if you don't count anal sex between men. So I would say that there's at least a heavier cost to bear for having sex indescriminantly for women than there is for men, outside of current social norms of making men share that burden at least financially.

But it is irrelevant in this discussion. In our society forcing people to have sex without their consent is a crime. It doesn't matter what the motivation is for not giving consent, or not asking for it, it is still a crime. Fortunately I think most men are aware of when sex is rape and not sex. Am I right guys? Is it really THAT difficult to figure out?

Once again, I'm so lost by Fyyr's reasoning that I just have to give up on trying to understand what he's saying or I'll probably blow a gasket like Tinsi.

Somehow I find reading two males discussing what women feel about/after being raped to be oddly compelling, something akin to watching the old 1950s shows of what life is going to be like in the year 2000.

I'm sure there are women on this board, myself included, who can give you first hand accounts of what a woman feels who has been raped. Interestingly, men seem to go through the same psychological traumas which women go through after being raped, however, men aren't nearly as likely to report it or to seek legal recourse or psychological counselling/help.

Tinsi wrote:

Rape is about so much more than that. It's about the stigma society still places on women who have sex. It's about the "dirty"-stamp we get and the "Uh oh, I don't wanna touch that"-crap men pull when they meet someone that has suffered through rape and/or other sexual abuse. It's about the society that allows for people to actually say "Dressed like that, what else did she expect?" without getting punched in the face. It's about the unspoken "whore" that you see in people's eyes. And it's about violating the one thing that by far is our biggest non-verbal way of saying "I love you".

And that's before we get into the broken-trust issues if it's someone you know, and wayyyy before we get talking about rape number2 - the trial (and in most cases - the following aquittal.)



Yeah that rings exactly true. And I can add to that the imprint that sticks behind a woman's eyes, flashbacks that make their way into loving embraces in years to follow. A haunting. And yes, even when you win the trial, I would agree it is like a second rape, a dissection and enshrinement of that moment that brings almost as much shame as the moment itself. From my experience, sounds like she knows what she is talking about.

Fyyr you are dancing around a "one thing," why not just share with us what the conclusion of your 20 year search for understanding is. Maybe some of the women here can enrich that conclusion, or maybe we will say "Oh wow, yeah thats just how I felt exactly, how wise."

"Sex offenders"? You mean 16-year-olds who have consensual sex, and anyone who engages in oral/anal sex (in some states)?

When the religious zealots stop poking their noses into everyone's bedrooms, and "rape" takes on its true meaning (i.e., a violent sexual assault, not just any encounter where you're drunk and regret it later), I might agree with you.

You really think Michael Jackson should be "locked up forever", when all he did (even assuming all the allegations are true) is solicit young male prostitutes?

That is not at all what I am referring to Tudamorf and you know it.

I am referring to the scum of the earth that kill children after raping them - that's who. Please go ahead and defend those pieces of human waste.

Skipping past the debate of whether one crime is worse than another, prisons are there partly to protect the public from criminals. Serial sex attackers have extremely high reoffending rates when released from prison and their crimes are abhorrent too. There is a strong case for keeping offenders away from the public in these specific cases.

When you look at a paedophile who has been using child ****ography for years and molests children, all the prison term might do is make him more deliberate in evading capture when he offends again. His fixation on children is extremely difficult to remove even with medical and psychological treatment. A burden of proof should be upon serial sex attackers to show that they are fit for release rather than having automatic release at the end of their term.

If their sexual desires are a factor of their psychological factors, they shouldn't be in prison in the first place, they should be in a mental institution. What's next? Making everyone who wants out of prison, period, go through psych testing to see if they are capable of reintegration (I suspect, the vast majority of people in prison would fail such an exam, simply as a result of having spent time in prison)? Of course, then why not just pre-empting crime and testing everyone at age 12 to see if they have a psychological pre-disposition towards criminal activities, and put them in jail (Of course, as a 13 year old, my "brilliant" psychologist told me I'd likely wind up in jail by the time I was 18..suffice to say I was smarter than he was then)? Soon, we'll be able to tell pre-birth if a person has a genetic disposition towards violence...of course by then it'll be illegal to have an abortion, so we'll wait until the mother weans the kid, then toss him in the pokey.

Fortunately I think most men are aware of when sex is rape and not sex. Am I right guys? Is it really THAT difficult to figure out?


Actually, its getting more and more difficult to deduce what rape is. It should be a simple concept, "If you force sexual relations upon someone without their consent".

Now, however, rape is sleeping with a girl who was drunk and decided the next morning she wouldn't have consented if she was sober. Its sleeping with a girl who decides the next day she can get you (and the state) to pay her money if she says it wasn't consentual. Nowdays, something as relatively innocent as goosing someone can get you on sexual predator lists (if your a man...).

Even the prosecution of rape crimes is horribly imbalanced. The supposedly "innocent until proven guilty" man is plastered across the local papers and the accuser (who is the one who has something to prove) has their "reputation" protected by law (and in many states are given money../boggle). They are called victims before anyone has been proven guilty of victimizing them.

If a man habitually fondles a woman against her will..a woman is perfectly allowed to hit the man, but if a woman habitually comes up to a guy and fondles his jimmy, he'll get tossed in jail if he decks her.

The entire concept that rape deserves special treatment as a crime, and that rape "victims" deserve special treatment before the law belies the idea that women actually believe in equality between the sexes. They don't. They want special protections.

A man in college, nowdays, is bombarded by feminist propaganda virtually insisting that because he is a man, he's a potential rapist, and a high potential at that. And women in college are bombarded by the same propaganda suggesting they'd best not trust any man, because he'll rape them.

School administrations and employers now have a policy of expel/fire the accused upon accusation, regardless of whether they are found guilty of any crime.

It is an absolute inequality, one that should be rectified. Rape shouldn't be a crime in and of itself. It is, ultimately, nothing more than an assault (with all the varying degrees of severity that accompany assault).

Rape shouldn't be a crime in and of itself. It is, ultimately, nothing more than an assault (with all the varying degrees of severity that accompany assault).

I think I can speak for pretty much every rape survivor out there when I say that this statement is absolutely frightening. Fortunately for you Aidon, it is highly unlikely that you will ever experience first hand what rape does to a person. I envy you that.

In Canadian prisons psychological evaluations are part of the parole process for both murderers and sexual offenders. I had assumed it was that way in America too.

I worked in a federal jail for a couple of years, which in Canada is reserved for murders and sexual offenders. The problem that I have seen is that convicts recognise that the psychologist is not there to help them as much as to rat them out, so they carefully edit what they say - most of the time. One guy I knew shot himself in the foot by telling his jail psychologist he was having fantasies about torturing, raping and murdering the women who had testified against him. That added three years to his sentence. Ooops.

On topic, some interesting facts from the John Howard Society:

It is a myth that recidivism rates for sexual offenders as a whole are higher than those of normal criminals. In fact they are a little lower. However, once you start breaking up sexual offenders into subcategories you start to see significant differences. On the whole less than 20%of sexual offenders re-offend with another sexual offense. The recidivism rate for non sexual offenders is 66%.

Rapists have a higher recidivism rate than child molesters but among child molesters the highest rate of re-offending is among male adults who were never married, who had previous offenses, and who chose young boys outside their family (77%). The lowest rate of re-offending was adults whose victims were children in their own families.

Programs that tackle self esteem, relationships, and empathy building have been shown to significantly lower the chances of recidivism across the board for sexual offenders. A good social support network also significantly lowers the chances of re-offending. A social support network that has tolerant or ambivalent attitudes towards rape has been shown, however, to increase chances of re-offending (Duh!). However, the greatest determinant happens before the offender even commits the crime - in childhood. The vast majority of sexual offenders have witnessed violent domestic crime during their childhood. Men who have witnessed violent domestic crime but have been subject to councilling and intervention during their childhood are much less likely to ever offend.


It is an absolute inequality, one that should be rectified. Rape shouldn't be a crime in and of itself. It is, ultimately, nothing more than an assault (with all the varying degrees of severity that accompany assault).


That is a load of nonsense. Rape is a lot more than an assault, not because it is more or less severe but because it is fundamentally different in its nature. You might as well say that an apple is nothing more than an elephant.

Fortunately for you Aidon, it is highly unlikely that you will ever experience first hand what rape does to a person.

Tudamorf thinks that feeling you have is put in you by society, and social stigma.

Um, can I ask you? Do you think that the horrors of being raped were taught to you by society?

Do you think(feel) that your society taught you that rape is horrible?

Fyyr you are dancing around a "one thing," why not just share with us what the conclusion of your 20 year search for understanding is. Maybe some of the women here can enrich that conclusion, or maybe we will say "Oh wow, yeah thats just how I felt exactly, how wise."

Because it takes some work.

It is like Carl Sagan and his Flatlanders Scenario.

I, as a two dimensional creature, can't just be all like "OMG, I just saw a 3 dimensional shape!" or "Look, there ARE 3 dimensions!"

All I am doing here is showing people the inconsistencies, as I have noticed them for a very long time.

And besides that, I'm gonna write a book(actually started it already). /smile.

Watch, this is an emotional issue. Emotions are not taught. Look how Tinsi completely misread, and then went completely hysterical on the subject. Even if, IF, I had meant that she should get raped(which I did not do), if I had said "You should get mugged", or "You should get robbed", or "You should get burglarized", or "You should be shot" do you even think for a moment that she would have expressed half of that emotional outcry that that misuderstanding elicited?

Look how Tudamorf likens rape to a breach of contract. In the old patriarchial Judeo/Christian world, rape was a PROPERTY CRIME, against the husband or father. It still is in other patriarchial cultures even to this day.

Look how women, will put men into the place of the victim-just for deigning to enter into this topic of discussion. I have noticed this consistently, forever. You have them giving hyperbolic charicatures of male on male rape as examples so that us normal heterosexual unraped males can somehow interpolate what they are feeling. They give outrageous and inaccurate analogies, in order to make us 'feel' what it is like. "oohh, you should be raped, in order so that YOU know how it feels." What other crime elicits that response?

If you give a real and accurate analogy, you will be greeted by sarcasm and disbelief.

It is an emotional topic.

Look at the devide, Why is that?

Why is it the most heinous of crimes for most women?

I do believe that all the inconsistencies(as males perceive them) do add up to a pattern of consistency. A logical easy-to-understand code.

Fyyr, do you believe that women should have control of their own bodies, or are they just the sexual playthings of any man that is near them?

As soon as you admit that women should have control of their own bodies then you might realise that every piece of drivel you have posted showed no understanding of that fact whatsoever.

Um, can I ask you? Do you think that the horrors of being raped were taught to you by society?

Do you think(feel) that your society taught you that rape is horrible?

The horrors of being raped were not taught to me by society. The horrors of being raped were taught to me by two different men - the two men who raped me.

A person could walk up to me and beat me to within an inch of my life. I would recover from that faster and easier than if someone was to rape me but leave no significant physical damage to me.

To be placed in a situation where someone does something to you that you do not want done to you, and to be absolutely incapable of defending yourself from that situation, and to have your boundaries violated in such an intimate way, is far worse than any "typical" assault.

I would allow myself to be assaulted during a robbery. I will not ever survive another rape again, either he or I will die in the attempt. That should say it all.

The entire concept that rape deserves special treatment as a crime, and that rape "victims" deserve special treatment before the law belies the idea that women actually believe in equality between the sexes. They don't. They want special protections.

I think in the UK the conviction rate for all alleged rapes is estimated at something like 7%. It is a very difficult crime to prosecute because of the reasons we all know about, including false accusations in an estimated 10%(?) of cases. The low conviction rate, however, ensures that men are not the ones sufferering when it comes to rape laws and their application.

I think we could argue endlessly Aidon about releasing sex offenders after their sentence ends. I want some protection for society before they're released. You don't want psychological tests but didn't offer any alternative. Fine. Another time another thread.

Fyyr, do you believe that women should have control of their own bodies, or are they just the sexual playthings of any man that is near them?

What have I wrote that would say otherwise? What have I wrote that says that they are playthings?

As soon as you admit that women should have control of their own bodies then you might realise that every piece of drivel you have posted showed no understanding of that fact whatsoever.

What am I saying that is conflicting. What part is drivel?

Help me out here man, I got to work out the kinks on this thing.
You are reading stuff into my writing that is not there, what is causing that?

I feel like Chris Tucker, "Do you understand the words comin' out of my mouf'".

Jinjre,

I understand.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Why do many men think "She has to finish what she started"?
Why do many men think that "she asked for it"?
Why do most women feel that they can stop sex at any point, and at any time(even after coitus), that that sex can become rape?
Why can prostitutes and other sex workers be raped? Women who have sex with thousands of men.


Explain it yourself. You posted it. You answer it. You know that women have control of their own bodies.

Fyyr, no, I don't understand the words coming out of your mouth. Part of the reason for not understanding them is that you are still dancing around saying them. Give your readers some credit. Some of us have experience with the topic at hand. I have also spent a good many years trying to understand what it is that "goes wrong" in a man's mind which justifies rape. But I don't think that you are trying to demean or minimise the experience, simply not expressing yourself well around it. It sounds like you have something interesting to say... so try to say it. :) Some of us have been thinking in 3D about this for almost as long as you have.

If you are arguing that there is no social dimention to why this crime is a beast of its own, much worse than a simple physical assault, I think you are wrong. Here are some of the ways in which I think there are social dimensions:

Social acceptance: I do insist on some complicity for men who don't think it is really such a bad thing to have sex with a women who is too drunk to give informed consent, and feel that the annoyance of having to listen to constant precautions in college (where 1/4 of women experience rape) is not worth the possibility that those precautions might save a woman from the experience. These are the men who implicitly send the message that it isn't such a terrible thing, and who would like to see it downplayed, or even re-defined to only include psychotic events. In the literature I have read on the topic it is clear that a rapist surrounded by men with similar attitudes is more likely to offend. It is clear that a woman surrounded by people with similar attitudes is less likely to resist, less likely to report, and more likely to be raped.

Shaming: Women who are raped are on one hand taught that in some way their lives are over. Their fathers send that message when they freak out over what their daughters are wearing - "You are asking to be raped, and if that happens, I dont know what I would do" The idea that the family/husband or other figures in the woman's life would never recover from the event is just the most idiotic suggestion, but works as a nasty deterrent to recovery and even to reporting it. On the other hand, a woman who has been raped is submitted to an inquisition as the people in her life, the courts, and the rapist himself seek desperately to find some way to deny the reality that this man has become a "rapist" - a monster.

Ignoring the issue: Along this same logic train is the concept that a man is not a rapist when he sexually assaults a woman through unwanted groping, has sex with her when she is drunk, has known or suspected that she likes rough sex, is married to her, or is related to her. Because we are so afraid of the term rapist, and what it has come to mean, we avoid accusations of that sort until the line has been drastically and irrevocably crossed. Yet profiles of rapists show that rapists do not wake up one morning with a switch flicked on in their heads. They start small. By the time that line has been crossed they have been dancing along it, usually for years, while his community deliberately ignores the inapropriate behavior for fear of accidentally causing stigma for the poor darling. In fact, these are the moment where he needs intervention, help, and a strong message that he cannot get away with this behavior.

Fyyr perhaps you are not arguing that there is no social dimension, but only that there is also an intrinsic natural one too? I am interested in hearing your conclusions if you are.

Another thing that would be interesting would be hearing from a man who has been accused of rape (falsely or not) or who knows he has pushed that line or walked up to it. The statistics show that approximately 1/5 men has done something that is technically sexual assault. Lets hear their points of view.

I think that there is a class of crimes committed against people where it is, or has been, almost excused or overlooked by in our society. Whether you're a gay guy getting beaten up for looking effiminate, a black person getting lynched by the KKK or a woman being over powered and raped against her will, it was all the same kind of crime, one the criminal could get away with it by blaming the victim or that simply went unpunished because the victims of these crimes had no power in society.

In the middle east where they rape the daughters or sisters of men to get revenge on them. Or women are raped and then later put to death because they're no longer marriagable.

I get the feeling I'm hearing some of you guys justify rape as just being the equivalent of getting mugged. I wonder if you'd feel that way if you were raped or if your wife, mother, sister or girl friend were.

Look how Tinsi completely misread, and then went completely hysterical on the subject. Even if, IF, I had meant that she should get raped(which I did not do),

I'm not the one misreading. I didn't read your statement about how I "should know" as "omg go get raped already", but somehow you got the idea that I did. As I've said before - I read it as a downright arrogant statement about how I, because I am a woman, should be able to hypothesize to the point of knowing for a fact, how rape effects women. I read it as you making such a statement in a down-the-nose way, with absolutely know idea wether or not I actually already DO know how it feels, and as such definitely do not need some guy coming on a message board and patronizingly telling me that whatever factual knowledge I might have on the issue is wrong, that he is right, and that I "should" know this.

