Women's Reactions to Rape

quote:

---

Personally I did not find it worse because it involved sex, and I think it's because I didn't have prudish values regarding sex. Indeed that was one of the things that saved me from more psychological damage.

---

I think that this is important.The thing is, too, is that even if you are a modest, plain vanilla sort of person WRT sexuality, I don't think that it's too strange to try to think of a rape as completely separate from real sex.I think that would be a really good way to compartmentalize it, so as not to let it affect your entire sexuality.

quote:

---

I would also point out that there are plenty of people with rape fantasies as well as hardcore S&M fantasies which have only to do with getting beaten and have nothing to do with sexual acitivity.

---

Plenty?Maybe in your circle of friends. However, among those people who have these fantasies, do they go out looking to get attacked, raped, and/or beaten up?Or, do they want to do things in a more controlled way that fulfills the specifics of their fantasy?

quote:

---

One of the twisted messages I see coming from prudism is that pure S&M and brutality is tolerated and in some cases championed (just look at boxing) while anything remotely sexual is reviled (like just one little nipple).

---

I agree completely. That thing with Janet's nipple was so stupid.

quote:

---

Indeed, prostitution is illegal because it involves pleasure for money which is considered dangerous, while S&M dungeons and professional dominatrixes are perfectly legal because they beat and injure people for money which is harmless because it is not sex.

---

Yeah, that is wierd.

quote:

---

However, I think your point is an interesting one and it's going to occupy my mind for a bit.

---

Thanks. All of this S&M and rape fantasy stuff is interesting, but I would be very surprised if the people who actively participate in theses realms were more than a small minority in the overall population.

I can't say that I'm particularly interested in a woman's "purity", but it does appear to be the case that rape, more that other violent acts against women, leaves significant trauma after the event.It seems like rape is somehow less "fair" than other crimes; if a woman is mugged, it's because of something she has. If a woman is raped, its because of who she is. (I mean, it's not like you can leave your sex characteristics at home. I don't mean that women "ask for it", of course, but rapists target women because they are women.)

The reality would surprise you. While I have friends that enjoy rape fantasies, pure S&M people (so those into pain) are not in my circle.And I met those two girls that were very desiring forced sex BEFORE I entered the swinging community. To the outside world they were quite straight and no one would guess what they really wanted (I sure didn't). No, you are right about that. I was just saying that the idea that sex does not involve pain is not exactly correct. Both girls I mentioned did try and provoke me to rape them (boy were they disappointed), but both I am certain would not seek to do that outside on the streets.People into rape and S&M can still be raped and beaten beyond their will. It is a growing movement, though it's hard to tell if it is growing in popularity or just people feel more free to talk about it. I think it is bigger than a small minority (especially if you include rape fantasies) but would doubt it's near a majority. Then again, I could be surprised!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How would that work? Never mind, I don't want to know.I think a large part about being a sexually responsible adult is making your sexual needs clear. It seems rather immature to have to trick someone into fulfilling your needs.

