But they still have freedom of choice in that action. If they want to have sex at 12, let them, or at 70 - let them. The damage to the psyche is that it conflicts with true wishes, stripping away that freedom, and in the action of stripping that freedom you obtain rape.
<!--quoteo(post=1619211:date=Apr 6 2007, 05:00 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 6 2007, 05:00 AM) [snapback]1619211[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If they want to have sex at 12, let them <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then.
<!--quoteo(post=1619212:date=Apr 5 2007, 11:03 PM:name=Rover)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rover @ Apr 5 2007, 11:03 PM) [snapback]1619212[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the question though: What does it matter?
Haze: You are still assuming that there is no "right" other then your "right". If society raised you to think it wasn't your choice to choose when to have sex, then anything that wasn't rape would seem wrong to you.
Yeah and they don't know what they're doing when they use the Pythagorean Theorum but we shove that down their throats, don't we? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no?
<!--quoteo(post=1619220:date=Apr 5 2007, 11:22 PM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Apr 5 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]1619220[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the question though, is it the act of having sex that causes psychological issues, or the fact that society tells them what they did was wrong?
Here's the question though, is it the act of having sex that causes psychological issues, or the fact that society tells them what they did was wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a question for somebody with a little more knowledge on the subject, lol. All I know is that it's pretty much ubiquitous.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1619220:date=Apr 5 2007, 08:22 PM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Apr 5 2007, 08:22 PM) [snapback]1619220[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well it's already happened, and these kids knew they were doing and it'll always be in the back of their minds. They're tainted.
<!--quoteo(post=1619211:date=Apr 5 2007, 10:00 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 5 2007, 10:00 PM) [snapback]1619211[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But they still have freedom of choice in that action. If they want to have sex at 12, let them, or at 70 - let them. The damage to the psyche is that it conflicts with true wishes, stripping away that freedom, and in the action of stripping that freedom you obtain rape. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying being raped is roughly equivalent to being kidnapped and forced to clean someone's house for them at knife point? What about if your brother pins you down and puts dirty socks in your mouth. How about a sociaty that makes people pay in blood and sweat for the smallest trinket towards a reasonably comfortable life, isn't that suppressing a persons true wishes?
Don't get me wrong, all of those things are bad, but I'd rather have any of them then be raped by some burly guy. Hands down. My problem is I can't figure out why the hell that is the case... from a rational standpoint all of those things are done against me without my consent. They are all uncomfortable, they all constitute someone else propagating a wrong against me. But they aren't rape. They aren't half as bad, and many other scenarios I can think about that are similar would take alot less time then being raped, yet I would consider much preferable.
There is some rational factor that I am totally missing, and it pisses me off to no end. There is some dynamic value to what goes on during sex that no one seems to understand from a rational standpoint.
I understand the point of 'consent', but it's really a VERY weak rational. TONNES of things are done to us and against us all the time without our consent. Some guy cuts you off on the high way without your consent, KILL THE ######! I don't think so... If some jerk I don't like comes up to me and starts chatting my ear off I'm not going to say "HEY, I DIDN'T CONSENT TO TALKING WITH YOU, 20 YEARS IN PRISON!", but all of a sudden when we talk about sex is matters. I don't see how one human interaction consent can be the be all and end all of right and wrong, but for every other conceivable action it's almost utterly irrelevant.
My problem here isn't that I believe rape, or pedophilia is right, my problem is I can't figure out where the strength of the rational for WHY it is wrong is. There obviously is one somewhere. I mean saying there isn't would be like arguing that there is no such thing as wind because you've never seen a wind. You just don't know how it works if you say that, it's not that it doesn't exist, you can see it's effects everywhere. It pisses me off that something can be so blatantly in your face morally wrong, and you can't just spit out a strong rational argument to prove it.
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1619212:date=Apr 5 2007, 08:03 PM:name=Rover)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rover @ Apr 5 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]1619212[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In 5th grade in the states kids watch a sex-education video; you're 10-11 in 5th grade. I'm pretty sure a 12 year old knows what he's doing if he's having sex. He probably doesn't realize how risky it is, but I'd be sure he would be aware of what'll come of it.
Actually, when you think about it, sex has got to be the one thing you can be almost certain they know what they're doing. The survival of the species kind of relies on instinctively knowing how to have sex, and what it is.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1619244:date=Apr 6 2007, 08:51 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 6 2007, 08:51 AM) [snapback]1619244[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My problem here isn't that I believe rape, or pedophilia is right, my problem is I can't figure out where the strength of the rational for WHY it is wrong is. There obviously is one somewhere. I mean saying there isn't would be like arguing that there is no such thing as wind because you've never seen a wind. You just don't know how it works if you say that, it's not that it doesn't exist, you can see it's effects everywhere. It pisses me off that something can be so blatantly in your face morally wrong, and you can't just spit out a strong rational argument to prove it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd suggest that your first step would be looking up some rape crisis/victim support organisations. You can probably come across some sources and stories of personal experience that might give you an idea of what a rape victim goes through. A quick googling has turned up three sites that you might be able to start with:
<a href="http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/" target="_blank">Rape Victim Advocates</a> <a href="http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/" target="_blank">Rape Crisis</a> <a href="http://www.voices-action.org/" target="_blank">Voices in Action</a> (geared more towards sexual abuse of children)
The thrust of the point, as I see it, is that it's much more than just being forced to do something against your will, or even than to "have sex" against your will. It's the complete degredation and humiliation of the vitctim and total removal of their most basic right to say "yes" or "no".
