Monday, July 12, 2010

Lucia On Protectors, Predators - and Prey

Today's feminists, when repeating the mantra "My body, my choice", would do well to also meditate upon this ultimate truth:
"When women draw attention to their bodies, they are asking to be defined by their bodies, and at some point, they will find themselves treated as if they were nothing more than a body."
Do they want themselves and other women to be seen as a "mysterious gift from heaven with hopes, joys, sorrows, talents, thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes, and a precious personality all her own," or do they prefer the prey mentality?

Because in the conversation on how a woman is to protect herself from rape, the immediate reaction is to jump on that as apologising for rape, while as feminism's own role in enabling rape is ignored.


Giving men sex without expecting any sort of commitment is training them to become predators. Rape or not, too many men in NZ today just see women as prey for their sexual needs and nothing more.
Every man, after all, must at one or another time choose between the two most obvious roles open to him: predator or protector. It is no exaggeration to say that for many, that choice is the most consequential of their lives. And that is exactly why this question of modesty and immodesty concerns much more than a mere public handwringing about today's girls. At some point during the past decades, judging by the sartorial results we see today, a tipping point was reached. More men stopped seeing themselves as protectors – and started seeing themselves as potential predators instead.

Related links: On Protectors, Predators - and Prey ~ CERC
Casual Sex Harmful to Women ~ NZ Conservative

28 comment(s):

Big Boar said...

I've never heard a discussion on this issue without hysterical outbursts from the "women should be able to do whatever with immunity" crowd. The article on the hand mirror is another example. It seems to be agreed that we aren't talking about standard stranger rape. And then the strangeness begins. Those feminist commenters don't want any repercussions for their choices or to find any resting place in a world that isn't fair. They insist that they must be able to trust men at all times and that "rape" that happens in the confines of what is implied is longterm or marrige type situations is none of their creation. It's immature thinking - how can they have no impact on the events of a relationship? Wouldn't that require some amazingly aloof, narcissistic, almost sociopathic mindsets? Maybe that's the issue - if you stay aloof, you never see your mate. A woman who doesn't see anything wrong with the man she knows, who then "rapes" her, doesn't know herself either. She's living in a total dreamworld. Then of course the discussion fragments into something further that I dont; fully understand, but appears to suggest that women are highly sexualised creatures and that every interaction with a man is one step towards or away from the act of sex and that the process must be entirely controlled by her. I can understand how the shattering of that dream creates such hate of men. But it's really themselves they hate: for believing the dream and the sensation of the vacuum that comes after the illusion dissolves. Some women clearly never recover and that's very sad. But to say it's all men's fault is just a way of coping with the failure of the illusion - the desperation in rebuilding the illusion - to avoid a sudden exposure to reality. It's not healing or freedom.

Lucia Maria said...

Big Boar, great comment!

And nice to see you here.

Lucia Maria said...

*sigh*

Russell Brown is "creeped out" by your comment, Boar.

Russell Brown said...

Russell Brown is "creeped out" by your comment, Boar.

Damn right I am. And I think anyone with a shred of decency would be too.

But since you asked ...

They insist that they must be able to trust men at all times and that "rape" that happens in the confines of what is implied is longterm or marrige type situations is none of their creation.

Because "they" been wicked enough to tell women they don't have to have sex if they don't want to?

And what's with the scare quotes around "rape"? Are you even remotely familiar with the criminal law? It is an offence to force sex on anyone who doesn't want it – even your wife.

Wouldn't that require some amazingly aloof, narcissistic, almost sociopathic mindsets? Maybe that's the issue - if you stay aloof, you never see your mate. A woman who doesn't see anything wrong with the man she knows, who then "rapes" her, doesn't know herself either.

Wow. So it's a woman's fault if her husband rapes her because she was too "aloof" to see it coming? That's the most extravagantly offensive act of victim-blaming I can think of. But do tell, piggy – does that apply to other forms of assault and serious crime? We'd certainly clear a few cases out of the courts if we declared that it was the woman's fault because she should have seen it coming.

Then of course the discussion fragments into something further that I dont; fully understand, but appears to suggest that women are highly sexualised creatures and that every interaction with a man is one step towards or away from the act of sex and that the process must be entirely controlled by her.

I don't "fully understand" what you're on about either. But yes, male or female, we all have the right to say no. It's not only a moral right. It's a right in law.

But to say it's all men's fault is just a way of coping with the failure of the illusion - the desperation in rebuilding the illusion - to avoid a sudden exposure to reality. It's not healing or freedom.

Nice work. You've contrived to make being raped a woman's fault without specifying any actual offence in her part beyond the alleged crimes of feminism in general.

But what say it's a good, non-feminist Christian woman who gets raped? Is it still her fault?

What an unpleasant little man you must be.

Big Boar said...

We've never met Russell, but I'm familiar with your ability to reason from the BFM Hardnews days. Perhaps you still do them. In any case, your replies here make little sense to me or address anything I've said.

Because "they" been wicked enough to tell women they don't have to have sex if they don't want to?

No, because events like rape (outside of stranger rape) don’t just jump out at women. Every situation, good or bad, has a lead in. Things don't just get simpler because they're nasty.

And what's with the scare quotes around "rape"? Are you even remotely familiar with the criminal law? It is an offence to force sex on anyone who doesn't want it – even your wife.

Here you’ve crossed theoretical context with legal in the same sentence. It won’t work like that. I used “rape”, because I referred to a context that was unclear from the comments on THM. Even the commenters couldn’t explain what rape was within the scenarios they described. It makes sense to be talking in the same context, does it not? About the same thing? Theoretically, on paper, there is rape – sex without consent. Legally, it's whatever the law says it is, depending on the intent and the ideology that drove the law. In real life, “rape” can be defined as many different events - evidenced by the comments on THM and recently argued about during the Haden incident.

Nice work. You've contrived to make being raped a woman's fault without specifying any actual offence in her part beyond the alleged crimes of feminism in general.

No what I’ve done is left out possibly a 1000 words for people who want to think to fill in themselves. Relationships are just that: between two people. The woman is an integral part, and remains so even if she was the master of a slave. This relates to what another commenter was saying on THM about putting oneself in harm’s way. As you well know - because you rail against it so often - the world is not fair. Everyone makes decisions they aren’t consciously aware of and can put themselves in situations that turn bad without realising it until the moment of crisis. This may be where our outlooks on how life differ and I’m not going to try to tell you yours. A woman may make a series of choices that results in the crisis that is rape. Does it mean it is her fault? Not in the absolute “Oh it’s your fault the window smashed because you kicked the ball into it” sense. But she certainly had a hand in the procession of events – because she was engaged in the relationship. If people could see into the future, pre-empt unpleasant experiences and learn about life before their crises, the world would be a wonderful place and living would be easy. What I saw in the comments on a feminist blog were posters who, to my eye, were incapable of entertaining the idea that everything they do influences their lives. Being a feminist, a capitalist, a communist or even a Christian, doesn’t change the way the world works and the ideology you accept is not a defence against life. It’s just there to make life bearable. That would be fine and dandy if those frantically trying to make their life bearable didn’t, for example, then call for the sackings of others who don’t need quite so much sheltering from the harsh nature of life.

But what say it's a good, non-feminist Christian woman who gets raped? Is it still her fault?

What an unpleasant little man you must be.


Haha, come on Russell you’re better than that! Don’t make assumptions about who I am (unless you need to, to make your life bearable) because it sure isn't a supporting discussion point in your favour.

Big Boar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Russell Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Russell Brown said...

We've never met Russell, but I'm familiar with your ability to reason from the BFM Hardnews days. Perhaps you still do them. In any case, your replies here make little sense to me or address anything I've said.

I think I've been fairly clear and concise, and directly addressed what you've said, to the extent that I understand what you're on about.

In real life, “rape” can be defined as many different events - evidenced by the comments on THM and recently argued about during the Haden incident.

If Robin Brooke did what has been alleged – had sex with an unconscious teenager – then it's rape in every damn "context" I can think of. I'd much rather see it tried in court than in the media, but if that's what happened, it is rape

Does it mean it is her fault? Not in the absolute “Oh it’s your fault the window smashed because you kicked the ball into it” sense. But she certainly had a hand in the procession of events – because she was engaged in the relationship.

It was her fault for getting married? Ye gods.

Would you say that to you daughter, or sister? Or Lucia?

So let's revisit the question you ducked:

But what say it's a good, non-feminist Christian woman who gets raped? Is it still her fault?

It appears that your answer is yes. Nice to have that cleared up.

Big Boar said...

So we disagree. I can live with that. What else should we talk about?

"It was her fault for getting married? Ye gods.

