Rape Culture

Or rather, the opposite...

If I were to ask you what the binary opposite of "rape culture" were, how would you describe it? What is the world you (2nd person singular) imagine?

When Mary Daly asked our class once what a society where rape was unknown would look like, none of us could envision it. It was too much of a paradigm shift to conceptualize.

I suppose in such a culture there would be no such thing as the objectification of women. And that implies that objectification of other people -- any people -- would be absent.

I can believe that.

Is there a difference between "unknown" and "eliminated"?

On some level, a world where rape were unknown would look like a world where men can't rape their wives, no?

I think there is a difference between unknown and eliminated. But it isn't a question of terminology, really. It's a question of whether or not such a culture is capable of deeming one person "less human" than another.

The "men can't rape their wives" is an illustrative example: In a rape culture, they can't rape their wives because wives exist to be fucked -- they have, in effect, signed away their humanity in order to be something one man can fuck whenever he wants.

In an egalitarian culture where objectification does not form the foundation of cultural and social infrastructure, a man can't rape his wife because the moment he forces sex on her without her consent, he invalidates the marriage. His act of objectification renders any relationship, any agreement they have between themselves, null and void.

But even this is a far cry from a culture where a man would not even dream of rape -- where rape would be as unthinkable as, say, cannibalism. That would be the difference between "eliminate" and "unknown."

>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Heh. If I ever find myself at a cuddle party, I'll be the one in the sitting alone in the next room reading a book.

>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Interesting. I like that the question is not "will this bother me?" or "am I ok with this?" but "do I want this?" That's not something women are conditioned to think.

>8 southernbooklady:

There was actually a point in my life where I would buy used library books because (in addition to the value) when someone approached me in a bar asking me what I was reading, I could simply flip to the front of the book, tear out the first 10 pages or so, hand them over without saying anything and go back to reading without saying a word. And never have to worry whether the .50 I spent on the book was now thrown away. Jimmy "the Rev" Sullivan and his wife at one point had the first 15 pages of Tropic of Cancer sitting on the top of their toilet tank after I'd handed them off from what I understand.

>9 RidgewayGirl:

I think I probably see those questions as less different than you do.

And I still don't think I've ever been able to make it through a single work of Miller's.

>6 southernbooklady: I think there is a difference between unknown and eliminated. But it isn't a question of terminology, really. It's a question of whether or not such a culture is capable of deeming one person "less human" than another.

My speculative vision for such a culture is what I've been calling non-coercive, and I'm interested in what a non-coercive politics (NCP) would look like. For me, politics is a broad concept, encompassing ethics as well as science to understand the possible and normative interactions between people.

But even this is a far cry from a culture where a man would not even dream of rape -- where rape would be as unthinkable as, say, cannibalism. That would be the difference between "eliminate" and "unknown."

Now that's interesting to me because it frames the question in a way I might not have assumed. Clearly, cannibalism is a possibility and isolated cases may in fact occur even in a culture that views it as unthinkable. I like that frame, because I'm interested in doing what's practical, attainable and not setting up a straw man argument. That "unthinkable" criterion is very helpful to my thinking about what NCP could be, setting a high bar without sacrificing pragmatism.

>13 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Strong article. Both the site and the author are new to me, I hope to follow up on her blog, her voice was as impressive as the individual article.

>14 elenchus: My speculative vision for such a culture is what I've been calling non-coercive, and I'm interested in what a non-coercive politics (NCP) would look like.

Given that politics is negotiated self-interest, what would "non-coercive" politics look like?

>14 elenchus:

There are certain aspects of the piece that I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with, but...

I may simply be coming at this from a different perspective.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/102474#2634570

People who won't set boundaries (or set them after the fact) make me want to slice my wrists. I'm not sure whether that's an autistic rigidity of perspective or carryover from a not so supportive childhood, though.

If there's a single thing I could go back and tell a 19 year old version of myself, it would be "If someone is sending you mixed signals, run like Hell in the other direction."

>15 southernbooklady:

I've spent quite a bit of time on this recently, and I can't figure it out. Is not rape culture a society with a universal basic income (because having to feed oneself inherently leads to doing things one might not do, given free reign and a million dollars)?

Is this socialism we're discussing?

My libertarian friends (of the "I'm not Ayn Rand"sort) swear by the non-aggression principle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Then again, most libertarians I know (not necessarily my friends) are racist selfish assholes.

Is a NCP fundamentally libertarian?