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rape Crisis"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Rape Crisis")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexual assault and rape are not just sex. They involve the total humiliation of a woman. They involve taking control of her body against her will. They involve taking all dignity and self assurance away from a woman, and reducing her to an object of sexual abuse. It is violence when someone forces a woman to engage in sexual acts against her will. It is humiliation. It is degradation. During interviewing rapists say that rape is more about power and violence than about sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Xyth:
I have to say I take issue with your suggestion that the effect rape has on people is exclusively down to the way society percieves it. To say that the fact that our society says "rape is wrong" is the only reason that it's so traumatic seems to me to be rather poor logic, as well as oversimplifying the trauma involved.
For a start, if the fact that we say "rape is wrong" is the only reason it's such a horrible experience, then surely that would mean that the fact that we say so means that no-one would do it. <a href="http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html" target="_blank">Yet, in 2003/04 in the UK there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female</a>. Additionally, if it were down to society, women in those that seem quite comfortable with violence against women, such as the Vikings with all their rape and pillage, or the Afghani War Lords that the Coalition put in charge after the Taliban (a major reason given for removing them was that it would improve women's rights; what actually happened is that they subsequently put in power men who were too busy raping women to care about their rights). I think it's safe to say, however, that this is almost certainly not the case. All of these women are likely to be just as deeply traumatised as anyone else that's been raped.
To suggest that the only problem is in the heads of the victims is to do a lot of people a great injustice. Perhaps the actual problem is that not enough men think it's wrong enough not to do it.
I understand that what is right and wrong depends on the moral standards of the society that a given person is a part of. But i can't think of a society where rape could be considered morally right, since rape victims end up horribly messed up. Sure it may have been acceptable for roman armies to rape captured women many years ago, but i think it was still wrong since the women were harmed and probably traumatized. I can't think of a single scenario where rape could be rationally be considered right.
As for what age it is acceptable to have consensual sex, that is entirely dependent on what society thinks. Coincidentally, most of our society (modern western society) thinks that it is completely ###### up. In our society, it isn't acceptable to lose your virginity when you're ten, in the middle of class, in front of your classmates. Even the kids that did have sex in the classroom thought it was acceptable, there may have been kids watching that were uncomfortable or offended, as well as all their parents.
The thing is, the problem IS just in the heads of the victims. If you kill someone you physically remove them from existence. If you steal something from someone you take an object that belongs to them and make it so they no longer have it. If you beat the living hell out of someone they spend several weeks physically recovering, yet the punishment is still roughly equal to rape in most places IIRC... These things are easy to rationalize the righteousness of, in all cases you are physically costing someone else something. Strictly speaking, rape just doesn't do that...
We live in a sociaty that loves to pretend as if there is no value to the stuff that goes on in heart and soul. That EVERYTHING can be assigned a physical value. To address insane, you still misunderstand my fundamental problem. I understand that damage is incontrovertibly being done, I want to know WHY. There has to be a solid fundamental reason somewhere for WHY rape can be such a damaging ordeal to the psyche when other things are not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->they involve the total humiliation of a woman. They involve taking control of her body against her will. They involve taking all dignity and self assurance away from a woman, and reducing her to an object of sexual abuse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read that, and it sounds bad, but read it yourself, it doesn't sound as bad as the damage rape is supposed to cause. "Being locked in a high school locker doesn't just involve sitting in a locker, it involves the total humiliation of the student. It involves taking control of thier body against thier will. It involves taking all dignity and self assurance away from a student, and reducing them to an object of ridicule." Would you say that statement is untrue? It uses very few words that the original doesn't. The point is that I don't think the description fits the crime here, it's not nearly robust enough to really transmit an understanding of what's happening. If I were to hear a woman say "so and so raped me, he deserves to die" I could understand that, I could potentially agree with it. I can understand rape as on par with murder, but I can't rationalize it.
Like I say, taking away someone's free will is not really an objective sin against humanity, having sex with someone is not an objective sin against humanity, what is it that when combining the two things multiplies the sums of the crimes so massively? I am bothered by the missing factor I don't understand. If there is just some stuff out there that is impossible to rationally understand then I see that as a big problem, because I guide my existence through a rational understanding of things.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
buggerit: I am never very good at getting my point through, so hold with me.
Swift, you are sorta answering your own question (even if noone else seems to get it).
We deam rape to be such a horrible thing because it involves one of our strongest Taboos, that of Sex. From an early most of us are brought up thinking that sex is a bad thing, that we shouldn't do it unless underspecific circumstances. Then ontop of that we are also told that Sex is wonderful, and great, When shared between 2 people in love/marriage.
Of course we each end up with our own perspective of sex, generaly it is held as something special, almost always enjoyable,and unfortunatly it often contains that taint of "this is bad". Now take that act (special, fun, enjoyable, but some how 'bad') and force it on some one (etiher via actual force or trickery), and you have a victim who will often come away very confused, scared, hurt, and otherwise messed up.
Now we get to layer on LOTS of other things: Parts of society will blame the victim (c'mon she was obviously askign for it!), and this can lead to the victim blaming themself. (Rape is one of the crimes that often goes unreported). Some victims will be confused about what ACTUALY happened (drunk/drugged/whatever), aka, more reasons it can go unreported. Victims often feel shame (remember, strange stigmatisims associated with sex), and thus don't report.
etc etc etc.
Our society is hung up on sex, and this is a crime based around sex.
