Okay rape laws used to be such that to determine rape, the woman had to have fought. If she had just “accepted” it passively, the act was not rape but rather consensual sex. I had a discussion about this with someone a long time ago and he said that if I was being raped, he would want me to try to stop the guy physically even if I got hurt, and to express distress. I said no, I wouldn’t. I would let him do his thing. Why should I lash out at the perpetrator blindly when victims are hurt when they try to stop the perpetrator. Why should I allow more harm to come to me. Why should I let one asshole dictate my emotions and my mental well-being for years to come? My body is precious right? It’s like a robbery. If someone is pointing a gun at you, the gun is there for a reason, it’s not to kill you most of the time or to harm you, but to make sure that the robbery goes smoothly (I am a crim student, so trust me on this one). Why is rape any different? They both are violations of private space and the forceful taking away of some property, albeit in the case of rape, the intangible kind. I have never been raped, but I have never been excessively emotional in a similar circumstance either. And there was never any manifest trauma, nor some lingering latent kind. So if the woman doesn’t stop the guy at all, and if she is perfectly fine afterward, is she less of a woman? Is she immoral in some way? Did she, god forbid, consent to the rape if she does not exhibit body dissasociation, depression, post traumatic stress disorder etc?
What about for domestic abuse? If a woman is hit once, why is her testimony less reliable if she is not a complete mess on the stand? Don’t we want strong women who don’t fall to pieces and instead can stand up? Why do we want to pathologize woman who have been abused before we vindicate them? Then why do we wait for the abuse cycle to completely annihilate until we believe the woman’s word?
I just find it pathetic that cheap (societal moral sentiment) is hell bent on destroying a woman before it can allow her to stand up for herself. Is this progress? Is this woman’s rights? If I am raped tomorrow and I am smiling, and I will guarantee you that I will be, am I somehow morally inferior, lacking femininity, actually culpable for the act and thus deserving of less sympathy? Why does the law discourage emotion from every other domain except when it comes to the woman. Even if rape laws are different now, I don’t think there would be much sympathy for a woman and celerity and severity of punishment if she does not display significant distress. Even feminists are quite paradoxical in this case, on one hand they advocate freedom from what they see as patriarchal social mores positing women as weak and perscribing chastity, on the other hand, rape is the ultimate crime for them. Both patriarchy and feminism thus end up seeing the vagina as the center, as the completion of woman. Isn’t this the reductionism that we are trying to get away from?
I think this is the very reason prostitution is such a sin and such a deviant act. There is nothing at all inherently sinful about it. In my opinion, the immorality lies in structural macro-situations that can force women into prostitution, but what wrong is there in selling your body? It is a situation of quid pro quo. So isn't it immoral because of the lack of emotions? I think in some ways, prostitution is even an expression of strength and most delicious because it turns every societal more and perscription and gender hegemony on its head. A woman not committed, a woman not weakened by sex. How very sinful.
Sarah but the fact remains women are not strong. I personally wouldn't even be able to go on with life normally if i was raped. And if women are strong enough to come over that emotional trauma, then no it doesnt make em any less of a woman or immoral, they are just really strong and use their mind to deal with situations rather than their emotions. Wish we had more women like that.
And I dont think its possible for someone to "consent to rape", that sounds like an oximoron to me.
I think you answered your question. I couldnt' agree more with what you said. Strong women that hold their own are not considered 'feminine' enough to be considered "victims".
There are 2 ways to look at prostitution. One that shows women as the weaker sex, selling her body to please men. And one that shows them as the stronger sex, being the one in control...
Which legal doctrine says that if you don't fight - then sex is consensual. Because then date rape laws would be wrong. If i recall a woman as the ability to say no even during sex and once that one word is said any actions taken after are considered rape, even if you were having sex before hand.
Barfee, women are not strong? Says who? It is just social construction and we believe it, and we enact it, and every time it manifests, those beliefs in our minds and those of others, of women's weakness, become stronger. There are weak women, there are weak men. And what do you mean by weak anyway? Emotionally vulnerable? Emotionally affected by everything? That is a social construction too. If you believe it is biological, prove it to me. I am not convinced. I have seen more weak women than men because they have been socialized to be weak.
Grumpy, not anymore. This is from before, I just remember that discussion from a jurisprudence class. If you want, give me a day and I can find out when rape laws were such. I have to do a paper on this anyway, might as well start early.
I dont think its biological cuz if it was there wouldn't be any strong women. I think most women are emotionally vulnerable and affected. It is a social construction but it exists and you cant change it overnight. Infact I doubt if it will ever change.
Nah don't worry about it. I just wanted to make sure rape laws like this were still not in place. I prefer the new laws even then men are more easily targetted due to them.
I don;t think u can equate a robbery and a rape. In a robbery the item being stolen is just an item, replaceable, in a rape, it is not.
