This post of hers seems to be generating some confusion. Folks just aren't sure what to make of it - some are pissed, some are just - confused. So I thought it might help if some clarifications were made...
What that post is really explaining, is that Greg Laden is actually a women. See this, this, this, this and this post for clarity.
And make sure you click back over repeatedly, both to keep track of the unfolding drama and to support the Ituri Forest People's Fund.
9 comments:
I take that as the highest of complements.
That was me, by the way.
Wait, is she a woman or multiple women??
Maybe she's all women...
Or maybe I am simply incapable of replacing the e with an a...
Greg Laden = Whitney Houston
Explains. Everything.
Geez, I unplug for a few days and miss all the fun. I started playing catch-up yesterday. But there’s a lot to get through and free time is at a premium. So I apologize in advance if any of my comments here are retreading covered ground. I just don’t want to wait any longer before getting down my thoughts on what I’ve seen so far.
To the earlier question of “Are all men capable of rape?” I would say, with the exception of some highly aberrant cases, yes. I also agree with DuWayne that women are equally capable as well. Though they’re less likely too act, for good reason. I’m not sure I buy into the idea of a rape switch. Thought that may be because I don’t yet fully understand the concept. If anyone would like to help me along, please do.
I would say that rape occurs when the perceived benefit outweighs the perceived cost. There are lots of factors that impact one’s perception of those two factors, some internal, like empathy or a desire to feel powerful, some external, like social impact or convenience. Though I don’t think it’s often consciously weighed that way. Here’s a hypothetical (admittedly a rather absurd one) to illustrate what I mean by cost/benefit.
Lets say you are being held captive by a madman, with no hope of escape. He tells you that in the next room is a woman. She is a vegetable, with no higher brain function, and fed hormones to prevent pregnancy. He tells you that from now on the only way you will be given food is for raping her. I think it’s pretty clear that just about anyone would commit rape in those circumstances. In fact I would hazard to guess that most people would quickly stop thinking of her as a person at all, but as cog in the food machine. To them it would no longer even be rape. The key factors here are that you are greatly rewarded, by way of continued life, at minimal cost, no social impact and the victim isn’t much harmed.
I think for most Americans the cost of rape is very high and the reward is very low. But put that person in a different environment and the ratio can shift. The more extreme the change in environment more opportunities there are to shift the balance. Plus rapid bombardment of intense experience tends to make the mind very pliable.
Using the common example of a person going off to war, I’d like to look at some of the ways it might impact the cost/benefit ratio.
The first thing that springs to mind is that the high stress of combat would tend to make one feel very vulnerable, out of control, and powerless. So the desire to feel powerful would therefore greatly increase. Forcing someone to do what he or she does not want to do is certainly proof of power. For that moment they are in control, they have the power, a plus for the benefit column.
In war you are often called on to do terrible things to others, not least of all to kill them. So empathy is routinely suppressed, whether by dehumanizing the enemy, repression, or whatever other mechanism works for the individual. This gives soldiers a lot of practice circumventing one of the more significant costs of perpetrating rape, the emotional consequences of seeing yourself in your victim.
(cont. below)
Simply being in a foreign land can also provide a certain amount of permissiveness, what I call the “What Happens in Vegas” effect. In a familiar place the rules of proper behavior are fairly clearly understood. But in a new place the rules are often different. While testing what the new rules are there’s more room for people to make up their own. If you’ve ever heard things like, “I only smoke when I’m traveling,” or “It’s not cheating if it happens in another state,” then you’ve seen what I’m talking about.
On the social side, war greatly decreases the chances of incurring penalty from committing rape. Limited recourse for victims, fraternity amongst soldiers, difficulties differentiating between similarly outfitted foreign soldiers, us verses them mentality, and so on, conspire to make rape prosecution in war extremely rare. So another cost is therefore reduced.
Also on the social side, gang rape can provide a bonding experience for the perpetrators. So the normal social pressure against rape can be turned on its head. A soldier can find himself in a situation where not raping would hurt his relationship with his peers. In such cases he’ll likely be viewed with suspicion or in more extreme cases, turned on and killed to protect the group.
I could go on, but hopefully my point is clear. The decision to rape or not to rape is, as I see it, not a change in state, as implied by an on/off switch. It seems much too fluid and nuanced for such binary representation. Sure, rape is more or less likely to occur depending on the experiences an environment provides. But I don’t see how that leads to anything like, labeling environments “on rape” or “off rape.”
I would also say that the difference between a rapist and a non-rapist is entirely a question action. If someone not the least bit excited by the idea of rape takes actions toward that end, like in my hypothetical above, then they are a rapist. Conversely, someone who feels a tremendous desire to commit rape is still not a rapist until they take some action toward that end.
One final bit before I dive back into reading, this time directed at Greg Laden and on the subject of BDSM. You mentioned you’ve been having some trouble getting useful input from "Doms". I’m somewhat knowledgeable about the psychology and more that somewhat experienced with all four letters. Do you have any questions or were you just responding to those who were offended? (Thus far I have not been.)
Have I ever told you you totally rock becca? Because even when I disagree with you, you totally rock...
Oi, and you totally rock too Abby...
Post a Comment