As for Swiftspear's other comments about there being a posibility of a culture where rape is not considered such a horrible tihng, and every one jumps on him for this. However he is sorta right (depending on your views ofcourse).
This is down to if you belive in absolute morality or relative morality. absolute states that certain things are wrong no matter what (killing is a popular one). Relative morality states that what is moraly correct is bassed on the society.
I personaly think that morals are relative (and it apears that Swift does as well). Remember, this doesn't say that we have vastly different morals then you do, just that we don't think that other cultures can't have other morals.
Back on topic: You will never find a culture where rape is ok in the victim's mind, after all, the deffinition of rape is unconsentual sex. You COULD find a culture where rape is not any where near the same level as we hold it. It is hard to come up with a hypothetical of this, because my morals keep getting in the way (I do belive rape is one of the worst things that you can do), however if you sit down and think long enough you should be able to come up with one.
<!--quoteo(post=1620513:date=Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM) [snapback]1620513[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For a start, if the fact that we say "rape is wrong" is the only reason it's such a horrible experience, <b>then surely that would mean that the fact that we say so means that no-one would do it. </b><a href="http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html" target="_blank">Yet, in 2003/04 in the UK there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female</a>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait... what? We say many things are wrong, and people still do them (in some cases BECAUSE we say they are wrong).
<!--quoteo(post=1620513:date=Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM) [snapback]1620513[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Additionally, if it were down to society, women in those that seem quite comfortable with violence against women, (Examples). I think it's safe to say, however, that this is almost certainly not the case. All of these women are likely to be just as deeply traumatised as anyone else that's been raped. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You sort of left out part of your sentence there, I'll assume you meant to imply that women from a pro-rape (well, you get what I mean. They didn't have that big of an issue with it) culture still suffer the same pyschological damages. Yet, the problem with your arguement is that it doesn't have any factual backup. What Im trying to argue is that <i>it didn't</i> cause the same effects it does today. However, the most evidence I can really compile is that no books written in those eras ever make any kind of mention of people with pyschological issues caused by rape or anything similar (and to backup my case a bit more, many do mention rape just by itself). Keep in mind though it was still considered assault, and it still ###### people off.
However Im not argueing that it's right or wrong, Im just saying that pyschological issues are, excuse my pun, purely in the head. If you were raised your entire life to believe something like rape was A-OK, then if it happened you wouldn't suffer any kind pyschological issues. Why? Because it would never occur to your that you should. To take the example a bit further, if you raised a kid their entire life to believe that they should feel shame for something like... say... sleeping, then you can bet that they would be ashamed everytime it happened. The fact though is, nobody raised any of us to think like that, hence we don't feel that way. See where Im going with this? Nothing pyschological is ever guaranteed because it can be arbitrarily changed by (I hate to use the term...) brainwashing (being told repeatedly that your brain should think a certain thing or act a certain way to the point where you absolutely believe it) or changing what society teaches you as you grow up. Anyway, I've typed to much. What Im trying to say is that argueing that something is wrong because it causes pyschological damage; isn't a very strong piece of evidence since pyschological damage is (however subconsciously) caused by the victim themselves, and how society tells them they should act.
Plain and simple: Kids that young shouldn't be doing other kids that young, especially at that age. They're not at the age of consent, and I don't the a fifth grader is ready to be a dad...or for both of them to be dads, rather.
<!--quoteo(post=1620749:date=Apr 13 2007, 12:45 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 13 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]1620749[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I personaly think that morals are relative (and it apears that Swift does as well). Remember, this doesn't say that we have vastly different morals then you do, just that we don't think that other cultures can't have other morals. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe in relativity of perception. I believe there is absolute morality, but I don't believe it can be objectively perceived. Think of it like a question of how to build a road from point A to point B. There IS a most efficient possible route that can be built, but with no calculation tools or abstract analysis most people won't build the most optimum route, they will just build some willy nilly route that might be no where near the optimum. Optimum must be rationally obtained, best effort won't work.
This is why this problem is so problematic for me. I don't believe that absolute morality can be relatively observed, so it therefore must be rationally and abstractly observed, and in order to do that you need to unravel the integral parts. The big problem for me is that so much of our morality is tied into our soul (used for lack of a better description, effectively I'm just equating this to stuff we basically don't understand about the nature of our being). The fact that we are simultaneously sentient and primal is incredibly paradoxical when trying to understand the causality of our being.
I like it when I can look at an issue and know I am right because the math just adds up that my conclusions are supported by the evidence by sums. Like thansal said, say the stigma against rape is simply an issue of sociatial training... That basically means that rape isn't really wrong, it's just that we haven't figured it out yet. For thousands of years slavery was considered acceptable by sociaty. People were trained to believe it's acceptably and it's righteousness. Therefore slavery is right? No. Slavery is wrong because it's damaging to other people, there is a rational case for it to be wrong. So now we have another issue where the rational case doesn't seem to suit the societal training... I'm VERY concerned that we think we're smarter then we are here...
At my school health class is taught at 6th and 8th/9th grade. Maybe they do things a bit different over there, and teach it starting in 5th...
Anyway, the problem that I see here isn't necessarily the problem of underage/statutory rape or a lack of consent (...doesn't Japan have the consent age of 13?). The fact that it was performed in front of a class of minors alone should be punishable by numerous laws: indecent exposure; lewd behavior; and exposing a minor (to illicit sexual activity/live sexual acts). It doesn't matter if they're children or not (...and hey, if they believe that sexual acts are 'grown up enough' for comedic/whatever value, then they damn sure better know the legal ramifications for their behavior).