I don't think the added trauma has to do with the fact that sex was involved. I think the most violent attacks happen to involve sex, and it is because they tend to be the most violent and long lasting of attacks that there is greater trauma.For example, if you are being robbed the force generally lasts as long as necessary to get the money. A rape is focused not just to "get the sex" but really to beat the hell out of someone physically, emotionally, or both. It's not just compliance but degradation. Indeed some rapes involve no sexual stimulation of the rapist by the victim.My guess is if you take a person who went through a totally nonsexual attack but brutal and degrading, there will be the same amount of trauma as suffered by someone raped with the same degree of brutality.A difference will also show up afterward based on how the individual views sex, and how those around the person treat them because sex was involved. That is to the degree that sex acts during the rape are thought of as reducing their "purity" the worse it will be and ADD to the trauma. Men get raped too. I certainly was through at least a violation and an attempted rape.Some people also rape animals.It is about power. It does not surprise me that men will generally have power issues with women that tends to include sex, more than they have issues that would involve sex with other men. But it does happen, and I think it has been pointed out that if we just look at violent attacks based on power (in general) man on man violence is greater proportionally than man on woman violence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Until they actually told me, it didn't. Yes, yes it does.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Quote- "One of the twisted messages I see coming from prudism is that pure S&M and brutality is tolerated and in some cases championed (just look at boxing) while anything remotely sexual is reviled (like just one little nipple)."I have a serious problem with the mentioning of a highly sophisticated and scientific form of athletism that happens to be in combative form while comparing it to S&M and Brutality, as though to imply its wrongfulness and violence is similar to women being raped. It sickens me to beleive that a forum full of intelligent, educated persons cannot see the sport of boxing for what it really is. Please refrain from mentioning professionally sanctioned sports in comparison to the raping of women. Boxing requires a mastery of technical movements, speed, stamina, power, versatility, imagination, endurance, mental toughness, drive, ambition, planning, dedication and self discipline. Rape requires none of the above. Anyone who has been invovled directly with the sport of boxing and who has personal experience knows that boxing is not fighting...fighting is not boxing. There are less similarities with a professional boxing bout and a streetfight than most people may be aware. This reminds me of a time about 2 months ago when I was in English class and we were asked to state what we feel the most difficult Olympic sport is. I said boxing. The girl next to me thought that was just funny, and said "how hard is it just to hit someone?" I think I said something along the lines of "Pretty fu^&ing hard!" People just don't understand how hard this sport really is. The average professional boxer spends up to 6 hours a day training..up to 6 days a week. Tell me this, how often does the predatory rapist get up at 6 in the morning to run 5 miles, in order to accomplish his/her goal of raping someone? When mentioning violent encounters other than rape, streetfighting would be a much more appropriate example.
I do think its rediculous to make such a big deal aobut nipple slip. I think people make it out to be a big thing just because these people are celebrities. Nipple slips are just one of the millions of nonsexual over-announced "mistakes" of celebrities. They'll make just as big a deal if an actress gains 5 lbs.
As far as rape prevention goes, self-defence is often misunderstood as there are few women who have graduated courses that could actually handle themselves against a big, strong and determined attacker. I think I can validate this statement as I teach self defence. Most seminars are built around how to "get away" while standing. It's relatively easy to get away from someone while standing, as one very solid groin shot with a kick or knee will render most people useless for 5-30 seconds. There are many situations where it is not that basic but nevertheless getting away from predators while standing is rarely proven as difficult as when on the ground. Ground fighting must be learned. Whether you teach women wreslting or Judo techniques or jui jitsu chokes/locks..this is the ultimate tool in escaping rape on the ground, which is over 95% of the time, where things end up. I think that carrying a firearm is ovverated, and pepper spray is also. If women are going to get away they need to be smart and well informed. Self defence is a supplement and is only to be used when the situation is serious. Overall, these considerations solve rape issues from random predators for the most part. The real problem is when people are raped by people they know or once knew. This seems to be the real controversy. You can't carry a gun around EVERYWHERE...odds are you'll shoot yourself or someone you love if your not trained properly anyways. And you certainly can't be paranoid of everyone. The controvery carries on as there is certainly no clear-cut way of doing away with rape altogether.

My objection to boxing is the amount of abuse the brain is subjected to as it is accelerated around in the cranium. The damages are generally small but cumulative and permanent. I think that is too damaging an activity and should be discouraged or better banned.lfen

I'm not sure why you replied to schraf's post when it was my statement you were objecting to. You don't seem to have caught the actual meaning of the statement you are criticizing.First of all I didn't mention rape in there at all. I was stating that in a prudish culture forms of violence are preferred above forms of pleasure. Things like S&M are thought to be better (less immoral) than group sex or homosexuality. Sports that rely on violence to inflict damage on another are championed above getting excited watching people pleasuring each other.That is a rather odd state of affairs for a "peace loving" people.I don't have much respect for boxing and you can stuff all your claims of how sophisticated it is in your hat. If you like it that's fine. I am not saying we should end it. Do people train their bodies hard in order to deal out (and take) as much damage as they can? Yeah.Does it take some sort of rocket scientist? Not on your life. Does it make the fighters better people and help them get along with others? Two words: Mike Tyson.Boxing is about two men coming into a ring and progressively beating each other until one of them falls down, or time runs out. There is some skill in working with the rules (yes it is different than streetfighting) but it is about commiting violent acts against another to cause pain and cripple them.Arguable one of the best boxers ever is now scarred for the rest of his life from that career.I happen to respect martial arts. I happen to have been trained in martial arts. Maybe if things had rolled differently for me I'd be teaching martial arts.But that is training for a reason beyond just winning a cash prize for beating someone's brains till it can't keep conscious. I know some schools have essentially become the new boxing, but that is their problem. I agree with everything you said regarding self-defense. Interestingly enough though, in order to train well for this they must in essence train to be street fighters, and not boxers. Boxing is violence for show, plain and simple.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I boxed in my youth. I also take martial arts pretty seriously. I am currently learning 17th century British sword fighting. They're all the same thing. To pretend that martial arts is about anything other then learning how to hurt the other guy faster then he can hurt you is silly. Boxing is a martial art and the fact that it lacks the thin veneer of philosophy that eastern martial arts is so proud of does not make that fact less true.Also, Holmes, what does the fact that Mike Tyson is a criminal have to do with the nature of boxing? That's called the fallacy of converse accident. You cannot extrapolate a general rule from one or even a few examples. Really, I expected better of you.Now, what does this all have to do with the reaction of women to rape?This message has been edited by mikehager, 11-16-2004 11:24 AM

