Audrey: I'm afraid that only women can truly understand the harm left behind of a rapist. as in this forum it look like that most of participants are male the insight and solidarity of a woman is most valuable. I don't think that male really are aware of the destructive psycological impact rape may have in a woman. Thank you for your support here towards all the women in the world who were and are raped. Mayka
--- On Wed, 23/2/11, audreydc1983 <[email protected]> wrote: From: audreydc1983 <[email protected]> Subject: [Zen] Re: Can A Buddha Harm Others? To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011, 20:25 ED, I share Maria's sentiment - personally, I care little about the politics, even though they most likely formed my view of rape itself. Maybe not politics is to blame - perhaps it is the media, reporting so many stories of rape that women see a rapist behind every shadow; around every turn of a corner. So - just because feminist politics are flawed, or because they have driven views on rape that are now widely held by the public, is rape a victimless crime? Does one who is raped (male or female) feel any less violated, fearful, victimized, and controlled, because of RAPE POLITICS? The motivation(s) of the rapist are but a facet of this issue. ~Audrey --- In [email protected], "ED" <seacrofter001@...> wrote: > > > > > Audrey, below is an alternative perspective on the subject. > > --ED > > PS: I hold no position on this issue yet. > > > > Politics of Rape: > Debunking the Feminist Myth > > By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D. > > "Rape isn't about sex!" That's what feminists proclaim. > And they've declared it so continuously and persuasively over the > last few decades, most of our society have come to believe it. The fact > is, it's not true—it's a myth. > > Rape used to be considered an act of sexual assault—"sexual" > being the operative word—perpetrated by a man of weak moral > character and criminal inclination. But this commonsense truth has been > replaced with a politically-motivated myth that has had long-reaching, > negative effects on both rape victims and society. > > The politicization of rape, and the denial of truth it required, was > spearheaded by feminists in the early 1970s. Since then they've > worked diligently to transform the way society views rape. Specifically, > feminists want rape to be seen as a politically motivated crime rather > than a sexually motivated one. And, to a significant extent they've > been successful in their effort. > Susan Brownmiller first popularized the politicized view of rape in her > 1975 book Against Our Will—Men, Women and Rape. The back cover of > Brownmiller's feminist tome boldly states "it [rape] is not a > crime of lust but of violence and power." Brownmiller's > contention, however, as well as the rape-isn't-about-sex myth it > helped propagate, had more to do with ideological goals and political > expediency than logic and scientific fact. > > > > The feminists' re-defining of rape was, in part, a philosophical > necessity because of their belief in the interchangeability of personal > and political experiences (i.e., the personal is political). But there > were other reasons as well. > > Feminism's political redefinition of rape was driven by three basic > ideological tenets, and, more critically, by one strategic decision. > > First is feminism's ideological belief in "secular > creation," a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born > a blank slate, only becoming that which his culture teaches him to > become. Hence, rapists are societal creations whose tendencies can be > eradicated once the "culture of rape" is eradicated. Next is > feminism's ideological belief that all male-female interactions > must, by definition, be viewed through the lens of power and domination. > Naturally then, rape also must be seen through this distorted prism. > Third is the feminists' denial of any difference between male and > female sexuality, because, in their lexicon, different means inferior. > Thus, since these feminist women couldn't identify in themselves a > sexual urge to rape, then rape by men must also be other than sexually > motivated. Finally, and most importantly, feminists strategically > concluded that if rape was perceived as motivated "only" by sex, > then it would be of limited political value, but if instead rape was > seen as motivated by male desire to dominate and control women, then it > could be used as a powerful political tool for radical cultural change. > Specifically, feminists decided that if they could convince society that > male domination was the rapist's true motivation, then the end of > rape would necessarily require an end to the traditional patriarchal > culture said to support that domination. Rape would become the symbolic > sword that radical feminists hoped would help them slay what they > perceived as the evil dragon of "traditional" culture—their > ultimate sociopolitical objective. > > But feminism's ultimate sociopolitical objective is tragically > ironic, because it is living in a traditional patriarchal family that > most protects young women from the likelihood of rape, and young men > from the likelihood of becoming rapists. To put it simply, a young > woman's vulnerability to rape is greatly reduced if she lives with a > father or husband, and a young man is far less likely to become a rapist > if he grows up with a father in his home. Yet radical feminists > apparently won't allow this truth to impinge upon their political > agenda. Because, to paraphrase nationally syndicated radio talk show > host Dennis Prager, feminists' psychological animus towards men, > more than their love and care of women, is what most ignites their > sociopolitical passions. > > Society's passions, however, must be ignited by truth. Even though > the raping behavior of a specific individual likely involves a complex > intertwining of motivations, the one common and overriding motivation