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