The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Mind Rape and Body Rape

May 5, 2006 | 61 Comments

Religion and rape, it’s frequently said, are all about power and control.

I’ve never understood why people accept those arguments or bother to raise them.

First, power and control aren’t inherently bad or dishonorable things. Everybody wants to be empowered, everybody wants to be in control. They’re actually good motives. We elect people to exercise power and control, and call them leaders.

Second, power and control aren’t the motives behind faith or rape. People worship because they believe in God — it’s a question of stupidity, not power. There may certainly be people who don’t believe and merely use religion as a means of controlling the masses, but they’re not religious. So you can’t say that their religion arises out of a subconscious urge to control, because they don’t have any religion. And for the religious people who are being controlled, the religion is about belief — they wouldn’t let themselves be controlled if they didn’t believe. But the belief doesn’t arise out of a desire to be used.

Rape is about sex. An erect penis is indispensable to the act. Saying it’s about power and control gives it more far more dignity than it deserves, and I don’t understand why people think that attributing those higher motives to the rapist demeans him. He’s an out of control pervert seeking some quick, selfish, animal gratification. The last thing on his mind after raping is running the woman’s life. He doesn’t care what she does with herself, and if he attempts any further intrusion into it her life the purpose is just to ensure than she doesn’t facilitate his apprehension. And the notion that woman is thereafter “controlled” by the resulting anger is just wordplay. She’s certainly injured by it, but she’s not controlled in the sense that she thereafter acts out of a compulsion to conform her behavior in a way that would meet with the rapist’s approval.

The power and control thesis isn’t raised as frequently with respect to other beliefs or crime. People may cling to stupid philosophical or scientific ideas, but the embrace of empiricism or astrology generally isn’t attributed to those motives. And no one claims that the guy who holds up a convenience store is on a power-trip. In the way that the rapist is after sex, he’s after money — the motive is greed. He doesn’t want to control the 7-11 and couldn’t care less what it charges for its slurpees after he leaves.

It also perfectly irrelevant what the psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropologists say. With respect to faith, every study I’ve seen begins with the circular argument that religion is obviously false and that there therefore must necessarily be some motive other than belief. With respect to rape, all the data as to motivation comes from rapists — and why would you believe them? If you did, you might as well believe their protestations that they are innocent, or that the woman consented to the act.

Try to think of the issue in terms of what I’m doing now. No doubt some of you think I’m after power and control. But if the arguments above are correct, well, then, I’m correct, and your judgment regarding motives to me in this case are most likely to be in error. If I’m wrong, and you think my arguments are so stupid that not even I could believe them, then I couldn’t possibly believe that they’d have any hope of persuading or controlling you. And clearly you aren’t being controlled by them — unless you submit to my will by leaving some idiotic comment explaining how wrong-headed and power-hungry I truly am.

Comments

61 Responses to “Mind Rape and Body Rape”

  1. Thorngod
    May 5th, 2006 @ 12:47 pm

    Sneaky concluding remark, that! The reason many posters here dispute you, and the reason you, I, and all the others spout our opinions here, is primarily from vanity, secondarily from a need for social intercourse. Few would deny the secondary, but I’m not so sure many would admit to the primary. Quite a few may labor under the belief that their sole, or at least principal, reason for ranting here and at large about their solidly-reasoned and shining truths is for the purpose of enlightening and bettering a suffering and benighted humanity–and there may be a sincere sentiment of that sort accompanying their self-satisfying urge, but unless they recognize and admit the vanity, they are as ignorant at base ad the fools they bray at.

  2. Jhone
    May 5th, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

    Good arguments with one exception….an erect penis is not nessessary for rape. Objects are used often, I’m sorry to say.

  3. contratimes
    May 5th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

    My, God. This is brilliant. This is exactly the sort of thing I might write (and I have in fact written something quite similar). To think, I am an unabashed theist!

    Truly, you are right: the only source for the motives of rape has come from the rapists themselves. It might just be about sex: about an orgasm without all that frilly courtship stuff. What arrested rapist is going to confess that he was in it, so to speak, because normal sexual relations either elude him or are (somehow!) unsatisfactory?

    It’s about power, violence? Perhaps. But it is without doubt perfectly obvious that it is definitely about sex.

    Peace.

    BG

  4. Mister Swill
    May 5th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

    A person who rapes another person has control over that person’s body for the duration of the rape. A person who holds up a convenience store has control over the people in that store for the duration of the hold-up. A person who murders another person has control over the last moments of the person’s life. The power may not be the only reason people commit those crimes, and it may not be part of the reason in every case, but it’s certainly there. I don’t see how it’s a stretch to consider power and control as motivating factors.

    And then we can get into the fact that a person who becomes successful at a job has some control over his or her surroundings. A person who excels academically has some control over the unknown. A person who knows how to flirt and attract people has some control over their sexuality. Which psychologist was it who said that power and control can be considered motivating factors in everything we do?

  5. Erik
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:25 pm

    I see. So when strict Muslims insist on women covering themselves from head to toe, that’s EITHER about power OR about religion, but not both? You’re missing the point about the power discussion, RA. The issue isn’t necessarily that a person actively thinks about exerting power when acting upon a religious belief, but the desire for power is behind it nevertheless.

  6. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

    I think the dichotomy between sex and power as motives for rape is false. In any case, the “power” in the psychological theory in issue regards coercive power over other humans, rather than some abstract notion of personal empowerment. I take it that few will find the former “honorable,” though there might be some interesting, Nietzschean point lurking in there somewhere.

    Moreoever, belief isn’t a “motive,” and it certainly isn’t incoherent to say garden variety religious beliefs might be driven by conscious or unconscious motives like, say, a deep-seeded fear of personal annihilation (ostensibly assuaged by belief in a delightful afterlife).

  7. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

    I think the dichotomy between sex and power as motives for rape is false. In any case, the “power” in the psychological theory in issue regards coercive power over other humans, rather than some abstract notion of personal empowerment. I take it that few will find the former “honorable,” though there might be some interesting, Nietzschean point lurking in there somewhere.

    Moreoever, belief isn’t a “motive,” and it certainly isn’t incoherent to say garden variety religious beliefs might be driven by conscious or unconscious motives like, say, a deep-seeded fear of personal annihilation (ostensibly assuaged by belief in a delightful afterlife).

  8. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

    I think the dichotomy between sex and power as motives for rape is false. In any case, the “power” in the psychological theory in issue regards coercive power over other humans, rather than some abstract notion of personal empowerment. I take it that few will find the former “honorable,” though there might be some interesting, Nietzschean point lurking in there somewhere.

    Moreoever, belief isn’t a “motive,” and it certainly isn’t incoherent to say garden variety religious beliefs might be driven by conscious or unconscious motives like, say, a deep-seeded fear of personal annihilation (ostensibly assuaged by belief in a delightful afterlife).