of > all rapists is sexual. So let's examine some commonsense and > empirical truths about rape that debunk the feminist > rape-isn't-about-sex myth and support the contention that rape is > about sex. > > First, rape is universal; it's universal across time, across > cultures and societies, and even across many species. This fact is > clearly validated by data in biologist Randy Thornhill and > anthropologist Craig T. Palmer's book A Natural History of Rape: > Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Specifically, Thornhill and > Palmer's documentation supports the contention that no rape-free > human society has ever existed and that many non-human animal species do > engage in raping behaviors. If rape were an act promoted or encouraged > by specific patriarchal or political environments, as feminists assert, > it's inconceivable that rape would be found in all societies > throughout recorded time. Similarly, if rape were an act solely > dependent upon patriarchal cultural learning, one would find it > difficult to explain the prevalence of raping behaviors among animal > species (other than homo-sapiens) without such a cultural influence. > Rape's universality thus emphasizes the point that rape is > "natural," though obviously not good, and that it isn't > created by any particular sociopolitical environment. > > Second, the behaviors and motives of rapists are comparable to that of > other criminal types and, when analyzed in this straightforward manner, > the sexual motivation of rapists becomes apparent. Consider this. If a > criminal sees your money and wants it, he takes it. If a criminal sees > your car and wants it, he takes it. If a criminal sees you and wants you > sexually, he takes you. These are amongst the immoral tendencies of > criminals—they take what they want with a callous disregard for > their victims. If you ponder the fundamental motivation behind these > various criminal acts, a parallel analogy holds true. The mugger is > motivated by his desire for your money, the car thief by his desire for > your car, and the rapist by his desire for you sexually. The primary > motives of all criminal types, including rapists, are easily > discernable—no conspiratorial explanations are necessary. > > Third, most rapists use only enough force to accomplish their goal of > sexual access. If a rapist's goal was other than sex, such as a > desire to inflict violence upon his victim, why do most rapists not > inflict high degrees of physical injuries on their victims? They > certainly have the opportunity to do so. In 1991, Lee Ellis of Minot > State University reported that studies of "date" rapists clearly > demonstrate that these men try many tactics first (i.e., encouraging > intoxication, professing love, verbally pressuring) before they resort > to physically coercive tactics. Based on these particular facts it must > be concluded that, at least for "date" rapists, a desire to have > sex is the motivating factor, and only after exhausting less coercive > tactics did these rapists resort to physical domination. As an aside, a > small minority of rapists are sadistic and therefore are additionally > motivated by a desire to violently aggress against, dominate, and > humiliate their victims. But sadistic rapists are the exception and not > the rule and are readily differentiated from most rapists by their > tendency to mete out more violence than is necessary to subdue their > victim. The majority of rapists, however, both stranger and > "date," use only enough aggression to accomplish their sexual > goal. This is where feminists and others have become "confused"; > they've obscured the distinction between the tactics used and the > goals sought during rape. For the vast majority of rapists, aggression > and control are simply the means to the end, the end being sexual > access. > > Fourth, a desire for sexual access is the only motive underlying rape > that's both necessary and sufficient. In contrast to this assertion, > Palmer and Thornhill point out that the feminist theory of rape holds > that it's a non-sexual motive that is both necessary and sufficient. > But are any of the motives feminists posit (i.e., political oppression, > violent domination, control, etc.) both necessary and sufficient? Ask > yourself the following questions (although you can substitute any > motivation for the one chosen as an example): Is it necessary for a man > to have a desire to politically oppress a woman before he can rape her? > Is a rapist's political motive, in the absence of any sexual motive, > sufficient for a rape to occur? The answer to both of these questions is > no! > > On the other hand, it is necessary for a man to have some type of sexual > desire before he can rape. And a rapist's sexual motive, even in the > absence of all other motives, is sufficient for a rape to occur. Some > desire for sexual access is always necessary during rape and is even > sufficient unto itself; no other motive is both. > > Fifth, demographic data on rapists and rape victims point to a sexual > motive underlying rape. The majority of rapists are men between their > teens and 20s, a time of life during which men are the most sexually > driven. Next, consider the fact that the majority of rape victims are > between the ages of 16 and 24, the age group in which women are > considered the most sexually attractive. The result of this analysis is > straightforward; the men who are most sexually driven are the ones most > likely to rape and they're most likely to rape women who are > generally considered to be the most sexually attractive. Additionally, > according to data in Thornhill and Palmer's book A Natural History > of Rape, rapists are more likely to engage in penile-vaginal > intercourse, as well as in multiple acts of intercourse, when the victim > is in this most-sexually-attractive age category. Coincidence? Does > anyone really believe that if a rapist were offered a roomful of women > from which he could