I posted an article in the Rape, Did she ask for it? thread which discusses a theory on the root causes of rape, and per Mrspigpen's suggestion, I am opening it up here for debate.

Rape is 'Normal'

So, the questions for this thread will be:

1. Do you agree with Robert Jensen's analysis? If no or only partly, what do you think the root causes of rape are?

2. What changes, if any, should be made within society as a result of these findings?

Mrspigpen, since you suggested opening this up for debate. If you have anything additional to add to the initial topic for debate, please do.

Partly. I accept that social conditioning carries a lot of the burden of blame, but I would go one step further and say that society itself is a product of its individual members.

Such a sexual environment as Jensen describes, does not simply occur with out a solid reason. I can easily imagine that western society in general, and American society in particular developed its sexual character for a very simple but evolved and practical reason.



Children should be taught about sex in a realistic way that emphasizes the dangers of inappropriate behavior. Boys should be allowed to show emotion with out being penalized by their parents and teachers.

Its not enough to simply say 'don't do this'. One has to provide an alternative. I would suggest that most men prefer to be dominant in sex, because they are scared of the alternative, which I see as displaying emotion.
Instead of allowing themselves to become vulnerable, they hide behind a mask of machismo that demands submission from their sexual partner. If boys were freed of the constraints of having to prove themselves, then perhaps they would develop to become more confident of themselves.

What we all need to learn is that human beings are fragile. Both men and women.

I don't agree entirely with Robert Jensen's article, and I think that the root causes of rape most probably changes a bit from individual to individual, but the article makes some very good points about Western society and the dominant/submissive dynamics that often happen between men and women in the bedroom. These dynamics certainly play a large role in the cause of rape.



Moif, I think that you presented some very valid points regarding solutions. I just want to add that I think that women need to work on some of their emotions, as well, mainly self-acceptance. I know so many women who deny their own sexuality for fear that they will be looked at in a negative light. I think that if women could be confident with who they are and how they express their sexuality in conjunction with men being able to express themselves emotionally, some of the underlying dominant/submissive dynamics would fade.

I will probably receive a lot of BOOs for my analysis here, but this is my opinion....

The writer’s contention seems to be that sexual dynamics which we view as normal (the predatory male, and submissive woman paradigm)are the root cause of rape. I disagree.

I believe that the cultural and social (in my opinion innate) differences between the sexes do not influence the violence against women, but is actually positive and protective in nature. Perhaps I have the opposite of the writer’s view.

Men reflect exactly which behaviors receive the most positive reinforcement from potential sexual partners. They are dominate not solely because of cultural pressures, but because (generally) women want them to be. This is not an objectification of women.

Women want the dominant men, and men do what it takes to get the women. They are comfortable with these roles because they are natural…not because of societal conditioning. I am absolutely certain that if the average woman wanted a submissive mate, men would be scrambling to try to be the lapdog.

Pornography is an outlet for men because it’s easy. The women in the magazine or television don’t expect anything and are eager to please. They enjoy and need sex as much as he does. This isn’t the man’s ideal situation (a woman who doesn’t speak and enjoys objectification and being viewed as an object) but simply an easy fantasy, because (contrary to the article) the man gets tired of constantly having to portray the tough dominating predator.

Sexual violence (IMO) is the result of confusion, and subsequent fury. Some men confuse the onslaught of media stereotypes with the reality of daily life. Women in the real world don’t respond the same as those in the media. This infuriates the (opposite of the writer’s stereotype) less assertive, less confident male who might feel a rejection as a personal affront. When a woman on television wears a slinky outfit, she is on the prowl for a man. When a woman in the real world wears the slinky outfit, she might not be looking for him. Everyone else (especially in the media) seems to be having easy sex, so why isn’t he? This enrages the insecure, potentially violent man. He is violent not because he is so in tuned in to sexual ethics and their influence, but more because that standard is difficult for him.

I view neanderthalic male sexual conversation, which the writer references, as completely innocuous. It doesn’t demonstrate objectification of women in real terms…it’s more a (false) affirmation of virility. Men don’t speak that way about their wives and mothers of their children, they speak that way when they want to feel a distance. If intimate acts are regarded with a distance not usually associated with the term ‘intimacy’, they feel more confident, and potential rejection is also easier on their ego.

When you consider that violence against women is an escalating phenomenon, does it make sense to equate the increasing incidence to men’s (whether natural or acquired) ‘masculinity’? Or, is it more a sign of sexual confusion during a time when the male’s natural role as the dominant protector differs with the media and new conflicting feminine standards?



I think that we need to eliminate the confusion. We need to accept that there are inherent gender differences, and that’s a good thing. Expect respectful conduct from both genders, and also understand that primal male behavior is not bad. It is actually very good, when properly directed within the limits of civilized society.

I'm not going to boo you. I actually agree with many of the things that you said. I accept that there are inherent gender differences, and I can also accept that confusion due to shifting societal roles may factor into the cause of rape.

I don't necessarily agree that women want to be dominated. I'm sure that some do, and I'm also sure that the same is true for some men who would like to be dominated by women, but I think that generally, both partners would like equality. As you said, being the dominant party can be exhausting. It can also be frustrating to be dominated all of the time. It's easy to lose your sense of self.

That is mainly where we disagree, because while I do believe that some of that behavior is natural instinct, I also believe that a large portion of it is learned.

My question for you is: How do you think that society could eliminate the confusion?

my personal viewpoint is this, human rights in yugoslavia would help to understand my point plus mu stance on biological influence.


i read a report on human rights in yugoslavia and it was rather shocking that beating of the wife is considered normal practice by a strong majority, and that rape itself is not a crime if the two are married. and that rape it self is not a crime if a women does it to a man. for the biological point, i think that your enviroment can play a role in your ability as a male to commit rape. as in prolonged exsposure to conditions that are horrid to live in. and that overall education if i may use the word cuts down dramatically the chances of it occuring. or to put it plainly, i think the more a human evoloves into its upper brain the less chances you have for it vs. someong who spends a majority of their lives living of their lower brains, or that in the most basic sense men are just ugly creatures in the first place but can be helped.

My feeling is that the root cause of rape (assuming there really is one) must lie much deeper within the human mind than what we normally think of as sexuality. How else can one explain the not uncommon phenomenon of men being sexually assaulted by heterosexual men? Here, clearly, rape is revealed as a crime of violence, only incidentally expressed sexually.

I also believe that human gender behavior is almost entirely culturally determined. This is not to deny that such cultural influences are extremely strong, nearly as influential as biological determinants.

What can be done? Encourage free expression of mutually consenting forms of sexual behavior. Encourage respect for voluntary sex industry workers, and zero tolerance for abuse of such workers. Encourage everyone to appreciate sexual behavior as a source of love and joy.

This leaves unsolved the deeper problem of human violence.

in a victorian sense some people related it to domination, or that covered in a load of evil and moral slang that was dominant in that time. i put it like this, to study the concept of a group of hunter gather types or the mondern day caveman leaves much to be desired. even in light of todays facts of such on humanity there is no clear viewpoint of or list of human emotions, drives or instincts.

but it would be nice to find if modern day caveman was equiped with the same set of emotions as humans then you could try to make more sense of structure from them, or the impact of biological determinints in human cultural evolution. we do know that hunter gather types lived in groups, not very large groups due to i guess resorce constraints, but a form of communication such as caveart has been found also that of tools, maps to resources and jewerly has been recovered. so in a sense you could say that modern caveman was capable of love , hate the feeling of compition or what not. of course without study(evidence) its difficult to really define it. but emotions or biological determinants are not without reason, such as misery, or it telling you to find shade or some way out of the "killer" sun or irrational phobias, being happy. i think an important milestone in human understanding would be to define, instincts moreover that if humans are driven to have a deep connection to social structures in the first place, as a form of survival.


overall, i think that this would help to understand violent acts, such as rape to a higher degree.

I don't think there is any way to end the confusion without going backwards in our thinking. There was a time when women were classified strictly on the basis of their sexual experience. 'Bad ' meant you had premarital sex, and 'good' meant you didn't. There was no confusion, and there was also no gray area. I wouldn't want to live like that again, and I don't think most people would. We may have to accept that increasing sexual violence is simply a result of our choices to be 'sexually free'.

Attack the problem on the criminal end. Women need to take measures to protect themselves and refuse to be victims.



That is far less common. There is still a sexual aspect to man/ man rape. Eunuchs don't rape. I definitely agree with your last paragraph.

Simply put, as far as I can tell, rape is simply an overwelming desire to have sex, when no other way is there.

Consider. For whatever reason, you cannot have sex. Not dating anyone, bad social skills, fish-smell disease, whatever. No prostitution nearby. "Hey.. check out that chick. Yea, I know her type... the one who'll have sex with everyone known to man, but thinks she's too good for me... yea... why not?"

In addition, to that mindset, there's also the feeling, that even if it's not "wanted" per se, it still feels good. If I have nightly wood, and someone comes in and mounts me, man or woman or animal, as much as I may be unconscenting or repulsed, the feeling of a warm lubricated vagina or *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** or hand still physically feels really good.

The rapist, to my thinking, probably doesn't understand that women, having much less testosterone than men, does not have nearly as high a libido, and that forcible intercourse is painful, from what I understand.

As for societal creations on the nature of sexuality, in my studies, men have been dominant, sexually and otherwise in every culture and species I have ever studied or read of, excluding the supposed "Amazons."

-Robert

If this wasn't such a hard topic, that would almost be funny Robert.

Just about every article, essay or study I have ever read regarding rape has concluded that rape is not about sex, but power.

Rape is not sex.

Really?

Why then, has the only time when that though even crossed my mind (I hear the cops coming for me now) is when I was having a severe dry spell (two years without)?

You know that feeling (or you may not) when you're with a girl, you're messing around, your clothes are off, the lights are out, and you think... maybe I could get away with it .. she wouldn't tell anyone ... she would probably enjoy it .. she's just repressed ... just slip it right in before she has time to say no

Of course, the times in that situation, I don't do it. And I know that each of those statements are incorrect (except for the "she's repressed one" too much religious/political dogma makes girls around here ashamed of sexuality). But that's the line of thought that leads to it, unless you're some mental nutcase serial rapist.

-Robert

Well if you didn't rape any one, then it isn't because you were desperate.

Looking at a girl and thinking 'what if' is a fantasy. You might also look at a Policeman and think 'what if' or even his horse and think, 'what if'.

None of these thoughts will ever be transformed into actions though without your need for them to happen. Its safe to say that any one who has the need to rape, will do so, and those who do not rape did not share that need.

Robert, my friend, you did not rape anyone because you are, like most men, a decent, moral person who would not wish to hurt anyone.

Rape is violence which happens to be expressed sexually. It is not sex which happens to be expressed violently.

Bang on!

I think it's worth mentioning that the one thing over 99% of rapes have in common is that they are perpetrated by men, whether the victim be male, female, adult, child, animal, vegetable or mineral. It is next to impossible for a woman to rape a man, as (not to put too fine a point on it) the man gets the erection, not the woman. The very few examples of "female rapists" are most remarkable for their rarity.

Serious sexual assaults by women are possible (but very rare)

So in solving the problem of "rape", we aren't just talking about an aspect of violence, we are talking about an aspect of MALE violence.

From what I've read, apart from the real sickos (who by definition need mental treatment not punishment), most rapists either lost control, usually of their temper, not their lust; or they didn't realise that what they were doing constituted rape (because their lust blinded them to the lack or withdrawal of consent; or they were well aware of what they were doing but just didn't care.

Very few first-time rapists had considered that they were capable of rape beforehand. (I read this years ago; I wish I could remember the source.)

I think that the first two causes could be reduced if men learned to distance themselves from their urges a little more. I'm not talking about becoming a total Vulcan - just a certain degree of introspection now and again to check that what we're doing is appropriate.

Robert/Greenring7 reminded me of something I've long thought to be true for me. I personally believe that I could rape someone (or murder, or just become violent), because I've imagined scenarios where I do. I'm not talking about fantasising here - but extrapolating actual situations that I've been in, and being made, at best, uncomfortable by them. At worst, repulsed.

Because I can imagine circumstances in which I could do such things, I'm pretty confident that I never will, 'cos I'm on my guard when certain alarm bells ring (I'm in a bad mood, etc.). Of course, I'm not such a super-being that I've imagined every possible scenario in which I might be tempted to do something I regard as reprehensible, but I think that the fact that I've admitted to myself the possibility exists also makes it possible to resist.

Of course, this relies on a strongly-developed sense of right and wrong - the failing that allows the third major cause of rape I outlined above. I've no idea WHAT we could do about this - and anyway it's a whole thread (or even a whole message board) to itself.

Sex is about passion, sharing, ectasy, sensuality and giving of yourself completely to another. Rape is the complete absence of all of those things. Rape is an act of selfishness, anger and agression. Making the other person feel good isn't the point at all. It's about the exertion of power and control over someone else and forcing them to do something against their will.

I hesitate to say rape is "normal." Normalizing rape would tend to assert that it is a natural behavior and I disagree that it is. I prefer to think of it as a controllable behavior. Yes, men are conditioned to see rape as an ultimate expression of masculinity, but I believe this negative stimuli can be expunged by force of will. What we have learn we can unlearn. We have to change the culture where women are sex objects and men are predators.

Real men don't rape.

First of all, the porn industry doesn't make women out to be an object of no life. If that were the case, then all guys would just masturbate. An also males just don't know how to be emotional in bed so how can they... if they could they would do it... it means happy lady and more action for them!

[QUOTE=cyan,May 22 2003, 02:41 PM]1. Do you agree with Robert Jensen's analysis? If no or only partly, what do you think the root causes of rape are?
[\QUOTE]

To say that the underlying reason for rape is society is a bit far reaching, but I think it's a good starting point. I question #1 because of the apparent diversity of individuals in society... especially the diversity of children attending the same school. There must be a strong reason for quite a bit of differentiation among children with an overwhelming majority of common social contacts. The social norms do set a stage or a context for the individual, but it seems that the parents provide the main guidance for a developing child. I hear every once in a while that children will learn more in their first 5 years than the rest of their life. Whether that's true or not I think it illustrates an important point about parenting. Parent's have such a dramatic effect on their offspring and good parenting will provide the child with the necessary tools to be a "good" citizen. Be it a non-rapist, a constructive, friendly individualy...
Abuse of alcohol, abuse of drugs, crappy personalities... all primarily a result of the lack of "good" parenting. I often see kids that have nice but strict parents; and these children very often end up with abusive behaviors.

[QUOTE=cyan,May 22 2003, 02:41 PM]2. What changes, if any, should be made within society as a result of these findings?
[\QUOTE]

Education is the key to change behavior, but unfortunately we cannot rely on the school systems to adopt such a role. To begin with, most schools have taken the approach of complete abstinence, which is absolutely ridiculous and counter-productive. When you teach sexual intimacy to be a forbidden act, it works against the goal of reducing the prevalence of machoness tests in young males. By making said act forbidden, it will transform those who commit the act into a "superior" individual. It induces fear among the other male peers, who will strive to pursue the top... an instinctual behavior of most animals. This seems to be the root of the cause. By simply educating children, in and out of school, about all the pro's and cons of a relationship in all its aspects, both emtional and sexual, children will have the tools to act as responsible individuals.

This is the very first time I've encountered anyone addressing pornography as something other than a masturbatory aid. Do you, or anyone you know, actually watch a pornographic film in it's entirety, as you would a documentary?

Simply put... I think you forget that many women like to watch pornography, as well as the existence of gay pornography. What do you say to women who watch pornography? Are they also making objects of men? What about gay pornography? Are they making objects of their fellow males? Ask yourself what exactly the object of sex is, and why animals and all living things "love" it.

What's the purpose of gay porn? The same thing. Why do women watch porn? Probably a similar reason, or to make their lover happy ( the only time I have ever watched it was certainly not because I was interested. I find it boring, and I would expect I'm not the only one).
I am responding to your assertion
[Quote]First of all, the porn industry doesn't make women out to be an object of no life.  If that were the case, then all guys would just masturbate. [/Qoute]
They, in fact, DO masturbate to pornography. One might argue that is its primary purpose. There's no acting ability required, or much of a story line that I'm aware. You didn't answer my question, incidentally. It is irrelevant what the object of sex is, unless you can elaborate as to how it fits into this discussion.

What I am pointing out is that the pornography provides something more than simply a catalyst for sexual arousal and pleasure. It's becoming more and more apparent with the advent of the internet for the masses that pornography is embraced as a secondary source for a fuller sexual satisfaction for a sociopath. I mean, if pornography was for the sole purpose of objectifying women ( or a sexual partner), then a single picture of a some individual with their genitalia exposed would suffice for the exigency of heightened sexual states. The incredible volume and variety must proved us with a clue about the all-encompassing picture of pornography's use. The unfortunate feeling I get is that pornography provides the sociopath with a more satisfying sexual outlet, even at an emotional level.

Now, whether or not you like pornography is up to you, but I know plenty of females that are turned on by watching a few dirty scenes Something like a pre-foreplay?

with all this slang going about, i stop to wonder if people are looking to put the whole lot in one single mold. I think that would be a mistake, i could never rape, but i have become filled with lust by a female who then said nicely i dont want to. I stoped almost instantly(a few more kisses), but i could see some other people out there that might not. But what i am trying to say here is that, i dont think you can lump all rapists reasons for such an act into one nice clean ideal.

Rape is sick, and its sad it happens, i have had the nice thing to meet a girl who has been raped 3 times, she is very stong and still hangs with males, i dont know how she does it, but i want to send her an award or something you know.

But back to the topic, dont lump it into one reason, that never seems to get anything anywhere. Serial killers have multiple things i guess you could say to why they do what they do, its just not that simple.