  9. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

    “deep-seeded”: Doh! That would be deep-seated.

  10. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

    “deep-seeded”: Doh! That would be deep-seated.

  11. "Q" the Enchanter
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

    “deep-seeded”: Doh! That would be deep-seated.

  12. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

    I don’t see much difference between those who knowingly use religon for their own benefit and don’t believe it and those who are too stupid to see what is going on. It’s like the difference between the phoney nigerian banker and the idiot who agrees to help him transfer a “substantials sum of the monies” into their bank account. They are both part of an underlying fraud and their idiocy does not mitigate their culpability.

    Also, if rape is only about sex, why risk your freedom by raping someone when you can just go to a hooker? It seems there must be something about rape that you can’t get from a prostitute, and whatever it is it must be worth taking a huge risk to get it.

  13. PanAtheist
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:03 pm

    RA >> How can you demonstrate that this is a circular argument?

    “With respect to faith, every study I’ve seen begins with the circular argument that religion is obviously false and that there therefore must necessarily be some motive other than belief.”

    That is a valid proposition!
    And it is easy to test!
    Just present the subject with any blatant element of nonsensicalness, and see if the “belief” is shattered!

  14. Thorngod
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

    Most cases of rape are primarily, if not altogether, for sex. Most victims of rape are known, to some degree, by the rapist, who is acting from a desire for that particular female. This is part of the answer to the question of why, if the act is sexually provoked, a prostitute would not suffice. The other part of it is that many men, including many who are inclined to commit rape, have a visceral aversion to prostitutes.

  15. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 3:59 pm

    got any data to back up your assertions throngood?

  16. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 4:28 pm

    Thorngod,

    You only say that because you are vain and not because it is true.

    Everyone else,

    Let’s now sit back and watch his logic circuits explode.

    :)

  17. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm

    Jhone,
    Good arguments with one exception….an erect penis is not nessessary for rape. Objects are used often, I’m sorry to say.
    I see a penis is not required. Then shouldn’t we see a higher number of female rapists?

    In fact, since women are “powerless” or “less powerful” in many societies then if the desire for power was what drove rapists wouldn’t we expect there to be more female than male rapists. Just like one would expect more stealing from people who lack money.

  18. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 4:39 pm

    If rape were merely about power and not sex as some of the hyperfeminists claim then one would expect approximately equal numbers of male and female victims and rapists. One would also expect male rapists to attack an equal number of male and female victims and female rapists to do likewise. These are not the distributions that are seen.

  19. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm

    Choobis said,
    “Also, if rape is only about sex, why risk your freedom by raping someone when you can just go to a hooker? It seems there must be something about rape that you can’t get from a prostitute, and whatever it is it must be worth taking a huge risk to get it.”

    Too paraphrase you “If stealing is only about the desire to have something, why risk your freedom by stealing something when you can just to a store and buy it?”

    Besides, last I heard they lock you up for going to a hooker. Besides hookers want money and many rapists can’t afford the going rate. Plus hookers are less desireable for several reasons, one being that they are more likely to carry disease. They aren’t going to neccesarily do it the way the rapist wants. If the rapist likes it rough he is probably going to have to pay even more. I also understand that criminals tend not to weigh the consequences of their actions very well. If the did then the prisons would be empty as they would only be committing crimes that were risk free.

    Furthermore, the people who are disagreeing with the “rape is about power” crowd don’t claim that “rape is only about sex”. If someone stole something would you say stealing it was “only about deprivation”. Not necessarily. Might be about sloth, lack of a job, revenge, restitution, punishment, or a whole host of other motivations and causes.

    I really hate these one motivation covers everything explanations for crime. People commit crimes for different reasons. The way the feminists have it defined every incident of statutory rape is about power. Nonsense, there are plenty of relationships between girls just below the age of consent and boys above it where it’s about love.

    Now if you exclude non-agressive consentual sexual rape (statutory rape) then of course sex is about agression and therefore power over someone else. You have to obtain power over someone else in order to get them to do something they do not want to do.

    I agree with RA that the primary motivation for rape is obtaining sex. I think it is more than this however. I believe there is a sexual thrill in the power one has over the victim. As RA points out however this is a fleeting condition. The rapists doesn’t want to control what shoes his victim wears when she goes shopping next sunday. He wants the thrill of forcibly penetrating the woman. This is a naturally exciting fantasy for many men quite distinct from the loving and affectionate feeling one gets from a loving congress. It is a base urge that most men do not act upon because they understand that it would be wrong to do so. Wrong because it is hurtful to the woman who experiences it. Some males are disfunctional and don’t recognize the harmful nature or feel the harm is desirved, or just don’t give a damn about others.

    I have simplified things myself because this is merely a comment. Rapists can be motivated by feelings of rejection by particular women, or women in general. They can be motivated by desires to punish a particular women or women in general for some percieved transgression. A rapists might feel he earned or deserves the sex and is angry when it is not forthcoming. These motivations can be rationalizations or true beliefs.

    I could go on but you get the idea.

  20. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 5:55 pm

    RA,
    “I don’t understand why people think that attributing those higher motives to the rapist demeans him.”

    I never interpreted it as demeaning the rapist. I always thought the purpose had more to do with the worldview of the people who espouse such views. Under certain world views if rape were about getting sex then the rapist would be blameless.

    If rapists committed their acts because of sexual “needs” then they would be blameless in the same way that someone who steals bread would be. If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime. After all the rapist may not be getting his fair share of the sexual production in a society. By making it about power one can shift the rapist from the oppressed class to the opressing class.

    This idea of “rape as power trip” also seems to appeal to some breeds of determinists. There are people out their who like to excuse criminals of their crimes because of determinism. You know, it’s because of the bad childhood or poverty that the crime was committed, so lets correct those problems in order to stop crime. Punishment to them seems are retribution. They like to blame the social order and people in power for crime. Unfortunately for their philosophical position if the world is deterministic then nobody is in power. The people in power can make the same claims, “I’m blameless since he I was brought up as a power mongering capitalist”. They don’t make this connection however and like to blame people who are in power for all societies ills. By making the rape about power it allows these determinists to sidestep the issue of childhood issues and blaming society. It allows them to directly blame the rapist directly.

    Just so you know, I do not believe that whether the world is deterministic or not should have any bearing on whether an individual should be punished for their crimes. Even in a deterministic world if it stops or prevents the behavior then punishment seems effective. Punishing in the case of a mentally incompetent on this view would serve no purpose, since it would neither prevent nor stop the crime from happening.

  21. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 6:09 pm

    macker,

    you are either disingenuous or stupid. Rape will put you in jail for a very long time if you are caught (or at least, it ought to). Most people who don’t have some sort of kleptomania will buy things rather than steal them if they can. I have no data but I would guess that the majority of people who steal things do so because they don’t have enough money to buy it. Furthermore, you probably won’t go to jail for using the services of a prostitute (and it is even legal in some places). It takes a particular mind set to rape someone, and if you really just want sex there are so many other ways to get it. The argument that excessive horniness leads to rape is ridiculous. If it were that simple 14 year old boys would be raping every other hot midriff showing chick they saw.

  22. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

    Aren’t there any rapists who post here that can explain the origins of rape?

  23. Brian Flemming
    May 5th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

    “But the belief doesn’t arise out of a desire to be used.”

    Not so sure about that. The mindset of the believer submitting to Christ’s will and that of a submissive/masochist are pretty similar.

    A desire to submit one’s will and transfer control to a powerful other may lead someone to go shopping for a belief system that will accommodate this desire. And if that someone runs into a church before an S&M club…

  24. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 6:42 pm

    “you are either disingenuous or stupid.”

    What a nice way to start a conversation. As a matter of fact I am neither. So much for your deductive powers.

    “Rape will put you in jail for a very long time if you are caught ”

    False assumption for many reasons. I won’t explain other than to say it depends on the country, state, age of rapist, age of victim, victims attitudes, victims religion, victims relationship to the rapist, etc.

    I will not bother refuting all your other unsubtainiated claims.

    I happen to be familiar with rape because both my sister and I were victims at the tender age of 8 and 7 respectively. It had everything to do with sex and little to do with power. Contributing factors were opportunity and expectation of not being caught.

    I also know several women who were raped and have talked with them. None of these instances involved power trips. Sometimes it was about a perverted need by an adult to get sexual gratification as a “teacher”.

    I have also heard things from both sides in a case of date rape. In that instance it was totally about excessive horniness. As stupid as it sounds the girl wanted to snuggle with her boyfriend naked, and alone. He had never had sex before and couldn’t control his desires. He made his move and very quickly. She considered it a rape but blamed herself so she never reported it as such. She was very mad at him for making her lose her virginity outside marriage.

    So in fact I have an example that proves your contention wrong.

    That same fellow who date raped his girlfriend had on a prior occasion got mad at some Catholic boys who rode on the same schoolbus for the same sort of thing you mention in your last sentence. Their was a girl who was wearing a miniskirt and they called her a slut and that she was asking for it and that they should rape her.

    Furthermore, my father is a psychologist and has worked with prison inmates. He’s the kind of guy people get chummy with and the prisoners liked to talk with him. He was working as a teacher in a prison college program. Your tax dollars at work. Criminals in fact think the rest of us are stupid and have their “ethical” code.

    “The argument that excessive horniness leads to rape is ridiculous. If it were that simple 14 year old boys would be raping every other hot midriff showing chick they saw.”

    Straw man argument. I did not claim that.

  25. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

    RA,
    It also perfectly irrelevant what the psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropologists say. With respect to faith, every study I’ve seen begins with the circular argument that religion is obviously false and that there therefore must necessarily be some motive other than belief.

    I never heard that argument or read any such studies. I think religion is in part about power and that is not my position. Ever hear of the “Divine right of kings”, “Human sacrifice”, etc? I know you’ve heard about them and I am wondering why those didn’t cross your mind when you wrote this article.

    Isn’t the whole point of revealed religion that the believer has true information that the non-believer doesn’t. Information on how God wants things run. Doesn’t that put the believer in a position of power. He knows what the guy in charge, the guy in power wants to be done. Isn’t that the claim?

    As for faith, it isn’t about exercising power but unquestioning self-deception which is necessary to be manipulated by power. It’s a state of mind that the religious authority wants to instill in his disciple to maintain power over him.

  26. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

    Brian F.,

    Didn’t see your post before making mine. I’d make the same argument.

    For most of it’s history religion has been about control and therefore power.

    BTW, the reason I think people are attracted to power is because it allows them to replicate their genes. That is, those in power have a natural advatage at survival and reproduction. They get to eat first and fuck first. I also believe this is why some women are attracted to men in power.

    I lived next door to a priest when I was around 17-18 and he used to sleep around on his wife. He found it easy to accomplish this because women were attracted to his authority, a kind of power. Funny thing is they didn’t seem to realize that sleeping with him sort of destroyed that authority being how he was suppose to be a “moral” authority.

  27. Viole
    May 5th, 2006 @ 7:48 pm

    “macker,
    you are either disingenuous or stupid.”

    Hey, Choobus, I was about to say that same thing, or something similar, though on his comments regarding socialism and determinism.

    Unfortunately, I don’t really feel like spending time refuting that crap right now. I’ll just say this;

    Brain, you obviously don’t know a damned thing about socialism. So please refrain from commenting on it. I find it irritating. Rape is a crime; for it to be a matter of social justice, the government must regulate sex. Which pretty much makes everyone a prostitute. Sex also isn’t a need, or a commodity.

  28. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 7:51 pm

    “Rape will put you in jail for a very long time if you are caught ”

    False assumption for many reasons. I won’t explain other than to say it depends on the country, state, age of rapist, age of victim, victims attitudes, victims religion, victims relationship to the rapist, etc.

    Nice quote mining. You missed an important aspect to what I said, although I’m sure it must have been an oversight. It’s not like you’re stupid and/or disingenuous or anything.

  29. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

    Coobus,

    Oh, and in case you think that date rape deal wasn’t a rape I’ll give you a little more detail. “Snuggling” which actually ended up being more like consentual deep kissing and fondling ended up with her being very excited. Of course there was manual stimulation of her involved since she wanted to get her rocks off. I don’t know if she climaxed before the deed or not but he got so excited and was so close he just decided to put it in without her consent. She said no, and continued to say no till he finished. It was definately a rape and he admitted it as such. Once she said no he should have stopped. He was actually pissed at her for drawing the line where she did. I think he has a point, and I am not sure what I would have done under the circumstances. They did not break up for a long time after this incident and continued with a full sexual relationship. It was a very rocky however, and I don’t think she ever forgave him.

    The reason he told me the story is because I had informed him that she had come on to me at his brothers wedding. She was quite stacked and had a beautiful face and she knew just how to push my buttons. She started talking dirty to me right during the ceremony. I melted like butter inside but tried not to show it. It freaked me out since my understanding was this was a friends girlfriend. It’s been so long I don’t remember when I informed him of it. Not sure if I waited till the broke up or not. I think I waited because I didn’t want to be put in the position of the person who broke up the relationship. Who’s he going to believe after all. Oh, and I did seriously consider taking her up on her propositions since because of my earlier rape incidence I was deathly afraid of actually asking girls out on dates.

    Didn’t know her real well but it turns out she was pretty psycho. Some other behavior on her part lead me to that conclusion. Like her stalking and then stabbing my friend around six months after they had broken up. In another incident I was sleeping on a bunk bed above them and she initiated sex with him with me present. Yep, I even heard him saying no. In any case, “the date rapist” is happily married now and is faithful to his wife and family.