Of course it's an emotional issue, I said this in about 10 different ways in my first post, but you saw fit to tell me I was wrong. Glad you've changed your mind.

The statistics show that approximately 1/5 men has done something that is technically sexual assault. Lets hear their points of view.I'd like to see those alleged statistics, and how they define "sexual assault". If it exists, I'll bet it's a U.S.-based study, because, as some of you non-Americans may not realize, here in the U.S., even briefly touching a woman on the butt or breasts (through clothing) is considered a "sexual assault". Not to mention, telling a female coworker that she looks nice could be grounds for a multi-million dollar lawsuit, or hugging a child with your hand anywhere near the groin region can label you as a "child molester".

I'd like to see those alleged statistics, and how they define "sexual assault". If it exists, I'll bet it's a U.S.-based study, because, as some of you non-Americans may not realize, here in the U.S., even briefly touching a woman on the butt or breasts (through clothing) is considered a "sexual assault". Not to mention, telling a female coworker that she looks nice could be grounds for a multi-million dollar lawsuit, or hugging a child with your hand anywhere near the groin region can label you as a "child molester".Hm... I'll have to re-read what Silxie posted. Coulda SWORN the word used was "assault", not "harrassment". Or... could Tumadorf be... exaggerating!?!!

"It" being a reference to rape

There is the confusion. It.

You are not separating the actual act of coitus(non-consensual), and the impact of the crime on the victim, the emotions and feelings by the victim attached to the crime, and the repercussions on the victim of the crime. I am separating them. Women HAVE to somehow, separate them that is.

I assumed incorrectly, that I had separated them in the previous posts.

OK, I've re-read it and if your claim is that by this you aren't telling me what I "should" know about what rape is about, then you've got to work on your formulating-sentences-skills. Because that's exactly and precisely and most pointedly what you are saying.
It is obvious that my 'formulating sentence skills' are lacking here. Because, no, it is not what I was saying. But fair enough. Would you like to explain it then?

1) Women have sex, and like sex. Women have sex all the time.
2) Women do not consent to hundreds of thousands of other things other than sex
3) But none of those other non-consented things, crimes are as much as an affront as un-consented sex is

Why is that?
Explain it without an analogy. Or at least do not use a bad one.

Oh **** it, it's obvious you're just out to be an ass here.
If you do not want to talk about this issue rationally and logically, fine with me. You really are just proving my point.

Such an utterly tasteless topic to troll about too. Shame on you.
Just because you can not control your emotionalism, does not mean that others can not.

Silxie, this is one of the reason why you have to enter discussions like this slowly. Tempers flare.

On one extreme you have many guys who think that rape is akin to fishing without a license, and on the other hand others who think that it akin to the Holocaust. Why is there such a divide?

Explain it yourself. You posted it. You answer it. You know that women have control of their own bodies.

Of course, women have control over their own bodies.

But why is that so important to women; if you read the posts, it is at the cost of their lives. They WOULD rather die, than be raped or raped again. That means it is important.

Does that make sense to you?

Is not giving consent, really that big of a deal?
See, I see an inconsistency here.


Consensual sex is not horrible.
Non-consensual sex is horrible.
They will die before they will have non-consensual sex again.

Does that add up to you?
For every other crime, this side of torture, I can not think of where the felt loss is that disproportionate. Not based on the factors that you will hear to explain it.

You do not have consent over you body on hundreds of thousands of things, why is this SO different. I don't think that 'control over their own bodies' even begins to remotely explain the loss with this crime.

What does 'control over their own bodies' actually mean for a woman? I mean REALLY. Dig at it. It is different. I looks different, it smells different. Look at it. When you do, you can try and explain it.

Socialization, yup, it plays a big part. Conditioning has made it so that we should not discuss this topic. Condition sympathetic men to kow tow, and or run and hide. "Yup honey, you are right, I will shut up". That is socialized. Call those on your side, rapists.

What good does that do?

You are not separating the actual act of coitus(non-consensual), and the impact of the crime on the victim, the emotions and feelings by the victim attached to the crime, and the repercussions on the victim of the crime. I am separating them. Women HAVE to somehow, separate them that is.

I assumed incorrectly, that I had separated them in the previous posts.

It is still totally unclear which of the things you're actually addressing. Since you're telling me that I am "Fundamentally wrong" when I describe the impact on the victim, I would assume that is the part you're talking about, otherwise you'd have no reason to address me. And even if you aren't, that doesn't lead to giving you a licence to be patronizing. That doesn't make you the keeper of all wisdom and any woman that dares utter her experiences "fundamentally wrong" and obviously lacking in some form because after all - she is a woman - she "should know".

It is obvious that my 'formulating sentence skills' are lacking here. Because, no, it is not what I was saying. But fair enough. Would you like to explain it then?

You want ME to explain what YOU were saying?

1) Women have sex, and like sex. Women have sex all the time.
2) Women do not consent to hundreds of thousands of other things other than sex
3) But none of those other non-consented things, crimes are as much as an affront as un-consented sex is

Why is that?
Explain it without an analogy. Or at least do not use a bad one.

Because rape is not just about lack of consent. Lack of consent isn't even the half of it. I've said this since my first post, but you told me I was "fundamentally wrong". And I'm sure you're going to tell me I'm wrong again, and again you will do it without providing your end-of-the-rainbow magic one-item million-dollar solution(tm).

If you do not want to talk about this issue rationally and logically, fine with me. You really are just proving my point.

Just because you can not control your emotionalism, does not mean that others can not.

Silxie, this is one of the reason why you have to enter discussions like this slowly. Tempers flare.

Stop being so ****ing patronizing. You gave up your right to the King of Rationallity-throne when you made that now infamous comment, and you're giving it up even further by insisting on keeping this tone in your posts. And don't insult your own intelligence by replying "omg what tone?" as if you're too dumb to understand. Tempers doesn't flare because of the subject at hand, they flare because of the totally disgusting attitude (note that it's your attitude that's the problem, not your opinions. Noone really knows what your opinion is, other than what little you've divulged when you've pointed out that others were wrong.)

Grrr, WTB new fuse, this one poped. I'm going to bed.

1) Women have sex, and like sex. Women have sex all the time.
2) Women do not consent to hundreds of thousands of other things other than sex
3) But none of those other non-consented things, crimes are as much as an affront as un-consented sex is

Why is that?

Because women want control of their own bodies and their own lives. Rape removes control (and empowerment) on many, many, different levels. Although a crime like burglary appears straight forward, its victims can also feel a great sense of violation and insecurity going far beyond the physical act.

On one extreme you have many guys who think that rape is akin to fishing without a license, and on the other hand others who think that it akin to the Holocaust. Why is there such a divide?

You seem to be the expert. You tell us. I'm sure the answer will be interesting.

Lack of consent isn't even the half of it



Thank you.

It is not, is it. That other part is MUCH bigger.

But what is that other part?
I've said this since my first post, but you told me I was "fundamentally wrong".
You have not said what the other part is. What is that other part? You know what it is, you feel it. What is it?


And, I apologize if it seems that I am patronizing.

That doesn't make you the keeper of all wisdom and any woman that dares utter her experiences
Of course not. But I said you should know and you got all bent on me. Of course you know. It is in you, you knew it when you were a little girl. You knew it before you mother, or TV, or your teachers, or your friends told you.

I just want you to get it out. I don't think that is patronizing. Socratic, yes; patronizing, no.

You seem to be the expert. You tell us. I'm sure the answer will be interesting.

That, Tinsi, is patronizing.

If I sound like that, I completely apologize.


And Anka,
Although a crime like burglary appears straight forward, its victims can also feel a great sense of violation and insecurity going far beyond the physical act.
So, you are saying that rape is like burglary?

All the women I know.
All the women on this board.
...Say you are wrong.

Because women want control of their own bodies and their own lives. Rape removes control (and empowerment) on many, many, different levels
Are you being obtuse? How can you have empowerment over you own body if you are dead? Women would rather die, or be killed than raped. That is not a control of body issue. It is not an empowerment issue, if you are dead.

That is not at all what I am referring to Tudamorf and you know it.

I am referring to the scum of the earth that kill children after raping them - that's who. Please go ahead and defend those pieces of human waste.

No, what you are referring to is punishing people because they might rape and kill children.

I rather suspect most people who rape and kill a child doesn't see the outside world again.

Fyyr, do you believe that women should have control of their own bodies, or are they just the sexual playthings of any man that is near them?

As soon as you admit that women should have control of their own bodies then you might realise that every piece of drivel you have posted showed no understanding of that fact whatsoever.

Every person should have control of their own body. Sex is irrelevant. The right a person has to not be raped is identical to the right a person has not to be beaten with a baseball bat at a baseball game. Yet, women would have rape be a more serious crime.

Social acceptance: I do insist on some complicity for men who don't think it is really such a bad thing to have sex with a women who is too drunk to give informed consent, and feel that the annoyance of having to listen to constant precautions in college (where 1/4 of women experience rape) is not worth the possibility that those precautions might save a woman from the experience.

How about this? Instead of telling me I'm going to be a rapist, you tell the women not to get so drunk they are going to sleep with someone they don't want to. I have zero sympathy for someone who gets so inebriated they wake up in bed with someone they didn't want to sleep with. Hell, I've done it before. Got drunk, woke up in bed the next morning with a fugly bitch. I didn't accuse her of rape. She didn't force me to have sex with her. I was too damned drunk to realize I was making a mistake. It was my own damned fault.

These are the men who implicitly send the message that it isn't such a terrible thing, and who would like to see it downplayed

Its not a terrible thing. Got drunk, did something stupid, in hindsight. Guess what, sex isn't that huge of a deal.

It is clear that a woman surrounded by people with similar attitudes is less likely to resist, less likely to report, and more likely to be raped.

Maybe the women in that example don't consider it rape?

On the other hand, a woman who has been raped is submitted to an inquisition as the people in her life, the courts, and the rapist himself seek desperately to find some way to deny the reality that this man has become a "rapist" - a monster.

Or to prove that, indeed, the man wasn't a rapist...oh wait, of course, in rape cases the man is presumed guilty by society /eyeroll. Because women would never ever lie about something like that...right Kobe?

Ignoring the issue: Along this same logic train is the concept that a man is not a rapist when he sexually assaults a woman through unwanted groping, has sex with her when she is drunk, has known or suspected that she likes rough sex, is married to her

Groping is not rape. Having sex with her when she is drunk is not rape. Having rough sex with someone is not rape. Having sex with your wife is absolutely not rape.

None of those is rape. None of those should even be close to being rape. The suggestion that they are rape is downright frightening.

Yet profiles of rapists show that rapists do not wake up one morning with a switch flicked on in their heads. They start small.

So, if I like tying up my partner and spanking her, I'm a potential rapist? Sure, lady.../eyeroll.


The statistics show that approximately 1/5 men has done something that is technically sexual assault. Lets hear their points of view.

This simple tells me that we need to redefine sexual assault if 20% of men have technically committed it.

For every other crime, this side of torture, I can not think of where the felt loss is that disproportionate

You finally got it right on that quote. It IS a form of torture, and for the same reasons. During the act, there is no way out, nothing to do but suffer. After the act, it affects every single relationship the victim has. Everyone from their immediate family to their spouses to their coworkers...they all become threats. It continues to torture the person long after the event has occured. It can stunt a person's ability to interact with society and can cause massive psychological damage.

It is as bad as torture.

women would have rape be a more serious crime.

Yes, I would have it be a more serious crime. Until you have survived a rape, you will probably not ever understand why. I have been assaulted (no rape). I have been raped. I can tell you from firsthand experience that the assault was not nearly as damaging to my life as the rape.

It has been 35 years since the first rape. It has been 17 years since the second rape. It has been 10 years since I was last assaulted. The rapes still affect me more than the assault, even though the assault was more recent. Experience them both, then you can speak to whether one is worse than the other.

Hm... I'll have to re-read what Silxie posted. Coulda SWORN the word used was "assault", not "harrassment". Or... could Tumadorf be... exaggerating!?!!

No, he really isn't.

If you get drunk at a frat party and whip it out at a female, you've sexually assaulted her. Its ridiculous.

There was a case of a man in Texas about a decade ago, he was an immigrant from pakistan or india or some such. He had his baby taken away from him because he was holding the baby in that undersling way with his hand on the baby's crotch (something which, evidently, is a very common way of holding a baby where he is from). Myself, I'd have shot the social workers.

You finally got it right on that quote. It IS a form of torture, and for the same reasons. During the act, there is no way out, nothing to do but suffer. After the act, it affects every single relationship the victim has. Everyone from their immediate family to their spouses to their coworkers...they all become threats. It continues to torture the person long after the event has occured. It can stunt a person's ability to interact with society and can cause massive psychological damage.

It is as bad as torture.



Yes, I would have it be a more serious crime. Until you have survived a rape, you will probably not ever understand why. I have been assaulted (no rape). I have been raped. I can tell you from firsthand experience that the assault was not nearly as damaging to my life as the rape.

It has been 35 years since the first rape. It has been 17 years since the second rape. It has been 10 years since I was last assaulted. The rapes still affect me more than the assault, even though the assault was more recent. Experience them both, then you can speak to whether one is worse than the other.


I'm sorry, but if a group of men came up to me and said "You have a choice, we can have anal sex with you, or we can beat you until you a bloody broken mess", I won't have to think about that one.

Someone explain to me why rape is worse than real assault, I'll start listening. But if you ask ...you're a bad man just for asking. As if its supposed to be assumed that rape is worse.

I rather suspect that when America gets over its prudish attitudes about sex...the "effects" of rape will be much reduced. Across the board Americans make a huge deal about sex, something that doesn't deserve half the import we place upon it.

Groping is not rape. Having sex with her when she is drunk is not rape. Having rough sex with someone is not rape. Having sex with your wife is absolutely not rape.

None of those is rape. None of those should even be close to being rape. The suggestion that they are rape is downright frightening.



The suggestion that they cannot be rape ever is what I find frightening. I purposely put a range of slippery slope/shades of grey cases there Aidon. What I perhaps should have said in more clear terms was that I was assuming NON CONSENT. But I chose the examples from cases I encountered while working in the jail.

Rapist #1 had 8 counts of sexual assault previous to finally raping (forced intercourse) a woman. Those counts involved pinning women to walls and groping them (inserting his hands into their vaginas) in a bus station bathrooms. Still not rape?

Rapist #2 was convicted on one count but aquitted on another because his lawyer was able to show that in previous relationships with other men, the woman had enjoyed rough sex. The argument was that he knew of her preference and thus had good reason to be rough with her and not to believe her when she said no. He did get off on that count. Like with a prostitute, somehow her sexual history made it "impossible" for her to be raped. Do you agree with the aquital?

Rapist #3 had 8 complaints filed against him. His pleasure was in finding girls passed out at parties, dragging them into bedrooms or bathrooms and raping them while they were unconscious. There was no "oops why the hell did I sleep with this man?" They were unconscious. In three of those cases, there was also literally a room full of witnesses. Crown decided not to prosecute because the women were drunk at the time, and thus a conviction was unlikely. He finally ended up in jail after raping the bridesmaid on the night before his wedding. She was sober, and was able to attain a conviction. Still not a rapist?

Rapist #4 was in jail for hospitalising his wife. He was a domestic rapist whose way of controlling his wife was through rape. It was his sincere belief that it was impossible to rape his wife because, by marrying him, she had given him control and consent. She had tried to get away from him and to get her daughter away from him on several occasions, spent time in a shelter, and been to the police and filed three complaints. The police had several domestic abuse complaints against him phoned in by neighbours who had gotten tired of listening to her screaming and begging him not to rape her. Ok in your books Aidon?

Rapist #5 was in jail for raping his step-daughter, repeatedly throughout her childhood. She waited until she was an adult to file charges, at which point she was essentially disowned by her two brothers (his children) and mother for breaking up their family. He maintained that since the age of four she had been teasing him and leading him on, and felt that as her father figure, she was in essence his property. You didn't touch that one, so I will assume that isn't a belief you share, but 4/5 isn't bad.

I actually do agree with one of your points Aidon. Society is hysterical about this. We need to tone down the hysteria somehow so that people who are begining to behave in an inappropriate manner can be confronted without the black and white, or degree of defensiveness or witch hunt that can go on.

Are you a potential rapist just because you are a man? If you aren't then why shouldn't a woman get drunk around you quite safely? Why warn her that it might not be a good idea? If we presume that all men are surely innocent of any sexual misconduct, then it is all good, the problem doesn't exist.. right?

