Posted on 08/15/2003 7:38:41 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds
There is a movement in this country to push women towards a victim status, towards an attitude that implies that a woman is simply a passive person, someone whom men can and will always take advantage of, both in public and private life. This movement is fomented and spearheaded by the liberal feminists, who believe that men are monsters and women are powerless victims against them (a clear contradiction to true feminism).
The symptom of this movement is that the liberal feminists have taken hold of the word rape and its connotations and associations and twisted it to mean something that it was never meant to. Rape, by definition, is anyone forcefully, through harm or threat of harm, forcing another person to have sex with them - there must be a clearly expressed lack of consent and/or coercion by force or threat of force. According to New York law, "forcible compulsion" ( i.e. rape) is defined as "to compel by either the use of physical force or a threat express or implied which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself, or another person."
However, this definition, which is widely mirrored in all fifty states, has been watered down. According to Dr. Andrea Parrot, a psychiatry professor at Cornell University who specializes in studying date rape, "Any sexual intercourse without mutual desire is a form of rape. Anyone who is psychologically or physically pressured into sexual contact is as much a victim of rape as the person who is attacked on the streets."
Now university counselors can convince twenty year old girls that since their boyfriend whined until they finally had sex with them, they’ve been raped. After all, under Dr. Parrot’s definition, that is classified as psychological pressure.
In many studies performed, especially those that focused on date rape or acquaintance rape, the women who were interviewed said that they did not realize that they had been raped until the interviewer described rape scenarios involving psychological pressure. These women did not feel violated, and the counselors and interviewers have to convince them that they have, indeed, been raped.
For example, the most comprehensive and most widely stated study for on-campus sex crimes is Mary Koss’s Ms. Campus Project on Sexual Assault. It was conducted through surveys, and it speculates that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. However - Koss obtained her data concerning the "incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression" with a 10-item survey featuring questions such as, "Have you given in to sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because you were overwhelmed by a man's continual arguments and pressure?" and "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force to make you?". Questions 9 and 10 (which also refer to the use of force or threats of violence) seem to fit the conventional picture of rape, but consider question 8: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" According to psychiatry, this question would be "double-barreled": What, exactly, is it asking? The meaning could change simply by what questions were asked leading up to this specific one. Does this mean that after a man buys you a drink and then you have sex with him, he has raped you? Did the girl express that she “didn’t want to,” or did the “didn’t want to” feelings come after the fact?
There has to be a clear boundary between what is and isn’t rape. Rape is not confusion or negative feelings after sex. Rape is not feeling that you don’t want to have sex, but giving in to please your boyfriend. That simply isn’t rape. Rape is when you are forced to have sex with someone, against your will, and when you clearly express that you are not complying with the situation.
This new way of defining rape, the feminist version of rape, gives women a way to simply be a passive victim, externalizing any feelings of guilt and shame about the sexual encounter and forcing responsibility onto the other person involved. Sadly, because of this attitude, rape is becoming just another everyday occurrence, something that some girls say with a shrug, as though it’s a normal part of life and is no big deal. Date rape has become the new campus hot button, and it has become so normal that girls discuss it as though it’s a trivial, almost normal thing to experience.
This attitude not only cheapens the value and independence of women, it sets women up for failure, and teaches them that they are victims of predatory men. More importantly, it trivializes sexual violence by making it something that is no longer horrible, but something that is typical and representative of the whole of society. It has become an expectation, and when true sexual trauma occurs, it gets swept away in the tide of indifference that this attitude has fostered.
Cathryn Crawford is a student from Texas. She can be reached at feedback@washingtondispatch.com.
Fortunately, we have a sense of humor here. :-)
Speak for yourself, Cathryn.
Some of us are more sensitive than others. ;-)
Awww. Are your itty-bitty feelings hurt? :-)
Good for you. "Liberal Clitorati" is kinda catchy. ;-)
Whatever you want it to mean, e.g., Leftist Radical Feminism.
And what of the legal system's role when it is misled about the consensuality of the sex in question?
I've always wondered what the point of this statement is. Sure it's about power and control. But obviously these things turn the rapist on, so it's about sex as well.
It's psychology bowing to morality. The war between different moralities, that is. In one extreme, sex is dirty in general, though acceptable for procreation in marriage. In the other extreme, sex is for pleasure, have fun.
Psychology, always a political hostage, tries to split the difference by defining rape as about power rather than sex. Hence the law can prohibit the crime (violence) without making the religious views of sex the basis of law (nothing goes, or anything goes.)
I personally prefer that the law prohibit the violence part, and stay silent on the morality of sex in general.
But I think modern psychology goes of the rails a bit when trying to imply universal motives. The crime is the violence, but that doesn't mean the motivation is violence. We can prohibit the crime without having to define the motive.
Of course. Rape is non-consensual sex, which means that the woman must do something to imply that she is saying no to sex.
"Feminists have one goal, in my opinion - and that is to control women, through whatever means possible.
See, I'd always put their actions down to hatred of men, but you're pointing out the result of that expressing and focusing on a very public "hatred of men"/"blame everything on men" is power (in the hands of the femimisfits) ....
And, of course, an increase in cultural acceptance of their sexual values (all of are anti-christian/anti-conservative/anti-traditional moral values) ...
Sort of how Hitler used hatred/envy/blaming Communists & Jews on the economic and WWI-led problems of the 1920-1930 Germans to gain and hold power over those people?
Serious side though. Any one that rapes is trash and should be locked up for life IMHO. But as your thread suggests how do we validate the accusation. I mean is the female just pissed because her lover gave her a quarter and told her to get out after sex and the bus stops at the corner on the half hour........ or was she really forced. Age old dilemma IMO.....no good solution cept for teaching your children respect for others and that a lie will come back to bite you every time !
Stay Safe Cathryn !
Stay Safe !
I am merely trying to keep your statements precise and correct. :-) Certainly there are nutty feminist positions that could influence women into seeing rape where there wasn't any. But you can't just assume those case have actually happened. When you are writing about such things, you have to describe your uncertainty limits, or put things in the form of questions. As a professional researcher you are intellectually obligated to avoid making statements of fact that you can't back up.
Yes, I'd say that's very close to the same thing.
Well, the legal system does the best that it can to deal with those who try to misuse it. Innocent men are sometimes convicted of rape and are sent to prison. I am convinced that innocent men sometimes convicted of even worse crimes and are executed.
What do you think we can we do to avoid some of these mistakes?
I'd like to Google the site (hope that 'google' doesn't constitute harrassment) and find out if it's the same bunch of wackos that was on campus with me.
I know it. :-)
Hello, Cathryn. Nice article, and I would like to add My two cents here as well.
I am rather uncertain how to accept this statement, as on the surface it appears to be self-explanatory, but some experiences from My past have taught Me that all is not always as it appears. If I get so drunk that I black out and do not remember things, and My girlfriend does as well, and then the next morning find out that we ummm... 'had an encounter', which one of us is 'guilty' of rape? From what she told Me, we were both more than half asleep, and things just progressed, er, 'naturally'. Mind you, I did not remember it until the next day when she made mention of it, so I am somewhat confused.
I also note that merely being intoxicated does not absolve one from the consequences of your actions while under the influence. Did I commit a crime? Did she? (FWIW, I was the 'passive' partner in that encounter) It seems to Me that by your referenced position, either we are both guilty, or we are both innocent.
Next, we come to an imaginary scenario (yes, guys, I mean imaginary, and there is no way you are going to admit it happened to Me, and especially on a public forum): what if in one occasion -or more than one occasion- I became so inebriated that I lost consciousness, and wound up either on someone's bed or with someone in bed with Me that when I was totally sober would never DREAM of having intercourse with them, but it happened. Do you think I could claim 'rape'? Would you not imagine instead that I might be laughed out of court if I tried to pursue it? Am I instead the one responsible because I became so intoxicated that I participated?
Next we come to the definition of 'forced', or what exactly it means to be 'taken advantage of'. I have had occasion to encounter members of the opposite sex that preferred things done a certain way (who doesn't, eh?), and sometimes that rather stretched the boundaries of your definitions to date. Some preferred, ummm... a bit of 'restraint' (no, not bondage) being placed on them, some preferred MORE restraint, and some preferred... the element of surprise. Did a crime take place on those encounters, even if they were the preferred method? And if it did not, could not charges still be brought up later if your definitions are taken wholly at face value?
Call Me 'politically incorrect' (it would not be the first time), or even insensitive, but My position is: If you become intoxicated or influenced by narcotics of any type, only you are responsible for what occurs.
Comments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.