    When it comes to sex, it’s been my experience that people are pretty screwed up, but I haven’t had exactly a normal life in that department. I’m not particularly fond of hippies and the sexual revolution.

    Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed I don’t have a particularly developed sense of modesty. Perhaps that is part of the reason I ended up being raped as a young child. Doesn’t make it my fault but it was a contributing factor. Things are always more complex than they are made out to be. One thing is for sure, you shouldn’t trust teenagers who want to spend a lot of time with and play with young children.

    One good thing about my lack of modesty is that I cannot be shamed into shutting up by nasty comments. I don’t embarrass easily and I’ve known more shame than you can dish out.

  30. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:19 pm

    if you were as annoying as a child as you are now I would not be surprised to learn that somebody shoved their cock in your mouth just to get you to shut the fuck up

  31. Mister Swill
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:24 pm

    I just want to interrupt the insanity for a second and note that we’re all, of course, engaging in speculation. I doubt any of us here have any expertise on the subject, and certainly none of us can claim any special insight into the human psyche. Including Brian Macker. And The Raving Atheist.

  32. Choobus
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

    agreed mister swill.

    This is silly. It’s a hugely complicated situation that I am glad I know nothing about.

  33. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

    Viole,

    I suggest you do a little more reading on socialism. Political socialism has been used to justify a lot of bad behavior that goes far beyond rape. That includes eugenics. You apparently are not aware of the eugenics programs in socialist countries like Sweden. I guess you never heard of the National Socialists. How about the Marxist branch of socialism with leaders like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe. Then there are the Arab socialists like the Baath party.

    Most of the things socialist want to redistribute are not “needs” and sex can in fact be commodified, and has been done so by many religions, political and economic creeds. You are naive if you think otherwise. Haven’t you ever heard of treating women as chattel?

    Are you familiar with free sex communes?

    I wasn’t saying that socialists actually made such arguments as I stated. It has to be in the backs of their minds however. In socialist Germany prostitution is legal and income is to a certain extent redistributed. There is no reason some of that income could not be used to pay for a prostitute. This is in effect a form of commodification and redistribution of sexual favors.

    I’ve made these kinds of arguments in the past and lo and behold years later they come to pass. I used to argue that being able to get insurance to pay for sexual reassignment based on the idea that a somebody was a “man in a women’s body” was pretty crazy. My example was what if some nut thought they were a dog. Does that mean we should pay for them to get surgery to add a tail, wiskers, and floppy ears. People would hear that argument and say it was ridiculous, “Nobody wants to be a dog”. Well not twenty years later I’m watching Ripley’s believe it or not and they have on a guy who got surgery to change himself into a lizard. I’ve also seen a guy who had surgery to be a “cat”. The one guy managed to get doctors convinced to split his tongue and make it forked, the other guy got his lip divided like a cats. They had scales implanted, whiskers and the like.

    I used to also joke about socialism moving towards the control of our intake of food. Another area where my jokes turned out to be true.

    There is no fundamental principle of socialism that either rules out prostitution or the forcing of women into prostitution. The concept of individual rights is not part of the philosophy. That doesn’t mean you can’t add a rule on ad-hoc to socialism that rejects either prostitution or forced prostitution. In fact, once you commodify sex via the legalization of prostitution there is no reason you couldn’t argue for redistribution of this service good so it is more fairly apportioned.

    Funny think you claiming sex is not a need. Nothing could be further from the truth. As biological organisms it is one of the needs that high if not top on the list. It is in fact the entire reason for our existence and continuation. I guess if it is not a need you wouldn’t mind if your socialist overlords took that right away from you.

    See communist China and their restrictions on procreation. See Sweden and Germany and their controls on who can and cannot have sex, and with whom. Go ahead google “Sweden eugenics”.

    I’m afraid that it is you who don’t know the history of socialism nor the arguments against it. It has been proven empirically that socialism doesn’t work. How many failed experiments and destroyed lives do we need to prove that?

  34. Mister Swill
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:44 pm

    I just want to interrupt the insanity for a second and note that we’re all, of course, engaging in speculation. I doubt any of us here have any expertise on the subject, and certainly none of us can claim any special insight into the human psyche. Including Brian Macker. And The Raving Atheist.

  35. Mister Swill
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:50 pm

    WTF? No idea what caused that. Sorry.

  36. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

    Choobis,

    Is that a personal fantasy?

  37. Mister Swill
    May 5th, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

    WTF? No idea what caused that. Sorry.

  38. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 9:15 pm

    Mister Swill,

    Exactly what insanity are you talking about? Are you of the opinion that rape victims are insane? Why wouldn’t talking to actual rapists and rape victims and being a victim myself not give me some special insight into the psyche of rapists?

    I think my position is perfectly reasonable. Rape usually involves sexual desires on the part of the rapist. The complicating factors that trigger a rape are many fold. It isn’t just about power as some people like to claim. Sometimes it’s racism and sometimes it is triggered by religion. An example would be the rash of Muslim rapes of infidels in Sweden happening right now. Reasons given for those are very similar to what those catholic boys on the bus gave. European women deserve what they get because they are shameless and acting against Allahs wishes by dressing as they do. Not just happening in Sweden either, also in Norway and Denmark. Like RA says, kind of hard to rape women with a limp dick.

    I do find if funny that Choobus assumes it was a man that raped me. After all isn’t he arguing that this is about power? Why wouldn’t it have been a woman in that case? As a matter of fact it was a female and she was sexually aroused. I have a very good understanding of the psychology of what happens next and why, all jokes aside, it isn’t such a good idea for teachers to be sleeping with their grade school students. It really fucks the kid up on the subject of normal heathy relationships, sexual or not.

  39. Chris Treborn
    May 5th, 2006 @ 10:29 pm

    Mr Macker, don’t waste your time with choobus. He is scum and is not worth your time and effort. I am sorry for what happened to you.

    Rape is obviously about sex:it IS sex. What kind of fool can’t see this???

  40. Brian Macker
    May 5th, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

    Chris, Yeah, I know now. I went back to see if he ever contributed anything worth reading. I could only find vile comments.

    He probably attacked me because he thought I was a theist or something stupid like that. Notice how his very first comment to me was degrading and of no substance.

    I’m used to trolls. I wasn’t discussing the rape to garner sympathy so I don’t really care if he gives a shit or not. I thought it was relevant. Don’t worry about it. I came to terms with it decades ago. I not some emo and would kick his ass if he said this stuff to me in person. He’s a typical coward hiding behind a pseudonym.

    Thanks for the sentiment however.