select a rape victim, that every women in that room > (old and young, ugly and beautiful, thin and fat) would have an equal > chance of being "selected"? Of course not! > > Sixth, most rapists themselves say that sex was the motivating factor > underlying their crimes. Professor Lee Ellis of Minot State University > wrote, "Even among rapists who victimize strangers, self-reports > have given little indication that their real objective is to dominate > their victims (or women generally), except to the extent that doing so > aids in gaining copulatory access." Thornhill and Palmer concur with > Professor Ellis and specifically mention a doctoral dissertation > authored by S. Smithyman that found 84% of rapists reported that sex, in > whole or part, was the motivating force behind their actions. > Contradictory research, often referred to by feminists, which claims > that rapists report power and control as their motivation, frequently > contain serious flaws. For example, many were done with incarcerated > rapists, or other rapists who'd already been "re-educated" > to give the "correct" response, while still others were done > with rapists who may have believed that proclaiming a non-sexual motive > was more likely to lead to their being deemed enlightened and thus > "cured." Although self-reporting is by definition biased, the > least confounded proclamations by rapists supports the contention that > sex is the driving force behind the act of rape. > > Finally, and perhaps most empirically supportive of the hypothesis that > sex is the fundamental motivation behind rape, are the results of > surgical and chemical castration research. > > John Bradford, M.D. authored a chapter in Sexual Deviance: Theory, > Assessment, and Treatment where he summarized results of surgical > castration research. Although surgical castration studies are > unreplicatable today due to "ethical" considerations, they are > theoretically important because, as Bradford writes, surgical > castration's "mechanism of action … is the reduction of > plasma testosterone, the principal hormone for the maintenance of sexual > behavior in males and the hormone involved in sexual drive." > Surgical castration studies therefore can shed considerable light on the > degree to which a rapist's sex drive is involved in his raping > behavior. Bradford reviewed several studies that examined both pre- and > post-surgical castration recidivism rates of sexual deviants, mostly > rapists and child molesters. The results of these studies (which > included large numbers of subjects over long periods of time) reported > significant reductions in sex offender recidivism rates ranging from > more than 70% precastration to under 5% postcastration. Regardless of > how one looks at it, these are truly impressive success rates and do > indeed offer illuminating clarity. > > A fair amount of research has also analyzed the effects of chemical > castration on rapists and other sexual offenders. Chemical castration > works similarly to surgical castration through its impact on male sexual > hormone levels. Professor Lee Ellis wrote that "Various [chemical > castration agents] have been shown to reduce testosterone and thereby > diminish self-reported libido in men … including men involved in > various sex offenses." Thornhill and Palmer described results of > other long-term chemical castration studies specifically done with > rapists and wrote there is "considerable evidence to suggest that > [chemical castration agents] reduce sexual crimes." John Bradford > summarized the whole of chemical castration research by writing > "Long-term outcome studies have shown that [chemical castration] > reduces sexual offender recidivism and compares favorably with the > surgical castration studies." > > Results of both the surgical and chemical castration research > demonstrate that when the sexual drive of rapists is dramatically > reduced, the likelihood that they will rape again is dramatically > reduced. Sexual drive must therefore be considered the motivating force > underlying the behavior of those rapists. > > Ashamedly, most feminists do not support the use of any type of > castration for rapists. This isn't surprising because to support > castration would necessitate admitting that rape is sexually driven. > This incredible fact once again points out that radical feminists allow > their ideological agenda to trump scientific evidence—even if the > application of that science would help protect other women from rape. > > But what of the "evidence" gathered by feminists and other > so-called social scientists in support of their > rape-isn't–about-sex hypothesis? Two psychology professors at > the University of Texas in Austin, Del Thiessen and Robert Young, > decided to take a look. Professors Thiessen and Young analyzed the bulk > of this literature and reported their findings in a 1994 issue of the > journal, Society. Their analysis of 1,610 abstracts of sexual coercion > studies (with sexual coercion defined as rape, date rape, acquaintance > rape, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and incest) published between > 1982 and 1992, revealed unscientific and politically biased studies. For > instance, Thiessen and Young reported that only 10 percent of the > studies they analyzed had sought to uncover the causes or motivations of > sexual coercion, often because the "cause" (i.e., male > oppression) had been assumed, though not proven. They also found that > only 1.5 percent of the studies examined had even applied a statistical > test to a research question. And, significant due to their near complete > absence (.002 percent), were studies that addressed biological issues > because, as the authors noted, biological theories are considered taboo > in the feminist world because they call into question foundational, > ideological tenets of feminism. Perhaps most tragic was Thiessen and > Young's observation that little or no progress had been made in > understanding sexual coercion because of the unscientific nature of the > overwhelming majority of studies in this area. > > In a scathing summary of their analysis, Theissen and Young wrote > "The possibility exists that feminist interests enforce the > orientation of published studies … and reflects the political > perspectives of its advocates. … There is a near-total disregard for > rigorous testing of hypotheses, quantification of data and possible > biological mechanisms. Many studies appear anti-scientific in > conception, execution, and interpretation. … But in the politicized > arena of `women's issues,' social expressions are valued > beyond scientific progress." > > Theissen and Young's comprehensive analysis revealed the fact that > the vast majority of sexual coercion studies are more ideological > proselytizing than they are scientific analysis of research hypotheses. > Charles Leslie of the University of Delaware made similar observations > when he wrote of the social sciences in general, "Non social > scientists generally recognize the fact that the social sciences are > mostly ideological, and that they have produced in this century a very > small amount of scientific knowledge. … Our claim to being > scientific is one of the main intellectual scandals of the academic > world." So not only have feminists and their social science > compatriots blurred the line between the personal and the political, > they've also blurred the line between ideology and science. This > blurring may be good for promoting the feminist agenda but it's > anathema to scientific discovery and truth finding. > > When the commonsense and empirical evidence concerning rape motivation > are examined in their entirety, without the distorting lens of a > political agenda, it's quite difficult to conclude that rape is > anything but an act principally motivated by sex. This conclusion is not > good or bad—it's just inescapably true! > > It's obvious, then, that radical feminists aren't believers in > truth; they're "true believers." Even though routinely > confronted with contradictory logic and objective data concerning the > motivation of rapists, the feminists' fanatic faith never seems to > falter. That's because their faith, like that of all "true > believers," emanates emotionally and psychologically rather than > intellectually. Moreover, as radicals, these feminists believe that > their end justifies their means. Hence, if erroneous myths must be > promulgated in order to bring an end to the traditional patriarchal > culture they despise, then so be it. > > The goal of a moral society, as opposed to that of radical feminists, > must be the search for truth. This is why our society can't allow > the feminist sociopolitical agenda to blind us to the fundamental truth > of the causes and motivation underlying rape. Rape is not a political > act of male domination and patriarchal control, as feminists > conspiratorially allege. It's a heinous act rooted in sexual desire > that's perpetrated by an immoral, criminally-inclined individual. > > Radical feminists, and misguided others, obviously have the right to > despise traditional culture and to wish to vanquish it. But, like the > rest of us, they must make their case in an up-front manner, employing > intellectual and moral persuasion and not, as they've been doing for > nearly three decades, through the backdoor with fear-mongering, > gender-baiting, and pseudo-scientific mythmaking. It's long past > time to debunk once and for all the destructive rape-isn't-about-sex > myth propagated by radical feminists and shed much needed light on what > appears to be their real agenda—the toppling of traditional culture. > > > REFERENCES > > Bradford, J. (1997). In Laws, D.R., & O'Donohue, W. (Eds.), Sexual > Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. (pp.449-464). > > Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape. > > Ellis, L. (1991). A synthesized (biosocial) theory of rape. Journal of > Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 631-642. > > Leslie, C. (1990). Scientific racism: Reflections on peer review, > science and ideology. Social Science and Medicine, 31(8), 891-912. > > Theissen, D., & Young, R.K. (1994). Investigating sexual coercion. > Society, 60(March/April), 60-63. > > Thornhill, R. & Palmer, C.T. (2000). A Natural History of Rape: > Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Massachusetts: Massachusetts > Institute of Technology. > > > > http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.html > <http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.html> > > ### > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > Rape is primarily about satisfying sexual desire when it can't be > achieved otherwise. Complete power over a woman can be a very strong > aphrodisiac. Especially where violence or injury is involved it can also > be combined with the man's desire for revenge against women for > perceived psychological injury previously suffered at the hands of a > woman or women in general by the rapist. > Edgar > > > > Hi Audrey - > > Yours is an assertion that conforms to the usual feminist position. It > may be true or it may not. Has the truth of the assertion been confirmed > by say neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists? > > Thanks, ED > > > --- In [email protected] > </group/Zen_Forum/post?postID=n1B_xW4QPj6GhI8I9qFROnJ44a0x_KpCGNrVhsDsQq\ > y-hUwTjyDXAiTrZwjo653dcyaiFCiNKNV6jklP-vmXoIr-> , "audreydc1983" > <audreydc1983@> wrote: > > > > I will beg to differ on one point: Rape has little to do with sexual > desire. It is about power, control, and victimization. > > > Those of us who believe sex is a natural product of lust, sexual > desire, and love often will assume that rape, since it is a sexual act, > is associated in some way with these feelings. > > > This assumption couldn't be further from the truth. If there is any > desire in rape, it is the desire to control/victimize. > > > > ~Audrey >