The testimonials of women right here show that the problem does exist, and that it is not rare, and that it is an emotional issue with long term impacts on the victim. We still haven't heard from any of the men who have had unconsentual sex yet. Anyone brave enough to step forward and explain their point of view? Maybe if we call it something else you will be braver. How about men who are willing to talk about times that they have used force to persuade a woman to have a sexual experience with them? Honestly, until we hear both sides, we dont have a complete picture. Listening to the other point of view is very very difficult, but without it we are still half blind.

We still haven't heard from any of the men who have had unconsentual sex yet.

Great point.

Rapist #1 had 8 counts of sexual assault previous to finally raping (forced intercourse) a woman. Those counts involved pinning women to walls and groping them (inserting his hands into their vaginas) in a bus station bathrooms. Still not rape?

I would put any sort of insertion as something beyond groping. And so would the average person. Even so, rape? No. Its assault, fairly minor assault at that, depending on the actual physical harm.

Rapist #2 was convicted on one count but aquitted on another because his lawyer was able to show that in previous relationships with other men, the woman had enjoyed rough sex. The argument was that he knew of her preference and thus had good reason to be rough with her and not to believe her when she said no. He did get off on that count. Like with a prostitute, somehow her sexual history made it "impossible" for her to be raped. Do you agree with the aquital?

Yes, actually, I do. I'm sorry, but depending on the sexual "circle" a person frequents, no doesn't always mean no. I know quite a few women who enjoy rough sex and roleplaying rape fantasies. If it was proven the woman involved enjoyed these things and the accused was aware, it ultimately becomes a "he said, she said" situation. How is a man supposed to know if a woman is really saying no, or just playing out a fantasy both participants are fully aware she has (don't get into the entire "safe word" bull***** I know plenty of people who won't use one because it takes the "thrill" out of the senario).

Rapist #3 had 8 complaints filed against him. His pleasure was in finding girls passed out at parties, dragging them into bedrooms or bathrooms and raping them while they were unconscious. There was no "oops why the hell did I sleep with this man?" They were unconscious

Then we're speaking of two different things. If you can't give consent, because you are unconscious, there is no consent. However, in colleges in Ohio, men are taught that if they sleep with a girl who's had even one drink, they are breaking the law and rapists because an inebriated person can't truly give consent. Is that rape? /smirk.


Rapist #4 was in jail for hospitalising his wife. He was a domestic rapist whose way of controlling his wife was through rape. It was his sincere belief that it was impossible to rape his wife because, by marrying him, she had given him control and consent. She had tried to get away from him and to get her daughter away from him on several occasions, spent time in a shelter, and been to the police and filed three complaints. The police had several domestic abuse complaints against him phoned in by neighbours who had gotten tired of listening to her screaming and begging him not to rape her. Ok in your books Aidon?

That's domestic abuse, considering he hospitalised her. However, part of marriage is the agreement to sex. Its not ok, but not because of "rape" because he was abusing her. Again, its an assault.

Rapist #5 was in jail for raping his step-daughter, repeatedly throughout her childhood. She waited until she was an adult to file charges, at which point she was essentially disowned by her two brothers (his children) and mother for breaking up their family. He maintained that since the age of four she had been teasing him and leading him on, and felt that as her father figure, she was in essence his property. You didn't touch that one, so I will assume that isn't a belief you share, but 4/5 isn't bad.

Children can't consent to sex, by our legal standards.


Are you a potential rapist just because you are a man? If you aren't then why shouldn't a woman get drunk around you quite safely? Why warn her that it might not be a good idea? If we presume that all men are surely innocent of any sexual misconduct, then it is all good, the problem doesn't exist.. right?

How is it ok to warn women that men are potential rapists, when its blatantly not ok to warn people that blacks or italians or new yorkers are all potential criminals who may assault them? Well, I know how. Its perfectly ok to be sexist against men...after all we're all pigs /eyeroll.

The testimonials of women right here show that the problem does exist, and that it is not rare, and that it is an emotional issue with long term impacts on the victim.

Noone yet has explained why the emotional repurcussions for rape are greater than an equivelently violent non-sexual assault.

We still haven't heard from any of the men who have had unconsentual sex yet. Anyone brave enough to step forward and explain their point of view? Maybe if we call it something else you will be braver. How about men who are willing to talk about times that they have used force to persuade a woman to have a sexual experience with them? Honestly, until we hear both sides, we dont have a complete picture. Listening to the other point of view is very very difficult, but without it we are still half blind.

Maybe because, ultimately, the vast majority of men are not potential rapists and don't engage in non-consentual sex?

Personally, I have had sex with one gal who was drunk, and expressed regret (well more like disgust) the next day when she realized she'd slept with me (she identified herself as a lesbian and was an alcoholic...and well, between the two of us alot of 151 had been inbibed). Yes, she was conscious, yes she was an active and willing participant that night (she, like myself, was into BDSM, she knew I was into it, and she initiated the encounter). She tried suggesting to mutual friends that I had done something wrong (even asking one girl if she should press charges). Evidently, in her mind, I shouldn't have slept with her, even if she wanted to, because I knew she was a lesbian and an alcoholic. Hell, I even knew she had self-esteem problems which, probably, were at the root of her submissive desires. I still don't feel bad. I've got my own problems, her life issues ain't my concern. She was a grown up girl.

Criminal offenses are not there for women to use because they woke up with someone they regret sleeping with.

As an aside, most of our friends told her she was in the wrong. One couple left because it become...obvious we were going to do naughty things.

If I sound like that, I completely apologize.

You sound worse*. In your mind you might sound all socratic, and maybe you do in which case socrates must have been one hell of an annoying man to be around. Stop answering questions with questions and start saying what you mean.

*disclaimer: That is probably because I understand why Anka is asking what she is asking, and share at least some of her reasons. She's fed up with your lack of responses just like I am, and she is trying to provoke you into actually saying something, stand for something, mean something, instead of tossing out long lists of "why is it that"-questions and "you've known this forever"-statements.

So here's your chance. Tell us what it is we've known since we were young girls. Answer each of your questions in your long list of "why"-questions. Be a man - have an opinion and dare to share it and stand for it, and dare be humble enough to realize that when it comes to how OTHER people feel, the best you can do is guesstimate, whilst they know for a fact.

That's domestic abuse, considering he hospitalised her. However, part of marriage is the agreement to sex. Its not ok, but not because of "rape" because he was abusing her. Again, its an assault.

Uhm - did you just say that it's technically impossible to be exposed to "forceful, non-consentual sex" by your husband?

Tinsi, you said...
I'm not sure i'm reading you right, but it seems you're saying that because consent isn't there to do something that she sometimes consents to, that in itself makes it so horrible?
...
Rape is about so much more than that. It's about the stigma society still places on women who have sex.

And then you said this..
Uhm - did you just say that it's technically impossible to be exposed to "forceful, non-consentual sex" by your husband?
That it is inconsistent.

You say that more than half of the horror is not about consent, and
If the horror that you feel is social stigma...
But we all know there is NO social stigma with a woman having sex with her husband.

That is illogical.
To an untrained male that makes no sense.

Fyyr, I don't know if you are understanding where the stigma comes from. Imagine trying to tell someone about what is happening to you and having them say, "oh well, you asked for it by getting married, he is within his rights." What an utterly helpless and demeaned position! No wonder reluctant brides used to jump off towers so often. I didn't read Tinsi as saying "it wouldn't rip my soul in half if there was no stigma attached" it would still rip our souls in half, we just wouldn't have to be attacked while we tried to heal.

Aidon, you say you travel in circles where drinking, a little bondage, rape fantasy enactments, and other blurrings of that line are acceptable and not unusual. In that environment, things happen that might be technically sexual assult but which are still happening in a general atmosphere of consent. (the word rape is not a legal charge as far as I know, but a moral one)

It seems marriage, in your view, is another situation where consent is assumed in a general way, so that anyone who enters into that situation is somehow giving up that right and responsibility to give consent or deny it from moment to moment.

I would guess a stag party would be another, as would a frat party, where if you are there, you have implicitly consented to at least minor cases of sexual assault, and further, accepted some shared responsibility for any major cases that occure.

Am I understanding you right?

In that case, the way for women to avoid being raped is to avoid those areas and institutions that are "consent zones." Marriage, parties, BSDM communities, where else? Does working at a strip club imply blanket consent? The message to women should not be "Every man is a potential rapist" but rather, "Even an ordinary guy can become a rapist given these situations, so unless you want this done to you must avoid the following situations..."

Thanks for posting your experience. It certainly explains some of your take on the issue. It sounds like in that situation you were playing with the "line" a bit and almost got burned. It sounds like from her reaction she felt like she almost did too. It seems the threat goes both ways... "Even an ordinary woman can press charges. If you want to avoid being known as a rapist, you must avoid the following situations..."

But then, some men have rape fantasies, and might want to be known as rapists. Right? Errr...


One thing that happened right with your situation is that the friends intervened, reflected back to her a version of events that didn't make you a criminal. From what little you have said, it sounds like she handled it well, talking to friends to get some help finding perspective. Maybe, in the future, they will also unpeel her off "a drunkguy01" before she makes the mistake, and remind her how she will feel in the morning, right before they take away her car keys and call her a cab.

I doubt she could have gotten a conviction, but had things mushroomed, you might have found women watching themselves around you, a little less willing to put trust in you. But then, after checking out the list of things you didn't think were wrong, I probably would be wary of you too, just because your "consent bubbles" are a bit too encompassing for my taste. But I hear you that you didn't feel like the agressor - you felt you were firmly within the zone of consent.

No doubt an honest, refreshing talk about boundaries and consent BEFORE adding alcohol could save a lot of grief. No blurred lines, no false accusations, no witch hunts, no rape. But I maintain that the other side of the coin to the "she asked for it" argument is right back atcha "you knew she was an alcoholic, you knew she had submission/dominance patterns but didn't use safe words, you knew she was unstable, and you knew she was easy while drunk.. "you asked for it."

There are people who I kick myself for getting intimate with years later. What WAS I thinking??? But I know the difference between stupid mistakes and rape. While I think women need to be careful not to cry wolf, because that ultimately undermines women's credibility who have experienced an extreme violation, I absolutely believe that any sexual experience that you feel violated by be something you can talk about with people, get support about, get out in the open and make sure your feelings about it are heard by the man involved. And in most cases, that is where it should end.

No witch hunt. No trials. No stupid self-justifications and excuses about why it can't be called rape. Clear, strong communication that sets healthy boundaries... and teaches both parties a bit about negotiating the consent bubble more effectively. Because like it or not, when the walls of that bubble are breached things will get ugly, and if it keeps happening, one or both of the people involved will eventually end up paying a lifetime price.

That it is inconsistent.

Only if you live under the misconseption that it has to be about all the things to every woman all the time.

Can I interpret you answer to mean "yes, I mean it's impossible to be raped by your husband", Fyyr? Or are you yet again just posting without actually offering an opinion, only picking at others'?

Uhm - did you just say that it's technically impossible to be exposed to "forceful, non-consentual sex" by your husband?

I'm saying it shouldn't be an issue because the wife should be putting out. Call it old fashioned, but it is part of her duties (and vice versa..).

So, yeah, to be blunt (and its going to piss some women off), if a woman is being raped by her husband, its her own damned fault. Put out, or move out.

Let me see if I can do this a different way.

This is how I think most women would feel in your situation in this discussion right now.

You feel that rape is horrible.
More horrible than virtually any other crime.
You can't explain exactly why it is so horrible.
You really don't have words for it(nor do you think you need them).
You would rather slit your own throat than be raped.
And, you are completely baffled that I can not understand why.
You feel completely baffled that I am even trying to discuss this with you.
You feel that I should already know all this.
You are frustrated with me persisting, there are no words.
You feel it is unimaginable(heinous) that any male would even consider circumstances when rape would be ok.
You feel I should be more respectful.
You feel like you are wasting your time discussing this with me.
You feel that I should already know why rape is so horrible to women.
You feel that by me even discussing this topic, you question my ability to be a father.(any male who would ask these questions should not breed).
You may even feel that because I don't know, that I should be castrated.(that thought has crossed your mind, hasn't it?).
If you knew me in real life(perhaps a friend or associate), you may even require of me some task or hardship in order to get back in your favor(if that is even possible).

Can I interpret you answer to mean "yes, I mean it's impossible to be raped by your husband", Fyyr? Or are you yet again just posting without actually offering an opinion, only picking at others'?

Of course it is possible for women to be raped by their husbands, husbands can and do rape their wives.
I see why too. Not why they rape their wives. I already knew that.

I mean, why women can think that sex with their husbands can be rape. And there does not have to be force, or getting all Burning Bed, Deliverance, or Shawshank about it either.

I see why many men think that it is impossible.
And I know why women think that is monstrous.
I am sure of it.

I'm saying it shouldn't be an issue because the wife should be putting out. Call it old fashioned, but it is part of her duties (and vice versa..).

So, yeah, to be blunt (and its going to piss some women off), if a woman is being raped by her husband, its her own damned fault. Put out, or move out.

Old fashioned? That's a term that implies something solid, something down-to-earth and back-to-basics. Your attitude, however, although it's "old" has none of these caracteristics. It's plain scary and frankly - if you get married and practice such beliefs, you're going to ruin not only her life but yours too. And if you've got kids, theirs as well.

So many lives ruined, just because you couldn't take "no" for an answer. Talk about dillusions of grandure. You are not the (sexual) boss of your wife, nor is she of you. If you don't really want to have sex, you just have an urge to come - jerk off. If you absolutely have to stick in in a hole - get a ****ing blow up doll. But if you are going to have sex with a live person, you better make damned sure that person isn't opposed to the idea. Sex should really be a word that only exists in plural, so people would understand that if one person doesn't agree to it, it isn't intercourse - it's rape.

I pity you if you feel that one of your duties as a husband includes being thrown (and not in a playful way) onto the bed, having your clothes ripped off, being told that she doesn't give a rats ass that you've had one too many and can't really function - cause she's got this neat penis-pump that'll do the job just nicely. You'll get tied up if you try to object, have the pump attached to your penis without her really giving a **** if it hurts when she fastens it or when her knee hits you in the balls for trying to tell her that you're rather uncomfortable. When the pump is fastened and your dick properly blown up, she'll get on top of you and bend her back so much that it feels like your penis is going to break, and if you dare wimper about it, you'll be told to shut up and put out. And once she's done, she'll tell you to go down on her till she comes again.

And if you complain about it, you're told that it's your own bloody fault for not putting up in the first place, as is your duty. And if you are brave enough to take your broken and beaten penis to the emergency room, you'll get all those nice "You asked for it, you should't have had those last drinks, then you'd be able to perform without assistance"-looks. And if you dare tell anyone else, you'll forever be less of a man to them, you can see it in their eyes every time you meet. Aidon - who can't get it up.

And then you get to go home and do it again. What a wonderful marriage.

Fyyr, I don't know if you are understanding where the stigma comes from. Imagine trying to tell someone about what is happening to you and having them say, "oh well, you asked for it by getting married, he is within his rights." What an utterly helpless and demeaned position! No wonder reluctant brides used to jump off towers so often. I didn't read Tinsi as saying "it wouldn't rip my soul in half if there was no stigma attached" it would still rip our souls in half, we just wouldn't have to be attacked while we tried to heal.

Stigma means shame. A mark.

A woman who is married, and has non-consensual(or consensual) sex with her husband carries NO stigma. No one is going to think less of a woman because she has sex with her husband, that is what stigma means.

Ripped souls do not come from that.

It is not stigma. It is not consent. It is bigger. Deeper. You did not learn it. No one taught it to you. The ripped soul part.

Of course it is possible for women to be raped by their husbands, husbands can and do rape their wives.
I see why too. Not why they rape their wives. I already knew that.

I mean, why women can think that sex with their husbands can be rape. And there does not have to be force, or getting all Burning Bed, Deliverance, or Shawshank about it either.

I see why many men think that it is impossible.
And I know why women think that is monstrous.
I am sure of it.

Watch it, Fyyr, you almost offered an opinion there. Glad to see you caught yourself at the end.

So you're agreeing that it's technically possible to be raped by your spouse. Previously, you agreed that how society handles this issue -is- a factor. So what on earth made you feel the urge to make the post claiming inconsistency? It's not like you disagree with any of it.

Read post 99.

Tell me how far off I am.


I did not learn any of that.
No one taught me any of that.


Am I close?

And again you dodge actually answering the question, so I will ask again:
Why did you make the post about inconsistency if you agree on both the premises you take out and measure up against one another?

One more feeling.

Betrayal, just by me discussing this, you feel that I have betrayed you.

And again you dodge actually answering the question, so I will ask again:
Why did you make the post about inconsistency if you agree on both the premises you take out and measure up against one another?