  41. Mookie
    May 6th, 2006 @ 12:35 am

    New gasbag,

    “If rape were merely about power and not sex as some of the hyperfeminists claim then one would expect approximately equal numbers of male and female victims and rapists. One would also expect male rapists to attack an equal number of male and female victims and female rapists to do likewise. These are not the distributions that are seen.”

    Men have testosterone in larger amounts than women. More than any other chemical, be it intoxicant, drug, substance, etc., testosterone is the one that has caused the most death and destruction throughout history. Women are not known for being violent and aggressive. Men are. Women generally do not go out of their way to seek power and dominate others. Men do. Power rape and “anger” rape means the man is angry and power-hungry, not horny, and often times has trouble maintaining an erection. Adrenaline is not conducive to getting a stiffy. Men sometimes think with their testicles and enlarged clitorises.

    Five minutes of research yielded these websites:

    http://geshem.bi.org/patternsa.html

    http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm

    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239
    From above page:
    “There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs. ”

    Did you even bother to look? And you say your father is a psychologist? I’m sorry, but I think Choobus’ comment was accurate.

    “If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime.”

    I looked all over and I could find nothing whatsoever that agrees with your assertion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

    http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html

    Do you even try to understand things before you bother to offer your opinion?

    (If this ends up being a double post, I’m sorry, but the spam blocker kicked in and Chris the Shitty Moderator is always too lazy to let comments through.)

  42. Mister Swill
    May 6th, 2006 @ 3:13 am

    For your information, Mr. Macker, I didn’t think your comments got all that nuts until post 16. And a lot of what you have been arguing has been perfectly reasonable. I only singled you out in my comments because if I didn’t, I figured you might think you were an exception to my assertion that we’re all speculating.

    But make no mistake: We are all speculating. I understand that your experiences put you closer to the issue being discussed and therefore give your arguments more weight, but your experiences don’t necessarily make you an expert. And no, you don’t have special insight into the human psyche. Nobody does. We can observe behavior, we can ask people what motivates them, we can speculate on what drives people, and we can, through careful study, build theories and pictures of what may be the forces that drive people. But we cannot enter other people’s minds and know for sure what motivates them. That’s all I’m saying.

  43. Simon
    May 6th, 2006 @ 7:43 am

    Nonesense. You think people can’t get turned on by power?

  44. Mookie
    May 6th, 2006 @ 7:53 am

    RA,

    Chris the Shitty Moderator is blocking/not letting comments through again.

  45. Mookie
    May 6th, 2006 @ 8:17 am

    http://geshem.bi.org/patternsa.html

    http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm

    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239
    From the page:
    “There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.”

    It is about power. Men can’t be erect when they are angry/on an adrenaline rush. Testosterone is the cause, not endorphins.
    More here:
    http://www.ecsd.com/~rhhedgz1/sex2.html

    Gasbag Macker,

    “If rape were merely about power and not sex as some of the hyperfeminists claim then one would expect approximately equal numbers of male and female victims and rapists. One would also expect male rapists to attack an equal number of male and female victims and female rapists to do likewise. These are not the distributions that are seen.”

    I had a nice post for you that demonstrates that what Choobus said of you is true, but Chris the Shitty Moderator blocked the comment. Suffice it to say you are ignorant and wrong. Five minutes of research yielded the above information.

    “If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime.”

    I did some research for you and found that you were correct:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    “Socialists like rape.”

    http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
    “The proletariat is denied sex by the bourgeoisie, and must take it by force.”

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html
    “Socialism doesn’t work because it advocates the raping of women to distribute sexual gratification.”

    Moron.

  46. GOD
    May 6th, 2006 @ 8:19 am

    http://geshem.bi.org/patternsa.html

    http://www.coolnurse.com/rape.htm

    http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239
    From the page:
    “There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.”

    It is about power. Men can’t be erect when they are angry/on an adrenaline rush. Testosterone is the cause, not endorphins.
    More here:
    http://www.ecsd.com/~rhhedgz1/sex2.html

    Gasbag Macker,

    “If rape were merely about power and not sex as some of the hyperfeminists claim then one would expect approximately equal numbers of male and female victims and rapists. One would also expect male rapists to attack an equal number of male and female victims and female rapists to do likewise. These are not the distributions that are seen.”

    I had a nice post for you that demonstrates that what Choobus said of you is true, but Chris the Shitty Moderator blocked the comment. Suffice it to say you are ignorant and wrong. Five minutes of research yielded the above information.

    “If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime.”

    I did some research for you and found that you were correct:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    “Socialists like rape.”

    http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
    “The proletariat is denied sex by the bourgeois, and must take it by force.”

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSContents.html
    “Socialism doesn’t work because it advocates the raping of women to distribute sexual gratification.”

  47. Mookie
    May 6th, 2006 @ 8:22 am

    RA, what is the point of having a comments section if you insist on preventing people from commenting? We can’t tell people they’re a bunch of idiots. Its one of the few redeeming features of blogs.

  48. Mister Swill
    May 6th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

    Mookie,

    If you sign up for a TypeKey account, your problems will be solved. That’s what I did, and I have had zero problems posting comments (except for yesterday when I was posting from my phone and not using my account). Chris does a perfectly fine job; only an infallible God could monitor the comments section 24 hours a day and instantly approve all messages that are not spam, and we know all about the problems of an infallible God.

    Perhaps your ire should be directed at the leagues of morons who beleive that the comments section of a person’s weblog is a good place to advertise their useless products.

  49. snap crafter
    May 6th, 2006 @ 12:09 pm

    “Chris the Shitty Moderator is blocking/not letting comments through again”

    He let that one through, is it possible it’s not the fault of humanity, but rather a technical problem. Stop complaining and grow up.

  50. wilhelm
    May 7th, 2006 @ 6:18 am

    Phew! What an intersting, roundabout way of talking about motivation, submission and circular thinking.

  51. Brian Macker
    May 7th, 2006 @ 11:18 am

    Wow, what a bunch of vicious commenters with reading comprehension problems. They read something intended to apply to some socialists and determinists and jump off the deep end.

    I guess I am going to have to give a reading comprehension lesson. Here is my quote from above:

    Under certain world views if rape were about getting sex then the rapist would be blameless.

    If rapists committed their acts because of sexual “needs” then they would be blameless in the same way that someone who steals bread would be. If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime. After all the rapist may not be getting his fair share of the sexual production in a society. By making it about power one can shift the rapist from the oppressed class to the oppressing class.

    This in no way says that “socialists like rape” or “The proletariat is denied sex by the bourgeois, and must take it by force.” or “Socialism doesn’t work because it advocates the raping of women to distribute sexual gratification.” These are vicious straw man positions which are not even remotely close to my argument.

