Rape
August 24, 2012:
The following are some thoughts I have been thinking about for several years,
but was pushed into putting on the Internet
by the 2012-08-23 column of Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
“On abortion, a matter of exception”,
in particular, the following:
The definition of rape has expanded enourmously
during the period of the feminist revolution (certainly since 1970).
Two concrete examples of this expansion are
Well, the above is, I gather from what I read in the media
(see, e.g., the above quotation from Ruth Marcus) and in other ways,
no longer acceptable thought, not to mention speech.
Today’s activist women explicitly have stated
their desire to control what men think, not merely what they say.
But leaving aside the arguments with what post-1970 (say) women demand,
something that has been almost lost is
precisely how 1960s college women, say, viewed rape.
Now that, my friends,
is something I can describe with good and personal authority.
In the mid-1960s it was my good fortune
to spend four years as an undergraduate
at a rather well-regarded and selective private university
(average SAT scores were around 680 on both Verbal and Math,
in a typical class around 25% were valedictorians of their high school,
the acceptance rate for seniors applying to medical school was over 80%).
The university,
which I am not going to name because I do not want
to tie it explicitly to my generally politically incorrect views,
attracted students who were smart, had done well in high school,
and were politically conservative.
The campus gestalt was serious studying,
minimal partying (no fraternities or sororities, although the coeds,
evidently desiring to influence the university social setting,
had established entities called “literary societies”,
with cute names such as the Pallas Athena Literary Society (get it?),
to which frosh women could apply for selection),
and zero political activism.
Anyhow, in my four years as an undergraduate I dated five coeds,
all of whom were lovely Southern girls from middle class or higher backgrounds.
(By the way, one of the coeds at the university (not one I dated!)
was a daughter of a Speaker of the House of Representatives,
which indicates the type of women who attended).
Of the women I dated, at least two made to me, totally unsolicited,
the remark that their attitude was that
“When rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy.”
Why did they say that?
That was a time when “good girls” did not initiate sex.
It seems to me that what was being said was
“I trust you and like you, and if you want to initiate sex,
that would be fine with me.”
(In the event, I was too inhibited at the time by a repressive parental upbringing to see if they really meant what they had just said.)
But getting back to today,
that social attitude once held by “good women”
does not seem to be discussed,
as if today’s women would like for it to be thoroughly forgotten.
To prevent that from happening, that is why I am making this post.
I really despise the way today’s politically correct women,
and even their broader politically correct colleagues,
are, largely successfully,
trying to eradicate the memory of the way things once were,
other than as how they chose to present it.
Let’s directly address the assertion that Ruth Marcus denied,
that there are in reality “different degrees of rape.”
Let’s observe that there are two separate issues involved: consent and
the harm, real or potential,
to the woman who is making the complaint.
Let’s take the issue of harm first,
noting that both physical and psychological harm are possible.
Several types of physical harm are possible:
but even so, the point is still made that
different types of “rape” involve different potential for harm.
Let us now consider the situations
that the recent feminist-driven expansion of the rape definition cover.
In the case of unwanted sex with a husband,
the virginity issue is long gone,
the disease transmission and conception issues
may or may not be not applicable.
In the case of “I changed my mind, pull it out”
the woman already accepted (consented to) the risks itemized above
at the time she permitted entry of the man’s phallus.
The penalties for rape are most severe,
appropriately so for what has been traditionally defined as rape.
But to the extent that they were justified
(and surely that was at least part of the justification for them)
by the potentials for harm itemized above,
they are no longer justified by the new, feminist-driven definition of rape.
Thus it is appropriate to make a distinction between new rape and old rape,
and indeed,
to consider the application of those old penalties to the new situations
to be a case of bait and switch.
I think the above shows that a thoughtful understanding of the situation
proves that there are indeed
different degrees of rape,
different in in any reasonable understanding of what the issues are.
Don’t let them.
We need to stop prosecuting bad behavior as rape.
By Cathy Young
Washington Post, 2015-05-20
The following are some thoughts I have been thinking about for several years,
but was pushed into putting on the Internet
by the 2012-08-23 column of Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
“On abortion, a matter of exception”,
in particular, the following:
Akin flubbed by
insinuating — and thinking —
that there are different degrees of rape.
The definition of rape has expanded enourmously
during the period of the feminist revolution (certainly since 1970).