I am not dodging it.
I am working towards it.
I am charging right for it.

Why the apparent inconsistency adds up and is completely logical.

But you don't trust me anymore.
You feel I have betrayed your trust, even though I am on your side.

Aidon, you say you travel in circles where drinking, a little bondage, rape fantasy enactments, and other blurrings of that line are acceptable and not unusual. In that environment, things happen that might be technically sexual assult but which are still happening in a general atmosphere of consent. (the word rape is not a legal charge as far as I know, but a moral one)

It seems marriage, in your view, is another situation where consent is assumed in a general way, so that anyone who enters into that situation is somehow giving up that right and responsibility to give consent or deny it from moment to moment.

I would guess a stag party would be another, as would a frat party, where if you are there, you have implicitly consented to at least minor cases of sexual assault, and further, accepted some shared responsibility for any major cases that occure.

Am I understanding you right?

There are situations a woman must think about before participating. If a woman is going to get offended at men ogling her, she shouldn't wear short skirts at a singles bar. If a woman is going to feel uncomfortable fending off drunk frat boys trying to paw at her...don't go to the frat party. For instance, I've been into a few gay bars with friends...I expect to be hit on, and even expect to have some guy make innappropriate contact with me. While I'd rather prefer such things didn't happen...I certainly don't get bent out of shape when they do. If its going to piss me off that much, I simply shouldn't place myself into that situation.

In that case, the way for women to avoid being raped is to avoid those areas and institutions that are "consent zones." Marriage, parties, BSDM communities, where else?

To some degree, yes. If you're stupid enough to get drunk enough to pass out at some party, you're partially responsible for what happens to you. That's not to say its right and good to go having sex with passed out women..but yes, the girl was ****ing dumb.

Does working at a strip club imply blanket consent?

No, the large burly men standing there in order to keep you from molesting the dancers are a rather obvious sign that there is no implied consent.

The message to women should not be "Every man is a potential rapist" but rather, "Even an ordinary guy can become a rapist given these situations, so unless you want this done to you must avoid the following situations..."

No, its more that certain situations may lend themselves towards activities which may make a person uncomfortable. And really, most things defined as sexual assault, now days, are simply an uncomfortable situation. Out and out rape is wrong, yes. But no more wrong than an assault of corresponding violence.

Thanks for posting your experience. It certainly explains some of your take on the issue. It sounds like in that situation you were playing with the "line" a bit and almost got burned.

No, actually, I was nowhere near the line. Not once did she say no or to stop. Its only playing with the line in some warped feministic sense where men have to have the woman fill out a written consent form in triplicate.

What it does show is that our society has made young women so fretful over the possibility that they maybe could have possibly not consented, that they seem to think men should be able to read their minds...(of course then women get upset because a man isn't being forceful enough, or a "wimp").


It sounds like from her reaction she felt like she almost did too. It seems the threat goes both ways... "Even an ordinary woman can press charges. If you want to avoid being known as a rapist, you must avoid the following situations..."

You are correct..and as a result, I generally mistrust women until they prove themselves trustworthy, because feminists seem to have no problem painting everything as the man's fault, regardless if the man did anything that could conceivably be determined as wrong. Women have done a fine job of removing any sort of responsibility for a woman's actions.

But then, some men have rape fantasies, and might want to be known as rapists. Right? Errr...

Yes, some men have rape fantasies, just like some women do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Don't propose mind control. Fantasies are not illegal, nor should they ever be.


One thing that happened right with your situation is that the friends intervened, reflected back to her a version of events that didn't make you a criminal.

No version of the events made me a criminal. Its depressing that female society has made the situation that a person could imagine it so in any way. The consent was there. You cannot withdraw consent after you're done, "Oh, in hindsight, I didn't want to sleep with you, so I guess I didn't actually consent".

From what little you have said, it sounds like she handled it well

I hardly call blaming me for her inebriation, indescretion, and regrets as handling it well.


I doubt she could have gotten a conviction

No, I would have probably put a bullet in her head first...precisely because of:

but had things mushroomed, you might have found women watching themselves around you, a little less willing to put trust in you.

Because the man is always presumed to be guilty, regardless of whether there was guilt. A charge of rape is a life destroyer, you're going to have to move and you probably should change your name as well. I'm sure I would have been kicked out of school. No matter if I actually was guilty or not.

No doubt an honest, refreshing talk about boundaries and consent BEFORE adding alcohol could save a lot of grief. No blurred lines, no false accusations, no witch hunts, no rape. But I maintain that the other side of the coin to the "she asked for it" argument is right back atcha "you knew she was an alcoholic, you knew she had submission/dominance patterns but didn't use safe words, you knew she was unstable, and you knew she was easy while drunk.. "you asked for it."

Not really, as I said, she identifies herself as a lesbian. As far as I know I was the first man she'd slept with. I certainly didn't go into the evening anticipating sleeping with her (she probably didn't either), and was rather surprised when it happened. I understand exactly why she did it...it has to do with her humiliation fetish, which (for her...but not for everyone) was a direct result of her low self-esteem. None of that removes the fact that she did, indeed, consent.

I am not dodging it.
I am working towards it.
I am charging right for it.

Well, PM me when you get there. I'm done being spoken to like I'm a child. Make your case, state your opinion, back it up with arguments. Once that's done, then we can talk. This "cmon, lill girlie, i know you know the answer - say it out loud and you'll get a cookie"-crap is annoying.

A charge of rape is a life destroyer, you're going to have to move and you probably should change your name as well. I'm sure I would have been kicked out of school. No matter if I actually was guilty or not.

(incoming-turnaround-logic-alert)

Which is (one of) the reason(s) you need to take responsibility for your choices and not put yourself in situations like this. No groping women in bars, no one-night-stands with strangers, no "whee she's a lill tipsy, Imma gonna get some". Avoid frat parties, don't go to single's bars and actually pick someone up, don't stare at legs sticking out beneath short skirts.

If women "should" avoid doing certain things and going certain places, and if she chooses to ignore that and go anyway - she's partially to blame for what happens, then the same goes for men. If you don't want to risk it - don't do it. If you do it anyway - it's partially your fault. Believe it or not, but you -can-, contrary to teenagers' excuses, "control yourself".

Old fashioned? That's a term that implies something solid, something down-to-earth and back-to-basics. Your attitude, however, although it's "old" has none of these caracteristics. It's plain scary and frankly - if you get married and practice such beliefs, you're going to ruin not only her life but yours too. And if you've got kids, theirs as well.

So many lives ruined, just because you couldn't take "no" for an answer. Talk about dillusions of grandure. You are not the (sexual) boss of your wife, nor is she of you. If you don't really want to have sex, you just have an urge to come - jerk off. If you absolutely have to stick in in a hole - get a ****ing blow up doll.

Or a girlfriend on the side? Oh wait, thats horrible too...

But if you are going to have sex with a live person, you better make damned sure that person isn't opposed to the idea. Sex should really be a word that only exists in plural, so people would understand that if one person doesn't agree to it, it isn't intercourse - it's rape.

Bull****. There is implied consent between spouses. Otherwise why the **** get married? Sometimes you're going to have to have sex when you don't feel like it.

I pity you if you feel that one of your duties as a husband includes being thrown (and not in a playful way) onto the bed, having your clothes ripped off, being told that she doesn't give a rats ass that you've had one too many and can't really function - cause she's got this neat penis-pump that'll do the job just nicely. You'll get tied up if you try to object, have the pump attached to your penis without her really giving a **** if it hurts when she fastens it or when her knee hits you in the balls for trying to tell her that you're rather uncomfortable. When the pump is fastened and your dick properly blown up, she'll get on top of you and bend her back so much that it feels like your penis is going to break, and if you dare wimper about it, you'll be told to shut up and put out. And once she's done, she'll tell you to go down on her till she comes again.

And if you complain about it, you're told that it's your own bloody fault for not putting up in the first place, as is your duty. And if you are brave enough to take your broken and beaten penis to the emergency room, you'll get all those nice "You asked for it, you should't have had those last drinks, then you'd be able to perform without assistance"-looks. And if you dare tell anyone else, you'll forever be less of a man to them, you can see it in their eyes every time you meet. Aidon - who can't get it up.

And then you get to go home and do it again. What a wonderful marriage.

What you described is abuse. Which is a seperate issue, or should be. Its an assault...and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be treated more seriously because it involved sex...which is what I've been saying the entire time. Remove the abusive part and really, who gives a flying ****?

Oh nos, while I was passed out my wife got me hard and had sex with me, but I wasn't awake to consent. Or, oh nos, I didn't really want to have sex...but my wife went down on me against my will and got me hard and then had sex with me. Oh cry me a ****ing river.

Bull****. There is implied consent between spouses. Otherwise why the **** get married? Sometimes you're going to have to have sex when you don't feel like it.


That to me, and to anyone with half a brain, sounds like a husband has license to do whatever and whenever he wants to his wife.

What is being posted here by both Aidon and Fyyr is scary - not surprising, but still very scary.

Sorry but you two are ****ed in the head imho.

I think the fact that most women try and create equation for men to understand belies my point. There are no comparable(valid) analogies that you can give...You are proving your initial statements to be true. It's something we ask men to believe without being able to explain why, but explaining is virtually impossible because we speak in different tongues. Fyyr, this is probably where you should have stopped posting to this thread! :DMen and women are wired differently.
Until you understand why, you will never make any real progressThis isn't necessarily true. It appears that just about everyone here understands this. Unfortunately, not all are trying to understand the other's perspective, but rather to argue their own points. It's like being there when someone else is talking, but you don't hear what they are saying because you are so anxious to sense a break in what they are saying so that you* can make your own point.

*Note: "you" in this case is not directed specifically towards any one person

I don't see any males understanding the female side and as a woman that concerns me because we DO feel so strongly about the issue. Several wave their hand and dismiss it completely. Frankly, I don't think Aidon even believes that rape exists in this world. Those who do believe seem to think that once the act is over, the experience is forgotten. The nearest I can come to explaining the long term effects is to say it is a form of torture, albeit mental torture. If you can understand long term effects of mental torture then perhaps you can begin to understand the long term effects of rape to a woman. However, even though everyone can understand physical torture, I doubt that many can honestly comprehend mental torture.

As long as men wave their hands in dismissal and don't REALLY want to understand women's issues we will continue to be second class citizens until more women gain power in our government. Hell! Even the medical community has been lax in dealing with women specific issues. It's still going to take a few more generations for this to all work out.

I'm saying it shouldn't be an issue because the wife should be putting out. Call it old fashioned, but it is part of her duties (and vice versa..).

So a woman loses control of her body when she marries her husband?

I'm sorry, but depending on the sexual "circle" a person frequents, no doesn't always mean no. I know quite a few women who enjoy rough sex and roleplaying rape fantasies. If it was proven the woman involved enjoyed these things and the accused was aware, it ultimately becomes a "he said, she said" situation.

So the woman has permanently lost control of her body once a she has chosen to experience rough sex?

While activities such as BSDM change the ideas of consent, and that is implicit to the experience, the rules of the games do not supercede the rule of law. If the dominant player cannot show that they gained some ongoing consent for the experience then they have taken a risk of prosecution upon themselves for the actions they chose to undertake. Trust goes both ways. I don't want to say much more as discussing the legal status of an activity that deliberately goes outside legal boundaries is fairly pointless, especially on a messageboard.

I think the fact that most women try and create equation for men to understand belies my point. There are no comparable(valid) analogies that you can give...

I tried to give an anology with burglary and you mocked it a little. I'll continue with it although you will probably try to obtusely misunderstand it again.

When people of either sex are burgled they can sometimes feel very violated. It goes far beyond a broken lock and a few missing possessions. A lot of intangible things are lost such as privacy, security, memories, and to some degree identity. These are things that can't be easily replaced or rebuilt. A home is the one place that a person expects control of their own life, and that control and security is shattered by a burglary. That is personal loss which has no $ value.

When you consider rape, you are looking at all the destruction of identity that happens with burglary but it is much, much, worse. It cannot become any more personal, more private, more intrusive, or more degrading. The victims have lost control of their own body, their own identity, their own private self.

Are you finally satisfied with that answer Fyyr or do you actually need to be sexually assaulted to understand anything?

What you described is abuse. Which is a seperate issue, or should be. Its an assault...and should be treated as such. It shouldn't be treated more seriously because it involved sex...which is what I've been saying the entire time. Remove the abusive part and really, who gives a flying ****?

It is, by your own logic - "abuse that's your own damned fault. Put out, or move out". Oh and don't forget that even if you DO move out and DO manage to get your ex jailed, you can't jail everyone else, those conversations that stop when you enter the room, those "there's Aidon who can't get it up"-looks, all those other men that now treat you like you're vastly their inferior because you couldn't even perform - they'll still be there. And so will the memory. Roughing it will be a thing of the past for you, you just will not be able to perform once your new lover playfully shoves you onto the bed and BAM there are those images of what she did in your head and it's bye-bye erection. And that, of course, leads you to thinking even more about the abuse, since that also related to lack of erection. And before you know it you're alone again.

What is being posted here by both Aidon and Fyyr is scary - not surprising, but still very scary.

Sorry but you two are ****ed in the head imho.

Fyyr, although his reasoning (or lack thereof) may seem faulty from a woman's perspective, at least concludes that "rape and molestation is bad". Aidon, I wouldn't ever want to be alone in a room with.

I'm sorry, but if a group of men came up to me and said "You have a choice, we can have anal sex with you, or we can beat you until you a bloody broken mess", I won't have to think about that one.

The problem is the group of men won't give you a choice. The group of men will rape you until you require surgery to repair the damage. They may take turns. The incident may go on for hours. Your choice is to consent to them doing this to you or to die.

If you "consent" (by not fighting back, which, I'm guessing based on your other posts, will mean you did indeed consent) to their actions, then try to take it to court, the first thing people will say is that you didn't fight back. Or that you're homosexual and you asked for it (somehow...I don't know how, but somehow). Your friends will either shun you because they buy into the crap, or become so uncomfortable around you that they won't know what to do. If you have a spouse, there is a good chance the spouse will leave you because the flashbacks are so severe that you become impossible to live with. Even you don't want to live with you anymore. Your family, depending on religious beliefs etc may decide that you are a social pariah. Or they may not know how to act and either abandon you or act as though absolutely nothing happened and pretend everything is fine and refuse to talk with you about it, again, leaving you emotionally abandoned.

So you don't have a choice in being raped. That is the whole point of the rape, to remove control from the victim. And after you've been raped, expect to have zero support from your family, indeed, expect there to be a good chance that your family and friends will shun you. And don't forget the flashbacks. And the fact that you will not be able to trust anyone for decades.

Don't forget that you won't be able to go to a job interview and sit in a room alone with a man without having panic attacks. Or that you won't be able to go out to places where anyone might be able to catch you alone. Or that your fear of it happening again will be so severe that you will become all but a hermit. That you will likely take multiple years of counselling before you can trust someone new. That you won't be able to ride in elevators or use public restrooms or go into any small space where someone might be hiding without having panic attacks.

If you're lucky, with good counselling, maybe 10 years later you might be back to leading some semblence of a normal life again. But something will happen, a newsstory perhaps, or a scene in a film, or even seeing something that was present at the scene of your rape (for me it's Jimi Hendrix pictures) which will trigger it all over again. And you'll be back to sleepless nights and being terrified of unfamiliar places and panic attacks.

Now, instead of what I outlined above. We'll say someone wants your wallet. They beat you to a pulp and steal your wallet. Yes, you will be a bit jittery in public after that. It will take time to heal from the physical wounds. But my family and friends will be able to understand this. They will be supportive. You will not be abandoned.

Someone explain to me why rape is worse than real assault, I'll start listening. But if you ask ...you're a bad man just for asking. As if its supposed to be assumed that rape is worse.

I hope the above might have shed some light on it. However, based on your other posts concerning women and your previous comment in this post about how a husband can't rape his wife (legally he certainly can), I'm going to take a wild guess that you will find some way to discount all that I said above and again make it acceptable to rape someone.

Fyyr, I hope my description above might have shed some light on the issue for you as well, particularly for the reason why I said I would die fighting rather than live through a 3rd rape. I don't have any problems answering questions about what happens psychologically to a woman who's been raped.

One of the major reasons why people have such a difficult time dealing with rape survivors is because they don't understand what's going on. Educating people about what does go on is one way to bring society around and help them to understand.

Not for nothing Jinjre, but all of the reactions you posted above can also be directly paralleled to any one who has lived through any violent trauma. Replace the word "raped" with "held at gunpoint" or "beaten to a bloody pulp with weapon_A" and you'll find people who have the exact same symptoms that you've listed above. They are not unique to rape victims.