    My first sentence
    >”Under certain world views if rape were about getting sex then the rapist would be blameless”.
    My first sentence means what it means and is the position that is being extrapolated upon. Notice that this sentence is not saying that those unspecified worldviews actually believe that “rape is about getting sex”. The assumption is the opposite. I am assuming that these worldviews hold that rape is not about getting sex. I am stating that if you modified those worldviews slightly so that if they were about getting sex then it would result in a “blameless” rapist.

    I am making a claim broader and narrower than some readers interpreted it. This first sentence can apply to many worldviews other than various brands of socialism. So it is broader. When you group worldviews in to broad classes such as, of course there are huge differences in position within those classes. So of course given the nature of the sentence its application is also narrower that some people interpreted it. There may be socialists who hold that every “need” is not something that has to be fulfilled. So the sentence would not apply to them.

    Now in order for this to be true the socialist would have to believe that sex is a “need”. Some socialists correctly understand that sex is a need in the same sense as food, water, and shelter. The basis for peoples desire for survival is based on procreation. I’m not saying the desire is mentally associated with procreation. What I am saying is that it is an evolved characteristic. I hope understand this distinction. If you don’t then you will not have understood my point. Not all socialists are of this opinion. So the first sentence is conditional on the nature of sex.

    The nature of this need for sex is expressed differently in males and females because of differences in the sexes. Male evolutionary requirements result in a desire for a much higher frequency of sex to assure that procreation than females have. That is a orthogonal issue that explains the differences between males and females on this topic that must be kept in mind but I will not extrapolate upon.

    Nor does the socialist in question need to understand from a logical standpoint that sex is a need. He or she can merely emote to that position. Since individuals are quite idiosyncratic it is possible that two people are in the same exact branch of socialism, have joined the same socialist organization, and sit next to each other in meeting and yet hold different positions on whether sex is a need or not. There are a whole host of psychological and rational reasons for coming to this belief, or just feeling it’s emotional tug.

    I’ve more than once heard the sentiment expressed by those fellows on the bus about a girl dressing sexually deserving to be raped. There is an understanding by many that sexual gratification is a deep-seated need on the part of males. This is why we have phrases like cock-teaser. Why else would people on the left insist that abstinence is not an option? Many on the left are socialists and even though they may not verbally or mentally assent to sex as a need they certainly act as if it were.

    My second sentence:
    If rapists committed their acts because of sexual “needs” then they would be blameless in the same way that someone who steals bread would be.
    I often do not fill in every tidbit of information. I write assuming some level of intelligence on the part of the reader. For example, In this sentence I assume you understand that I am talking about “someone who [is starving that] steals bread”.
    Certainly this sentence is true. The person stealing the bread is certainly still a criminal. He may even be stealing the bread from someone else who’s survival depends upon it. Yet we don’t hold such persons to the same level of responsibility as non-starving people. There would be differing opinions as to the level of guilt assigned to the person but most everyone would hold a starving person to a lower standard.

    This same reasoning and emoting applies to rape. It has been historically the case that men are held to lower standards regarding rapes where the woman was responsible for actions that tended to disregard male impulses. In fact there are many Muslim cultures today that sanction rape in the case of women taking any steps whatsoever that might lead a man to believe she was sexually available.

    My third sentence
    If one is a socialist who believes that “needs” must be filled by society then rape becomes a matter of social justice not crime.
    This is not a stand-alone sentence. It is part of a train of thought. The sentence is senseless out of context. Rape isn’t a need. It is only with the rest of the train of thought that one can make sense of this sentence.
    The truth of the sentence is contingent on the socialist believing that sex is a need. I never contended that any particular socialist does. In fact my position is the opposite. The socialist has a very deep-seated philosophical requirement not to see sex as a need. That was the whole point of the argument. For if it were a need then certain socialists would be hard pressed to argue why society shouldn’t provide it.

    Individualist philosophies don’t have this problem. Even if sex were a need, and it is, then under individualist philosophies it is the responsibility of the individual, not the state, to provide it, and to do so without trespassing against others. This is not how socialist philosophy works. Under socialist philosophy one persons need is another’s responsibility. This is expressed in different ways by different brands but it is inherent in the idea of socialism.

    One socialist system, Marxism, expresses this in the phrase, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Certainly women have the ability to provide any man with sex (not love). If one understands that men (and women) need sex in order to fulfill their biological needs then that catch phrase is a normative statement stating that women should provide men with sex. As we all know, historically Marxist based social movements have tended to make normative statements into prescriptive laws.

    This has always been a danger with socialism. When you make one persons needs the basis for deciding what another can do then you turn that person into the slave of the other person. This danger has been instantiated on many occasions. I gave some examples above. Of course, I was talking about individual needs but socialism has an additional idea of a “social need”, one disembodied from the individual, which is even more dangerous. It’s more dangerous because it can be claimed with out having an individual claimant, and has the force of argument from numbers.

    The National Socialists used this argument from the standpoint of “social need” to do all sorts of atrocious acts.

    Socialists also tend to go far beyond justifying actual needs. They tend to argue for rules targeting the emotional drives that signal both lack of and satisfaction of those needs. Many socialists are not content with having the State merely intervene at the point of starvation. Their target is much higher. They don’t want the poor to be maintained on a subsistence diet, but at a much higher level. Shouldn’t the poor also be eating steak if the wealthy have it.

    Although strictly speaking sex is a need only in the sense of providing procreation, it is driven by emotional drives and urges that signal both lack and satisfaction of those needs. If any socialist were to recognize sex as a need I very much doubt that it would be done in such a strictly logical fashion. It would be the urge and not the actual need that would be satisfied.

    So the sexual slavery under Nazi Germany or the Japanese “Comfort Stations” can be thought of as policies that served the “social good” by providing for the sexual needs of the soldiers [reading sexual urges as needs].

    Of course the Japanese were not socialists,, but certainly the Nazi’s were. My point of including the Japanese was to show that what I am talking about is not so far a stretch. I specifically know their arguments for doing this and they were based on the sexual needs of the soldiers.

    I am not sure if the Nazi’s explicitly stated their arguments for doing so but they tended to justify pretty much every violation of individual rights on social needs so I am running with it. Slaughtering the Jews was necessary for the social need of purifying German society. It was about justice for society. Jews were harming society and therefore needed to be eliminated for the good of society.

    This doesn’t mean that I am contending that the Democratic Socialists want to set up sexual slavery camps. I can’t believe I feel the need to have to say such things to prevent being misinterpreted. Democratic Socialists want to violated individual rights, just not those ones.

    My forth sentence:
    After all the rapist may not be getting his fair share of the sexual production in a society.
    Certainly true if you use the term “fair” the way most socialists use it, meaning unequal share. Men do not get equal or even roughly equal numbers of sexual encounters, either of the free or the commodified “for pay” type produced by prostitutes.

    My fifth sentence:
    By making it [rape] about power one can shift the rapist from the oppressed class to the oppressing class.
    Given the rest of my argument this is certainly true. If power is about power and not sex it cannot be satisfying a need, even if sex were a need.