Questions like "Does dishonesty constitute a form of rape?"

http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/10/09/sex-lies-and-undercover-cops/

Or "Is all suasion inherently coercive?" are in no way meant to be concern trolling.

>16 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Yours is an intense story. I don't think there are easy "exemptions" to coercion, which would imply for example that a parent or husband by definition means no coercion occurs. So situations such as the one you describe are precisely those that demand a direct confrontation by any NCP.

>16 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Is a NCP fundamentally libertarian?

It's a good question, and I'm inclined to say no. Coercion results from declining to take action as much as from taking action, it seems to me.

I think the key is for all individuals (and any collective of those individuals) be accountable to something outside of them, which nevertheless does not simply serve to impose the will or preferences of some other individual outside. That seems contradictory, and perhaps it is. I certainly don't claim to have the answer, but I remain convinced it's a question worth posing. So far the most persuasive examples I've come across are of communities which derive identity from something other than merely shared interests: I've read of some Oglala Lakota (Dine) communities, and wonder about smaller communities.

But I don't want to hijack the conversation. I think the questions about rape culture are relevant to this question of NCP, but it's not the only reason to be concerned with that topic.

" How can one, however, dream of power in any other terms than in the symbols of power?" ~ James Baldwin

When I saw that recently in "Letter from a Region in my Mind", I couldn't help but think of this thread.

I'm loving this conversation and find myself thinking of it when I'm away from the computer. A question: Jessie talked about libertarianism & said most of the ones he knows "are racist selfish assholes." I agree. What about anarchists? Where would they fit in a non-coercive society? Could they bring something libertarians don't? And what would that look like?

I thought this was an interesting perspective on the persistence of rape culture: http://fusion.net/story/323663/why-cannibalism-ended-but-rape-did-not/

>19 susanbooks:

Great question! Anarchism is particularly fraught in U.S. politics, an extreme form of Socialism (and Socialism already is reviled in U.S. politics). Both terms as understood in the U.S. are distorted beyond all recognition from reality, as I understand either term. Anarchism is only slightly less distorted elsewhere, but I'm far less familiar with non-U.S. political cultures.

That said, I'll venture that some anarchist principles seem promising for a non-coercive politics. I say that based upon an interpretation of anarchism as staking out a position against authoritarianism and bureaucracy, but not against order nor against authority per se. I've found that such a position leaves most listeners thinking there is no such thing, and even could not be any such thing. I disagree, but for now I'll leave it at that.

>20 sturlington:

Fascinating.

I am struck by this passage:

Finally—and this is integral to understanding rape—while cannibalism is equal opportunity for all genders, the historic power, economic, and social inequity between men, who perpetrate most rape, and women, who are most rape victims, keeps rape borderline socially acceptable.

I wonder if cannibalism really was gender neutral, or if it, too, when practised, was pushed by a male-centred power base in society, and merely enacted / followed by others. After all, we could also say cannibalism was age neutral, when I think it highly unlikely the practise was equally pushed by children. Clearly, if children practised it, they did so when following their parents and other adults.

Maybe not "anti-rape culture" but consciously positioned as repudiating rape culture: feminist hookup culture.

Thanks for posting that, Jesse. It's a really strange piece; I can't tell if it 's strangely written or the research was bizarrely focused. The 2 couples detailed were identified as boyfriend/girlfriend pairs and the interactions they described seem to suggest ongoing, consensual relationships (which is not at all to say that a person can't withhold consent within such a relationship, just that it sounds like they're used to reading each other's signals & understand a nonverbal "no").

Then the researchers and/or the article state that verbal consent rarely happens. IMO, this isn't a problem with verbal consent, but a problem with making sure women understand their words really do matter. For ages we've been told our "no" could mean "yes." I know of some women who, way back in the 80s, used to say "no" to avoid looking like sluts. They felt like their "no" wouldn't prevent sex, just that the guys would respect them afterwards (typing that makes me sick!) But if you educate people into really listening to women & get women to believe their words matter, then you'd really have to listen to a "no." And you'd really have to ask for a "yes."

I'm not trying to victim-blame, just point out that the research described in the article doesn't seem to recognize that we're in the midst of a cultural shift & just because affirmative consent isn't the norm yet,that doesn't make college policies unrealistic. Change has gotta start somewhere, right?

I'm recovering from a migraine so this isn't as clearly written as I'd like, but the article kinda pissed me off.

I'm grateful to everyone in this discussion group!

>23 elenchus: I'd love to show that to my students but I'm at a small, very Catholic college & would probably not be hired for next semester if I did. Which is a whole other conversation . . .

>25 susanbooks:

My own dilemma with respect to that article is more personal: I definitely want to encourage my children to think that way, but the oldest is just 11. So I'll be figuring out how to raise those ideals in an appropriate way, over the next decade or so. It was helpful to me to see something spelled out so directly, not that I'm assuming it's perfect or anything.

I'm not trying to victim-blame, just point out that the research described in the article doesn't seem to recognize that we're in the midst of a cultural shift & just because affirmative consent isn't the norm yet,that doesn't make college policies unrealistic.

I think you're attaching the wrong valence to "doesn't reflect reality." The authors are not so much saying that it can't be than that it isn't.

I think a very good chunk of my discomfort with the Brock Turner discussion came from this part of the victim's letter...

"He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A.But apparently I granted full permission. He’s in the clear."


Mind you, I don't believe that the narrative she's responding to is anything more than a lawyer's construct, meant to establish a "positive consent" pattern. However, the victim's assertion that things never happen this way (going so far as to describe such a sequence of events as unnatural) is troubling.

I guess I'm not understanding. Isn't the part of the victim's letter you quote affirming the researchers' supposed point? Which I guess I continue to take issue with.

I get that they're saying affirmative consent is not the norm, but the article makes it sound like the researchers go on to say that therefore college policies are unrealistic, meaning unworkable in the real world. If that's really one of their conclusions, then it feels close to excusing rape. "Well, there was no affirmative consent, but that never happens anyway, so the lack thereof doesn't matter." And no doubt she was dressed a certain way, ingesting whatever substances, etc.

My point is that cultural shifts involve education and changes in behavior. And it may mean institutions like colleges need to mandate that changed behavior. Think about school desegregation. That, too, was "unrealistic," in that black & white students in the 60s rarely mixed in the real world. But the courts and schools mandated that they share classrooms. I see the affirmative consent policies as similar. It's not something you're used to, it may feel awkward, but for future generations it'll come to be the norm (which is not to say that desegregation has eliminated racism).

>25 susanbooks: I thought that the article was confusing too. I read it three times and still couldn't figure out what their point was.

Thanks, norabelle! I was thinking it was me!

I'm wondering how you've all gone from "long way to go" to "never gonna happen"?

I guess my confusion lies in the idea that that's worthy of a write- up. I wouldn't expect to see an article on water's being wet, either. And I guess I'm confused, too, in how you've framed it as provoking "discomfort."

Rape culture is rape culture. Being told that breaking the mould is unnatural is discomfitting at best.

I mean, this is obviously revolutionary to some significant portion of the population, right?

I guess I'm not seeing "unrealistic" & "unnatural" as synonymous & so remain confused as to your point.

A sobering article on how parents (including me) perpetuate rape culture, even if inadvertently, and what to do deliberately instead.

The language of liberalism has been used to defend all the new developments of the lesbian sexual revolution. Consent and choice are the catchwords. A model of sexuality based upon the idea of consent is a male supremacist one. In this model one person, generally male, uses the body of another who is not necessarily sexually interested and possibly generally reluctant or distressed, as
a sex aid. It is a dominant/submissive and active/ passive model. It is not mutual.

It is not about the sexual involvement of both parties. It bespeaks not equality, but the absence of it. Consent is a tool for negotiating inequality in heterosexual relations. Women are expected to have their bodies used but the idea of consent manages to make this use and abuse seem fair and justified. In certain situations where this use might seem particularly and obviously unwelcome, such as street rape, women are given a limited right to object, but in general the idea of consent allows the sexual use and abuse of women to remain invisible as harm or a contravention of human rights. In this liberal approach to sex it is vulgar to ask political questions such as how the consent and choice are constructed.

Women’s consent, the kind that can cause them to undergo furiously resented sexual intercourse in marriage, or just to accept that they should be used as a masturbation aid, is constructed by the pressures exerted upon women throughout their lives. Such pressures include economic dependency, sexual abuse, battering, and a cultural barrage of propaganda about what women are good for. They can induce a profound lack of self determination. Lesbians are
women too. That any lesbian should think consent a useful concept when it emerges from the circumstances of women’s oppression and relates to the material inequality of women is a surprise.

Sheila Jeffreys

Where is that from?