Ok, now for my <font color="red"><b>Mod note!</b>

<i>Tensions are getting high in this thread and due to the subject and personal experiences I guess that's rather expected. (Big)<b> However,</b> this does not suddenly make this thread an exception to the forum rules. There's no need for the excessive use of foul language, name calling, or post baiting that's been going on by all parties involved. The OT forum has gotten a lot more "liberal" than the "Unkempt" forum and we've allowed it to go on because of the lively conversations, but please don't make me bring down the hammer (yes, this includes the mods).</i></font>

Not for nothing Jinjre, but all of the reactions you posted above can also be directly paralleled to any one who has lived through any violent trauma. Replace the word "raped" with "held at gunpoint" or "beaten to a bloody pulp with weapon_A" and you'll find people who have the exact same symptoms that you've listed above. They are not unique to rape victims.


The difference, as I have experienced it, and the point I was trying to make is that when someone is assaulted, generally speaking their friends and relatives rally around them and support them. When someone is raped, it is more likely that their friends and relatives will, for whatever reason, emotionally abandon them, rather than support them.

These are my experiences. My father still blames himself for my being raped even though there was absolutely nothing he could have done about it. I doubt he would be carrying that scar if I had just been assaulted without sexual penetration. He also will not talk about it, effectively cutting me off from his support.

In addition to my family (my sister was the only one who was supportive when I told her about it, the rest of the family took several steps back and pretty much stayed there), when dating other men, mentioning that I was raped will result in, shall we say, uncertain results. Some men take it as a sign that raping me is okay, and become aggressive. Some look at me as tainted goods and the relationship pretty much ends there. If it had been a non-sexual assault, I doubt either of those reactions would occur.

That doesn't even begin to cover the issues of intimacy. I was very lucky to have found a man who not only didn't think I was tainted, or think I was now open game, but treated me with respect, some curiosity, support and sensitivity for my past.

I don't know of anyone who was assaulted with any weapon, where the assaulter could get away with, and have others support, his right to assault the victim. Yet with rape, it seems the victim is still to blame.

Aidon believes that it is acceptable to rape his wife. I wonder if he believes it acceptable to beat his wife to a bloody pulp. If rape is nothing more than assault, then by his own logic, it would be acceptable to beat his wife as well.

I think paleontologists are looking in the wrong places for "the missing link". They might find what they're looking for in this message forum.

Wow... I agree with you Pan. I can't believe the men on this board talking about rape... as if they (or I) would ever know what it's like.

While not nearly as common, men also can be raped. They, too, go through the same emotional issues as women, and frequently the emotional abandonment can be greater for men than women. Not to mention the hit to the self-esteem since our society expects men to be able to defend themselves, where women are told to just "do whatever it takes to survive it". There are much fewer resources for male victims to turn to, and males are significantly less likely to report it or try to find ways to emotionally cope that don't involve self-medicating.

I honestly believe that male survivors of rape have it worse in our society than female survivors. It is possible that there is a male on this board who knows what it is like to be raped, it is also most likely that if such a male exists on this board, he would not say anything about it.

A bunch of fairly recent statistics on rape (http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html)

About three percent of American men —- a total of 2.78 million men—have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women 1998.]

In 2003, one in every ten rape victims were male. NCVS 2003]

Totally agree, Jinjre. It's probably not all that uncommon, especially amongst younger men or boys, but the stigma that it carries is far, far worse than for women, IMHO.

Fyyr, this is probably where you should have stopped posting to this thread!

I know that.

When you consider rape, you are looking at all the destruction of identity that happens with burglary but it is much, much, worse. It cannot become any more personal, more private, more intrusive, or more degrading. The victims have lost control of their own body, their own identity, their own private self.

Are you finally satisfied with that answer Fyyr or do you actually need to be sexually assaulted to understand anything?

Interesting post.

Wow... I agree with you Pan. I can't believe the men on this board talking about rape... as if they (or I) would ever know what it's like.

Of course.

I knew that before I posted my first post on the subject in this thread.

There are no words to describe how you actually feel though, am I correct. It is there, but no words have been invented to really describe how you are feeling about this. Am I correct?

And the words that you do find, or read and agree with...They are like a 2 on a scale of 10.

Fyyr, although his reasoning (or lack thereof) may seem faulty from a woman's perspective, at least concludes that "rape and molestation is bad". Aidon, I wouldn't ever want to be alone in a room with.

Excellent point.

If I told you that more men think like Aidon than you can ever know. Would you believe me? Would you believe me than most men who do NOT think that why, have had to be trained. That it is not innate, like it is for you.

My reasoning IS completely illogical from a woman's perspective.
But acknowledging that men and women innately think differently goes against EVERYTHING I was ever taught by society. It says that men and women are innately different, and innately un-equal.(that scares me just saying that, more than saying anything else in this thread does).

To a male, that reasoning(my reasoning) up at the beginning of this thread makes sense. You never have actually explained to the males in this thread what it is.
And your explanations do not make sense to them. The crime does not equal the time, or the feelings-they just don't add up. You think that such a male is a caveman, you think I am a caveman.

That is how we innately think.

1) someone steals a chicken, we take a chicken back from them
2) someone pokes out an eye, we poke out their eye
3) someone murders, death penalty

Those are all plain and clear crimes and punishments. It even looks familiar doesn't it. It is patriarchy.

Rape is different.
You can't explain why. You have not explained why. All the women in this thread KNOW how bad it is. And that there is NO comparison with those crimes listed right there.

I can't quite believe you can make something so simple to understand so complex and incomprehensible, Fyyr. My reasoning IS completely illogical from a woman's perspective. I think your reasoning would probably look pretty illogical even if you have soft dangling bits and were a member of the Testosteroni.

If you can understand how you would feel being overpowered and forced to have sex with someone you didn't want to have sex with, like perhaps another guy, then you've probably got a pretty good understanding of how women feel about rape. If you can't understand that, then you're probably stunted emotionally somehow. Maybe you need to watch Deliverance or Shawshank Redemption again to get it and put yourself in the place of the guy getting raped. I believe a guy would feel much the same way a woman would if that happened to them. Sure there are differences, as Jinjre pointed out earlier, its probably tougher on men.

Ok, assuming you've now just been raped by some guy in cell-block 13-a. What sort of punishment would fit that crime? If you're a guy, you probably would want to kill him. He's overpowered you and humiliated you. You're going to equate a loss of manliness with the episode. You're going to be too ashamed to admit it even happened and probably won't even report the crime. So it'll probably happen again. If you do admit it, how will people treat you? If it goes to court how will you stand up to accussations that it was consensual sex and the suggestions that you're really a homosexual? What if you catch AIDS or another STD?

I'm not a guy, but I think I have enough knowledge of men that I could imagine at least SOME of what the trauma of being a heterosexual guy and being raped might be like. And those feelings are not entirely unlike what a woman would feel like. Except the fear of being overpowered, killed, hurt, etc are probably much worse.

1) someone steals a chicken, we take a chicken back from them
2) someone pokes out an eye, we poke out their eye
3) someone murders, death penalty

Those are all plain and clear crimes and punishments. It even looks familiar doesn't it. It is patriarchy.Perhaps if you added a point #4 to your list...
4) someone rapes another individual, we castrate the rapist.

Until men understand that THAT is the punishment that BEFITS the crime of rape, they will continue to believe that rape is just a figment of a woman's imagination. Yet in an "eye for an eye" punishment system, that's exactly the punishment that would/should go with rape. Sadly in reading through this thread, most men here don't even seem to think it warrants a good swift kick in the *hmm hmm hmm* (*hint: NOT the lower backside!)

I've gotta say though Fyyr, I believe that if you keep asking and baiting and explaining your interpretations, you may one day be a rare man who actually DOES understand. Heck! It *almost* sounds to me like you are starting to understand that BECAUSE men and women are different we NEED to find a happy medium... a meeting point where there is enough equity to balance both. That's the point when women will actually become a viable part of our society. You don't appear to be as threatened by it as most men are, but you seem to have a heck of a difficult time explaining clearly what you mean when you post. (and because of that last point, I reserve the right to say that I misread your posts if you turn out to be a pig!) :D :p

**edit... just saw Panamah's post so I want to add...
Pan the problem with your scenario is that you place it in a prison. Take it out of a prison setting and place it in um... being pulled off the street near a dark deserted park area in the heart of Suburbia.

A bit about how rape affects men (http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/SAA/survivormen.cfm)

myths and facts sheet (http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/SAA/myths.cfm)

30% if all survivors of sexual assault will contemplate suicide. Many survivors will develop eating disorders, substance abuse, or other destructive behaviors. Survey research shows that the only event that is more traumatic than being sexually assaulted is the unexpected death of a spouse of parent.

Up until puberty boys are sexually abused at a slightly higher rate than girls.

and the saddest part of all, only 150 out of 100,000 rapes will end in conviction:

The FBI estimates that 9 out of 10 rapes are never reported. Of those reported, no more than 50% are apprehended. Of those only 3% will be convicted.

Logically, your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I don't have sex with men.
Getting raped by a man is bad for a different set of reason.
I don't normally get married to a man.
I am not expected to have sex with men.
Getting raped by a man is different.

You have used that analogy successfully in the past because it worked for you(or others you heard use it).

Women have sex with men.
They are expected to have sex with men.
They get married to men.
They enjoy having sex with men.
Getting raped by a man(as a woman) is different.

And you are VERY frustrated with me because I have not accepted your flawed comparison, and have not trotted off to play with it like a happy little puppy with a chew toy.

You are a programmer. You can see why it is not logical. But as a woman, it makes complete logic, doesn't it? You feel that normal(computer) type logic does not work(it is not big enough, yet), but it is still logical to you.

It is not merely "If, Then, Else". It is more like "If, Then, something, something, something, Else". But you do not have words for those somethings-though it all adds up.

Am I correct?

Pan,
As far as I've been able to interpret, Fyyr's thoughts on the male-rape analogy is "Well normally i wouldn't consent to sex with another male, women would though, so obviously me being raped by another man is worse, just by that fact alone. And since it's worse, I reject the comparison."

Logically, your analogy is fundamentally flawed.

I don't have sex with men.
Getting raped by a man is bad for a different set of reason.
I don't normally get married to a man.
I am not expected to have sex with men.
Getting raped by a man is different.

You're asking us to accept the theory that a heterosexual woman being raped by another woman is worse than if she's raped by a man?

Perhaps if you added a point #4 to your list...
4) someone rapes another individual, we castrate the rapist.


It was there.

I wanted you to say it here.

I already said it back on post 99.


But then the logical question then, is, if rape is worse than death(most women would rather die than be raped); why isn't the punishment death, first. Without thinking, castration comes to mind FIRST.

You're asking us to accept the theory that a heterosexual woman being raped by another woman is worse than if she's raped by a man?
You are starting to get it.

Women can rape women. And do.
But it is not the same, is it.


It is still betrayal(big), but it is not as 'dirty'(that is the closest word I can think of).
It is more pathetic, than brutish.

Am I close?

(incoming-turnaround-logic-alert)
Which is (one of) the reason(s) you need to take responsibility for your choices and not put yourself in situations like this. No groping women in bars, no one-night-stands with strangers, no "whee she's a lill tipsy, Imma gonna get some". Avoid frat parties, don't go to single's bars and actually pick someone up, don't stare at legs sticking out beneath short skirts.

No. If a woman doesn't want to get her legs looked at, she shouldn't wear short skirts. Its a simple concept. If she's afraid she's going to sleep with people she doesn't want to if she drinks...she shouldn't go drinking.

She shouldn't blame men for her own actions.

If women "should" avoid doing certain things and going certain places, and if she chooses to ignore that and go anyway - she's partially to blame for what happens, then the same goes for men. If you don't want to risk it - don't do it. If you do it anyway - it's partially your fault. Believe it or not, but you -can-, contrary to teenagers' excuses, "control yourself".

And guess what. The overwhelmingly vast majority of men, contrary to what feminists would have us believe, do control themselves. But really, is it so bad to have a man look at your legs? Is it really so bad to have a stranger goose you in a crowded club? Is your life going to end? If it is, I submit that the issue lies with you...more than anyone else.

Frankly, I don't think Aidon even believes that rape exists in this world.

No, rape is assault. However, in our society, its now assault where there can be no physical damage done, and a woman can claim she was assaulted after the fact, with no physical proof, and everyone believes her...

As long as men wave their hands in dismissal and don't REALLY want to understand women's issues we will continue to be second class citizens until more women gain power in our government. Hell! Even the medical community has been lax in dealing with women specific issues. It's still going to take a few more generations for this to all work out.

As I've said, women don't want equality, they want special treatment.

It is, by your own logic - "abuse that's your own damned fault. Put out, or move out". Oh and don't forget that even if you DO move out and DO manage to get your ex jailed, you can't jail everyone else, those conversations that stop when you enter the room, those "there's Aidon who can't get it up"-looks, all those other men that now treat you like you're vastly their inferior because you couldn't even perform - they'll still be there. And so will the memory. Roughing it will be a thing of the past for you, you just will not be able to perform once your new lover playfully shoves you onto the bed and BAM there are those images of what she did in your head and it's bye-bye erection. And that, of course, leads you to thinking even more about the abuse, since that also related to lack of erection. And before you know it you're alone again.


Or...get this idea. Its a doozy. I decide not to wallow in self-pity at how bad my life was, and move on with my life. I stop being so self-absorbed thinking that everyone in a room is talking about me (Because odds are pretty high, they don't give a flying **** about me or what happened to me).

Pan,
As far as I've been able to interpret, Fyyr's thoughts on the male-rape analogy is "Well normally i wouldn't consent to sex with another male, women would though, so obviously me being raped by another man is worse, just by that fact alone. And since it's worse, I reject the comparison."

I reject it for a couple of reasons.
It is not a good analogy, in the first place.
And though it is works in many cases-to give a sense to what it is like, what it MIGHT be like, to be raped. It is not accurate.
If my model is correct, a woman being raped by a man is far worse to that woman, than a man being raped by that man.

Remember in Shawshank, our protagonist is raped repeatedly over a period of years. Before he rescues himself from that situation.
In Sleepers, the boys, the young men are raped repeatedly over a period of years. I know most women would not allow that to happen.

And castration is NOT the first punishment that we think of for retaliation. Death is.

They are different. The analogy is inaccurate.

I've kept out for a while from this conversation, trying to see where everyone is coming from. Aidon just plain scares me, but I guess since I don't tend to do those sorts of things, nor associate with those kinds of people, its just a mild scare. Fyyr, however, makes me think (a little too much).

It seems to me that Fyyr is thinking that man's low view of rape is innate. He stated that the men who view rape as worse than mere assault are conditioned that way. Thus, imho, he is saying the opposite for the others. That their views on rape are primal at best.

Maybe its his view that men still have that primal instinct to spread their genes by procreating with or without the female's consent. And maybe he's saying the reason it scars women so much is because, through maternal instinct and not actual thought, they lose the ability to choose the other half of their children's gene pool.

This analysis might also explain why he's so quick to shrug off male on male rape, such as those in Shawshank (I dunno on the spelling, sorry). Many mammal species still engage in this sort of activity. Not so much for the sexual part, but for the "alpha" to assert dominance over the other males. Maybe he views that males aren't as scarred instinctly as women because of this, and that all they feel is the pain culture has programmed them to feel, which is his "different" form that he brought up.

I don't know, I'm one of those females that doesn't really feel any maternal instincts whatsoever, and I've never been raped, so I couldn't tell you if I still feel the same things those who do would. Though I suppose I'm only 20, I guess I should keep an eye out for the Aidons out there.

And I apologize if I have completely misread you Fyyr. I'm trying to think outside the box, instead of just hoping and taunting you to spill your metaphorical beans.

And my deductive (and spelling) skills suck.

Fyyr, although his reasoning (or lack thereof) may seem faulty from a woman's perspective, at least concludes that "rape and molestation is bad". Aidon, I wouldn't ever want to be alone in a room with.

You're safer alone in a room with me than probably 99% of the men in the country. I don't believe in assaulting women, and I've never done so.

But, because I refuse to accept rape as being something worse than an assault...I'm a bad man.

Double standards /eyeroll.

But, because I refuse to accept rape as being something worse than an assault...I'm a bad man.


Its not that you accept it as something less, but because your definition of rape is scary. To me at least, I guess I shouldn't talk for others.

You are starting to get it.

Women can rape women. And do.
But it is not the same, is it.


It is still betrayal(big), but it is not as 'dirty'(that is the closest word I can think of).
It is more pathetic, than brutish.

Am I close?

So... being raped by someone of the sex you normally don't sleep with is... LESS bad?