I suppose there's not really a very power rational for allowing very young people to reproduce, other than the fact that pregnancy at a young age risks death during child birth, and the potential of spreading disease unknowingly, psychological damage. There's the whole 'they don't know about love/proper handling of a spouce/etc.' stuff, but I don't think that can specifically be pinned down to one year of age. If they're doing it simply to be funny in front of their class, or to shock their classmate, then they're most likely not having sex for a mature reason. Plus from a basic 'evolutionary' standpoint, women tend to be unable to bare children until around 13, and men don't ususally become fertile until after that, so there's just not really a good reason for them to be having sex in front of a class of 10 minors.
As for why rape is worse than some other non-consentual act, well, it's a violation of personal space (...well, a violation of the person itself, really). This just doesn't happen with kidnapping (pretty much a restriction of personal freedom if no beating is involved) and violence (weaker psychological effects than being violated, as well as the tendency for punishments to fit the level of mistreatment). Rape also poses a far greater threat to personal safety and future well-being, since there is the very detrimental psychological aspect, as well as the risk of disease, pregnancy or (...forgive any sort of indececy involved) internal bodily damage.
It's like comparing raw violence and rape like this (on a less extreme, day to day example): a beating is like someone bumping into you on the bus, but rape is like someone shoving their finger in your mouth. Also, a very much doubt that any of those 12,000+ rapes in the UK are people raping 'because it's illegal'.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1620697:date=Apr 13 2007, 01:41 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 13 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]1620697[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I read that, and it sounds bad, but read it yourself, it doesn't sound as bad as the damage rape is supposed to cause. "Being locked in a high school locker doesn't just involve sitting in a locker, it involves the total humiliation of the student. It involves taking control of thier body against thier will. It involves taking all dignity and self assurance away from a student, and reducing them to an object of ridicule." Would you say that statement is untrue? It uses very few words that the original doesn't. The point is that I don't think the description fits the crime here, it's not nearly robust enough to really transmit an understanding of what's happening. If I were to hear a woman say "so and so raped me, he deserves to die" I could understand that, I could potentially agree with it. I can understand rape as on par with murder, but I can't rationalize it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, for a start, you're not recognising that there might be a difference in the level of trauma suffered by the victim of being locked in a locker and that of a rape victim. Sure, it involves some of those things. But it doesn't involve them to nearly the same level as it would when someone is raped. Additionally, you're leaving out from that example the actual act of rape, the penetration and violation of someone against their will.
You'd find this much easier to work out if you do what I suggested and read up on it. I've never been raped, so I can't adequately describe how awful it is. If you look around, you'll probably be able to find some victim's accounts of it, which will explain in much better terms
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Wait... what? We say many things are wrong, and people still do them (in some cases BECAUSE we say they are wrong). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. So from that, you could argue that what we say as a society doesn't mean that people will automatically act as we determine they should. Yet why is no-one happy about being raped?
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You sort of left out part of your sentence there, I'll assume you meant to imply that women from a pro-rape (well, you get what I mean. They didn't have that big of an issue with it) culture still suffer the same pyschological damages. Yet, the problem with your arguement is that it doesn't have any factual backup. What Im trying to argue is that <i>it didn't</i> cause the same effects it does today. However, the most evidence I can really compile is that no books written in those eras ever make any kind of mention of people with pyschological issues caused by rape or anything similar (and to backup my case a bit more, many do mention rape just by itself). Keep in mind though it was still considered assault, and it still ###### people off. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll tell you why those books make no mention of it. Because none of them were written by rape victims in the same way that none of them were written by people stoned to death for having sex with someone of the "wrong" gender, or by the people that lay dead or imprisoned after a war. Because those books were written by the people that came out on top; the people with <i>power</i>. And rape is all about men exerting power over a women.* The problems suffered by a rape victim weren't documented because almost none of it was written by a women, nor was it written by men remotely interested in talking about what it was like for rape victims.
However, there <i>is</i> a very strong historical precedent for soldiers raping women in times of war in order to exert power over enemy towns/cities and batter them into submission. Why would they bother doing this if it wasn't going to have a negative effect on them?
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> However Im not argueing that it's right or wrong, Im just saying that pyschological issues are, excuse my pun, purely in the head. If you were raised your entire life to believe something like rape was A-OK, then if it happened you wouldn't suffer any kind pyschological issues. Why? Because it would never occur to your that you should. To take the example a bit further, if you raised a kid their entire life to believe that they should feel shame for something like... say... sleeping, then you can bet that they would be ashamed everytime it happened. The fact though is, nobody raised any of us to think like that, hence we don't feel that way. See where Im going with this? Nothing pyschological is ever guaranteed because it can be arbitrarily changed by (I hate to use the term...) brainwashing (being told repeatedly that your brain should think a certain thing or act a certain way to the point where you absolutely believe it) or changing what society teaches you as you grow up. Anyway, I've typed to much. What Im trying to say is that argueing that something is wrong because it causes pyschological damage; isn't a very strong piece of evidence since pyschological damage is (however subconsciously) caused by the victim themselves, and how society tells them they should act. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If rape was "A-OK" in the eyes of the victim, then it wouldn't happen. It would be sex. A rather twisted version of it at least, but my point is that if the victims were conditioned to be okay with it, then it wouldn't be rape. At any rate, women are still rasied to believe that, if not okay, that it's something that will still happen if they're not careful. That they can't dress as they wish, because they might be "asking for it", that they shouldn't get drunk or hang around with the "wrong people", because then it's their fault that it happens because they weren't "careful enough". They are told that they really did want it because they were being "provocative" and that actually they were gagging for it but then afterwards decided to bring some "innocent man" down. Women's sexual histories are still brought up in court as if it were somehow relevant, as if the fact that they were promiscuous in the past means that this time they somehow "secretly wanted it", that that "no" was acually a "yes".