When I was married (and I still am) one of the formalities of the vows was to establish that we were there of our own free will. Then, among other things, we had to promise to look after each other no matter what - in sickness and in health if you like. Pretty explicit connection there and a strong message that whatever came next, it was our responsiblity. I took it seriously and still do. Perhaps the point I raise about being unable to accept responsibility is directly related to the dim view of marriage that feminist generally have? You, personally, can feel some comfort too in that it wasn 't a religious ceremony.

It appears that your answer is yes. Nice to have that cleared up.

Is this a sarcastic remark for high-schoolers? Why is it nice? My answer, always abundantly clear, was yes. I told you I didn't draw lines by ideology or isms. I didn't duck anything.

What you're doing, as pointed out before, is mixing contexts with each post and within each sentence. Right now you've ignored my qualification of the word fault, in this context, and replaced it with fault in a simplistic sense. Most blog based discussion turn to mud pretty quickly but must you be so disingenuous? If you want to fight, above all else, go visit a real flame forum. I thought you might be capable of reasoning.

robertguyton said...

"Giving men sex without expecting any sort of commitment is training them to become predators."

You what!

Women, training men, to become predators!

Pffft!

"Right girls. You all ready? We're off to train some predators who will, as you know, prey on us and our sisters, mothers and daughters. Ready? Let's do it!"

Lucia Maria said...

Obviously a difficult concept, Robert.

katusbratus said...

"The woman is an integral part, and remains so even if she was the master of a slave"

This comment clearly speaks to where your view of women really sits Boar

Big Boar said...

katusbratus, it actually speaks more about your comprehension skills:

REGARDLESS of the relationship, each person influences it. Master/slave, Prisoner/Jailer, Politician/constituent, student/ teacher, dog/owner, friend/friend, buyer/seller... each party has a role to play.

Do you understand the nature of relationship?

katusbratus said...

REGARDLESS of the relationship, each person influences it. Master/slave, Prisoner/Jailer, Politician/constituent, student/ teacher, dog/owner, friend/friend, buyer/seller... each party has a role to play.

Do you understand the nature of relationship?


Tell me the role that children play when they are subject to paedophilic rape. And the part their caregivers play in putting those children in such a situation that they are subject to that rape!

Lucia Maria said...

Katusbratus,

This post is not about children. If you go down this route, I will delete comments.

Dylan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katusbratus said...

Lucia

Apparently a theme in this thread (and perhaps a central theme) is the contention that there are different types of rape or different degrees of rape - and responsibility by the person who claims rape. It seems odd that an unconscious woman who may well have drunk too much and draped themselves over a sports star may not be guilty of being raped when clearly she was unable to give consent to the act.

I was wondering whether the ability to give consent was at the crux of this matter and to that end, obviously a child isn't capable of doing that. But then I would have thought an unconscious person was too.

Is the married woman able to give consent under threat of a beating?

The thing that I find disgusting is that people would think that there are degrees of rape and degrees of responsibility for being raped.

I.M Fletcher said...

Dylan, you're confusing me a bit there. When you say "raped", do you mean consensual sex with a technical minor?

Given that this girl wasn't given the opportunity to say, "oh wait, I'm not at the age of legal consent" when she was forced to have sex

When was she not given the opportunity to say anything?

Lucia Maria said...

Dylan,

Statutory rape, obviously, as a start.

But this conversation is not about children, as I have already stated.

As you may not have seen my comment to Katus what's her name, I'll let this one go.

But I warn you, and every one else reading this thread, any more comments of this sort will be deleted.

Lucia Maria said...

Katus,

There are degrees of everything in the real world. Otherwise everything would be the same and people wouldn't be able to differentiate.

ZenTiger said...

It seems odd that an unconscious woman who may well have drunk too much and draped themselves over a sports star may not be guilty of being raped when clearly she was unable to give consent to the act.

Can you please quote the EXACT phrase made on THIS THREAD that argues otherwise? You've taken a general discussion and applied a specific example that isn't made here.

I can't even see any comments that would support your contention about "degrees of rape".

I think many people are incorrectly assuming that to speak of consequences, is to also assign blame. I see them as two different things.

No person ever asks to be raped, nor do the ever deserve it. That is clear, and yet you make assumptions otherwise. The logical leap seems to be made that speaking of consequences, somehow infers blame.

Women should be able to get blind drunk and comatose if they so chose, and expect to be safe. The sad fact is that they cannot. The blame for being raped falls 100% on the shoulders of the rapist. The *consequences* of his illegal and immoral action falls mostly on the victim. Why is that so hard to follow?

katusbratus said...

There are degrees of everything in the real world.

Clearly Lucia Maria, we have reached an impasse.

I'm going to keep siding with the laws of the land which state that unless informed consent is given for the act of sex, then it is, rape.

I am happy for you to live in your 'real world' which is apparently in conflict with our judiciary. I shall, however, continue to empower my daughter that 'no' means 'no!' ...'yes' means 'yes!' and 'maybe' doesn't exist.

Lucia Maria said...

Katus,

The judiciary doesn't treat every crime the same, either. So not sure what you're going on about.

Tell your daughter not to sleep around as well. She'll be far safer that way.

katusbratus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matthew said...

I'm going to keep siding with the laws of the land which state that unless informed consent is given for the act of sex, then it is, rape.


That is a given. In addition to Lucia Maria's comments (which are correct), it is unfortunate that not all men follow the laws of the land. The law is there to say don't, but it doesn't actually prevent every rape. The law is a partial answer to the problem of rape, not the complete answer to making sure we never have one more rape ever again. I'm sure you're aware of that. The remainder of the answer lies in the "real world", which is part of the debate on this thread (with a few exceptions). You have clearly chosen to exclude yourself from the real world debate on the causes of rape, and pinned all your hopes on the judiciary. I'm sure that you will be disappointed in the future (sadly, for the victim and perpetrator).

I have to say unusually good comments from Big Boar.

Dylan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

Dylan, can I clear something up for you?

If you have sex with a person, without their consent, it is rape. End of story.

Let's expand on this.

If you have sex with a person, without their *informed* consent, it is rape. End of story.

Minors cannot provide informed consent. Drunk people cannot provide informed consent. Rape.

Every male who decides bonking a willing, inebriated women might find themselves facing a rape charge, because she did not provide *informed* consent, and if on reflection she most certainly would not have provided that consent, then it's rape.

Obviously, there are even more obvious cases of rape than that, and we shouldn't have to discuss those due to the obvious nature of the situation.

And there are no excuses. There is no slippery slope. It's rape.

You don't even need to go to Whoopi's rape-rape scale of offending.

ZenTiger said...

Now, here's the next part:

If a women puts herself in a "dangerous" situation, she might get raped.

She will obviously find that traumatic.

Now we can all agree that life is unfair when one has the freedom to enter dangerous situations, but gets lumbered with the consequences too.

What constitutes dangerous and not dangerous is an argument we can have all night, because feminists will think I'm suggesting dangerous is merely "being a women" and I might be thinking blind drunk with a stranger in *their* bedroom is rather dangerous. Let's not worry about that for now, let's examine Lucia's post in light of the above position on what constitutes rape.

Lucia said: while as feminism's own role in enabling rape is ignored.

Now an "ism" isn't a person, it is an ideology, a perspective, a doctrine or perhaps a philosophy.

So if Jane gets raped by John, and feminism is partly to blame, it's not about assigning blame to Jane. Jane is the one bearing the consequences, different thing.

So how did feminism "enable" the rape of Jane, given that the rapist is the perpetrator. Because in recognising "enabling" factors, we wouldn't want to give the impression that John gets off the rape charge because feminism enabled him to do it. No, he's still heading for the slammer.

In a broad sense, the feminist's push to embrace sexual freedom and sexual equality, the liberal attitudes to sex, the expectation that birth control enables this freedom, and removes the consequences from the women, whilst at the same time the media shows more skin, more casual flings, a greater acceptance of adultery, easy divorce and state support for single mothers, etc etc are all sending signals to the sex mad male that there might be some very keen women happy to engage in one night stands.

In the case of famous people, they often find such willing participants and party all night.

So that when Jane comes along, well versed in saying "Yes" or "No", she may, if things go wrong, get the full and undesired consequences of getting blind drunk and having a major star think that there was a yes in there somewhere during the night, just like the sum of his experiences to date.

And he might be in such a state himself, he didn't realise the obvious truth that there never was a yes.

Jane could have chosen to not go to his room, because that was the first "yes" or a progression of "yeses", and her chances for making it clear there could still be a "no" later in the evening are diminishing with every drink.

Or worse, she is in full control of herself, but he is not in control of himself and he turns out to be such a narcissist, or simply a thug, he doesn't comprehend or care to check for "no", and now she is in trouble.

Her getting to that room, and him taking advantage of her are a reflection of the society we live in. One full of opportunity and fun, but with a very dark edge when things turn bad.

And I wont address the other categories of rape, and the other situations because they aren't relevant to this particular post.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.