[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[arewethereyet]

I was called a rape apologists by the moderators for saying rape doesn't require violence—a statement that ought to be common sense to anyone remotely educated on the topic. The irony in that is rather concerning.

Rape IS a violent act.

[HappySkeptic]

By the by, you DID defend IAs statement. To me. So, great job moving the goal posts forward and back again. Whether you want to talk about it or not, the recent bans were for rape apologetics. So, comingin here complaining about other opinions not being allowed without defining WHAT other opinions, it does come across like you're aligning yourself with those who have openly stated how rape isn't a big deal in their eyes. So, please define that. WHAT opinions? WHAT discussions?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Some people will twist other people's statements, in order to demonize them.  That's what much of the "discussion" is here.

Do you realize how badly some people are treated here by other posters?  Its surprising to me that some are still around.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Rape IS a violent act.

"The problem is that a man can also force a nonconsenting woman to engage in sex without resort to actual 'violence.' Power will do. The 'rape as violence' approach may strengthen the case for punishing violently coerced sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of physical violence." 

"The available data suggest that while violent stranger rape may be among the most frequently reported crimes in this country, the non-traditional rape―the case involving non-strangers, less force, no beatings, no weapons―may be among the least frequently reported, even when its victims perceive it to be "rape." In many if not most of these cases, forced sex is tolerated by its victims as unavoidable, if not 'normal" (Estrich, 1986).

References: Estrich, S. (1986). Rape. The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1087-1184.

I've presented these references to you in the past. Respectfully, it's a shame that your position remains outdated.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By the by, you DID defend IAs statement. To me. So, great job moving the goal posts forward and back again. Whether you want to talk about it or not, the recent bans were for rape apologetics. So, comingin here complaining about other opinions not being allowed without defining WHAT other opinions, it does come across like you're aligning yourself with those who have openly stated how rape isn't a big deal in their eyes. So, please define that. WHAT opinions? WHAT discussions?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Some people will twist other people's statements, in order to demonize them.  That's what much of the "discussion" is here.

Do you realize how badly some people are treated here by other posters?  Its surprising to me that some are still around.

Which should tell you that moderation is NOT about the wholesale banning of people whose opinions we don’t like.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Rape IS a violent act.

"The problem is that a man can also force a nonconsenting woman to engage in sex without resort to actual 'violence.' Power will do. The 'rape as violence' approach may strengthen the case for punishing violently coerced sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of physical violence." 

"The available data suggest that while violent stranger rape may be among the most frequently reported crimes in this country, the non-traditional rape―the case involving non-strangers, less force, no beatings, no weapons―may be among the least frequently reported, even when its victims perceive it to be "rape." In many if not most of these cases, forced sex is tolerated by its victims as unavoidable, if not 'normal" (Estrich, 1986).

References: Estrich, S. (1986). Rape. The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1087-1184.

I've presented these references to you in the past. Respectfully, it's a shame that your position remains outdated.

If you’re going to characterize someone else’s opinion as ‘outdated’, quoting a 35 year old article might not be your best move.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

Rape IS a violent act.

"The problem is that a man can also force a nonconsenting woman to engage in sex without resort to actual 'violence.' Power will do. The 'rape as violence' approach may strengthen the case for punishing violently coerced sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of physical violence." 

"The available data suggest that while violent stranger rape may be among the most frequently reported crimes in this country, the non-traditional rape―the case involving non-strangers, less force, no beatings, no weapons―may be among the least frequently reported, even when its victims perceive it to be "rape." In many if not most of these cases, forced sex is tolerated by its victims as unavoidable, if not 'normal" (Estrich, 1986).

References: Estrich, S. (1986). Rape. The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1087-1184.

I've presented these references to you in the past. Respectfully, it's a shame that your position remains outdated.

1) You're quoting from a thirty four year old reference book. Quite outdated don't you think, especially as attitudes to rape and other sexual violence has changed massively in the intervining period.
2) Rape is inherently a violent act, because the aggressor is perpetrating a violating act harmful, either physically or mentally (often both) on the victim. Just because a rapist doesn't also beat their victim to a bloody pulp it doesn't then follow that they haven't committed violence on their victim.

But hey, you've never let being wrong on everything else stop you, so why break the streak now?

[arewethereyet]

Rape IS a violent act.

"The problem is that a man can also force a nonconsenting woman to engage in sex without resort to actual 'violence.' Power will do. The 'rape as violence' approach may strengthen the case for punishing violently coerced sex, but it may do so at the cost of obscuring the case for punishing forced sex in the absence of physical violence." 

"The available data suggest that while violent stranger rape may be among the most frequently reported crimes in this country, the non-traditional rape―the case involving non-strangers, less force, no beatings, no weapons―may be among the least frequently reported, even when its victims perceive it to be "rape." In many if not most of these cases, forced sex is tolerated by its victims as unavoidable, if not 'normal" (Estrich, 1986).

References: Estrich, S. (1986). Rape. The Yale Law Journal, 95, 1087-1184.

I've presented these references to you in the past. Respectfully, it's a shame that your position remains outdated.

Rape is a violent act.

Ask a victim of a rape or an attempted rape how non-violent it is.

[Huggy Bear]

It’s weird, the hills people are willing to die on.

 

Fuck me sideways. So no comment on him admitting to it, Hugster? Just a link to him being off from admission due to a legal technicality?

Never run across a real life rape apologist before. Guess that’s crossed off the list of “Things I Never Hope to See”.

Again, you’re a detestable fuck.

Mind you all I was doing was explaining how Cosby was wrongfully convicted, which somehow made me a rape apologist... The majority of you were on the hate train in that thread and I would of most likely have been banned if this rule was in place, even though I was proven right.

[The Grand Nudger]

There’s no point in trying to rewrite history on a message board- it’s all still there…,even less so in the context of this psa thread.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Rape is a violent act. Ask a victim of a rape or an attempted rape how non-violent it is.

Did you read the quotations? The "rape as violence" narrative has caused many women who have been raped by acquaintances to not report it, and to even view it as "normal," precisely because they fall outside the stereotypic description of a violent stranger using force and weapons. 

Consider the following anecdote: "A New York City judge recommended leniency for a man who had forcibly sodomized a woman who had cognitive disabilities. Astonishingly, the judge said, 'there was no violence here'" (Matlin, 2012, p. 433). That is what happens when you require violence as a criteria for rape: It causes you to undermine the vast number of cases, from statutory rape to date rape, from intoxication to unconsciousness, which do not always align with the violence stereotype.

Reference: Matlin, M. I. (2012). The psychology of women. Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, California.