Clearly conditioning is not the only thing determining the psyhological trauma caused, because we still live in a society that tries to blame women for being raped, and frequently treats victims like criminals and liars. So why hasn't that worked. Why is it still so traumatic?
* Some people are likely to see this as a somewhat controvertial statement, so I might as well clarify it now. When I say "men exerting power over women", I do not mean all men over all women for all time, nor do I mean that all men are rapists. Apart from anything else, that would involve me shooting myself in the foot a bit.
Comments
If they want to have sex at 12, let them
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then.
What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah and they don't know what they're doing when they use the Pythagorean Theorum but we shove that down their throats, don't we?
What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the question though: What does it matter?
Haze: You are still assuming that there is no "right" other then your "right". If society raised you to think it wasn't your choice to choose when to have sex, then anything that wasn't rape would seem wrong to you.
Yeah and they don't know what they're doing when they use the Pythagorean Theorum but we shove that down their throats, don't we? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no?
It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the question though, is it the act of having sex that causes psychological issues, or the fact that society tells them what they did was wrong?
Also, I'm pretty sure that posting in this thread will toss us onto some FBI database.
Here's the question though, is it the act of having sex that causes psychological issues, or the fact that society tells them what they did was wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a question for somebody with a little more knowledge on the subject, lol. All I know is that it's pretty much ubiquitous.
It's wrong because the resulting psychological effects have been proven time and time again and it is adults' responsibility to raise the children to be healthy. Letting them have psychologically-damaging preteen sex directly contradicts that responsibility. Simple enough, no?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's already happened, and these kids knew they were doing and it'll always be in the back of their minds. They're tainted.
But they still have freedom of choice in that action. If they want to have sex at 12, let them, or at 70 - let them. The damage to the psyche is that it conflicts with true wishes, stripping away that freedom, and in the action of stripping that freedom you obtain rape.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're saying being raped is roughly equivalent to being kidnapped and forced to clean someone's house for them at knife point? What about if your brother pins you down and puts dirty socks in your mouth. How about a sociaty that makes people pay in blood and sweat for the smallest trinket towards a reasonably comfortable life, isn't that suppressing a persons true wishes?
Don't get me wrong, all of those things are bad, but I'd rather have any of them then be raped by some burly guy. Hands down. My problem is I can't figure out why the hell that is the case... from a rational standpoint all of those things are done against me without my consent. They are all uncomfortable, they all constitute someone else propagating a wrong against me. But they aren't rape. They aren't half as bad, and many other scenarios I can think about that are similar would take alot less time then being raped, yet I would consider much preferable.
There is some rational factor that I am totally missing, and it pisses me off to no end. There is some dynamic value to what goes on during sex that no one seems to understand from a rational standpoint.
I understand the point of 'consent', but it's really a VERY weak rational. TONNES of things are done to us and against us all the time without our consent. Some guy cuts you off on the high way without your consent, KILL THE ######! I don't think so... If some jerk I don't like comes up to me and starts chatting my ear off I'm not going to say "HEY, I DIDN'T CONSENT TO TALKING WITH YOU, 20 YEARS IN PRISON!", but all of a sudden when we talk about sex is matters. I don't see how one human interaction consent can be the be all and end all of right and wrong, but for every other conceivable action it's almost utterly irrelevant.
My problem here isn't that I believe rape, or pedophilia is right, my problem is I can't figure out where the strength of the rational for WHY it is wrong is. There obviously is one somewhere. I mean saying there isn't would be like arguing that there is no such thing as wind because you've never seen a wind. You just don't know how it works if you say that, it's not that it doesn't exist, you can see it's effects everywhere. It pisses me off that something can be so blatantly in your face morally wrong, and you can't just spit out a strong rational argument to prove it.
What? They don't even fully realize what they're doing then.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In 5th grade in the states kids watch a sex-education video; you're 10-11 in 5th grade. I'm pretty sure a 12 year old knows what he's doing if he's having sex. He probably doesn't realize how risky it is, but I'd be sure he would be aware of what'll come of it.
My problem here isn't that I believe rape, or pedophilia is right, my problem is I can't figure out where the strength of the rational for WHY it is wrong is. There obviously is one somewhere. I mean saying there isn't would be like arguing that there is no such thing as wind because you've never seen a wind. You just don't know how it works if you say that, it's not that it doesn't exist, you can see it's effects everywhere. It pisses me off that something can be so blatantly in your face morally wrong, and you can't just spit out a strong rational argument to prove it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd suggest that your first step would be looking up some rape crisis/victim support organisations. You can probably come across some sources and stories of personal experience that might give you an idea of what a rape victim goes through. A quick googling has turned up three sites that you might be able to start with:
<a href="http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/" target="_blank">Rape Victim Advocates</a>
<a href="http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/" target="_blank">Rape Crisis</a>
<a href="http://www.voices-action.org/" target="_blank">Voices in Action</a> (geared more towards sexual abuse of children)
The thrust of the point, as I see it, is that it's much more than just being forced to do something against your will, or even than to "have sex" against your will. It's the complete degredation and humiliation of the vitctim and total removal of their most basic right to say "yes" or "no".