I didn't say, or mean to imply, martial arts were anything more than that. The point was that its intention was for application in real world situations and so actual use to pummel an opponent into unconsciousness is not supposed to happen except when one is forced into combat for one's safety.Boxing is explicitly for use in a ring for the amusement of others. Though it might have some self-defence applications (especially getting in shape and learning movement tricks), the rules prevent it from being a real self-defence study.This is why I made the statement that some schools of martial arts are changing their purpose from use in the real world to use in show (in the case of martial arts, tournaments).The point is not what one learns, but what one is learning it for and where one applies it. Well I'm glad you expected better of me. In a way you are right, but in a way you are not. You are correct that a person cannot extrapolate from one case to say that this is what the sport produces. The problem was I wasn't trying to say that. I was trying to point out that boxing does not have to improve anyone at all, and indeed can heighten violent tendencies in people by indulging and encouraging these characteristics. A guy can train 6 days a week and still come out a rapist. You'll have to ask the guy who responded to my post, incensed that I mentioned boxing as an example of violence which society encourages.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Mikehager- "Now, what does this all have to do with the reaction of women to rape?"I was discussing self defence as a means of rape prevention. Boxing was put in a bad light. I feel as a boxing practitioner and self defence instructor that boxing proves very useful in self defence/rape prevention situations. It's not fair to put boxing down when it yeilds so much potential safety for women about to be raped.Mikehager- "To pretend that martial arts is about anything other then learning how to hurt the other guy faster then he can hurt you is silly."This is a common misconception. In the words of Bruce Lee- "I practice the way of Jeet Kune Do as a form of personal expression. Now I could put on a big show and be cocky and full of arrrogance and act all tough and feel real kool and all that, but when I'm fighting its a very hard thing to do...to express one's self. I express myself just like speech and that, my friend, is very hard to do."I veiw my boxing as an expression as Bruce Lee did as well. Anyone who is going to claim that boxing is simply a slugfest obviously NEVER BOXED a TRAINED FIGHTER. So please, before bashing boxing on the head "haha"...get in the ring and tell me, was it really as angry and violent as you thought...or was it dependant on technique, athletism and mental clarity?Yes you do see cocky arrogant fighters. Yes there are boxers who have been locked up. Holmes brings up Tyson as if Tyson represents the sport. This is just not fair. Most boxers are mild tempered people that have gained self control to an extreme point. Just because Tyson has no philisophical gain in practicing the "sweet science" doesn't mean that there is a lack of philosophy involved, as brought up by Mikehager. The discipline and mental regulation offered in boxing is one ascpect that makes it so practical to rape prevention. By discipline and mental regulation I mean the ability to perform techniques under pressure..something that most self defence seminars cannot instill in a day or few hours.
In oder for us to understand rape prevention, we have to first understand sources of self defence, along with preventative tactics. Holmes claims to agree with my statements on self defence however doesn't realize the role boxing plays into the sequence. If someone has TRUELY involved themselves in the sweet science and meditated on it thouroughly, one truley CAN take out an opponent GENTLY...not violently. I've noticed throughout the forum there being mention that techniques should be taught to women on how to KILL a man if they are attacked. This is as unruley as women always carrying guns. You dont need to KILL a person who is attacking you. It is flagrant disrespect of life in my opinion, to kill a person when there are less lethal forms of self defence available for rape prevention...such as boxing.

quote:

---

It's not fair to put boxing down when it yeilds so much potential safety for women about to be raped.

---

How does boxing do this?

As someone getting back into boxing this January, all this anti-boxing bullshit really pisses me off. I'm starting a new thread right now so I can TKO your unreasonable asses .

LMAO...tell me when you do so we can jump some fools!