The problem is the group of men won't give you a choice. The group of men will rape you until you require surgery to repair the damage. They may take turns. The incident may go on for hours. Your choice is to consent to them doing this to you or to die.

That's assault. A rather serious assault. Its criminal.

So you don't have a choice in being raped.

The point is, you don't have a choice about most violent crime. Why should rape (especially rapes which ultimately leave very little injury) be a greater crime than being beaten bloody and broken? It shouldn't.

That is the whole point of the rape, to remove control from the victim. And after you've been raped, expect to have zero support from your family, indeed, expect there to be a good chance that your family and friends will shun you.

Then your family is a bunch of assholes, might I suggest some new ones?

And don't forget the flashbacks. And the fact that you will not be able to trust anyone for decades.

That's your own issue. I've been mugged. I've been beaten in fights. I don't go around unable to trust anyone (at least not as a result of those incidents). The loss of control is no less. I didn't ask to get mugged. I didn't ask to get beaten.


I hope the above might have shed some light on it. However, based on your other posts concerning women and your previous comment in this post about how a husband can't rape his wife (legally he certainly can), I'm going to take a wild guess that you will find some way to discount all that I said above and again make it acceptable to rape someone.

I've never said rape is acceptable. I've not bought into the modern definition of what constitutes rape, at times, but rape is wrong. But in the US, its rapidly becoming the most serious crime a man can commit, which is bull***** plain and simple.

Of course, women get so up in arms about it..they can't have a reasonable discussion. If a man dares to disagree about any aspect of what women determine is proper, he's an evil rapist himself (as proven by this thread).

She shouldn't blame men for her own actions.

And he shouldn't blame her for his actions. So if you don't want to be branded an assaulter, don't do stuff that'll ensure that it happens. Don't blame HER if you can't keep your hands to yourself. It was your brain, and ONLY your brain, that directed your hands to move. Stop blaming her.

So... being raped by someone of the sex you normally don't sleep with is... LESS bad?
Nope, that is not what a meant.

I am talking about feelings.

You as a woman, FEEL differently about the two different situations.

They are not the same. You would not react the same.

It is still BAD. But the feeling is different. Am I close?

You're safer alone in a room with me than probably 99% of the men in the country. I don't believe in assaulting women, and I've never done so.

I know you don't believe in assaulting women, and I 100% believe you when you say you never have. But you're using YOUR definitions, and a hell of a lot that's OK in your book isn't in mine. So I'll keep you at arm's lenght.

Aidon believes that it is acceptable to rape his wife. I wonder if he believes it acceptable to beat his wife to a bloody pulp. If rape is nothing more than assault, then by his own logic, it would be acceptable to beat his wife as well.

Yeah..I believe wimmin should be beaten three times daily on general principle, and a fourth on sundays. /eyeroll.

Assault is wrong.

So is a spouse unwilling to sleep with their spouse.

Which is worse? I'll leave that up to the couple involved.

I am talking about feelings.

Me too.

They are not the same.

We already asserted that you don't think they're the same, now we're trying to figure out you think one is worse than the other, or if they're equally bad although different.

Perhaps if you added a point #4 to your list...
4) someone rapes another individual, we castrate the rapist.

and everytime a woman falsely accuses a man about rape, we cut out her tongue.

I know there are differences in man-man rape where at least one is heterosexual. There are emotional elements there that I, as a woman, wouldn't experience. But there are many similarities too. You glom onto the fact that there are differences and fail to acknowledge the similarities and you reject the entire comparison just because there are some differences. Its like saying apples and oranges can't both be fruit because they're not exactly the same.

Here's the similarities:

1) Being overpowered and forced to have sex with someone you don't wish to have sex with.

The fundamental reason you don't want to have sex with them is not as important as the fact that your desire to not be #1 overpowered and #2 used sexually by someone you don't want to be intimate with.

2) The societal rejection.

The end result is the same though the reasons might be different.

3) The feeling of shame and embarassment.

Same feelings for the same reasons. You've been sexually abused.

If you can't see the similarities then I suspect you're so in love with your ideas you're simply incapable of seeing that.

Male or female, rape is rape. The end result is the victim suffers very similarly.

Its not that you accept it as something less, but because your definition of rape is scary. To me at least, I guess I shouldn't talk for others.

Thats because today's society has decided to place groping on the same level as actual rape. It isn't. We'll place you on the same list for grabbing a woman's ass as we've placed the man who violently raped a woman...and women seem to think this is ok.

According to the women on this board, it should even criminal to sleep with a gal who's consented, if she's inebriated...

As for myself personally...well, lets say I'm quite capable of arguing for concepts which I agree with, but don't partake in.

Ultimately, the entire problem revolves around people putting way too much emphasis on sex in America. If men weren't so hell bent on getting laid..and women weren't so hellbent on not getting laid...I'd venture to guess most sexual assaults between adults would end.

We already asserted that you don't think they're the same, now we're trying to figure out you think one is worse than the other, or if they're equally bad although different.

Male on female rape is far worse.

Than any other adult-on-adult rape.

It is far more devastating to the victim/woman.
Regardless of sexual orientation.
In any other combination.

I have not tested this, my model says that it is.
It has been accurate so far.
Is my model correct in asserting this?

And he shouldn't blame her for his actions. So if you don't want to be branded an assaulter, don't do stuff that'll ensure that it happens. Don't blame HER if you can't keep your hands to yourself. It was your brain, and ONLY your brain, that directed your hands to move. Stop blaming her.

The day goosing a person became a serious offense is the day our nation went to hell. Get a grip. Seriously. There needs to be a no harm no foul rule in play.

Quote:
And don't forget the flashbacks. And the fact that you will not be able to trust anyone for decades.


That's your own issue. I've been mugged. I've been beaten in fights. I don't go around unable to trust anyone (at least not as a result of those incidents). The loss of control is no less. I didn't ask to get mugged. I didn't ask to get beaten.

Have you ever been raped Aidon? See, if you had, you would know that the loss of control IS greater in a rape than in a mugging/beating.

I've had both done to me. I know from personal experience. Apparently, my personal experience doesn't count for you. From your posts, the only way I expect that you will ever see a difference is if you are a victim of rape.

I would imagine that any female in your life who might admit to you to being raped, would be shunned by you. I'm guessing you would react by asking her what she did to deserve it. And you would somehow think it was her fault or that she was lying. This response is the major reason why most rapes go unreported.

I feel sorry for any woman who ever gets involved with you.

I know you don't believe in assaulting women, and I 100% believe you when you say you never have. But you're using YOUR definitions, and a hell of a lot that's OK in your book isn't in mine. So I'll keep you at arm's lenght.


That's fine with me. I don't want to end up in jail because I looked you over.

Ultimately, the entire problem revolves around people putting way too much emphasis on sex in America. If men weren't so hell bent on getting laid..and women weren't so hellbent on not getting laid...I'd venture to guess most sexual assaults between adults would end.

We can see this by studying other cultures, where sex is just something you do when you feel like it, like - have a shower or check the druidsgrove forums. And not to mention if we look at how it's handled in matriarcical civilizations. Makes me wonder if there is a small part of the issue (not just rape, but the whole "we are in 100% control of our own bodies, and don't for a minute think you can get away with messing with that"-thing) is somewhat linked to the fact that - when you get down to it - a woman's own body is just about the only thing that men want and she CAN control. Men have a pretty firm power-lockdown on everything else they (and us too) could possibly want, so we insist total of control over that one thing which we can control.

Heh, that's a novel consept isnt it? Treat women like equals across the board - for school, at work, etc, and get laid more often as a result. Should've thought of that before, if we'd sold that idea to the Clinton administration, maybe something would've been done about equal-pay issues or the lack of women in board rooms. :P

(And I think I'm going to have to point this out so I might as well do it now: "I said SMALL part".)

"I said SMALL part".

Now, now... don't get personal.

*snicker*

I would imagine that any female in your life who might admit to you to being raped, would be shunned by you. I'm guessing you would react by asking her what she did to deserve it. And you would somehow think it was her fault or that she was lying. This response is the major reason why most rapes go unreported.

I feel sorry for any woman who ever gets involved with you.

See, there you go, I disagree with you and so you paint me in the most unflattering light, despite the fact that it goes against what I've been saying.

Why would I shun her? I don't think a rape victim is anymore of a victim than any other assault victim (btw, I have dated women who'd been raped before, I was aware, it wasn't a big deal, there was no need for any long deep discussions or any of that crap).

No, I didn't ask her what she did to deserve it..again, this is something done by people who think rape is something crazy horrible.

As for lying, I couldn't care less, unless she lied about being raped and had accused some guy. If she made the entire rape story up whole cloth...I was the wrong guy to do so with, because ultimately, I just don't give a ****.

That's fine with me. I don't want to end up in jail because I looked you over.

The jokes of my previous post aside, you DO realize that you WILL end up in jail if you practice your theories, right? That you, by definition (dictionary AND legally), are a self-proclaimed potential rapist? The man our fathers warned us about, the man that will ruin the life of someone he swore to love and cherish for life, and the glimmering fantasy of lustful nights yet to come for some prison-house brute?

I don't like being brutal with you, but you need a wake-up call before you ruin your life.

That's your own issue. I've been mugged. I've been beaten in fights. I don't go around unable to trust anyone (at least not as a result of those incidents). The loss of control is no less. I didn't ask to get mugged. I didn't ask to get beaten.


But you haven't been raped. Do you think you'd feel exactly the same way as you did when you lost a fight if you were raped?

We can see this by studying other cultures, where sex is just something you do when you feel like it, like - have a shower or check the druidsgrove forums. And not to mention if we look at how it's handled in matriarcical civilizations. Makes me wonder if there is a small part of the issue (not just rape, but the whole "we are in 100% control of our own bodies, and don't for a minute think you can get away with messing with that"-thing) is somewhat linked to the fact that - when you get down to it - a woman's own body is just about the only thing that men want and she CAN control. Men have a pretty firm power-lockdown on everything else they (and us too) could possibly want, so we insist total of control over that one thing which we can control.

Heh, that's a novel consept isnt it? Treat women like equals across the board - for school, at work, etc, and get laid more often as a result. Should've thought of that before, if we'd sold that idea to the Clinton administration, maybe something would've been done about equal-pay issues or the lack of women in board rooms. :P

(And I think I'm going to have to point this out so I might as well do it now: "I said SMALL part".)


Women have never wanted equality. They've wanted special treatment.

Now, some people (like Fyr and Heinlein) believe that in a truly equal society, women will end up loosing far more than they gain. Myself, I believe it too..and am all for equality across the board, in theory. Lets make it truly equal..men will better off than ever before. It won't work, however. Nor can it work, because ultimately, a man and a woman are inequal in basic fundamental aspects.

which has been Fyr's point this entire discussion. Why is rape so horrible in our society? Because the one thing women ultimately have control over is whether to give birth or not, except for most of the past millenia or so its been illegal, or a sin, in most Western Societies for a woman to have an abortion if she didn't want to give birth. That, combined with rape creates the potential for forcing women to bear bastard children she didn't want

there was no need for any long deep discussions or any of that crap

maybe you had no need for it. Maybe she did. Did you ask? Or did you just act as though it wasn't any big deal, no more an issue than, say, having a root canal? Telling someone that a traumatic event in their life was not as traumatic as that person feels it is, is the same thing as emotional abandonment.

As for your mugging, I do feel for you that you went through it. I am not trying to downplay being assaulted at all, it is a horrific experience in its own right. Differentiating an assault from rape however: did you get pregnant when you were assaulted? Did you catch any STDs from it? Were you rendered sterile as a result of it? Did anyone ask you what you did to deserve it?

And for the record, I am seeking clarification here: you do not believe in assaulting women, you believe that rape is simply a form of assault. You also believe that you have the right to forcibly have sex with your wife, even if she is unwilling and states so. What form could the "forcibly" take that would not constitute assault?

The jokes of my previous post aside, you DO realize that you WILL end up in jail if you practice your theories, right? That you, by definition (dictionary AND legally), are a self-proclaimed potential rapist? The man our fathers warned us about, the man that will ruin the life of someone he swore to love and cherish for life, and the glimmering fantasy of lustful nights yet to come for some prison-house brute?

I don't like being brutal with you, but you need a wake-up call before you ruin your life.

You do realize, that by those definitions the vast majority of men on this planet are going to ruin their lives and need a wake up call, and are potential rapists? When most men are potential rapists by a definition, it isn't men who need to change, but the definition.

I'm quite aware of my views..and as a result I associate with women who share my views, tastes, and predilictions. It will form the basis of my decision of whom to marry if I ever decide to.

maybe you had no need for it. Maybe she did. Did you ask? Or did you just act as though it wasn't any big deal, no more an issue than, say, having a root canal? Telling someone that a traumatic event in their life was not as traumatic as that person feels it is, is the same thing as emotional abandonment.

I'm not the world's shrink. I've got my own personal problems and issues. I don't share them...and in return, I don't want to listen to everyone elses. I learned at a very young age that in the end, the rest of the world doesn't give a crap about my problems.

Its a fairly simple concept. Deal with your problems, don't make everyone else deal with them, because in the end, they won't, and its not fair to try and make them.

Panamah,

How many times have you heard a man joke about some other guy going to prison and getting butt-raped? It is common vernacular, you have seen it.
***** Eddie Murphy had a whole routine on the subject. Dozens of comics joke about it, Leno, O'Brien, Stewart, Seinfeld. Popular mainstream male comedians.

How many Lorena Bobbit jokes have you heard in your life? That guys tell. Guys joke about that all the time.

You would be surprised how many men love the band Tool. And that one of the most popular songs from them is about a man getting raped by a man, and then he himself rapes another man. It is even the name of the song, Prison Sex.

I can not find any equivalents for females.
You will not find many women comics making fun of women in prison getting raped.
Women in EQ do not say, OMG that dragon was such a hard fight, it ass raped our guild. You don't here them saying it real life.(men say that ALL the time).
You will not find any woman joking about the removal of female genitalia or breasts. But that's what Lorena Bobbit did, to a man.
You have no popular female musical artists romanticising rape of another woman.

You will not convince anybody about how bad rape is for women by comparing it to male rape. You will get them to go away, sure you will; but you will not change their minds. If you want to do that, you have to try a different approach.

So trying to extrapolate from what you're saying, since men joke about male rape then it must be that men who are raped are entertained humourously and find it funny.

Ah, glad you cleared that up for me.

Again, you find the things that are different, and in fact have virtually nothing to do with the topic, and completely ignore the similarities. *shrug* I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Maybe you should talk to men who get raped:

How does rape affect men differently from women?
Rape affects men in many ways similar to women. Anxiety, anger, sadness, confusion, fear, numbness, self-blame, helplessness, hopelessness, suicidal feelings and shame are common reactions of both male and female survivors. In some ways, though, men react uniquely to being sexually assaulted. Immediately after an assault, men may show more hostility and aggression rather than tearfulness and fear. Over time, they may also question their sexual identity, act out in a sexually aggressive manner, and even downplay the impact of the assault.

http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/SAA/survivormen.cfm

I am not ignoring the similarities.

I understand all that. I knew all that back when I was a kid.


But there is a reason why many, most, men think the way that Aidon does. I will let you in on one of the male little secrets, most of the men that you know, that do NOT sound like that-it is lip service. They are just telling you what you want to hear.

They don't really understand. They tell you that they do, because they want you to like them. They are avoiding conflict, simply.

I am a guy. I am a perfect spy. They tell me things that they don't tell you.

They are all over the place. That nice guy that sits behind you in that cubicle. He thinks that way.

Your boss. He thinks that way.

Your brother, maybe. They don't really understand it the way that you do. Your analogy is close, but they chalk it up to "one of those women things", and nod their heads in firm agreement with you.

That cute professor you had a crush on you had back in college, he can't figure you gals out either. Even though he sounded like he did.

Aidon is only different from most guys you know because he is saying 'the emperor is buck nekkid'. He is not giving you lip service. He doesn't care if you like him. He is calling bull**** on your equations, your logic, and your analogies, and you don't like it.

I am a mole. Guys tell me things that they do not want you to know.

Maybe you should talk to men who get raped:

I have two male friends who have been raped by men.

They do not act the same way that the women act, who I know who have been raped. They don't feel the same way.

You do realize, that by those definitions the vast majority of men on this planet are going to ruin their lives and need a wake up call, and are potential rapists?

No, I don't think that "the vast majority" of men believe it's their right to rape their wives and if they don't like it it's their own bloody fault and they should put up or move out. I really don't.

I'm quite aware of my views..and as a result I associate with women who share my views, tastes, and predilictions. It will form the basis of my decision of whom to marry if I ever decide to.