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rape Crisis"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Rape Crisis")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexual assault and rape are not just sex. They involve the total humiliation of a woman. They involve taking control of her body against her will. They involve taking all dignity and self assurance away from a woman, and reducing her to an object of sexual abuse. It is violence when someone forces a woman to engage in sexual acts against her will. It is humiliation. It is degradation. During interviewing rapists say that rape is more about power and violence than about sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Xyth:
I have to say I take issue with your suggestion that the effect rape has on people is exclusively down to the way society percieves it. To say that the fact that our society says "rape is wrong" is the only reason that it's so traumatic seems to me to be rather poor logic, as well as oversimplifying the trauma involved.
For a start, if the fact that we say "rape is wrong" is the only reason it's such a horrible experience, then surely that would mean that the fact that we say so means that no-one would do it. <a href="http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html" target="_blank">Yet, in 2003/04 in the UK there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female</a>. Additionally, if it were down to society, women in those that seem quite comfortable with violence against women, such as the Vikings with all their rape and pillage, or the Afghani War Lords that the Coalition put in charge after the Taliban (a major reason given for removing them was that it would improve women's rights; what actually happened is that they subsequently put in power men who were too busy raping women to care about their rights). I think it's safe to say, however, that this is almost certainly not the case. All of these women are likely to be just as deeply traumatised as anyone else that's been raped.
To suggest that the only problem is in the heads of the victims is to do a lot of people a great injustice. Perhaps the actual problem is that not enough men think it's wrong enough not to do it.
As for what age it is acceptable to have consensual sex, that is entirely dependent on what society thinks. Coincidentally, most of our society (modern western society) thinks that it is completely ###### up. In our society, it isn't acceptable to lose your virginity when you're ten, in the middle of class, in front of your classmates. Even the kids that did have sex in the classroom thought it was acceptable, there may have been kids watching that were uncomfortable or offended, as well as all their parents.
moral relativism -_-; difficult subject.
We live in a sociaty that loves to pretend as if there is no value to the stuff that goes on in heart and soul. That EVERYTHING can be assigned a physical value. To address insane, you still misunderstand my fundamental problem. I understand that damage is incontrovertibly being done, I want to know WHY. There has to be a solid fundamental reason somewhere for WHY rape can be such a damaging ordeal to the psyche when other things are not.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->they involve the total humiliation of a woman. They involve taking control of her body against her will. They involve taking all dignity and self assurance away from a woman, and reducing her to an object of sexual abuse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read that, and it sounds bad, but read it yourself, it doesn't sound as bad as the damage rape is supposed to cause. "Being locked in a high school locker doesn't just involve sitting in a locker, it involves the total humiliation of the student. It involves taking control of thier body against thier will. It involves taking all dignity and self assurance away from a student, and reducing them to an object of ridicule." Would you say that statement is untrue? It uses very few words that the original doesn't. The point is that I don't think the description fits the crime here, it's not nearly robust enough to really transmit an understanding of what's happening. If I were to hear a woman say "so and so raped me, he deserves to die" I could understand that, I could potentially agree with it. I can understand rape as on par with murder, but I can't rationalize it.
Like I say, taking away someone's free will is not really an objective sin against humanity, having sex with someone is not an objective sin against humanity, what is it that when combining the two things multiplies the sums of the crimes so massively? I am bothered by the missing factor I don't understand. If there is just some stuff out there that is impossible to rationally understand then I see that as a big problem, because I guide my existence through a rational understanding of things.
Swift, you are sorta answering your own question (even if noone else seems to get it).
We deam rape to be such a horrible thing because it involves one of our strongest Taboos, that of Sex. From an early most of us are brought up thinking that sex is a bad thing, that we shouldn't do it unless underspecific circumstances. Then ontop of that we are also told that Sex is wonderful, and great, When shared between 2 people in love/marriage.
Of course we each end up with our own perspective of sex, generaly it is held as something special, almost always enjoyable,and unfortunatly it often contains that taint of "this is bad". Now take that act (special, fun, enjoyable, but some how 'bad') and force it on some one (etiher via actual force or trickery), and you have a victim who will often come away very confused, scared, hurt, and otherwise messed up.
Now we get to layer on LOTS of other things:
Parts of society will blame the victim (c'mon she was obviously askign for it!), and this can lead to the victim blaming themself. (Rape is one of the crimes that often goes unreported).
Some victims will be confused about what ACTUALY happened (drunk/drugged/whatever), aka, more reasons it can go unreported.
Victims often feel shame (remember, strange stigmatisims associated with sex), and thus don't report.
etc etc etc.
Our society is hung up on sex, and this is a crime based around sex.
As for Swiftspear's other comments about there being a posibility of a culture where rape is not considered such a horrible tihng, and every one jumps on him for this. However he is sorta right (depending on your views ofcourse).
This is down to if you belive in absolute morality or relative morality. absolute states that certain things are wrong no matter what (killing is a popular one). Relative morality states that what is moraly correct is bassed on the society.
I personaly think that morals are relative (and it apears that Swift does as well). Remember, this doesn't say that we have vastly different morals then you do, just that we don't think that other cultures can't have other morals.
Back on topic:
You will never find a culture where rape is ok in the victim's mind, after all, the deffinition of rape is unconsentual sex.
