I am writing in response to Nick's comments about rape as a power thing
vs a sex thing.
> > As far as I know rape is a power thing, not a sex thing.
> This is controversial, and although I know that is SAID often enough, I'm
> not so sure about the strength of the evidence. Perhaps sex itself is a
> "power" thing to a degree...
I'm torn between whether rape is a sex thing or not, simply for the
following reasons: Going back to one of the previous lectures, we
talked about concavities and convexities. Now, I don't want to sound
completely graphic here, but in order for rape to occur, a man must
penetrate the woman's body...invade it, in fact. Perhaps it is the power
he exerts over the female which gives him a buzz, simply because he is
in complete control.
If all he was after was ejaculation, then surely he could find some
other means of 'relieving' himself.
This is where I get stuck, because I am confused as to whether in fact
a rapist has a distal reason for raping, or not. If he does, then why
do some rapists wear condoms (although I am aware that this goes back
to the EEA when contraceptives were not around)? If he doesn't have a
distal reason, then why do it at all? This is where I start to think
that rape is a power thing, in which case, sex doesn't necessarily have
to come into to it. Nevertheless, it does. Thus, after going around in
circles, I think that a rapist is struggling to impose himself on others
and dominate them, but can only really achieve this feat in his own
mind by entering a woman's personal, intimate space. Sex is the means
by which to gain power. So all in all, I agree with Stevan's comment
that sex itself might be a power thing - rapists take it to the extreme.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:16 GMT