On a larger scale do you think Iraq should have just given in without putting up a fight? Have they caused themselves more harm by trying to defend themselves? Would they have been better off taking it silently? A woman who would take it without resisting it, in my opinion, would be extremely docile and passive one. A strong woman would definitely atleast try to defend herself and resist.
I think it is subscribing to oppressive patriarchy if one thinks rape is the stealing of something irreplaceable, it is also rather restrictive in a sexual sense. Surely my "wealth" and well-being are not contingent upon my vagina. By corollary, would you say a woman is lessened, somehow poor, if she has been raped? Because your use of the word irreplaceable would lead to that conclusion.
I think your analogy to Iraq is fallacious because I am talking about society, the law, and what feminine means in our culture. By all means, fight, I would not risk possible death for my vagina. I am more than that.
My point is that the law and society take justice and strength away from women and wants to see them pathologized (suffering from PTSD i.e., in need of therapy, utterly weakened and defeated by what was done to their vagina or their body). I don't think that if I was raped today and was all merry tomorrow, that anyone would see the act as rape, that I would not be slammed left and right for not exhibiting distress and breaking down. I think all of this weakens women, rather than encouraging strength.
By the way, the robbery analogy was apt and deliberate. The typical robbery is for petty sums of money, many robberies go unreported. I think rape does not take anything away from the woman either. If I refuse to let it take away my mental health and my happiness, I guess that is very deviant and unfeminine of me.
Sarah law doesn;t prohibit women from carrying on with their lives after they have been raped. You can be merry but you certainly wouldn;t be merry about the rape. Distress, trauma are but natural reactions. Women do not react so because society dictates them to but because that is a normal reaction. No woman will lay down passively and let the rapist do his job just to get it over and done with to avoid further harm. Their will be an emoptional if not physical reaction atleast. It would take great strength if you did not allow a rape to affect your mental health and happiness, but at the same time not trying to defend yourself during a rape is no sign of strength. Normal ppl do get scarred by such violations and it has nothing to do with law or society. Ones body is the most private thing they possess and for that to be robbed is indeed traumatic.
SS > Do you know Tegan Wagners case. This 18 year old Australian lady was raped by two pakistani men, but instead of keeping quiet about it, she raised her voice and got justice. She also waived her right to anoynimity by revealing her identity to the public in an attempt to get other victoms to speak up. She said "It is the rapists that need to be ashamed and not the other way around."
All over the net, she has been praised for her courage and attitude towards this, so I think people do encourage positive attitude after rape.
As for struggling during rape, or any other crime, it is obvious no to do it because all criminals are potentially dangerous. Whoever argued with you that a victom should attempt to fight his opressor is clearly thinking too narrowly.
Normal ppl do get scarred by such violations and it has nothing to do with law or society. Ones body is the most private thing they possess and for that to be robbed is indeed traumati
[/quote]
i agree. add to it that the reaction of males who're raped as kids or adults isnt too different from that of women as far as trauma is concerned, and they certainly arent merry about it. so it isnt about femininity and social conditioning about genders etc.
This thread stirs up some long dead monsters for me.
Anyways here's the perspective of a guy. I was 'almost' raped in my early teens twice by members of the same sex. I never told anyone about it but inwardly I was a mess. I used to have nightmares about it and whenever I thought about those incidents it made me sick to the core and depressed.
I never expressed these emotions infront of anyone however, till about 10 years later when the woman I loved came to hear of the monsters hiding in my closet from me and she helped me get over them. Before that I used to wake up often at night sweating after having dreamt of being raped by guys....but she helped me get over those issues, made me realise i was perfectly fine and there was nothing wrong with me.
Thing is, im a guy, a perfectly normal fellow and no one in my life except for that one woman knows that any such thing ever happened, no one can tell, i hide my emotions very well. But the emotions do exist..and they do surface from time to time, now less than ever though. Its not wrong to feel violated by such an incident, its not wrong to be horrified of it. No a woman is not the sum of her sexual organs and neither is a man, but still such incidents are gross violations of our very basic rights.
Im no lawyer so i dont understand the law as best as many of you may, I do agree with Sarah's point of view that society has a way of making raped women look really bad. But I disagree on weather rape is an emotionally affecting crime or not. I also disagree on emotions being a negative thing.
Fact is most men are emotionally weaker than women. Women are better equiped to deal with emotions, but whereas men are better at showing a calm complacent face, women are better at showing their emotions when they feel them. The result is that men generally keep everything bottled up and release it in form of aggression from time to time, and finally when they do break down it can get messy. Women on the other hand let go of that baggage as soon as its shoved on them and therefore are less prone to emotional outbreaks.
I dont think society is bent on destroying women....If you look at the flipside, society is also bent on destroying man because it is not socially acceptable to be a man and have an emotional side. Its frowned upon, and the result is men keep everything tightly sealed inside of them, almost never letting it out except with their loved ones (and even then they usually keep most of the stuff hidden)...and that makes them phsychologically vulnerable.