You COULD find a culture where rape is not any where near the same level as we hold it. It is hard to come up with a hypothetical of this, because my morals keep getting in the way (I do belive rape is one of the worst things that you can do), however if you sit down and think long enough you should be able to come up with one.
meh, my 2cp
For a start, if the fact that we say "rape is wrong" is the only reason it's such a horrible experience, <b>then surely that would mean that the fact that we say so means that no-one would do it. </b><a href="http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html" target="_blank">Yet, in 2003/04 in the UK there were a total of 12,354 recorded offences of rape of a female</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait... what? We say many things are wrong, and people still do them (in some cases BECAUSE we say they are wrong).
<!--quoteo(post=1620513:date=Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Insane @ Apr 12 2007, 08:17 AM) [snapback]1620513[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Additionally, if it were down to society, women in those that seem quite comfortable with violence against women, (Examples). I think it's safe to say, however, that this is almost certainly not the case. All of these women are likely to be just as deeply traumatised as anyone else that's been raped.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You sort of left out part of your sentence there, I'll assume you meant to imply that women from a pro-rape (well, you get what I mean. They didn't have that big of an issue with it) culture still suffer the same pyschological damages. Yet, the problem with your arguement is that it doesn't have any factual backup. What Im trying to argue is that <i>it didn't</i> cause the same effects it does today. However, the most evidence I can really compile is that no books written in those eras ever make any kind of mention of people with pyschological issues caused by rape or anything similar (and to backup my case a bit more, many do mention rape just by itself). Keep in mind though it was still considered assault, and it still ###### people off.
However Im not argueing that it's right or wrong, Im just saying that pyschological issues are, excuse my pun, purely in the head. If you were raised your entire life to believe something like rape was A-OK, then if it happened you wouldn't suffer any kind pyschological issues. Why? Because it would never occur to your that you should. To take the example a bit further, if you raised a kid their entire life to believe that they should feel shame for something like... say... sleeping, then you can bet that they would be ashamed everytime it happened. The fact though is, nobody raised any of us to think like that, hence we don't feel that way. See where Im going with this? Nothing pyschological is ever guaranteed because it can be arbitrarily changed by (I hate to use the term...) brainwashing (being told repeatedly that your brain should think a certain thing or act a certain way to the point where you absolutely believe it) or changing what society teaches you as you grow up. Anyway, I've typed to much. What Im trying to say is that argueing that something is wrong because it causes pyschological damage; isn't a very strong piece of evidence since pyschological damage is (however subconsciously) caused by the victim themselves, and how society tells them they should act.
I personaly think that morals are relative (and it apears that Swift does as well). Remember, this doesn't say that we have vastly different morals then you do, just that we don't think that other cultures can't have other morals.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in relativity of perception. I believe there is absolute morality, but I don't believe it can be objectively perceived. Think of it like a question of how to build a road from point A to point B. There IS a most efficient possible route that can be built, but with no calculation tools or abstract analysis most people won't build the most optimum route, they will just build some willy nilly route that might be no where near the optimum. Optimum must be rationally obtained, best effort won't work.
This is why this problem is so problematic for me. I don't believe that absolute morality can be relatively observed, so it therefore must be rationally and abstractly observed, and in order to do that you need to unravel the integral parts. The big problem for me is that so much of our morality is tied into our soul (used for lack of a better description, effectively I'm just equating this to stuff we basically don't understand about the nature of our being). The fact that we are simultaneously sentient and primal is incredibly paradoxical when trying to understand the causality of our being.
I like it when I can look at an issue and know I am right because the math just adds up that my conclusions are supported by the evidence by sums. Like thansal said, say the stigma against rape is simply an issue of sociatial training... That basically means that rape isn't really wrong, it's just that we haven't figured it out yet. For thousands of years slavery was considered acceptable by sociaty. People were trained to believe it's acceptably and it's righteousness. Therefore slavery is right? No. Slavery is wrong because it's damaging to other people, there is a rational case for it to be wrong. So now we have another issue where the rational case doesn't seem to suit the societal training... I'm VERY concerned that we think we're smarter then we are here...
Anyway, the problem that I see here isn't necessarily the problem of underage/statutory rape or a lack of consent (...doesn't Japan have the consent age of 13?). The fact that it was performed in front of a class of minors alone should be punishable by numerous laws: indecent exposure; lewd behavior; and exposing a minor (to illicit sexual activity/live sexual acts). It doesn't matter if they're children or not (...and hey, if they believe that sexual acts are 'grown up enough' for comedic/whatever value, then they damn sure better know the legal ramifications for their behavior).
I suppose there's not really a very power rational for allowing very young people to reproduce, other than the fact that pregnancy at a young age risks death during child birth, and the potential of spreading disease unknowingly, psychological damage. There's the whole 'they don't know about love/proper handling of a spouce/etc.' stuff, but I don't think that can specifically be pinned down to one year of age. If they're doing it simply to be funny in front of their class, or to shock their classmate, then they're most likely not having sex for a mature reason. Plus from a basic 'evolutionary' standpoint, women tend to be unable to bare children until around 13, and men don't ususally become fertile until after that, so there's just not really a good reason for them to be having sex in front of a class of 10 minors.