Ya well, remember that you too make vows, one of which is to respect and cherish her. Also in bad times, such as - for instance - times she doesn't want to have sex.

Women in EQ do not say, OMG that dragon was such a hard fight, it ass raped our guild.

*shrug* I've said it. Several times. So you're wrong.

I will let you in on one of the male little secrets, most of the men that you know, that do NOT sound like that-it is lip service. They are just telling you what you want to hear.Once again, you're making baseless assumptions. Show me proof that "most men" think as Aidon does. I don't think it's alright to assault your wife, and I think everyone I know would feel exactly the same way. Apparently, the (mostly male) California legislature thought so too, when they made it a crime punishable just as stranger rape is.

You can always stack together a bunch of baseless assumptions and end up with a neat and consistent theory. That theory, however, will have no connection to reality.But there is a reason why many, most, men think the way that Aidon does.The "reason" is that they're stuck in the middle ages, when marriage was largely an economic affair, with the wife trading certain duties in exchange for the husband's support and protection. They only think that way because they have been taught to think that way. That type of thinking is inapplicable in today's world.

I'll assume I was completely wrong then Fyyr by the lack of response even though what you keep saying makes me think otherwise. :shuffle:

And castration is NOT the first punishment that we think of for retaliation. Death is.

They are different. The analogy is inaccurate.Ah... but see... death is final. Rape is not. Castration is not. If you want "like for like" punishment to fit an action then castration leaves the um... castrato(?) a lifetime to think about it. No different from the lifetime a rape victim is left to think about it.

My analogy IS more accurate than your first thought of retaliation.

Fyyr, can you clarify your position?

You have recently said that men, in general, are unable to understand a woman's view of rape.

You have also previously rejected the concept that raped women feel alienated by the people around them who cannot understand their problems.

Which do you actually believe is true?

Ah... but see... death is final. Rape is not. Castration is not. If you want "like for like" punishment to fit an action then castration leaves the um... castrato(?) a lifetime to think about it. No different from the lifetime a rape victim is left to think about it.

My analogy IS more accurate than your first thought of retaliation.

Actually, castration is permanent. Rape is not.

And what you fail to see, Aidon, that they've been trying to tell you, is that the mental scars these women face due to the rape lasts a lifetime. Sure, you may think that's not right, you may think its dumb, but that's the way it is. Why the hell do we have an appendix? Its stupid, it no longer serves a point, but its there all the same.

Maybe (as Fyyr is hinting at, and which I think I now understand thanks to his clarification) this "scarring" is indeed an after effect of something lost.

The point though, is to not just dismiss it because you don't feel it (or think you would feel it). I have no problems with my appendix, but I don't blow people who do have problems with it off by saying "well, I don't feel it, why should you?"

Waiting for you now to tell me my example isn't related enough, as all contrary examples seem to be.

PS: clean out your PM box Fyyr =p

And what you fail to see, Aidon, that they've been trying to tell you, is that the mental scars these women face due to the rape lasts a lifetime. Sure, you may think that's not right, you may think its dumb, but that's the way it is. Why the hell do we have an appendix? Its stupid, it no longer serves a point, but its there all the same.

Nope, sorry, that isn't going to fly. The mental effects equate to a mandate for permanent physical mutilation? Next you'll want to amputate hands for theft...

As you're so quick to point out, men don't feel the kind of mental anguish women get due to rape. How then are we supposed to punish equally? We can't. We have to use some other form of punishment.

Now I wasn't saying we should castrate men, someone else said that. My point was just to show you that the pain from rape is real and permanent, contrary to what you said. But while you can take back the items a thief stole, and make him spend a little time in the pokey for the mental anguish, there is really no equivalent to it for rape.

And don't say throw money into it. We have enough of a litigous culture. We need something else. Some say castration. Probably a little too radical.

So please read what I said, and don't confuse and group it with others' points.

Nope, sorry, that isn't going to fly. The mental effects equate to a mandate for permanent physical mutilation? Next you'll want to amputate hands for theft...Actually, in the context that the examples were given.. ie an "eye for an eye" form of punishment... some cultures do cut off hands as punishment for theft. So your example isn't so far fetched, Aidon. They are however, cultures that still view women as insignificant chattel so they don't really view rape as a crime. (omigod does THAT sound familiar!)

As for your assumption that "...castration is permanent. Rape is not.", you are wrong. BOTH are permanent whether you believe it to be true or not.

Women don't want to be "special". We want to be "seperate but equal". But you will never understand this concept until you figure out that just because something is different from YOUR way or belief it doesn't necessarily make it "special". Sometimes it just makes it different from your belief. No more "special" and no less "special" than yours... just different.

But we all know that seperate but equal isn't equal.

And rape is not, in and of itself, any more permanent than assault.

There is absolutely no reason why sexual assault should be considered a worse crime than a non sexual assault of similar violence.

But we all know that seperate but equal isn't equal.

I personally don't want to be a man, I just don't want to be controled by one. Equal, but different.

And rape is not, in and of itself, any more permanent than assault.

There is absolutely no reason why sexual assault should be considered a worse crime than a non sexual assault of similar violence.
Yes, there is a reason, and that reason is wrapped up in the miracles of human sexuality. That reason has been expressed by rape survivors here as well as throughout the world and history. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

I think a lot of guys think like Aidon, and that the only thing unusual here is his willingness to talk about it honestly. I think there are men reading this who think even he is a bit whipped compared to what they feel is acceptable. At the same time, I don't think it is unreasonable as a woman to take what Aidon says and come to the conclusion he isn't a good guy to be vulnerable around. That isn't branding him a rapist, that is just recognising a consent bubble most of us wouldn't choose to step into. The number of women who have spoken up here and volunteered their experiences should show how common an occurance this is better than any statistics could.

There are so many men thinking along these lines that I would argue that the act of charging someone with rape is as life-destroying as being charged with it. Speaking out against that social paradigm isn't just a feminist plot. Many traditional societies treated it as severe as well. Old fashion values are different depending what culture you are from. Among the Dene (a matriarchal first-nation's people) murder was punished by exile, rape by public stoning. But from a Judao-Christian culture perhaps it does make sense to consider your wife or daughter your sexual property after all, we have biblical stories where virtuous fathers toss their daughters out to be raped by angry mobs rather than let guests be lynched.

I do consider myself a feminist, but to me that means that I try to practice the femine art of seeking understanding, forgiving, and trying to figure out how to heal this, for my own sake mostly, but also on a social level. How do we create a society where it is possible (for both genders) to confront the issue before it becomes extreme, deal with it before it becomes life-destroying, and heal from it even after it has? Pretending it isn't a big deal, or clinging to the concept that it is always black and white, and that either gender is presumed innocent or guilty doesn't make sense to that end. While insisting that it doesn't cause real, permanent and severe psychological trauma may be tempting, there is an awful lot of evidence that it does.

I don't think I am hysterical about this topic. I see that there are shades of grey, and I recognise the existance of spheres of consent although I strongly disagree with Aidon on where the boundaries of those spheres should be, and I admit, the appeal of "if you didn't want your dick cut off you wouldn't have pulled it out" chain of logic is a compelling response to the "if you didn't want to be raped you wouldn't have worn that skirt" line of thought. (Symetry is so pleasing) That said, I don't want to see anyone killed or castrated, and honestly, I would endure it again if it meant my life, or even the health and well being of people who I love. I can't imagine it not leaving emotional scars, but I refuse to be defeated by those scars. On the other hand, I won't be forgetting them any time soon, and unfortunatly, I don't think anyone who wants to be intimate with me will be either. I don't believe healing is impossible. I just think that healing is highly improbably in the current social climate.

I just wonder what can be done to change that.

Fyyr, can you clarify your position?
I am trying.

You have recently said that men, in general, are unable to understand a woman's view of rape.
I am sure of it. Not to the extent that women feel and understand it.

You have also previously rejected the concept that raped women feel alienated by the people around them who cannot understand their problems.
I did not say that exactly. What I said was that social stigma alone is not big enough to equal the devastation that women feel when they are raped. I do not say they do not FEEL alienated, they do. Why do they feel that way, is what I am getting to.

Which do you actually believe is true?
Which what?

Rape is a very complex issue and it is impossible to define as a single issue. We've discussed the personal intrusion, loss of control, loss of power, physical degradation, social stigma, and placement of guilt upon the victim, but seemingly Fyyr you still don't think there is any reason why rape is a worse crime than assault.

You have your own questions like "Why do women feel alienated after rape?" and your own answers like "I am sure that men are unable to understand a woman's view of rape", so perhaps you should just put those together, reflect a little, and understand a little.

Rape is a very complex issue and it is impossible to define as a single issue. We've discussed the personal intrusion, loss of control, loss of power, physical degradation, social stigma, and placement of guilt upon the victim, but seemingly Fyyr you still don't think there is any reason why rape is a worse crime than assault.Actually, I think you are confusing Fyyr with Aidon. It seems to me that Fyyr is trying to understand better. He's asking questions but I think he's trying to get someone to explain in some new way that he will better understand. (I *think*) :p

I've seen rape/sexual assault laws go into effect with men who are confronted by overtly gay (flaming) homosexuals (as many of my gay male friends would say, "He made 'gay' look bad.") Aidon, while you're saying that men should not go to jail or be convicted of sexual assault when all another man does is grope a woman, men are using the same laws when they're similarly groped by other men. They have also been used in situations where men have been groped by women. While <i>you personally</i> may feel that the laws are skewed towards women, perhaps it's because more women are likely to report those types of assaults compared to men. Not only that, but the police officers, court officials, etc, etc, who come in contact with any male sexual assault cases are probably already pre-prejudiced against the notion of a man being victimized by a woman.

Through my life, I've spent the majority of my time with guys - mostly because honestly I usually don't get along with women as well as I do with guys. And I'm not talking in a flirty way, I'm talking "hang out" - I was the woman that none of the guys felt uncomfortable telling the really bawdy jokes around. As far as I could tell, for the most part the man's thought pattern consisted of a total of about four major subjects: sex, penises, crapping, and food (not necessarily in that order).

I can also say that the the heterosexual men I hung out with were mostly accepting of homosexuals - only a few were truly homophobic - and even those would allow homosexuals into their circle of friends only after hanging out with them and learning that they're not constantly trying to grab other men in the crotch. <i>However</i>, should a homosexual man start honestly talking about their relationship with their partner or start to flirt with their heterosexual friends/acquaintances (joking or otherwise), the "Man's Man" ego came immediately to the forefront and the heterosexuals immediately went into defense mode.

In today's world, it's not really kosher to beat the crap out of some (every) guy who grabbed your butt, so instead of using physical violence to get your revenge, you go through the legal system. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that many people (men and women) have used the rape/SA laws as pure revenge, but I could also argue that we are also "hardwired" in that manner as well.

As for men truly understanding how women feel about rape, well the <i>closest</i> thing that I can think of is to present almost the opposite dynamic of a woman's rape scenario. If a man was to get raped by a homosexual male of a lesser physical build (ie: Arnie versus Andy Dick), the mental and social impact would be the most similar, I think.

I did not say that exactly. What I said was that social stigma alone is not big enough to equal the devastation that women feel when they are raped. I do not say they do not FEEL alienated, they do. Why do they feel that way, is what I am getting to.



Fyyr I dont think there were any women saying that social stigma was the only part of it that hurts. Breaking an arm hurts - the arm is broken. But in a society that requires people with broken arms to then hang from a monkey bar for hours by the broken arm, chances of mending that arm are pretty low. The coalition of people with broken arms would like to see the monkey bar requirement lifted and a cast proceedure initiated.

Sorry, the example is absurd, but hopefully it expresses my point.

I am sure of it. Not to the extent that women feel and understand it.


No one can fully comprehend the emotions of another person regardless of gender simply because we're not all exactly identical and have identical experiences. However that isn't to say you can't approximate what it must be like and empathize with them. I think most of the men I know well are empathetic enough to understand how they would feel in a similar situation. Sure it isn't identical, but its close enough they can understand it. I don't think you give your gender enough credit.

I have heard men react with some very strong emotions when the women they are associated with are raped.

I've seen rape/sexual assault laws go into effect with men who are confronted by overtly gay (flaming) homosexuals (as many of my gay male friends would say, "He made 'gay' look bad.") Aidon, while you're saying that men should not go to jail or be convicted of sexual assault when all another man does is grope a woman, men are using the same laws when they're similarly groped by other men.

Hey, I have no respect for them, either. I'm sorry but being groped isn't grounds for a major criminal offense (or a criminal offense at all, if its an isolated incident), it sure as hell isn't grounds for being put on a list...

No one can fully comprehend the emotions of another person regardless of gender simply because we're not all exactly identical and have identical experiences. However that isn't to say you can't approximate what it must be like and empathize with them. I think most of the men I know well are empathetic enough to understand how they would feel in a similar situation. Sure it isn't identical, but its close enough they can understand it. I don't think you give your gender enough credit.

I have heard men react with some very strong emotions when the women they are associated with are raped.

It doesn't really matter if its rape, or some other assault.

If my sister is beaten by a guy...or is raped by a guy, my response is pretty much going to be the same. The guy best flee the city.

Unless he is her husband, or he points out that rumor was that she liked it rough, or it was a frat party and she had been drinking?

Unless he is her husband, or he points out that rumor was that she liked it rough, or it was a frat party and she had been drinking?

As every woman on this thread has done, you continue to essentially put words into my mouth, in order to paint me some sort of monster, because I dare to dispel this myth that rape is innately worse than assault.

To answer your question:

If he is her husband, I don't care about their sex life, its none of my concern, but he'd best not injure her.

If it comes down to he said, she said, whether the rough sex, which its proven she enjoys, was consentual...of course I'm going to take her side. That's a matter of loyalty. My loyalty to family goes beyond logic, my beliefs, and quite honestly, will make a hypocrit of me every time.

That doesn't change the fact that in a court of law, if it comes down to his word vs hers of whether she was raped or not, because past sexual history proves that whatever physical evidence there may be, isn't necessarily damning in and of itself, he shouldn't be convicted. (of course women love throwing "beyond a reasonable doubt" out the window when it comes to sexual assault).

If she comes complaining to me that she got drunk last night and slept with a man she regrets sleeping with, quite frankly I'm going to tell her its her own damned fault.

Actually, I think you are confusing Fyyr with Aidon. It seems to me that Fyyr is trying to understand better. He's asking questions but I think he's trying to get someone to explain in some new way that he will better understand. (I *think*) :p

Close.

As you see,
it is possible to not see all of the pieces of the equation.
It is possible to show the results of the equation, but not the factors.
It is possible that the factors APPEAR to not add up to the equation.

If there are factors that appear to be missing, that does not mean that the equation is wrong. It just means that we do not know what all of the factors are.

I want everyone to SEE those missing factors.

Here is how I see it:

(2 + + 4 + 1 + + + 3 = 20)

You will have some who will conclude that the equation is wrong, that it only adds up to 10. That rape should be no more harmful to a person than, say, assault(I think that was our paradigm). That it does not equal 20.

I know better than that.
Though you really can't blame anyone for thinking that it is 10, because you got missing stuff in there.
I want to know what those invisible factors are.(actually I think I know what they are).
I know that the equation equals 20. A BAD 20.
But that does not mean that I do not want those holes filled in. I do.
I want people who see 10 as the answer, to realize, just as much as anyone that it DOES equal 20. I know it does.

Now you all can get pissed at me for not explaining myself properly previously. And you have. I can handle that. It is an emotional issue. But you are not helping the matter by insisting that 2+4+1+3=20.

Stamp your feet, insist, call names, pull your hair, I don't care, you are not going to convince anyone who sees only 10, and who does not see the missing parts, that that equation adds up.

You don't want people around you thinking that it is 10.
I don't think you want people around you thinking that it is only 10, but blowing smoke up your ass, saying they see 20, when they don't(which is most guys)
You want as many people around you to really see that 20, as is possible.

And the ones left over, after everyone is clear and cool with the 20, and still want to rape.

We cut their nuts off. Cool?

No one can fully comprehend the emotions of another person regardless of gender simply because we're not all exactly identical and have identical experiences. However that isn't to say you can't approximate what it must be like and empathize with them. I think most of the men I know well are empathetic enough to understand how they would feel in a similar situation. Sure it isn't identical, but its close enough they can understand it. I don't think you give your gender enough credit.

I have heard men react with some very strong emotions when the women they are associated with are raped.

All excellent points.
All true.

But notice how women(you) continually have to tell men "you should take it out for a test drive first, see how you like it". Not just here, but in RL too. You don't have to do that with ANY woman. They already know that the car is a clunker. That is what I meant(I actually wrote that but deleted it for brevity's sake).