Two concrete examples of this expansion are
- Up until fairly recently, husbands,
as a reward, and incentive, for marriage,
had what were called “marital rights”,
meaning that the wife could not decline
what were universally considered her marital duties,
except for real reasons of health
(i.e., not just because she was tired of hubby,
or because her advanced education had convinced her that
her husband was “the enemy.”) - The almost insane (it seems to me) idea that
a woman can first consent to intercourse,
permit the man to begin the act,
and then, in mid-intercourse,
suddenly decide that she has changed her mind
and demand that he stop his act before his completion
(by the way, note how that fits the traditional stereotype
of women changing their minds).
Well, the above is, I gather from what I read in the media
(see, e.g., the above quotation from Ruth Marcus) and in other ways,
no longer acceptable thought, not to mention speech.
Today’s activist women explicitly have stated
their desire to control what men think, not merely what they say.
But leaving aside the arguments with what post-1970 (say) women demand,
something that has been almost lost is
precisely how 1960s college women, say, viewed rape.
Now that, my friends,
is something I can describe with good and personal authority.
In the mid-1960s it was my good fortune
to spend four years as an undergraduate
at a rather well-regarded and selective private university
(average SAT scores were around 680 on both Verbal and Math,
in a typical class around 25% were valedictorians of their high school,
the acceptance rate for seniors applying to medical school was over 80%).
The university,
which I am not going to name because I do not want
to tie it explicitly to my generally politically incorrect views,
attracted students who were smart, had done well in high school,
and were politically conservative.
The campus gestalt was serious studying,
minimal partying (no fraternities or sororities, although the coeds,
evidently desiring to influence the university social setting,
had established entities called “literary societies”,
with cute names such as the Pallas Athena Literary Society (get it?),
to which frosh women could apply for selection),
and zero political activism.
Anyhow, in my four years as an undergraduate I dated five coeds,
all of whom were lovely Southern girls from middle class or higher backgrounds.
(By the way, one of the coeds at the university (not one I dated!)
was a daughter of a Speaker of the House of Representatives,
which indicates the type of women who attended).
Of the women I dated, at least two made to me, totally unsolicited,
the remark that their attitude was that
“When rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy.”
Why did they say that?
That was a time when “good girls” did not initiate sex.
It seems to me that what was being said was
“I trust you and like you, and if you want to initiate sex,
that would be fine with me.”
(In the event, I was too inhibited at the time by a repressive parental upbringing to see if they really meant what they had just said.)
But getting back to today,
that social attitude once held by “good women”
does not seem to be discussed,
as if today’s women would like for it to be thoroughly forgotten.
To prevent that from happening, that is why I am making this post.
I really despise the way today’s politically correct women,
and even their broader politically correct colleagues,
are, largely successfully,
trying to eradicate the memory of the way things once were,
other than as how they chose to present it.
Different Degrees of Rape
Let’s directly address the assertion that Ruth Marcus denied,
that there are in reality “different degrees of rape.”
Let’s observe that there are two separate issues involved: consent and
the harm, real or potential,
to the woman who is making the complaint.
Let’s take the issue of harm first,
noting that both physical and psychological harm are possible.
Several types of physical harm are possible:
- If the vagina is physically penetrated and the woman is a virgin,
her hymen will be broken. - If the penetrating object is a male phallus,
the potential for conception is present. - In most, if not all, of the cases covered by the rape laws,
the potential for transmission of a sexually transmitted disease is present.
but even so, the point is still made that
different types of “rape” involve different potential for harm.
Let us now consider the situations
that the recent feminist-driven expansion of the rape definition cover.
In the case of unwanted sex with a husband,
the virginity issue is long gone,
the disease transmission and conception issues
may or may not be not applicable.
In the case of “I changed my mind, pull it out”
the woman already accepted (consented to) the risks itemized above
at the time she permitted entry of the man’s phallus.
The penalties for rape are most severe,
appropriately so for what has been traditionally defined as rape.
But to the extent that they were justified
(and surely that was at least part of the justification for them)
by the potentials for harm itemized above,
they are no longer justified by the new, feminist-driven definition of rape.
Thus it is appropriate to make a distinction between new rape and old rape,
and indeed,
to consider the application of those old penalties to the new situations
to be a case of bait and switch.
I think the above shows that a thoughtful understanding of the situation
proves that there are indeed
different degrees of rape,
different in in any reasonable understanding of what the issues are.
Miscellaneous Articles
2015-05-20-WP-Cathy-Young-feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them
Feminists want us to define these ugly sexual encounters as rape.Don’t let them.
We need to stop prosecuting bad behavior as rape.
By Cathy Young
Washington Post, 2015-05-20
posted by KHarbaugh at 06:00
<< Home