As for why rape is worse than some other non-consentual act, well, it's a violation of personal space (...well, a violation of the person itself, really). This just doesn't happen with kidnapping (pretty much a restriction of personal freedom if no beating is involved) and violence (weaker psychological effects than being violated, as well as the tendency for punishments to fit the level of mistreatment). Rape also poses a far greater threat to personal safety and future well-being, since there is the very detrimental psychological aspect, as well as the risk of disease, pregnancy or (...forgive any sort of indececy involved) internal bodily damage.
It's like comparing raw violence and rape like this (on a less extreme, day to day example): a beating is like someone bumping into you on the bus, but rape is like someone shoving their finger in your mouth. Also, a very much doubt that any of those 12,000+ rapes in the UK are people raping 'because it's illegal'.
I read that, and it sounds bad, but read it yourself, it doesn't sound as bad as the damage rape is supposed to cause. "Being locked in a high school locker doesn't just involve sitting in a locker, it involves the total humiliation of the student. It involves taking control of thier body against thier will. It involves taking all dignity and self assurance away from a student, and reducing them to an object of ridicule." Would you say that statement is untrue? It uses very few words that the original doesn't. The point is that I don't think the description fits the crime here, it's not nearly robust enough to really transmit an understanding of what's happening. If I were to hear a woman say "so and so raped me, he deserves to die" I could understand that, I could potentially agree with it. I can understand rape as on par with murder, but I can't rationalize it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, for a start, you're not recognising that there might be a difference in the level of trauma suffered by the victim of being locked in a locker and that of a rape victim. Sure, it involves some of those things. But it doesn't involve them to nearly the same level as it would when someone is raped. Additionally, you're leaving out from that example the actual act of rape, the penetration and violation of someone against their will.
You'd find this much easier to work out if you do what I suggested and read up on it. I've never been raped, so I can't adequately describe how awful it is. If you look around, you'll probably be able to find some victim's accounts of it, which will explain in much better terms
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Wait... what? We say many things are wrong, and people still do them (in some cases BECAUSE we say they are wrong).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. So from that, you could argue that what we say as a society doesn't mean that people will automatically act as we determine they should. Yet why is no-one happy about being raped?
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
You sort of left out part of your sentence there, I'll assume you meant to imply that women from a pro-rape (well, you get what I mean. They didn't have that big of an issue with it) culture still suffer the same pyschological damages. Yet, the problem with your arguement is that it doesn't have any factual backup. What Im trying to argue is that <i>it didn't</i> cause the same effects it does today. However, the most evidence I can really compile is that no books written in those eras ever make any kind of mention of people with pyschological issues caused by rape or anything similar (and to backup my case a bit more, many do mention rape just by itself). Keep in mind though it was still considered assault, and it still ###### people off.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll tell you why those books make no mention of it. Because none of them were written by rape victims in the same way that none of them were written by people stoned to death for having sex with someone of the "wrong" gender, or by the people that lay dead or imprisoned after a war. Because those books were written by the people that came out on top; the people with <i>power</i>. And rape is all about men exerting power over a women.* The problems suffered by a rape victim weren't documented because almost none of it was written by a women, nor was it written by men remotely interested in talking about what it was like for rape victims.
However, there <i>is</i> a very strong historical precedent for soldiers raping women in times of war in order to exert power over enemy towns/cities and batter them into submission. Why would they bother doing this if it wasn't going to have a negative effect on them?
<!--quoteo(post=1620761:date=Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Apr 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1620761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
However Im not argueing that it's right or wrong, Im just saying that pyschological issues are, excuse my pun, purely in the head. If you were raised your entire life to believe something like rape was A-OK, then if it happened you wouldn't suffer any kind pyschological issues. Why? Because it would never occur to your that you should. To take the example a bit further, if you raised a kid their entire life to believe that they should feel shame for something like... say... sleeping, then you can bet that they would be ashamed everytime it happened. The fact though is, nobody raised any of us to think like that, hence we don't feel that way. See where Im going with this? Nothing pyschological is ever guaranteed because it can be arbitrarily changed by (I hate to use the term...) brainwashing (being told repeatedly that your brain should think a certain thing or act a certain way to the point where you absolutely believe it) or changing what society teaches you as you grow up. Anyway, I've typed to much. What Im trying to say is that argueing that something is wrong because it causes pyschological damage; isn't a very strong piece of evidence since pyschological damage is (however subconsciously) caused by the victim themselves, and how society tells them they should act.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If rape was "A-OK" in the eyes of the victim, then it wouldn't happen. It would be sex. A rather twisted version of it at least, but my point is that if the victims were conditioned to be okay with it, then it wouldn't be rape. At any rate, women are still rasied to believe that, if not okay, that it's something that will still happen if they're not careful. That they can't dress as they wish, because they might be "asking for it", that they shouldn't get drunk or hang around with the "wrong people", because then it's their fault that it happens because they weren't "careful enough". They are told that they really did want it because they were being "provocative" and that actually they were gagging for it but then afterwards decided to bring some "innocent man" down. Women's sexual histories are still brought up in court as if it were somehow relevant, as if the fact that they were promiscuous in the past means that this time they somehow "secretly wanted it", that that "no" was acually a "yes".
Clearly conditioning is not the only thing determining the psyhological trauma caused, because we still live in a society that tries to blame women for being raped, and frequently treats victims like criminals and liars. So why hasn't that worked. Why is it still so traumatic?
* Some people are likely to see this as a somewhat controvertial statement, so I might as well clarify it now. When I say "men exerting power over women", I do not mean all men over all women for all time, nor do I mean that all men are rapists. Apart from anything else, that would involve me shooting myself in the foot a bit.