    Certain believers of socialism need to advance the dogma that rape is not about sex in order to live comfortably in their own skins. If rape were about sex then it’s existence would be a rapists “call for help” and not in the sense of stopping his evil behavior, but instead in the sense of remedying societies unjust allocation of sexual resources. We see a similar treatment of Palestinian suicide bombers on the part of the left. They see them as victims not criminals. It’s their poverty and the injustice of society that drives them to target then blow up innocents. Not their fault. Why wouldn’t this insane logic also apply to rapists if they were fulfilling a need? Palestinian criminals are shifted from oppressor to oppressed by this magical thinking, so why not rapists. Their willingness to blow themselves up is seen as evidence of their oppression and not of their religious views. Why shouldn’t the rapist’s willingness to risk jail time be seen as evidence of their oppression?

    I think the belief that rape is solely about power is a myth and dogma that is popular with certain people because it reaffirms their worldview. It is a belief that is easily refuted and I will do so in a future comment. One can always refute a universal with a single specific instance of the opposite occurring. I will provide numerous such examples. I already provided one in this post. Did you spot it?

  52. bernarda
    May 7th, 2006 @ 2:56 pm

    If there were a type of Ignoble award for ridiculous threads, this one would be a top candidate.

    What possessed RA to even begin this?

  53. Brian Macker
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

    Mookie,

    I am perfectly aware of what the dogma is on this. I don’t agree with it. I read your links and found nothing I hadn’t heard before. Those are conclusions and interpretations based on their models of human motivation; they are not facts in and of themselves. My model is not one of rape being purely motivated by power or sex. The model that you seem to love has flaws. If rape were merely about power then certain statistics about rape would not occur as they do. Some of the most powerful women are older ones who have money and position. Yet, rapes are skewed towards victims, which have characteristics that are indicators of fertility. It is far less likely for an ugly old woman to be raped.

    I am familiar with psychology and psychiatry and there is plenty of bogus information and theory in the field that passes for settled fact. I have talked with my father about it and he likes to make quips like “Everything we actually know about psychology could probably be written on a 3×5 card”. It’s a quip and not literally true but it gives you an idea of how trusting you should be of the field.

    We are biological creatures and rape is a biological issue. Being human biological entities means that culture is also part of our biology, not alien to it. Our biology and culture interact. Phenotypic human behavior is loosely affected by both genetics and culture. It is only natural that, on the whole, behaviors that are better at replication will tend to persist. Rape is a phenotypic behavior that under certain circumstances can cause the continuation of the genetic and cultural replicators that caused it. If rape wasn’t about replication and all these rapists were using foreign objects then we wouldn’t need abortion in the case of rape.

    You blame testosterone, as the reason men are aggressive. I agree. I just interpret it differently than you do. Biologically men have to be more aggressive to get their genes into the next generation. Have you ever watched one of those nature shows with elephant seals? The males have to battle it out, and the females just passively sit around. Then the winner goes over and rapes the members of the harem. Not only that but every chance he gets the loser will attempt to rape a female also. That’s driven by biology. These animal rapes can be quite brutal too. You could attribute animal behavior primarily on “power” and “aggression” but frankly I think that is quite silly.

    Sorry if the fact that I think more like a biologist than a feminist is upsetting to you. So I don’t buy feminist dogma that doesn’t make me stupid or ignorant. It is apparent to me that you were not aware of opposing biological theory and studies.

    I did a quick search myself to garner information that I could easily link to show information that I think you are unaware of. I’m not going to do your research for you but I think you are ignorant of the controversy on this. I believe it is you who are ignorant on this subject, but since you have been only presented with one side of the argument and have accepted that side that you think aren’t ignorant. Just like that other guy who knows so little about socialism and got on my case about being ignorant. Just because other people don’t share your blinders doesn’t mean they are ignorant. At worst it is not a settled issue, as you seem to think.

    Do a google search on rapes and fertility for one thing, here.

    Using that search you can quickly get to this article. and information below that contradicts your favored theory.

    “There is a popular feminist theory that rape has little to do with sex at all and is motivated by hatred of women and the desire to dominate and humiliate them (Brownmiller, 1975). This theory has difficulty in explaining why rapists choose poor, young women as victims rather than powerful, older women and why rapists themselves derive from particular age and social groups. It is also incorrect to assume that rape reflects personal or social pathology. Rape occurs in all societies, modern and primitive, as well as non-human primates such as orang-utans (see Chapter 3), and most rapists are not psychotic or otherwise mentally disordered (Petty and Dawson, 1989).
    A theory of rape that fits the known facts much more comfortably is the evolutionary or socio-biological one. Thornhill and Thornhill (1987) introduce this theory by describing the sexual behaviour of scorpionflies, in which the male may gain sex from the female either by presenting a gift of food during courtship (in which case the female submits voluntarily) or without a nuptial offering, in which case force is necessary to restrain her. The forced copulation is not an abnormal kind of behaviour but is an alternative strategy for gaining sex used more often when there is a shortage of food in the environment to use for gifts.”

    “Socio-biologists propose that human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the ‘losers’ in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. If he can succeed in impregnating one or two ‘stolen’ women before being castrated or lynched by the ‘owner’ males, then his genes (and thus behavioural tendencies) will have been passed on to the next generation of males.”

    “Of course, none of this ‘genetic logic’ is conscious, nor does it constitute moral justification for rape, but the evolutionary theory does provide a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. Most obviously it explains why rape is an almost exclusively male crime – there is a gross imbalance regarding the commodity value of sexual services for men and women respectively. Secondly, it is consistent with the characteristics of typical rapists – young, virile, high in sex drive, lacking in impulse control, low on the social ladder and likely to have a history of burglary. Thirdly, this theory predicts the characteristics of the typical victim – young, sexually attractive, fertile and vulnerable.

    The possibility that rapists are able successfully to evaluate fertility in potential victims is suggested by the finding that women who have been raped are unusually likely to get pregnant as a result (Parkes, 1976). It is also increasingly recognized that if a woman looks like she will put up considerable resistance, most rapists will move on to easier prey, rather in the same manner that a car thief steals cars that are easy to break into. This fact is predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory but rather hard to account for in terms of the ‘hatred’ theory.”

    I also have a distrust of feminist literature since they have a political axe to grind, and I have found a tendency for them to latch on to any nonsense that is anti-male. This rape is about power theory originated with them.

  54. Brian Macker
    May 7th, 2006 @ 8:22 pm

    Moderator, I will resubmit my other post that had all the html errors later with the errors corrected. Sorry, I was being rushed out of the house to pick up my kids.

  55. Thorngod
    May 8th, 2006 @ 10:53 am

    I’ve been away since my Friday P M comment started all the ruckus. Thos men among you who hold that sex is not the primary impulse to rape must have been shortchanged by the gods. Aside from sustenance and survival, it is probably the strongest drive of the virile male. Do I need to point out that men frequently risk their freedom, their fortunes, and even their lives, to obtain it? As to aggression being primary, male aggression is in service to sex, just as it serves other needs. And it is because the male is the physically stronger and more aggressive gender that he is the one equipped with the tool….
    When I was 14 and 15 years old, there were times when I experienced a strong impulse to drive mine into a solid wall. It wasn’t that I wanted to vanquish a wall….
    CHOOBUS, your reference to Macker as “annoying” was almost hilarious, considering the tediously insulting tone of most of your own postings. I think I detect an exceptional bitterness behind your attacks. Macker’s testimony and analyses are quite valid, and contrary to several stated opinions, his contributions have been more sober and informative than most.

  56. Thorngod
    May 8th, 2006 @ 2:37 pm

    P.S.: There were several references above to “love” in conjunction with sex. Love, in the primary meaning, has nothing to do with sex. The sentiment and the emotion can be experienced simultaneously, but they are two very different things. One never initiates sex out of love. A woman may submit without passion because she loves the male, but the male in that case is intent on sex, not expressing his love. And, for most uninhibited males, a different and more vuluptuous partner would do quite well, thank you!

  57. tarkovsky
    May 8th, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

    RA said:
    Try to think of the issue in terms of what I’m doing now. No doubt some of you think I’m after power and control. But if the arguments above are correct, well, then, I’m correct, and your judgment regarding motives to me in this case are most likely to be in error. If I’m wrong, and you think my arguments are so stupid that not even I could believe them, then I couldn’t possibly believe that they’d have any hope of persuading or controlling you. And clearly you aren’t being controlled by them — unless you submit to my will by leaving some idiotic comment explaining how wrong-headed and power-hungry I truly am.

    I think your analysis of argumentation is based on thin air.

    There is no absolute truths, simply there are points of views, opinions and, my favorite, strategies. Strategies based on facts and opinions and ambiguities, strategies to influence other human beings, strategies to possibly exert power or simply strategies to survive.

    That you may present arguments is fine, but the complexity of reality cannot be debated, it can only be evaluated using some sort of heuristic, or fuzzy logic so to speak.

    Consider why cultures gravitate around argumentation systems (“democracy”, “islam”, “communism”, etc) are really human beings trying to convince (exert power over) other human beings into adopting said systems.

    What is RA’s strategy? To influence people to embrace RA’s atheism flavour, of course. What sort of power will RA benefit from said strategy? 72 virgins in heaven? ;-)

  58. Brian Macker
    May 8th, 2006 @ 5:46 pm

    Mr. Swill,

    “For your information, Mr. Macker, I didn’t think your comments got all that nuts until post 16. “

    There is a vast difference between speculation and nuts. I was going to say “fair enough” if you misinterpreted my post as claiming to be about actual mental processes going on inside the heads of socialists as opposed to what my actual point was. My point was about philosophical constrains imposed by worldviews. Socialists are constrained to believe sex is not a need, and would tend to vehemently deny it. If not then they would be pushed in directions they wouldn’t want to go.

    Actually, the popularity of the position “rape as primarily a power trip” owes more to other political worldviews like hyper-feminism. I tend to think that people are attracted to it for policial reasons than wanting to view the rapist as a monster as RA said. Perhaps I should have made that simple statement instead so I wouldn’t trigger reflexive responses. Testosterone as the “Mark of Cain” is another politically popular position that sometimes goes along with it.

  59. Brian Macker
    May 8th, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

    Simon,

    Nonesense. You think people can’t get turned on by power?

    I don’t think anybody knows who this post is suppose to respond to. Nobody on the thread made that claim.

  60. Chris Treborn
    May 8th, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

    Thorngod, and Brian Macker, you are both right, and you have both discovered that choobus is a pathetic little scumbag. I salute you both for standing up to these bullies.

  61. Brian Macker
    May 9th, 2006 @ 9:49 pm

    Is this baby molestation about power or sex?

    Matthew Ryan Hahn glared in disbelief at the digital photographs of a man molesting a girl. She was only a year old, maybe 2.

    I would say that this rape is about sexual urges that cannot be met in a consentual relationship. Why would anyone need to show power over a baby?

    Sex acts in those Japanese comfort stations were all about rape. Does that mean the vast quantity of Japanese men, or should I say rapists, frequenting them were not there primarily for sex? They weren’t their for consentual sex, but you can be sure they were their to get their rocks off and did.

    What about all those non-violent date rapists.

    Just watched a story on TV. Guy forced a woman into a stairwell, had sex with her and robbed her. Seems he stole two things. If his motivation was power then does that apply to the robbery also?

    Saw another show on TV where the rapist was using the date rape drug, GHB. He was caught when they found the videos he was making. He was having sex with his victims. The women were not even aware they had been raped. The only “control” used in this rape was that required to get his jollys. No fear, beating, or intimidation was used.

    If rape is not about sex then why all the fantasy rape sites on the internet, manga cartoons, and Japanese obsession with virgin rape pornography. How is men masturbating to rape scenes more about power than sex? There is no one present to have power over under such a situation. While not technically rape it is rape fantasy. Do you imagine viewers of such pornography spending their time beating their tv, trying to intimidate it and to get the girl on the video to do their bidding? Under the rape is power theory there this behavior makes no sense. Under the rape is about sex theory this behavior shows a deep connection between sexual urges and lack of consent. Lack of consent can be sexually exciting in and of itself. Wouldn’t such a urge in men tend to result in an increased fitness with regard to getting ones genes in the next generation?

    The urges in and of themselves to not make those men who experience them criminals. No more than your urge for a candybar you haven’t paid for at the store makes you one. Even if it excites you to get something for free. It only becomes a crime when you act on that urge.

    The reason rape is offensive is NOT because it is violent or about power. I am sure most women would prefer to be beat around a bit that to be politely raped. Especially if the rape were to occur without a condom and no birth control. It is a crime because it is an non-consentual physical trespass. That can be said of a slap in the face but what differentiates rape is the sexual aspect. The reason it is offensive is that it is in fact an attempt at an theft of ones reproductive capacity. A theft that puts the victim in the possible position of having to invest enourmous time and energy in the offspring of the criminal. In addition the crime puts the victim in danger of contracting an STD. In the case of underage children it is physically dangerous in and of itself. Rape like any crime is also a humiliation. If it is not taken seriously it diminishes the standing of the individual in society. If some kid stole your lunch money every day, you reported it and no one cared it would show that you have less standing than the criminal that took your money. Likewise with rape except more so. It would not only show that your possessions but even your physical self was held in with less esteem than the sexual urges of another individual. That is pretty low on the rung.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links