I see the similarities. I digested and assimilated them back when I was 14. It is really only the differences that I am interested in now.

I think that the differences are more important, now, in discovering why we are here, and how we are here.

As every woman on this thread has done, you continue to essentially put words into my mouth, in order to paint me some sort of monster, because I dare to dispel this myth that rape is innately worse than assault.



I don't think you are a monster Aidon, I have met monsters. One of the guys I worked with for the entire time I was up at the jail was a rapist who had started with harrasment, moved up to rape, and finally been caught by the time his "tool" of choice was a pickaxe. (umm the women didnt survive - obviously) He started with prostitutes, killing 8 of them without getting caught. He was finally hunted down and convicted because he killed a university girl who was out jogging. And you know what? He was a monster, but he was also a human being, and it was possible for me to listen to him trying to come to grips with his position vis a vis society with compassion. I dont ever want him out of jail, but I still listened and found he had something pretty interesting to say.

My arguement isn't that you are a monster, only that your defensiveness of your gender, (and your inability to believe that the motives for and impacts of this type of crime are different from simple assaults) make you a contributor to a social climate where rapists are able to see their behavior as socially acceptable. Within that climate rapists have considerable amount of freedom to slide down that slippery slope towards outright criminality - in fact, without that social climate many of them might not ever have become rapists. Furthermore, your reflex of skepticism and belief that there are some situations where it is fine to rape a woman as long as you dont physically injure her while doing so, again help to create a social environment where for those of us who have been through it, healing is much much more difficult.

That is where I would suggest you have some complicity and responsibility, shared with other men of your like mind. Of course you won't be accepting that responsibility. If you, and men like yourself did, I doubt we would have the same kind of problem as we do.

Fyyr your equation analogy is a good one. There are missing ingredients. I don't think it is impossible for us to voice them, but I don't know that many of us would be willing to try outside a therapist's office. I sure wouldn't.
:)

*note In order to avoid saying in every sentence, "generally speaking", or "with a few exceptions," etc., please assume I'm speaking in generalities and not every woman is the same.

I was raised during the 60's and 70's when sex first started being treated casually by women. Before then, few women would have sex with a man who was not her husband or soon to be husband. For women, sex is a gift that we share with the man we love. Few women can enjoy sex on a casual basis for any long term. For us, sex = emotions. (As compared to men where sex can either be casual (just physical release and enjoyment) or emotionally tied.) Thus, the phrase "when a woman gives herself to a man". It is our ultimate gift to men. We are giving both physically and emotionally. (The proof of this difference is that many men go to a whore for physical release, but how many women pay a man for physical sexual release? Most male whores are homosexuals. If it were truly just a physical act for women, there would be more male whores out there for us.)

When a man penetrates us, it is an act of fulfillment, it makes us whole, complete. I won't go so far as to say it's spiritual, but it can be a very emotional thing for females. It truly is an act of love/affection for us. It's a sealing of the bond between man and woman.

Sex is also an act of trust for females. There is trust that if we get pregnant, that the man will still be around for the consequences.

Thus, the difference between rape and assault for a woman. With rape, a man cruelly steals from a woman the ability to give her ultimate gift to a man. Rape violates her trust and emotions that are inately and instinctively tied into sex. It goes beyond a mere beating and goes directly to our hearts and souls. It is the ultimate violation to us.

It's difficult to explain that violation to men because men instinctively look at every woman as a potential sex partner. That's part of their inate nature and perfectly normal male sexuality. It's not so tightly tied to their emotions as it is with women. So, it's difficult for them to understand that rape is not only a physical assault, but also an assault on women's most intimate and instinctive emotions and feelings. And it's that latter emotional assault that makes the damage caused more long lasting and difficult to heal. For example, after 6 months, a broken arm can be as good as new. Psychological damage is a lot more difficult to identify and to cure.

My 2 cents to add to Fyyr's equation... :p

My arguement isn't that you are a monster, only that your defensiveness of your gender, (and your inability to believe that the motives for and impacts of this type of crime are different from simple assaults) make you a contributor to a social climate where rapists are able to see their behavior as socially acceptable. Within that climate rapists have considerable amount of freedom to slide down that slippery slope towards outright criminality - in fact, without that social climate many of them might not ever have become rapists.

What you are saying is akin to suggesting a man who kicks a dog should be put in jail for many years and put on a list because it could be a precursor to him killing people. (which isn't to say I agree with a man kicking a dog...though I'm sure some women here will now accuse me of being a vicious dog beater).

Are you suggesting that in order to stop violent rapists we should now lower the legal standard for guilt in rape cases, so his word vs her word situations mean the man should go to jail?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that a man who sleeps with a woman who's been drinking, even though she's given consent, should be jailed..just in case he might someday rape a woman?

Or, should a man who does something which ultimately causes zero harm, like grabbing an ass, be put into jail for years and put on a list because it might possibly indicate he could someday, maybe rape and kill a woman?

That isn't justice.

Furthermore, your reflex of skepticism and belief that there are some situations where it is fine to rape a woman as long as you dont physically injure her while doing so, again help to create a social environment where for those of us who have been through it, healing is much much more difficult.

No, my belief is that there are some circumstances where consent is implied...such as marriage. Much like, in Ohio, my consent to take a breathalyzer test is implied when I drive. Other than that, I've stated simply that sexual assaults should not be held as a greater crime than non sexual assault.

That is where I would suggest you have some complicity and responsibility, shared with other men of your like mind. Of course you won't be accepting that responsibility. If you, and men like yourself did, I doubt we would have the same kind of problem as we do.

If suggesting a fair standard be applied, without special favor, despite the desires of women who would have sexual assaults be considered especially heinous (to steal a line from L&O:SVU) is complicity and responsibility, then yes. I'm complicit and responsible.

What you are saying is akin to suggesting a man who kicks a dog should be put in jail for many years and put on a list because it could be a precursor to him killing people. (which isn't to say I agree with a man kicking a dog...though I'm sure some women here will now accuse me of being a vicious dog beater).

No, you are reading me wrong. I am sugesting that a man who kicks a dog needs to be sat down with and told, hey, if you keep kicking these dogs you are going to end up turning them into viscious animals.

Are you suggesting that in order to stop violent rapists we should now lower the legal standard for guilt in rape cases, so his word vs her word situations mean the man should go to jail?


No, not at all, I dont even think that rape should be dealt with in the court system unless all other options have been exhausted. I have been through a court case. I obtained a conviction but if he hadn't been attacking my little sisters friends I probably never would have put myself through it. I can say that a court case is a brutal way to handle this crime for the victim as well. My desire is to find a way that I and other women can maximise our likelyhood of healing from this event. I can say from personal experience a court case isn't that way.

I have also had male friends whose social lives have been devestated by a woman calling rape, in my opinion unjustly. While none of them were ever charged, the court of opinion over-reacted. In one case I would have considered his behavior VERY poor behavior between lovers. Certainly I think she was right to want to seek some healing after it. Calling rape? No. The problem is that our society treats this topic with such stigma that it is very difficult to say "Something happened here that was damaging, I need some help with it." and have people listen to you compassionately without going off the deep end. At the same time, it is very hard to confront a man whose attitudes and behaviors towards women are predatory without having him go into hyper defensive mode or at least deep denial of even the possibility that predatory behavior is damaging.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that a man who sleeps with a woman who's been drinking, even though she's given consent, should be jailed..just in case he might someday rape a woman?

No, he shouldn't be jailed, but he should be warned that what he is doing is dangerous, to both himself and to the woman because his judgement is impaired and his inhibitions are down, so he is putting himself in a position where he increases his likelyhood of misjudging her level of consent.

Or, should a man who does something which ultimately causes zero harm, like grabbing an ass, be put into jail for years and put on a list because it might possibly indicate he could someday, maybe rape and kill a woman?


No, but if a man has a habit of grabbing women's asses when they dont want them grabbed, then I WOULD say he has a problem with boundaries which he had better start addressing. If he is good at figuring out what boundaries are, then it isn't likely he will be getting a lot of complaints. If he is getting a lot of complaints, then the people around him need to take some responsibility for helping him figure out that he is misjudging what is ok. By encouraging him and blaming women for getting uptight you are paving the road for him to push those boundaries a little further. What ISN'T fair to him is saying "Hey its ok, you are fine, you are fine, shes just being hysterical, keep it up you stud and then suddenly, with no warning, turning on him because he takes it to the next logical (in his mind) step. One of the hardest things for many convicted rapists to understand is how their friends, who defended them the entire time that their behavior was intensifying, and even gave them respect for it, suddenly betrayed them by calling them a monster and even turning violent on them.

That isn't justice

Nothing about this whole topic is just. In a just world these things would be worked out before they ever spiraled out of control. I have really struggled to find the answer, I know I don't have it yet, but I think there are alternatives out there in the way we approach this topic.

In fact, that sort of leads us back to re-railing this topic. There ARE other forms of justice out there. Incarceration has been America's overwhelming sollution to crimes of all kinds, to such a degree that the country's incarcerated population has become a sub-culture of its own. We wait until a person has crossed whatever line we have drawn, and then cut them out of society (for a time) as if trying to say "This person is not part of us." But they ARE part of us, OUR attitudes, OUR inabilities to face issues, and OUR excesses are personified in our criminals.

So what alternatives are there?

One of the most interesting lines of thought that is out there today is in the field of restorative justice. Restorative justice doesn't rely on us labeling someone as criminal, or a monster in order to mean we can address a problem. It does take an awful lot of work, and honesty, and bravery. It requires confronting conflicts with a compassionate and community involved approach. It requires offenders take responsibility for the impact of their actions, that victims take responsibility for seeing the situation through to a peaceful end, and it requires that the community take responsibility for helping both people find justice and healing. Some kinds of couples councilling operate on the principles of restorative justice. Many youth courts use restorative justice (community work that is directly relavent to the crime). Restorative justice is not about one person "winning" and being found "innocent" and "guilty." (although it is often applied alongside the punitive justice system) It doesn't set people up as automatic opponents, but rather as two humans who are part of a community and whose job it is to repair the fabric of that community where it has been damaged by something that occured between them.

Where rape is concerned I have NEVER heard a woman who has obtained a conviction say "Wow I just feel so much better about this now, I really feel like this court process brought me a sense of peace and closure." But I have heard those words from women who were raped who went through a process of restorative justice. In fact, statistically, it has a better track record in both preventing recidivism, and victim testimonials of healing. I know that there are serious criticisms of it out there, and no doubt major flaws in some of the thinking behind it. But I think along that line of thought is something closer to a social solution than the current way we handle it. It is better than society lynching the woman, while her husband/father/brother/etc commit violent crimes trying to make things somehow right... (it doesn't).

For what it is worth, I wish I had had the nerve to try something like that back when I had the chance to. Because I didn't at least 8 other women were raped, a little girl was sexually abused, a man went to jail for eight years, and I think my scars are a lot uglier than they could have been. Looking back, I think that sitting down in a supportive community setting and trusting in that restorative justice process is the one thing I could have done that might have made a difference. And if it failed, at least we would have tried.

I think something like you suggest would work fine, so long as it was an alternative to traditional sentencing (and that the traditional sentencing was commensurate with the actualities of the crime, i.e. on par with standard assaults).

But we should be weary of forcible social engineering.

Incarceration is about as forcible as social engineering gets. Justice systems are negotiated social contracts, continually evolving and very diverse. The penal system as it stands in the USA is a fairly recent innovation, quite different from the penal systems of previous centuries. Why not change it again, in different directions, especially if it is clear this one isnt actually making society safer or less criminal in the long run?

I don't know that restorative justice alone would work. I think that there is a point where the criminal justice system needs to get involved, and in those cases restorative justice needs to work along side, as a sort of harm reduction instrument. Contrary to popular opinion, it is very difficult to get a conviction or even to get a case that crown will prosecute. With real "monsters" like my buddy the pickaxe rapist, he should never be let out of prison.

But it shouldn't even be allowed to get to that point of criminality before it is dealt with from a restorative perspective. The ideal time for intervention is long before the rapist has crossed that line, back when he was still just groping women who dont want to be groped or even just conciously manipulating women for sex. The ideal time for dealing with this is well before it becomes a life destroyer for anyone, and chances are better for catching the serious sickos in time if confronting the "shades of grey" cases is easier and less stigma laden.

One of the flaws in the restorative justice system as I understand it, is that it pretty much needs to be consentual to work. Both parties, and the community need to put the work in. I am not sure if the threat of possible jail time is a useful tool for motivating a man who has violated a woman's sexual boundaries. Consent given under duress is coersion - I find it ironic that men are consenting to restorative justice under duress. I think some rapists would do it willingly just for the chance to have their life back and the trust of their community returned to them. But why would some guy who has yet to cross the line to prosecutable offense or who has a boundary recognition problem like mr. groper submit to the process? To understand why all his women friends hate him? To make that girl stop saying nasty things about him? To get her brother off his back? I don't know.

The woman too is generally not exactly thrilled with the idea of sitting down and talking about feelings with her attacker in front of her family, and his, even with trained professional facilitators present. Personally the very concept makes me feel ill. BUT, many men who go through the process claim that they have learned to understand how their victim felt and empathise. They claim to feel less alienated from their community afterwards than men who go to jail (remember, one of the big determinants of recidivism rates is degree of social support for the offender). Women who go through it say that it demystified the "monster" and helped them feel safe and supported too.

I guess sometimes medicine tastes bad. Stands to reason that for a soul-wound like rape, the medicine would taste really really bad.

There must be other options out there, in my searching this is the best I have found so far but I am still learning about it. Here is one site that I found helpful. (http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/intro_default.htm) It would be interesting to see what other people think about this alternative. It is pretty different from the instinctual reactions.

Excellent post, Silxie.

There is a variation on the restorative justice system that is used in Canada. A high proportion of Canadian prison inmates are aboriginals. There are numerous reasons for this including higher levels of poverty in the native community, cultural differences and historical treatment by non-native Canadians. Some would say that there are systemic prejudices in the legal system that favor non-natives.

Aboriginal court cases have often followed an alternative route -- aboriginal courts or 'sentencing circles'. While there are a number of variations, the central theme is that the native community, including perpetrator, family, victims and native elders are involved in sentencing. These 'trials' usually involve theft, assault, break-ins but usually don't involve crimes of extreme violence or death.

Alternative sentencing has resulted in less recidivism. Responsibilities are shared within the native community. The community also provides a support system for the criminal. The traditional judicial approach appears to increase criminalization, not reduce it.

I believe alternative sentencing is also being used by American Navajo.

I always thought that we gave up on trying to rehabilitate people too soon. There's just not a lot of interest in doing that here. The public is far too wrapped up in punishment and its just so much easier to get them locked up and out of sight. What is the actual punishment doing? Is it preventing them from committing crimes again? Or is it making the victims feel better?

On the other hand, who wants to experiment with rehabilitation on someone that is raping and murdering children only to find it doesn't work?

Some crimes, truly are too heinous for there to be rehabilitation. Adults murdering young children. Serial murders. Michigan Fans.

I had heard that the native communities were using restorative justice now, and I know in Australia the Maori are too - I think that some of the techniques originated with those societies. Several Christian groups also advocate for it - Menonites, some Catholics, and the Quakers, who have been historically right on enough issues that I have a lot of time for their opinions now. I agree, someone raping or murdering children needs to be removed for the protection of society. But that is different from removing him in order to punish him. I guess the intent is what makes the difference.

The person I went to court against spent 8 years in jail. He is out now, and that fact makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up at times. The experiment that we tried there was locking him up for 8 years with hardened criminals and then letting him out with a condition that he not contact any of his victims. For those 8 years I felt safer. But now that he is out, my feeling of not being safe is intensified by the fact he has had 8 years of socialization as a criminal, that through the grapevine I have heard he blames and hates me for putting him away, and that nothing was ever resolved, if anything, the years just allowed his "monster" status to grow in my own mind until the amount of power over me that he gained with the original act has if anything intensified. As far as experimenting, I would say that one was a failure.

I would be willing to experiement with anything that allowed him to be re-humanised in my own psychy and that had some kind of proven chance of making him less likely to offend again. I tried to heal myself and to take responsibility for my own psychological scars - by trying to ignore it, by seeking councilling, by learning as much as I could about this stuff, by confronting him at one point and explaining what he did and how it affected me, and by working with other sex offenders in order to try to understand. This was all before I knew about restorative justice, but all of those things (except ignoring it) are components of it. The fact that my instinctive attempts to heal myself share commonalities with restorative justice make me have hope for that system. We did try the circle approach with a rape that happened in our household quite a few years ago. It really seemed to work for those two people too. Ironically, the guy ended up working in the field of rape prevention with the John Howard society.