There is no doubt that women experience lots of sexual violence, and lots of unwanted sexual attention by men who don't seem to understand it's two sided thing, and what they want is literally only half of the equation. It is the same as theft in that the thief is not respecting the interests of the possessor.
However the extremely emotive nature of this crime may obscure some interesting features.
What is rape?
Wikipedia says:
"Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent."
Now because of biology it means that really only "males" can penetrate.
Males in quotes because with sex change operations, or even prosthetics and other tools it is possible for women to rape. But in its main it is crime that vastly only men can perform. And if transgender people insist on being defined by the results of operations then even more so. Anyone with a penis is a man. As debated before in this blog, despite seeming to reject biological form, it is interesting how transgender are very keep to assume the sexual form of their chosen "gender." It seems even for transgender if you have a penis you are a man, and if you have a penis and think you are a woman you remove that penis because you know that HAVING A PENIS MEAN YOU ARE A MAN. Transgender are actually as loyal to binary sexual concepts as anyone else. Some thinking for people to do here!
So having a penis, or penetrative organ, even in a trans world MEANS YOU ARE A MAN. And so Rape is male crime!
But whoooaaa . You have a crime that is defined by your gender! That is sexist.
This is exactly the same as a law which instead of selecting "penis" selects "black." A black person walking into a "whites only zone" commits a crime, while a white person walking into that zone does not commit a crime. That is racist.
A woman having non-consensual sex DOES NOT COMMIT A RAPE because rape is penetrative and so can ONLY be the man!
Rape defined in terms of "penetration" is sexist! And it actually ignores the whole point which is consent. If a male has sex with an underage girl it is not the penetration that constitutes the rape it is the fact that she is protected by law as being not old enough to give her consent. It is consent that is the legal issue, not the penetration. It is no wonder then that the vast majority of defendants facing rape charges are male! The whole definition is sexist.
Rape should be defined as "non-consensual sex."
This means if a man wakes up in the morning and finds that a woman got him drunk in order to have sex with him that is rape!
Or even if a man turns over in bed and decides that he did not really want to have sex with this woman and she had "seduce him" against his will then in fact that is rape.
In a world of equality there should be equal numbers of man and women facing rape charges, or at least men and women should be equal under the law and no law should exclude a gender.
Now they talk about "rape myths." One of the commonest rape myths is that a man cannot have sex against his will. He can. An erection can be against his will if he is being seduced, and he can be seduced into sex where without the seduction he would not have done anything.
After all why do women expose their skin and cleavages, and spend hours in makeup: it is to attract the interests of men. If they did not do this then the assumption is they would not then experience that attention. So women are involved in the process of seduction as much as men, and they are therefore equally responsible for the results of that.
Its a dismissed line that "she deserved it" in the sense that a woman who dresses like a prostitute will be treated like a prostitute. This is not an endorsement of non-consensual and meaningless sex, but its an appreciation that women are involved in the process of seduction.
Nuns deliberately cover themselves up to avoid sexual attention, and importantly to signal that sexual attention is unwanted and inappropriate. Conversely exposing your body must logically be the opposite and must be an invitation to sexual attention. It's kind of so obvious that it seems stupid to have to say this. Islamic countries in particular understand this and both men and women cover themselves to avoid encouraging inappropriate thoughts in other people. It is an act of kindness and consideration in fact.
Jesus says:
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. [Matthew 18:9]
The West is supposed to be based upon Christian principles. Here Jesus is saying that even looking lustfully at another person is adultery and a violation of chastity, duty, loyalty and faithfulness to your partner and worse God. It is a complete violation of that state of marriage, and a mockery of everything that you supposedly undertook in choosing to get married and devote your life to another person.
This seems strict, but this is the actual target. This is how easy it is to Sin (and miss the targets) and why we are all sinners!
So why would anyone dress provocatively to encourage other people to sin? Both men and women need to take stock of this situation and understand their mutual involvement in leading other people astray and of being involved in a sliding scale of sin that runs from a momentary lustful thought through to full engagement in sexual activity with someone either against the will of their partner or worse against that persons will.
So it seems that currently Rape is not fit for purpose. It is sexist and does not reflect reality. And as a result all thinking about Rape built upon this faulty foundation is sexist, unrealistic and misses the mark.
It is not completely wrong to say that the whole of feminism is built upon Rape. It is the one thing that drives an immutable wedge between men and women in the minds of those radicalised into this way of thinking. But when people realise that Rape itself is faulty and is built upon an already existing prejudice against men, feminists should be able to see that rather than building their prejudice of men on rape, rape itself was built upon a prejudice against men.
Some serious thinking needed here for western society to move forward.
===
Penetration is important in other bits of prejudice. It has never been illegal for women to engage in lesbian sex. But male homosexuality was illegal until very recently (yeah cut other countries some slack Western hypocrities). How sexist and homophobic is that: giving women and men different rules. The point of course is that the prejudice that exists across the globe against homosexuals is not that they are gay (as evidenced by gay women never being seen as immoral) it is to do with male penetration, anal sex or Sodomy. Just to add to the prejudice it is named after the fabled city of Sodom which God destroyed in punishment for its sexual immortality and anal sex.
It is kind of obvious when you understand that you need to have sex in the vagina to make a woman pregnant, that this is the "right hole" and other "holes" are mistakes, and perversions. Not getting into that debate, but penetration seems to have a specific role in the world and for those who like things to be "just so" then other acts with the penis can seem wrong.
Bonobo monkey note. Of course sexual intercourse need not just be about procreation. It could have a social bonding function. Certainly people who have had even casual sex are closer to each other than those who have not. But debate is open as to whether our society really benefits from this kind of activity. Certainly aspects like disease and childcare of unwanted children are factors here.
So the world does seem obsessed with penetration, and this gives men a huge significance in the world. Blah blah Freud, penis envy etc. But in a democratic world of sexual equality, anti-sexism, and anti-prejudice we need rethink this to give women equal status and responsibility in matters of sex, rape and consent. No more hiding behind rape myths like women are only ever victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment