Well...but then, it's still a non-consensual crime that involves what we, as a
society, call "sex" (whether we want to define that as penetration or
envagination or engulfment, whatever). I mean, this is not the same kind of
non-consensual experience one has when someone else demands one's MONEY or one's
CAR or even one's LIFE. If someone cuts your throat and leaves you to die, that's
a terribly violent act, but it's not rape. Rape is a very particular violence,
particular in that it is a demand that one hand over, without consent, one's body
*for sexual acts*. Even if it's driven by a desire for mastery and territory and
identity and not by sexual appetite, this violence is accomplished through the
medium of sex.
I agree that there's a problem here. I mean, jesus, if you castrate someone for
rape, some prosthesis will inevitably be found that'll do the "trick" with even
more violence/vengence. So this is not and yet it IS sexual. I can't dismiss this
term as easily as you can. I feel troubled by it either way...I haven't yet found
a good way to look at it. I'm still listening.
I agree with you, of course, that there's nothing criminal about consensual S/M.
In fact, it should be a crime for the state to interfere with sexual preferences,
orientations, etc.
ddd (in TX, where the sodomy laws are still on the books)
Andrew Brin wrote:
>
> i guess that this is exactly where i am trying to problemetize my own
> underatnding of rape/sex. your need (and mine) to add the qualifiers of
> parentheses and asterisks to the notion of the sexual when applied to rape
> indicates to me that this word is not suffecient to describe what we are
> trynig to say, and instead of qualifying the wrong word i will not use sex
> to describe rape. if that leaves me with no word so be it.
>
> this question of wether or not sex can include violence is seemingly
> problematized by S/M experiences. i think that the violence in S/M (when
> consensual) is not criminal (at least in my mind) and therefore unique. it
> is the non-consensuality of rape that makes it, to me, criminal and not
> sexual. here i am trying to establish the boudaries of these terms for
> myself so that they retain their ability to be expressive.
>
> F L I P
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
society, call "sex" (whether we want to define that as penetration or
envagination or engulfment, whatever). I mean, this is not the same kind of
non-consensual experience one has when someone else demands one's MONEY or one's
CAR or even one's LIFE. If someone cuts your throat and leaves you to die, that's
a terribly violent act, but it's not rape. Rape is a very particular violence,
particular in that it is a demand that one hand over, without consent, one's body
*for sexual acts*. Even if it's driven by a desire for mastery and territory and
identity and not by sexual appetite, this violence is accomplished through the
medium of sex.
I agree that there's a problem here. I mean, jesus, if you castrate someone for
rape, some prosthesis will inevitably be found that'll do the "trick" with even
more violence/vengence. So this is not and yet it IS sexual. I can't dismiss this
term as easily as you can. I feel troubled by it either way...I haven't yet found
a good way to look at it. I'm still listening.
I agree with you, of course, that there's nothing criminal about consensual S/M.
In fact, it should be a crime for the state to interfere with sexual preferences,
orientations, etc.
ddd (in TX, where the sodomy laws are still on the books)
Andrew Brin wrote:
>
> i guess that this is exactly where i am trying to problemetize my own
> underatnding of rape/sex. your need (and mine) to add the qualifiers of
> parentheses and asterisks to the notion of the sexual when applied to rape
> indicates to me that this word is not suffecient to describe what we are
> trynig to say, and instead of qualifying the wrong word i will not use sex
> to describe rape. if that leaves me with no word so be it.
>
> this question of wether or not sex can include violence is seemingly
> problematized by S/M experiences. i think that the violence in S/M (when
> consensual) is not criminal (at least in my mind) and therefore unique. it
> is the non-consensuality of rape that makes it, to me, criminal and not
> sexual. here i am trying to establish the boudaries of these terms for
> myself so that they retain their ability to be expressive.
>
> F L I P
--
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D
D D. Diane Davis D
D Rhetoric and Composition D
D Old Dominion University D
D dddavis@xxxxxxxxxxxx D
D http://www.odu.edu/gnusers/davis/ddd.htm D
D D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD