I agree "need" is not technically accurate, but in our society, that word gets used a lot. A person "needs" friends, love, etc.
You're right, though. The rapist probably thinks he needs it, but it's just "want".
And I wasn't talking about just getting "sex" from somebody. Of course, SOMEBODY is gonna say yes, somewhere. But you and I know that some people want what's out of their league, and figure there's only one way to get THAT.
Sure a lot of rapists can be described as "powerless", in that they're usually losers. But a lot of rapists are not what one would call weak. There are plenty of tough, physically strong gangster-types who rape.
Well yeah many guys regard women as "bitches" for ignoring them, and some go crazy and start shooting, but you get lunatics like that occasionally, whether they're wearing a Joker outfit or a postal worker's uniform. They're just nuts.
I think it's understandable to be angry at a gender if they are ignoring you. Plenty of less-than-attractive girls feel the same way about the male gender when they are ignored. But like I said, it is because these women are not giving them what they WANT (not need, I'll grant), that these guys are upset. But I would not call that misogyny or a need for power, it's just anger that they are not getting a commodity they WANT, and the owner won't give it to them.
When a rapist rapes they believe they are entitled to another human being's body. How is that not an act of wanting power?
Like I said, you're supplying a creating motive here. They just DESIRE, that's all. When a man steals another man's car because he's on foot, or a man's hamburger when he wants a tasty snack, his motivation would not be described as a need for "power". He's just fulfilling frustrated desires at the expense of another.
You mention the prevalence of rapes between people who know each other, as an argument AGAINST it being about sex? I guarantee you each and every one of those cases of assault involved him wanting sex and her saying no.
So no I don't have to say 'in my opinion' before any thought I type out. It should be obvious.
Normally I would agree with that. But you started by quoting an "opinion" (rape is all about power) that had become pretty much a PC law in this society, and I wanted to point this out, since I'm challenging it.
Why would you link to stats on rape prevalence in order to argue against misogyny as a determining factor? That site just listed rape stats and victim reports. Yes the numbers are high, but they are even higher (predicted, as most go unreported or un-cared-about) in prisons with men being raped, but I doubt you would list hatred of men being a factor in all the thousands of male rapes that go on daily in US prisons.
It's all about sex. If it was really about power or king-of-the-hill, they would just beat each other up, like they do in women's prisons.
I wasn't trying to argue that misandry is as big a problem as misogyny, just arguing that society is skewing these statistics due to a double-standard. For instance, I once was involved in a college project studying domestic violence in Vancouver. We interviewed emergency-room nurses to get an idea how many women were abused weekly in Vancouver General emergency admissions. Shocking numbers, to be sure, but someone asked offhand if any men were abused, and the answer was no. No listed cases. But upon further questioning, one of the nurses admitted that there were a LOT of men coming in (often with sheepish wives) with suspicious wounds, steak knives and such, and these injuries were almost never recorded (roughly equal prevalence too).
I have no problem with classic Feminism - the true struggle for absolute equality. I consider myself a classical feminist. But I see far too many "feminists" calling every harsh word an "attack", who then LAUGH at the notion of Elin Woods taking a 9-iron to Tiger's jaw over an affair he had.
I wasn't taking about that stuebenville case. I was speaking generally.
I agree defending a rapist because the woman was drunk IS insane. However, I was referring to the case of a woman consenting to sex, and then forgets that she GAVE consent in the morning. It DOES occur. (I have woken up next to a woman, and to this day do not remember much of anything that happened).
I think it's idiotic to make rules like "even if a woman GIVES consent, if she was drunk when she gave it, it's RAPE". THAT is insane. Does anyone care if the man was drunk? Or both of them? I'm sorry, but a person is responsible for their own state and drinking and drug use, and the consent they give.
Can you imaging how loudly the world would laugh if I were to charge that woman I woke up in bed with? It's different? Why? Because the woman complains more? Her autonomy is more important? (or her granted love just a more valuable commodity?) :)
You're right. You won't change my mind. I hate to sound arrogant, but I've heard these arguments before. And I always think I'm right about everything:)
And you've probably heard my arguments too.
Good talking with you!
reply
share