From Camille Paglia's Sex, Art, and American Culture:
Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.
Aggression and eroticism are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality. Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carry Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it.
As a fan of football and rock music, I see in the simple, swaggering masculinity of the jock and in the noisy posturing of the heavy-metal guitarist certain fundamental, unchanging truths about sex. Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy. Feminism has got to wake up and look at fire as it is. Sex is a dark and turbulent power that may not be controllable by pat verbal formulas and chirpy hopes.You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex. You can be overpowered.
So it is woman's personal responsibility to be aware of the dangers of the world. But these young feminists today are deluded. They come from a protected, white, middle-class world, and they expect everything to be safe. Notice it's not black or Hispanic women who are making a fuss about this--they come from cultures that are fully sexual and they are really realistic about sex. But these other women are sexually repressed girls, coming out of pampered homes, and when they arrive at these colleges and suddenly hit male lust, they go, "Oh, no!"
These girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening." And I say, "Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?" My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police--and I--have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"
I mean, wake up to reality. This is male sex. Guess what, it's hot. Male sex is hot.
Pursuit and seduction are the essence of sexuality. It's part of the sizzle. Girls hurl themselves at guitarists, right down to the lowest bar band. The guys are strutting. If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn't repel them. Women have the right to freely choose and to say yes or no. Everyone should be personally responsible for what happens in life. I see the sexual impulse as egotistical and dominating, and therefore I have no problem understanding rape.
My Sixties attitude is, yes, go for it, take the risk, take the challenge--if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street, it's okay. That was part of the risk of freedom, that's part of what we've demanded as women. Go with it. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go on. We cannot regulate male sexuality. The uncontrollable aspect of male sexuality is part of what makes sex interesting. And yes, it can lead to rape in some situations. What feminists are asking for is for men to be castrated, to make eunuchs out of them. The powerful, uncontrollable force of male sexuality has been censored out of white middle-class homes. But it's still there in black culture, and in Spanish culture.
It's this whole stupid feminist thing about how we are basically nurturing, benevolent people, and sex is a wonderful thing between two equals. With that kind of attitude, then of course rape is going to be a total violation of your entire life, because you have had a stupid, naive, Mary Poppins view of life to begin with. Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force. The sexes are at war with each other. That's part of the excitement and interest of sex. It's the dark realm of the night. When you enter the realm of the night, horrible things can happen there.You know what gets me sick and tired? The battered-woman motif. It's so misinterpreted, the way we have to constantly look at it in terms of male oppression and tyranny, and female victimization. When, in fact, everyone knows throughout the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot. I say we should start looking at the battered-wife motif in terms of sex. If gay men go down to bars and like to get tied up, beaten up, and have their asses whipped, how come we can't allow that a lot of wives like the kind of sex they are getting in these battered-wife relationships? We can't consider that women might have kinky tastes, can we? No, because women are naturally benevolent and nurturing, aren't they?
You know, the funny thing is, I've said things much like this. Not quite so crass, and not reaching quite so far as Professor Paglia. I'd like to debate her some time, because I think there are some subtle points she occasionally misses. But when I say things that sound remotely like the above, I get slammed around and treated like a scumbag.
Which I find rather telling.
Especially if you knew anything about me, my background, and my relationships with the women in my life. I am an unrepentant philogynist, yet when I speak honestly about what I see about the world around me, I am invariably portrayed as a stereotyper, an ignorant fool, or a misogynist.
I am not unaccustomed to this. I merely find it interesting.
So what do you think of Professor Paglia's words? I think she's right myself. Well, at least 80% right, which is more than you can say about a lot of the people who bloviate on such subjects.
You agree? You disagree?
Tell me.
But, for the record? I think that if you have a teenaged daughter, you are an idiot if you are not telling her some of the things that Paglia says above. I mean, a complete, blithering idiot who is short-changing your daughter and putting her in danger.
Your sons too. But especially your daughters.
It's just what I think.
* Update * Patterico says that Professor Paglia, and most of the commenters here on Dean's World, are "appalling," and that our entire discussion amounts to "little more than a celebration of rape." I find that an appalling interpretation, but I suppose some might agree with him. Especially if people make casual assumptions about what others have seen and experienced in their lives.Trudy Schuett, however, has a much more nuanced view, and is generally supportive of Paglia's basic premises--and notes that the oversimplistic "counseling industry" rakes in billions of dollars a year by dealing with these problems in an unrealistic and sometimes counterproductive fashion.
* Update 2 * Patterico has calmed down a little, although he still thinks people are being too charitable to Paglia. He may have a point. Myself, I see her as having said very blunt things that other people have been too afraid to say for too long. Call it "shock therapy," if you will. But maybe I'm being too kind.
I hope you don't think Camille Paglia doesn't 'get slammed around and treated like a scumbag.' Every "feminist" I've ever met wants her head on a spike.
No, I don't think that.
But I do think the fact that she is in posession of a vulva gives her some insulation.
Well, it does and it doesn't. In one sense, it hurts her, for it makes the "feminists" more likely to shriek, "TRAITOR!!!!"
But even then, calling someone treasonous is still not quite the same as declaring them to be The Enemy.
I've said things much like Paglia, and been ridiculed, called a liar, called a fool, called a sexist and an oppressor and a hater of women and a blithering idiot--and, most importantly, a SEXIST.
Used to hurt a lot. Still hurts, but only a little. I'm developing a thicker skin. Indeed, I am increasingly inclined to respond to such things by saying, "Shut up, bitch, and get me a beer." ;-)
I think she is right. Do you realize how many more rapes there are now than when I was a child? I don't know the statistics but I was a child during WWII and I was free to roam and play with my friends and siblings with no one worrying about being snatched and raped. I know when my daughter started wanting "mini skirts" she was allowed to within reason but we did explain to her that a certain amount of modesty in dress was appropriate because exposure is titillating. That just has to be admitted. The old saying "boys only want one thing" is not necessarily a put down, but a truth. That is what they are programmed for. They are at their ultimate sexual drive when they are dating YOUR TEENAGE DAUGHTER. Now, I am also the mother of two sons, they were taught respect for others including females. But they are still males and their hormones started flowing just like everyone else. Boys and girls are different and thank God for it.
Dean, you face the same thing that men who argue against abortion-on-demand face: "You can't say anything, because you have no stake in the issue, being Male."
It's the most bogus argument in the world, but it's convenient to shut out dissent.
FWIW, I think there's a truth that Ruth mentions that we are missing in modern society: a lot of these teenie bopper lolita singers are encouraging little children to play with fire, so to speak, in ways that they are not prepared for.
I've had some heated arguments with feminists about this sort of thing.
You may tie a couple of moldering pork chops around your kid's neck and send him off into cougar country to play, and when he gets eaten up, you think the outrage directed at the situation is as good as having your kid back. Right? Well, if not for your kid, then it's true for some other kid. Don't tell me what I have to do. I can tie porkchops around my kid's neck. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do? How logical does that sound?
Yet when you say the same kind of forethought and common sense ought to be applied to behaviors that put girls at risk, you'll be hammered for approving of rape.
Amazing.
Dean -
Check your mailbox - just sent you something.
And - I respectfully tell you that you are wrong if you think Paglia having a vulva insulates her. She herself has referred to her position in ALL circles as that of a "pariah". She is generally hated and scorned by the feminist "establishment". She is not invited to talks, she is shunned, she is booed, she works at an Arts college, as opposed to a major university -
And yet - because of her radical views on sex, prostitution, pornography (all of which she is very PRO) she is scorned by many on the right.
I think she enjoys her position as a renegade, and I do not think she would have it any other way.
But she is DEFINITELY called the equivalent of a "scumbag", and has been for many many years. Read her essay on when she gave a talk at Brown and how she was booed off the stage by all the crunchy granola Brown girls. Gloria Steinem referred to her as "dangerous". She is referred to as "right-wing", which is so hilarious since she is vibrantly pro-pornography, pro-prostitution, and strolls around in head-to-toe leather with a knife at her belt. Talking about her collection of strap-ons.
I love Camille Paglia.
What Camille Paglia says is profoundly true. You've probably guessed by now that I love Camille Paglia, even when I strongly disagree with her. Her _style_!
Dean:
If any man in this world is _not_ a misogynist, it's you. I know that if I were a woman (heterosexual), I would be in love with you. You consistently respect, honor, and love women. You are one of the last men of true chivalry.
Also, the masculine _style_ of your writing. The sexes are different, in ways that I can't quite articulate. Without knowing anything else about you, I think I could read just about any random sample of your writing and know, just from the _style_ of it, that it was written by a man, a very manly man. Anyway...
HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF THE BLOGOSPHERE!!!! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!
I agree that it is dumb to put yourself in a dangerous position.
But it doesn't give someone the right to do something bad to you.
Just about everything else Paglia says above is, in my opinion, the raving of an utter lunatic.
For example: "if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street, it's okay"?
That, to me, is so clearly wrong it's not even worth debating.
"Dean, you face the same thing that men who argue against abortion-on-demand face: "You can't say anything, because you have no stake in the issue, being Male.""
Indeed. I hear that all the time, and that is such a b.s. argument. I have a stake in the issue as a citizen, wanting to live in a society where murder is not legalized and euphemized as a medical procedure. I have a stake in the issue, being a human being.
Half of all those aborted babies are female. And, as Dean has noted fairly often on this blog, most of the strongest opponents of abortion are women, many having had abortions themselves.
Abortion is _not_ a private act between consenting adults. By definition, it involves a very non-consenting non-adult.
Everytime I drive past a nice suburban high school, and I see all those girls out there dressed like hookers, I want to scream at them, "if you put it out don't be surprised if someone wants to take it!" But our society is so confused about sex, and female sexuality. I mean, no one has a problem with multiple Superbowl ads about Erectile dysfunction, but one brief booby sighting and you'd think it was the apocalypse....and then all those girl-children with bare midriffs and thongs.
I actually find Paglia very refreshing. She can be as extreme in her own way as the lunatic left, of course, but its rare she doesn't have a nugget of truth in there.
By the way, I claim to being a feminist but I reject all those victimization-views of the stereotypical feminist. They do get in the way of those of us trying to make things better for both men and women. I suspect I find the loony left as annoying as most conservatives find the fundamentalist right annoying. Which is why I really am an advocate for reclaiming the middle ground and common sense, and push the lunatics of both fringes out!
Paglia's views on rape are about taking responsibility for your own safety. And having a healthy fear and respect for the sexuality of men. (Basically, what that means, for her, is: Don't be a cocktease. Do not mess with men in that way - especially do not mess with college boys in that way - Life is not the pretty little neat world you were taught it was - Take care of yourself. Do not expect a drunk frat boy to take care of you. GROW UP.)
I was attacked once, by a gang of guys - because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I had no business traveling by myself at that hour of the night, on that dangerous subway line. Wearing bright red lipstick because I was coming home from a party. I am not an idiot, and I have lived in cities all my life - but I was broke, and thought I couldn't afford a taxi home. And I was put in a terrible position. I fought and screamed so ferociously that I scared the shit out of the attackers, basically. I was screaming bloody murder, and eventually they ran away.
I was lucky.
But what I was left with was: Do not EVER put yourself in that dangerous position again. Do NOT. Take a CAB. You have NO BUSINESS being cavalier. This is a dangerous world, and there are scumbags out there. You have to take care of YOURSELF. Do not expect the world to be a nice pretty little world that will respect your precious personal space.
Paglia's words resonate with me - because of that. She's very pro-sex, and very pro-male - which I am as well. She does not want men to be emasculated, she does not want them to be perpetually ashamed. One of her quotes is something like, "We want their dicks to be HARD, not SOFT!" (which is hysterical, because she's a radical lesbian.) But I see her point.
And she doesn't deny that violent rapes occur. Of course not. Her main beef is with date-rape hysteria.
It comes down to basically being responsible for your own safety. Don't depend onthe forebearance of others, because if you do not take care of yourself, no one will. This is a message that emcompasses much more the women avoiding rape.
I love Paglia, but you already knew that.
I think she's dead right in that context. We've gone from women being escorted by a protector to advocating that a girl can walk around in a mall, BY HERSELF, when she's 11 years old, and then we are surprised when something bad happens to her.
There is middle ground--which I think is what Paglia is screaming for. No, a woman SHOULD be able to be safe unescorted, but she better realize is IS NOT safe, simply because she wants to FEEL safe.
I encounter this problem all the time with women in response to issues of arming themselves. The most typical reaction is, "I don't want to go through life having to think about that or having to worry that I'm not safe out in the world."
Argggggggg.
Then they are SHOCKED, SHOCKED when something bad happens to them, and go into 20 year victim mode. She made a choice. A choice to be unable to protect herself. She CHOSE to live in a denial that bad things are out there, because it didn't suit her fantasy of the way she wants to be able to skip through life in denial.
Makes me absolutely-fucking-crazy.
Dean, you take a stand and give your reasons for taking that stand. All the information you read I believe is very fair and balanced.
You can't read every e-mail, every post and agree with people. Oh boy, when I say this name people are going to jump up and down with a variety of opinions of him. Bill O'Reilly. You love him or you hate him. I had watched him like a religion. I have to hear what this man says, I just have to. he is good and another example of getting ahead in this country despite differences.
You may or may not like him Dean, that is not what I am saying. You have your views and they are good. How many books have you read in your lifetime? From what I know about you, it is like Paul Burgess that posts here. He has books in his living room, his dining room, up his stairs, down the stairs all around his office at work and I am sure, I would bet on it he has books in his car!
On being fair and balanced as Fox News trys to be, afterall that is their mantra. We know who owns it. You don't just watch Fox News, you watch CNN and we know who owns that station, doesn't matter, all stations have a political owner, from time to time and other ones such as who-- ABC, NBC aah... name it. you get your information from a wide varity of PEOPLE!
Take a break man, go out and enjoy life. You were good in your view of Camelia. You are not sexist, horny maybe, but not sexist.
Your line up there a few posts is funny, absolutely funny and you even put up a smiley face after you said it! "Hey bitch, go get me a beer!"
Be like O'Reilly in the way that he is arrogant if you want to say that, fine. Doesn't matter. He has got a huge following and people go on that show for many reasons such as pushing their politics or what ever. No, I don't watch it anymore.
I took a look at what blogs were doing and I got addicted. Yep, yep, got addicted, my nature.
"You can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people none of the time."
Take Rosemary dancing in your spare time. We know you and where you stand and you get some of us hot under the turtleneck...that's great! Just ask Tony the Tiger!!! Growl, ger! Write your book we are all eager to read it. Give lil' Jacob a hug and a high five from your fans!
I'll go one better Mr. Esmay, come on down to the San Antonio RODEO!!! Then stop in Dirty Nellies, yep...An Irish Pub, throw your peanuts on the floor, drink a good IRISH BEER! Walk the Riverwalk, hey they color it green on St. Patty's Day. Chicago colors their river green too on St. Patty's Day. Uuh, wonder where they got that idea? After you get good and drunk on the Irish beer at Nellies, ride the Trolly around this city. We are rich, rich in heritage and politics!
You have been invited Esmays... and I bet your southern friends that read you will be thrilled!
Born in El Paso Dean? Come see us down here come on back to you roots sometime kiddo!
Oh, this was about who? Camrilia, sorry I took the thread but, you are well read & we know it!
I'm as strongly-aligned with Paglia on the rape issue as I could possibly be aligned with anything. She perfectly nails the inherent hypocrisies inherent in the modern feminist's view of male sexuality (be strong but weak, passive but aggressive, submissive but dominant, and ONLY WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT) and reveals the glory of male sexuality for what it is: pleasure, danger, aggression and -- believe it -- LOVE. Men who allow themselves to be men love like they do everything else -- fully, aggressively, unconditionally, and HONESTLY.
As a victim of sexual abuse and a witness of rape, I believe that no means no. I also believe that "NO" needs to be said with more than words. It must be said by the body. Male lust is such an overpowering emotion that requires a significant amount of discipline to keep in check, and I'm appalled by women who choose to play with that fire for whatever reason -- personal gain, boredom, manipulative urges or cruelty. Men raping women is wrong. Women manipulating men is also wrong.
In gay culture, that kind of prick-teasing is almost unheard of -- if you want sex and he wants sex, you have sex. There is flirtation and playful banter, but there is also the understanding that there's a "yes" at the end of the tunnel, without fear of cries of "rape". The only place in gay culture where you see such crass manipulation is in the age-old interplay between young toughs and older patrons -- the "rough trade" system. The older man's lust is used as a lever for the younger man's self-interest. But this is only a sliver of the overall gay experience, parallel to the older man and the younger woman.
Just as men must respect women's bodies, women must respect men's sexuality, which is not to be treated lightly or like a toy. And when a young woman who is entertained by the attentions of the men around her, promising and withholding her affections like a string before a cat, she should not be surprised when she is occasionally scratched. Hopefully, he'll be put in jail for that scratch, as it was foolish of him to let himself be manipulated in that way. Hopefully, she'll learn to approach male sexuality with more respect in the future.
Paglia gets that sex is dangerous. It makes me sad for those hypocritical parts of the gay community ravaged by AIDS, who understood the danger but weren't willing to take their licks and learn their lesson. [Though that is a tiny minority, but still sad.]
Well, boys and girls. If you've been reading my stuff, you know what I'm going to say about the eternal tango of the millions:
1) God (or Captain Kirk's chief engineering officer, or whoever or whatever) created man. And created woman. And gave man proclivity to take woman and fuck her uninvited, with prejudice.
2) John Browning created his masterfully designed and beautiful Hi-Power 9mm semi-automatic pistol. In 1935.
3) Woman equips herself with Browning Hi-Power 9mm semi-automatic pistol, complete with a handful of pre-ban 13-round magazines.
4) Woman learns how to shoot accurate doubletaps with Browning Hi-Pistol, concentrating on close-up targets.
5) Woman gets concealed carry permit (available everywhere except Wisconsin and three other otherwise nice states but with crummy governments).
6) Woman fills magazines with jacketed hollow-point 115-grain ammunition, inserts one loaded magazine in firearm, and inserts Browning hi-power in purse. (No. Don't load one round into the chamber. It takes only one second pull the slide and release it, which cocks the hammer into battery and inserts a round in the chamber, ready to fire.)
7) Woman is now equipped to blow two neat holes in rapist's chest, which, if they emerge from his back, will be large enough to proclaim: "This fuckhead lived just long enough to get his prick outside his pants."
Note #1: Last resort only.
Note #2: Going to court to defend yourself for what you did in (7) is more expensive than having your relatives bury you, but a lot cheaper than hiring a plastic surgeon to repair 12" long scar the bastard put there with whatever knife we was carrying, just because you didn't go down on him fast enough.
Note #3: There's no right. There's no wrong. There's just you and your gun. When you need it. If you need it. You either have it or you don't. And if you don't have it when and if you need it, you never need it again.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
If some guy attacks you and expects to be taken prisoner instead of taken down, he's obviously mistaken you for a cop.
Great post, Dean, and I'm with you 100%. Also, there are issues on which I disagree with Camille, but on this one she is so right on, and I always enjoy her immensely. What a blast of originality, brilliance and fresh air. I suspect she offends the Left more often than the Right (Rush used to read her pieces on the air, and she and he have or had a bit of a mutual admiration society going on); she exudes non-PC, after all.
I've long thought all girls by age 10 or 11 should be taking martial arts or self-defense classes. Nothing can make up for a sense of empowerment and responsibility for self.
I believe sex, especially male sex, is the basis of most human creativity and accomplishment. It is not women who build skyscrapers, bridges, monuments, or create most of the great science, art and music of the world. This is not to diminish the role of women at all; merely to appreciate reality. The same lifeforce that creates, also destroys. The path of the feminine is different. You can point to many, many examples that are exceptions to this "rule," but that doesn't negate it. Camille appears to understand these realities in a way feminists as a group never have or will. Also, it is primarily due to their unrealistic view of sex that I abandoned strict feminism. Feminists have betrayed women in the deepest sense.
I was stupid once. Once.
I put myself in a bad position aided by too much alcohol, and a dress with too little material. I was taken against my will. I blame myself more than I blame the asshole that did it. It wouldn't have happened had I not acted so foolishly.
It wouldn't have.
Paglia is dead on. Play with fire enough times, you will eventually get burned.
Did the cretin get his comeuppance? Yes, but not by the law. Do I consider myself a victim? No.
Never did, never will.
Things I agree with her on: 'Taking chances' isn't a way of expressing your sexuality or shouldn't be, its just stupid. I don't like the idea of young girls dressing in little mini-skirts and I agree it sends out the wrong message. I agree that there is an inherent element of agressiveness to male sexuality and that it isn't in of itself to be condemned.
Most of it though, I find disagreeable in the extreme.
First of all, it reads like an apolagia for rapists by exhonerating them of personal responsibility. "Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force." ... "We cannot regulate male sexuality." Rapists are not the victims of their genetic heritage. They make the decision, themselves, about what they're going to do. There is no compulsion, no uncontrolable urge to rape. The fact that we are decended from hunter-gatheres is not exculpatory for the same reason that it doesn't absolve murderers.
Secondly, she blurs the distinction between agression and domination. This is what she says after talking about rape victims - "This is male sex. Guess what, it's hot. Male sex is hot." Of course rape is male sex - but its not hot like guitarists are hot. There is a distinction between the two, and I find it offensive that she doesn't.
Thirdly, I find that although she is a good writer, she suffurs from the polemesists disease - she doesn't know where to stop. "if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street, it's okay...Go with it. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go on. We cannot regulate male sexuality." That's just wrong, its callous, and it implies that because a woman puts herself in a bad situation, she does not deserve the status of victimhood - I say, if you feel like a victim then you are one and you deserve all the compassion you can get.
The comment in the last paragraph is just sick - "When, in fact, everyone knows throughout the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot." I find it repulsive on so many levels I'm not going to bother explaining why.
People around here seem to be singing her praise and denouncing her critics. None of you find her extremist in the slightest?
p.s. Rosemary, I hope the cretin got a commupance he'll never forget.
Oh Rosemary that is not a good story at all. Because of the way you were dressed or had alcohol in you does not make it right for the cretin as you put it attack you.
My gosh something happened to my daughter and she was not in her right mind due to alcohol and really not dressed to well herself but she did not deserve that at all. We came around her as a family and stood behind her and the cretin that attacked her. She was young and beautiful and yes a few people wanted to tell her she was in the wrong for having to much to drink or having something inviting on but I will tell you that is not right.
A true story was made of a young woman that was flirting and drinking and got attacked. She too was not a victim later after the critans got their just reward. She was a victim and so was my daughter. They did something about it too.
When you are attacked and have alcohol in you, you are putting yourself in danger I will agree with that, but never ever agree that you were not a victim at the time of the attack.
If that Paglia lady believes that then she is wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Drinking and being under the influence of the alcohol is not a reason for a person to get attacked under any circumstances, Period! My daughter isn't a victim now and she too never considered herself one after time passed, and with the love and support of people that loved her she forgave the incidend but it took time.
I think the movie was played by Jodie Foster and her lawyer was a raving beauty, I think it was Sharon Stone. Good movie.
I believe in a view of rape that understands there are consequences for behavior. Girls who dress like sluts, get drunk and go to his room are asking for trouble. So are guys who get her drunk to make her more willing and are bewildered when she cries "rape" the next day.
Be careful. Look out for yourself. Sex is hot and dangerous and it can get you into trouble. Fortunately, most of the time it's just damn fun. (All hail contraception!)
I have to disagree with her equating battered wife syndrome to people who like to be tied up and spanked. I had to do a lot of research on domestic abuse for a project, and I came to the conclusion that it is mostly about rage. Kinky sex is mostly about titillation. I've heard of rape fantasies, but I've never heard of any woman who fantasized about having their man go into a rage and throw her down the stairs. Of course as soon as I post this, someone will point me to a fetish site about broken bones. ;)
Max,
I don't think anyone has said she's "mainstream." I noted several comments to the effect that "Paglia is extreme, but on this point, she's right on."
The *main point* Paglia is making resonates with people in this audience. And that point is nuanced beyond your simplification that rapists are not personally responsible for their actions.
I agree with much of Paglia's take on male sexuality. Doesn't mean I agree with everything she says. (I'm anti-pornography, for instance).
And I would have probably clipped the excerpt before that last paragraph about the "hot sex" in battered-woman relationships. "Everyone knows" is a pretty broad statement with no proof behind it.
Final remark: She's talking about rape in very general terms, in terms of genetics and in terms of 'sex' and attacking the feminist viewpoint which would include rape where women are not being promiscuous, getting drunk, or walking down streets late at night. But not a mention.
"how come we can't allow that a lot of wives like the kind of sex they are getting in these battered-wife relationships? We can't consider that women might have kinky tastes, can we?"
Sick, just sick. Note, she's not just saying these women like kinky sex. She's saying battered women might like kinky sex as part ot their condition of being battered women. Can't believe the best you can come up with is not agreeing with 'the other 20%'.
The *main point* Paglia is making resonates with people in this audience.
Hey, I agree with some of what she says, I outlined it above, its all pretty uncontraversial. The contraversial bits are the bits that make her a distinctive writer and why people might be inclined to trash her, as I am.
To clarify, she's implying a direct connection between abusive bahaviour and sex so good you'll put up with the beating, good kinky sex. Of course she doesn't say it dircectly, but its there, and its pretty repulsive. [i'm going now]
But, Shell, there is some truth to it, even if it might be rare. We've all read of Munchausen Syndrome, where people get some sort of pleasure out of the attention they get when their children are suffering. That is about as whacky as you can get.
I think Paglia's point is that it is not unreasonable to think that SOME women stay in abusive relationships because they ARE getting something from the relationship--similar to the Munchausen Syndrome type thing.
That's not to say that there aren't other reasons why other women don't feel they can leave an abusive mate--some feel powerless, some stay for financial security (or the kids), the shame of admitting they are abused, and some because they must not mind it that much. In my case, it was a combination of factors, but I think one of the biggest ones was I THOUGHT I could control it--there's some power in that. I could feel morally superior to the asshole and did get some martyr points for it.
I'm sure most of us have known women who were in an abusive relationship, went through all sorts of roller coaster rides to get out of the relationship, and then turned around and got in ANOTHER one, just like it. I've known a few women who did it all the damn time. They're either getting off in it or a drama junkies. After a few times, you have to wonder if she is doing something to create the situation.
It is also true that the adrenaline release from fear is identical to the adrenaline from infatuation/love. The differences are subtle and require an intellectual separation of emotion that can hurt you and emotions that are harmless--some people cannot differentiate. Some people respond to that or need it and seek it out.
It is just as much "not our business" to tell a woman that we would consider in "an abusive relationship" that she must leave, unless she is demanding something from us in return. It's HER business.
In any case, unless he's got her tied to a stake in the house, it's HER choice to stay or leave. We can provide a safety net for women if they want to leave, but I don't think it is at all outrageous to think that women who stay do so because they want to--for whatever set of reasons.
Yeah, Paglia sounds like an extremist when, at most she is trying to deliver a message of common sense while being very entertaining in the way that is so in fashion these days - in your face.
For her detractors, I always wonder if it is the message she is sending or is it her delivery? This is quite opposite from the Dworkin/MacKinnon group who dare to posit that for women all sex is rape.
I recall the female pilot who was downed in the first Gulf War who talked about her Iraqi captor when he discovered her 'femaleness' and clumsily fondled her breast. The pilot was hardly devastated that her body had been violated to the enth degree but seemed grateful to be alive and [dare I presume] slightly amused/confused by the pithy attempts of her captor. The Mackinnons of the world would have you believe that the worst thing to happen to a woman is to be sexually violated. As in- better to die than live with the horror, the shame [or something along those lines] Funny, sounds alot like what I read about Muslim cultures. Except the shame is on the entire family.
For you folks out there with girls to raise: A friend of mine shared her advice with me on what she told her daughter when it came to the 'talk' about waiting for the 'right man' to come along or reasons not to have sex at a young age.
"I can't imagine anything worse than losing my viriginity to a teenager!"
Somehow, I think Paglia might advocate such advice as opposed to the romantic notions of being in love, someone very special, the man you marry, etc., that get peddled around. If you haven't seen the movie 'Kids', the first 15 minutes with the all the sucking sounds is enough to turn anyone off. Pseudo documentary fraught with lots of problems raising lots of questions as to its intentions, BUT - it throws that whole female 'he loves me' against the male 'say anything to score' dichotomy. That's the first 15 minutes. You can turn it off after that. I did.
On a higher level with older subjects, Koppel/Nightline did a piece a number of years ago on the same subject - date rape, college students, etc., and came away with the conclusion that girls still go to college to find a husband and boys go to get laid. Nothing has changed, despite the feminist movement.
So why DO women stay in abusive relationships?
This isn't the 19th c.
Red: I respectfully disagree with your respectful dissent. If Paglia were a man, she would have been denied tenure, likely fired from her academic job and never able to get another one in that field, no publisher would ever buy her books, and Salon would never have given her column. She'd have ended her days freelancing for Penthouse and Hustler and maybe writing porn novels.
Shell: The problem with research on domestic violence is that for nearly two decades the field was dominated by one-sided "feminist" rhetoric and accounts and interpretations. This did, and still does do, a great deal of damage. A growing number of researchers--not to mention police departments and prosecutors--are coming to the conclusion that domestic violence is most often not a simple matter of a victim-woman and oppressor-man, that there is in fact a deeply complicated relationship there in most cases, one of codependence on both sides, and yes sex often plays a part in it. By automatically treating all such cases as simple and clear-cut, we've often failed to help people of both sexes who badly need it, and sometimes only aggravated the problem.
Why do women stay in abusive relationships?
Security. Yes, he beats her. But, he also protects her. She's wanted, and so long as she accepts a beating or two she's safe from what could be even worse in the outside world.
You want to get an abused woman out of that sort of relationship you must offer her safety and security. Once you've done that then you can start teaching her about self reliance and independence.
Interesting: all these posts, and I think I'm going to be the first to mention the Hollywood mantra "rape isn't about sex, it's about power." Which makes me want to scream at the screen, `It's BOTH or either, you twits!` Ms. Paglia seems to take the view it is all sex, which I think is just as wrong, but I suspect her emphasis is to make a point.
As to being drunk, well, probably the guy is too. Not an excuse, but a reason - called diminished capacity. And sometimes, eg a frat party, both parties should know better ahead of time, except the guy is probably hoping to find a consenting partner and may not be able to distinguish between such and a malleable drunk.
But sometimes, drunk or not, the guy (or group) knows very well he is in the wrong. That was the basis and conclusion of the Big Dan's case (later the movie mentioned starring Jodie Foster mentioned by another poster), with the added filip of finding that yes, prostitutes can be raped, too.
Hmm, I strayed from your question, didn't I?
Well, I think if you don't warn your child of either sex about when clothing is inappropriate (bikinis are for the beach, not the Mall!), drinking to excess, etc. you are foolish, inconsiderate, and placing your child at unnecessary risk.
You want to get an abused woman out of that sort of relationship you must offer her safety and security. Once you've done that then you can start teaching her about self reliance and independence.
Allan, the truth is that most battered women's shelters work on exactly these principles, and a growng number of people--social workers and researchers, cops, and prosecutors--are noticing that these principles do not work when put into practice.
There's a pretty good book out there you might want to read on this, written by a female researcher. I'll dig around for the title if you're interested. The "get her out, put her in a shelter, and get her away" mode of operation is appropriate in only a percentage of cases. It is increasingly becoming apparent that in a majority of cases, the way of handling it is much less simple and much more complex--and has to start with recognition that most (not all, most) abusive relationships are, in fact, abusive in both directions, and until it's treated that way, neither the women nor the men in these relationships are being well-served.
The tenacity with which some women will cling to abusive, destructive relationships (ones that endanger not only her own safety but the safety of her children) is so incomprehensible to me that I seriously question whether I, as a man, could ever truly grasp it.
On the other hand, I've been in abusive relationships myself, and have had difficulty seeing a way out. This had to do with self-esteem, with my perception of my options, and with the irrational desire to be loved at all costs.
But to stay with a spouse who is physically abusing you and your children (not to mention sexual abuse and emotional abuse, which can be just as damaging long-term) does seem to point toward a kind of pathology, since what *rational* person would leave themselves -- much less their children -- vulnerable to such mistreatment? While the cause might not be rational, it is real: battered women and men stay with their abusers. Some reasons are financial and legal, but some are emotional.
And *some* have to do with the victim's *need* to be abused. I'll admit that I have domination/abuse fantasies. I don't need to act them out now: They're just part of my erotic psychology. Ten years ago I needed to act them out.
And I think it's a person's *right* to act out their psychodramas. When children become involved, however, freedom tends to pale against responsibility.
I've got my comments at the DLJ blog -- it's kind of lengthy! But I am right with CP on this one!
After her first sentence, Paglia lost me. According to her "Boys will be boys" sums it up. I agree with Max. That's a crock. (By the way the Oscar winning movie mentioned is "The Accused" with Jodie Foster who is gang raped in a bar after getting drunk and dancing suggestively. Her co-star is Kelly McGillis as the prosecuting attorney. Absolutely riviting performances.) I don't feel too sorry for the idiot girl who gets drunk and gets raped at the frat house. When I was college age, I got drunk at parties too but I still knew better than to go off in the bedroom with a guy. However, nobody had any drug then that would incapacitate me either. It's not rare for that to be a factor now - spiking your intended victim's drink with the date rape drug.
However, violent physical rape is rape. If I'm minding my own damned business and get attacked and maybe murdered, I'm a damned victim. Don't tell me it's just that male sexuality is so overpowing and women are just so sexy. And I just need to move on with my life and GET OVER IT. That is BS. And it will be a sad day for America when every damn one of us women must carry a concealed weapon to walk safely down the streets of this country.
On to the next subject - abusive relationships. Women DON'T stay in abusive relationships. They only stay until they have the strength and the resources to get out and avoid elevating the abuse...like say to "murder" (the ultimate form of abuse). Men who like to abuse weaker individuals look for a women with low-self esteem. Just ask any family therapist. Trite but true. The woman with low-self esteem will put up with it for awhile, sometimes for years. She's been conditioned for most of her life to think of herself as unworthy and undeserving of respect and consideration. It started when she was very young. It might have been the way her parents treated her or the way school mates treated her or a combination of both. Each life has it's own history. Nevertheless without some kind of external influence she won't see her problem. Many women do get better and stop the cycle when they've been able to find a supportive friend or councellor.
As far as the repeat phenomena many women keep finding the same type of partner in an subconscious attempt to get the father-daughter relationship down right. Usually, there is some defect in how she feels about her father and vice-versa. They just didn't get along, there may have been some abuse, she never felt approval or love from him - the combinations are limitless. She is drawn towards men who remind her of him and each new relationship is an attempt to recreate that failed relationshiop which was so important to her that she wants to get it right for once. Again councelling is needed to get past this emotional time-warp.
I find Camille Paglia very interesting, amusing and sometimes even profound but on this I find a lot of what she says is downright absurd. There's a little bit of this particular essay that makes sense but not much.
Dean -
Thanks! I have three little girls, the oldest of whom is almost six. Although we have several years to go, I'm already working on my "Boys are scum" speech. Although I sometimes think Prof. Paglia goes a bit off the deep end (as in her "Camille of Arabia" shtick), with regard to this sort of thing, she nails it. Going to take a copy of her piece and work it in to my stump speech. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Since this quote seems to be getting so much support, let's pick out a few choice phrases:
Call me crazy: I do.That statement alone is patent nonsense. Am I in Bizarro-land here???
Question: has this stupid bitch ever been raped?And the crap goes on:
Yeah, and maybe she's financially dependent on the guy.I cannot find words to express my contempt. All of who are expressing your agreement with this woman: can you at least disassociate yourself from the tripe I just quoted??
Patterico,
Insightful, cogent words. Paglia is a tenured
University professor that is no longer the poster child for the causes she expouses. She has real and honest contempt for current gay culture and places religious culture at a higher level. I do not disrespect her when she is expressing honest opinion but much of what she has written is pablum for the masses that want to hear such commercial and psychobabble blather and desire to expound on it. She has a good mind but folks seem to hear only what fits their current propaganda mode.
To bring this back to what I believe is the main point of paglia's piece, middle-class suburbia glosses over male sexuality in the worst way. How else can you explain 12-year-old girls who have no problem wearing *thongs* to school and half-shirts with the words "porn star" emblazoned across their chests? When I was 13, we didn't have anything near that kind of blatant sexual advertising going on. Girls dressed like Madonna, but that's a quantum leap below "porn star."
Feminism says: "you should be able to dress like a slut and men should just shut up and live with it." But male sexuality plays off female titillation. And you throw in alcohol or whatever other drugs are going around and it's a recipe for disaster. Not *rape* like a man opening a woman's window and waiting for her to come home from work.
I have a daughter. Thankfully, she's only two. But when she gets old enough, every guy she dates will come to my house, and I will explain to him that I know exactly how his mind works and he'd better think again before trying anything with my daughter. And for my daughter, I plan to caution her against the wiles of the male mind. Don't flirt to get attention, because you might get attention you don't want. Alan Alda was a myth (who is alan alda, she'll ask). Most men are not enlightened. Deep down, we're pigs. Some of us have learned to control it, and learned that there are higher things to pursue, but it's a lot like "Lord of the Flies."
I am reminded of the case from Florida where the guy posted all these crude stories on the Internet about his "conquests," one of whom happened to be Ms. Maryland or some other state. She sued to have them removed. Unfortunately for her, the internet is not so easy to scrub clean. Dig up the posts if you want to see the male mind in its full sickness. Of course, the women he had sex with were more than willing.
And finally, Paglia is right that sex is something we can't control. How many relationships are marred by sex? Not physically marred, but "different" after sex enters the equation? it's the proverbial genie in the bottle. Sex upsets the status quo, and it's a mistaken notion of feminism (or enlightened 20th century postmodernism) that sex is just like playing nintendo or something.
As for the battered-woman motif, again, that's a cloudy issue. I agree with Dean that the root causes are not as simple as oppressor/victim. But I can't say that I totally agree with Paglia's assertion that it's all just "hot sex."
"Cannonball Camille" again. Sex _is_ power. sex is power and danger in its very essence. Sex is sin and sacrament, holy and profane, Divine and demonic, Divine holy sacrament, "the total passion for the total height", and always on the edge of falling into the total abyss of sacrilege and abomination. Contrary to the view of some naive liberals, Leftists, the "Naturalists", sex in man and in woman is not and never can be merely neutral. Conservatives, Rightists, anti-Leftists, tend to understand this intuitively. Yes, Camille Paglia is extreme, a Right-Wing Extremist? -- Extremely Right! My enemies Santorum and Scalia, my arch-enemy St. Augustine, were on to something, and Camille Paglia learned her Catholicism, her Italian Pagan Catholicism, well.
That's why Mrs. du Toit and Arnold Harris are dead on target here. Paraphrasing Nietzsche, I say to Woman: Thou goest unto Man? -- do not forget thy _gun_! I dream of seeing every woman armed and ready to shoot down every rapist. That is one of the chief reasons I totally oppose gun control. The Politically Correct feminists call Camille a "traitor to her sex". I say that any woman who advocates gun control is a traitor to her sex! Disarm a woman and you've raped her. And, conversely, an armed woman is a free, strong, powerful, clitoral, womanly woman. A gun in the hands of a woman is a symbol of her Holy Clitoris. I selfishly worship her, her Divine womanhood, her Holy Clitoris, her gun.
I am a man of hate. I hate rapists. I hate every rapist, all rapists, without exception, without excuses, without mitigation, without pity. Rapists are scum. The only good rapist is a dead rapist. I say: Shoot them all down dead without mercy. Rape is indeed about sex, it is anti-sex. It is the complete inversion, the profaning of the sacred, sacrilege, desecration, abomination.
I'm gonna quote something to you now, from Professor Murray S. Davis's "Smut: Erotic Reality/Obscene Ideology", the most profound book on sex I have ever seen. In a footnote to a discussion of the Marquis de Sade's proposal to legalize rape, he notes this:
"Although they are not given to arguing from social calculus, Gnostics could contend that changing the final arbiter in sexual decision-making would shift power from the attractive to the less attractive, from the minority who are desired to the majority who desire them. Conversely, it would shift displeasure from the larger group, who now often have to abstain from the sex they desire, to the smaller group, who will now often have to submit to the sex they dislike. Of course, the repurcussions on the fashion, cosmetic, and celebrity industries would be enormous, for as many would then try to avoid looking like one of the 'beautiful people' as now aspire to do so."
In other words, if rape were legalized, women would make themselves ugly and shroud themselves in burqas as they do in the Muhamedan lands. That is why I selfishly oppose legalizing rape. Rapists are the enemies of beauty. I want women to be beautiful and to display their pulchritude proudly. I want to look upon them and to long for them and to be forced -- at the point of a gun -- to discipline my desires, to yearn and strive and wait till Christmas before opening my presents. Lust is good and is all the more intense as it is forbidden. I am an elitist. I want the desired, the desirable, to have all the power. I want that tiny minority of the attractive to wield the whip. I want to worship the Goddess with the gun.
Speaking of psychobabble blather, permit me to say:
When the chips are down the horse is empty.
Since you posed the question Patterico:
I see her point in the way she is making it. That being - she sees " the sexual impulse as egotistical and dominating,"
Nonsense? If one can see this as exerting control, i.e., dominating the other and self-serving, why is it impossible to understand that rape is possible?
I don't see that she is condoning it-only understanding how it is possible when viewed the way she states.
'My Sixties attitude is, yes, go for it, take the risk, take the challenge--if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street, it's okay.'
I take this as meaning not that rape is okay, but that you, the woman will be okay. It is NOT the end of the world; Which is quite different than how we reflect on it now. There is no discussion on the various situations, levels of violence, etc. She is not defining it and those of us who read it define it for ourselves, as Catch22 seems to point out. And therein lies the problem.
"'everyone knows throughout the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot.'
Yeah, and maybe she's financially dependent on the guy."
and maybe and maybe and then again, maybe.
We're still not in the 19th c.
" can you at least disassociate yourself from the tripe I just quoted??"
so sorry, no.
I read it differently than you do.
and that's okay.
MacKinnon and bell hooks can really get my ire up though as well as all the 'herstory' nonsense.
http://gos.sbc.edu/p/paglia.html
I lifted the following as way to give just a bit more context to where Paglia is coming from.
What I represent is the essence of the Sixties, which is free thought and free speech. And a lot of people don't like it. A lot of people who are well-meaning on both sides of the political spectrum want to shut down free speech. And my mission is to be absolutely as painful as possible in every situation.
"So I've been attacking what I regard as the ideology of date rape. At the same time as I consider rape an outrage, I consider the propaganda and hysteria about date rape equallyoutrageous from the Sixties point of view, utterly reactionary from a Sixties point of view. And I will continue to attack it. And I will continue to attack the well-meaning people who think they're protecting women and in fact are infantilizing them."
I am not seeming to point out anything and there isn't any problem.
I am saying the whole subject matter is horse-sh*t. It is theoretical cra*p. that Paglia has to write about to earn her media living that Dean's World is peddling.
There is no parent on this planet that needs to listen to or read such nonsense.
So please do not seem to speak for me.
Apologies to you Catch22.
I did not presume to speak FOR you, but was picking up on your last line - that 'folks seem to hear only what fits their current propaganda mode.'
Perhaps there is a problem in the way I wrote it.
I agree with your point in the comment you made then and was only referencing it. As you stated, you "do not disrespect her when she is exressing honest opinion..." and I agree with you. Paglia has entertainment value. But, she is also smart and there are nuggets of wisdom and common sense within her lengthy diatribes.
The problem that I was referring to - is that people see what they want to see depending on what they are thinking or feeling at the moment. I don't think that was a slight on you. I'm sorry you read it that way.
And herein lies the problem, I was referencing your comment and not on what you commented.
It was easy to take it both ways given the way you phrased the last line.
Patterico: Since this quote seems to be getting so much support, let's pick out a few choice phrases:
"I see the sexual impulse as egotistical and dominating, and therefore I have no problem understanding rape."
Call me crazy: I do.
Ah. Well what is it about it that you do not understand? The mechanics? Or what would drive someone to commit such a crime? Or what it would be like to be its victim?
I am perfectly capable of understanding all those things. They disturb me, but I understand them.
That statement alone is patent nonsense. Am I in Bizarro-land here???
I'd have to say you're in some sort of odd mental state if you cannot understand such a simple, brutal, harsh, cold reality.
Question: has this stupid bitch ever been raped?
According to her, in her other writings, no, but she has known and been close to women who have been. She, and rape victims she's known, very much resent the attitude that's so common these days, that rape is such a horrible violation that it scars and practically destroys you for life, that you're in "constant recovery" from it and all that. For them, for many women (and for many men) it is no worse than being horribly beaten up or possibly stabbed. Yes, horrifying. The worst thing that could ever happen to you? Many can think of worse, and it's rather infantalizing and demeaning to rape victims to pretend otherwise.
Maybe you should spend more time trying to understand what people are saying and less deciding to be outraged and dismissive?
"everyone knows throughout the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot."
Yeah, and maybe she's financially dependent on the guy.
Yeah, maybe Patterico, but if you learn anything about the actual problem of domestic violence you will learn that is, in fact, the least common scenario.
Indeed, leaping to that as your conclusion is a damned good way of demeaning women--yes, even battered women--the vast majority of whom are not so helpless or without alternatives.
When you stop seeing domestic abuse through the lens of "big bad man traps helpless woman" and start seeing it as a complex and horrifyingly codependent thing--which it is in the vast majority of cases--you start to lose this outrage-attitude you're obviously nursing, and hopefully start thinking of ways to deal with the problem that are more effective than just expressing outrage.
All of who are expressing your agreement with this woman: can you at least disassociate yourself from the tripe I just quoted?
I think she's a little to dismissive with the "it's okay, just brush off your clothes and move on" stuff, since it's a bigger deal than that--I get it, but it's a bit much.
But why would I disassociate myself from someone who says she has no trouble understanding rape? I have no trouble understanding it either--and I wonder what mental block makes it impossible for you to understand it.
Furthermore, why would I disassociate myself from someone who notes the cold, brutal reality that domestic abuse is, in fact, a very complicated subject, one that invariably involves two dysfunctional people and not just one? Let me tell you something, my friend: I know far more about domestic violence, from both a very deep personal perspective and from an objective research perspective, than 90% of the people in this world. I don't need to be lectured by people like you about it, okay?
You need to get a grip, pal.
Robert the Llama Butcher: I very much hope you do not tell your little girls that "boys are scum."
Boys are not scum. Boys are quite wonderful. Most are honorable, decent, and trustworthy. Young men between the ages of about 13 and 25 are, however, sexual cauldrons on a constant low simmer. Especially when drunk, especially in places where there is little adult supervision, especially in settings where the normal rules of civilized behavior are not observed.
Young girls in particular need to get a grip on this reality.
Young women need to be careful. Young men should have their sexual urges channeled in healthy and productive ways--not ways that humiliate them and treat them like scum, but which acknowledges, and teaches them, what rape is, why it's wrong, why they need to protect the women in their lives, why rape is a dishonorable thing, and so on.
I really quite liked John Kusch's analogy--toying with a young man sexually is like toying with a cat with a piece of string. It may be fun, but you may be scratched, and while the cat may need to be punished, you should have realized what could happen going in.
In short: you need to take care of yourself, and not be foolish just because you wish the world was different from how the world actually is.
I'm thinking that most of the people who don't get all this seem like they aren't even trying to understand. Indeed, I find it telling that they aren't arguing with anything Paglia says, saying why it's wrong, but are merely declaring her words "outrageous" or to be "crap." That's not a rebuttal, and that's not an argument.
Ah well.
Catch 22: As it happens, while I take exception to some of what Paglia says, I see a great deal of wisdom in most of it. Indeed, I think she says things that badly need saying, badly need discussing.
Furthermore, I am not "peddling" anything. At least not at the moment, although I'm getting so financially tight these days I may well soon start taking advertising. Then, I suppose, you can accuse me of "peddling."
But in any case, in looking at all the comments you've ever left here, I note one consistent pattern: you very much seem to enjoy declaring things to be "crap." You diss my work, you diss other webloggers' work, and now, you diss the works of published authors I find provocative and very worth discussing.
Indeed, I find it rather shocking any time I see a comment from you that isn't snearing and demeaning.
In short, most of your comments are shallow crap.
May I gently suggest that you hit that "X" that closes the Dean's World window? Thanks, bud.
Dean, a teacher I know once described kids in the teenage years as 'bags of hormones in running shoes', which does seem to cover it.
Paglia's comment about " wild, infectious delirium of gang rape" makes my skin crawl. Maybe it's so for gang types; having once been in on the aftermath of a gang rape, the only 'delerium' I felt was a strong desire to grab and shotgun and a noose.
As various people above noted, we've got lots of kids, and teens & 20's with kid-level mentalities on the subject, dressing- and sometimes acting- like hookers and then getting pissed off when they're treated as such (much like boys dressing and acting like thugs, then screaming when they're treated as such). And some of them will get hurt, sometimes badly, and there will be screaming by them and idiot adults that it 'doesn't matter how they dress-act-behave, that doesn't count'. It does count. When Mike Tyson was being tried for rape, I mentioned at work that he may be guilty, but the girl was stupid, and some of the women just about went ballistic. "No means No, no matter what!" and "What would you say if it was your daughter?!?" When I pointed out that my daughter had been told that if you go to a bedroom with a drunk, horny guy who's been asking women for sex all evening, you're an idiot if you expect nothing to happen, they were horrified. Apparently asking a female to use her brain in such matters isn't allowed.
Somewhat rambling, but I've spent too much effort teaching my daughter to think and be realistic about situations to not throw some things in here.
"Wild, infectious delerium of gang rape": I honestly can't think of better words to express it. Riots are exactly the same way. You get a group psychology going, and all of a sudden people turn into animals.
I suppose "wild, infectious delerium" may sound like praise to some people. Is that what's getting people so riled? I suppose if she'd said "wild, horrifyingly infectious" or something....
I mean, do people not get this? Gang rape is rarely a planned thing, it's a horrible out-of-control mob scene, and the aftermath can be horrifying.
Then again, there's the other side of that delirium, where women become thrilled at being the center of a gang-bang--and now watch the eyes roll from people who don't realize that I've personally known women who enjoy exactly that sort of thing.
Go look up the history of Claudius' wife Messalina. It's not a legend, it's a true story. Two sides of a nasty coin. [shudder]
It's tough to discuss the Paglia piece, because it's written in a sort of fuzzy, intuitive way that makes it difficult to critique. There is some truth in there, but it's all clothed in this sort of "how can I be as offensive as possible?" rhetoric.
I speak as a deeply feminine, deeply masculine creature. I'm in a lot of ways a 17-year-old male in a 42-year-old female body. But I don't understand rape, because I don't connect sex with violence. Call me crazy.
What I do know, as a woman, is that we need to treat ourselves with respect. This means not walking alone at night. This means not inhabiting the outer extreme of our age group's customs in the way we dress. This means, above all, not getting drunk unless we trust the people around us.
And when we're older and only party on special occasions, it means generally having the right hardware on hand. I'm not a fan of the Browning Hi-Power, because I don't like nines. Let's say a .38 revolver, or a .40 Glock. Possibly even a .45 Government Model. And the latter carried cocked and locked, thank you very much.
Camille, I only play hard with people I trust to the bone. And they aren't the same people who might be inclined to rape me. It is a dangerous world, but I've tried to only bed men I actually like--one of my idiosyncracies.
And, FWIW, the crux of the matter could be "date rape," a term that appears designed to blur the line between bad sex and rape. There *is* such a thing as changing your mind, and it needs to be respected--but you still mustn't toy with a man. And rape is a lot more than simply sex you regret the next day.
By the way, Mark, I think you gave the wrong answer to the women at work when they asked you that question.
Well, it's not what I would have said. What I would have said was this:
"If my daughter was raped, the first thing I would do is hug her and hold her and tell her she was going to be okay. I'd tell her how proud of her I was for telling me, and how much I loved her. I'd ask her who did this and promise to do everything I could to either hurt the bastard personally, or get him in jail. Preferably both. Then I would ask her how it happened. If it was obvious she had made a mistake, I would urge her to learn from it, try to warn others about making foolish mistakes, but also urge her to try not not to feel ashamed or to let this destroy her life."
If it were my son who was raped (and I really do tire of people who smirk at that, it's not funny and it's not as rare as people think), my reactions would be only slightly different, mostly the same but a little more along the lines of assuring him that it did not make him less of a man, that I was proud of him, and so on. But otherwise, mostly the same.
Dean, I think the wording of 'wild, infectious delirium' definately got hackles up.
Please do not misunderstand, my feelings toward my daughter or son would be as you describe. I was giving a short answer to a particular point, as in, "Did I somehow fail to teach you, that you didn't see a problem with getting into that situation?".
The gang rape I saw the aftermath of was a coldly planned thing, and for such I have to think seriously about the death penalty. They didn't get caught up in the moment, they set it up, because they liked doing it.
Miss Attila, cocked & locked is definately the way to go.
Dean, I was not going to comment today and just read as I have many times.
What you said you would do if your little girl got raped just brought tears to my eyes.
I know a young girl that got raped by an older man and her Dad did the very same thing to her. She told me he too put his arms around her while she cried in his arms, so very very scared she would lose her Daddy's love. That would have killed that little girl more than the rape in that little girl's mind. That little girl needed to know her daddy would still love her no matter what and of course that rape tore that little girl to pieces. The little girl did not get that reassurance from her Mom instead the little girl was told what a bad girl she was and that little girl had to live with that.
You are right about a boy getting raped too and it does happen to boys all the time. It is just not told as much as it is with a girl. They can
be raped by other men and women. If somebody does not agree with you on that then they are foolish and stupid.
I am a grandmother now and I would want to kill someone that violated my grandsons. I do mean that Dean. That would be my reaction Period.
I have a teen aged grandson that I keep close to by communicating with him about such things. I have a teenage granddaughter as well.
You just took my heart away when you said what you would do if your son or daughter got raped. I just know what that little girl did and how her Dad loved her.
I have responded here.
Indeed, I am increasingly inclined to respond to such things by saying, "Shut up, bitch, and get me a beer." ;-)
HAHAHAHAHA!! Sorry, I just noticed that. You want pie with that?
What is up with all the gun talk?
Dean -
I reiterate: Camille Paglia is scorned and hated by most of the academic establishment. Not just for her views - but because her scholarship is pretty shaky (read Sexual Personae and you'll see what I mean). Again, I like Paglia but I like her because she's on the fringe.
I was responding to your assertion that somehow your "punishment" was worse than hers ... that the names you are called are worse than what she faces. I just don't see that.
I also don't really see how it matters: she continues to write, to publish, to give interviews - and you continue to do your thing. Thank goodness.
All is right with the world.
(See Janelle's comment way up above to see my views expressed very well.)
I agree with John Anderson: rape is about sex *and* power. Paglia simplifying it to being only about sex is just as misguided as traditional feminism simplifying it to being just about power. Boys *and* girls need to understand that actions have consequences.
Dean,
I'm late with this, and I haven't had time to read all the comments. Some quick thoughts...
* I generally like Camille Paglia, although I don't agree with her very much. The problem with her whole view is that she, being an atheist, completely leaves God out of the equation.
* It is stated in the Bible that when a man and woman have sex, they become "one flesh". This is true whether it's husband/wife, john/prostitute or rapist/victim. C.S. Lewis has pointed out that, "wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured." That's why rape is such a destructive thing. That's why it's preposterous and offensive to say it's no worse than "getting beat up".
* Humans are more that just rutting animals. We have souls. Again, Paglia's view completely ignores this.
* The whole conversation here seems to revolve around that whole "date rape" thing. And I agree that some women foolishly get themselves in bad situations. However, I have to ask, does all this "boys will be boys" stuff also apply to strangers attacking in a parking lot or breaking in a window? Should the victim in those situations comfort herself with knowing that sex is just a "dark force" and that she's really no worse off than if she were just beaten up?
Paglia is correct in one thing. Men are essentially violent. The issue is learning how to control that violence and use it for the benefit of others and yourself.
The thing that is missing is that with so many boys being raised by mothers who do not understand the violent nature of boys, no one is around to actually teach boys how to control themselves. Many single mothers either demand their sons entirely repress their violent tendencies, or lose control of their sons, or both.
Boys NEED to be told that they are essentially violent for a reason. And just as fire can burn a house down, or heat the house and cook the food if controlled, boys need to be taught how to control their violence. What they do NOT need is to be told that violence is always bad.
Essentially, boys need their fathers. And fathers need to both approve of the violent nature of their sons, and simultaneously teach them to use it properly. Here is a good article on the subject of how boys are being raised today, and how it turns them into either Wimps or Barbarians.
http://www.clairmont.org/writings/crb/winter2003/moore.html
In my opinion - the difference between getting beaten up and getting raped is like night and day. I think Paglia is too cavalier, although I agree with much of what she says in regards to personal responsibility, and taking care of yourSELF.
But - if I got beaten up in an alley - if I got punched in the head, say - I don't feel like my identity, or that so much of who I am, my ME-ness (forgive the awkwardness of the wording) resides in my FACE, as much as I do not want that face to be punched.
But my vagina - my sex organs - those are MINE. I was taught that very early on, thank God: "You get to decide what happens there. Those are YOURS." To have that taken from me, against my will, is an outrage. Much more so than a broken nose.
It's so personal, so private.
Sex is tough enough. It's tough enough to have ownership over yourself, ownership over who you are - getting to know yourself enough sexually to say, "I like that" or "I don't like that". I'm not just speaking as a woman here - this goes for both sexes.
I know women who have been violently raped, and their senses of themselves are permanently altered. I am not saying people cannot recover, and bounce back, and transform that pain into something positive. Of course they can! I've seen it happen.
But women who say to me, "I would rather die than be raped" - I think lack some understanding of the possibilities of survival. In that sense, rape is definitely not the absolute worst thing that can happen to you - Death is much much worse. You CAN survive. That pain CAN be borne.
But still - having something (a penis, a bottle, whatever) shoved up inside your body against your will changes you forever - in a way that a black eye would not.
I'm speaking very personally here, sorry.
Another reply after reading all the responses. Having more time to think on this I realize I responded to only one part of it. One that has concerned me greatly becaue I lived in a university environment and saw girls basicly dressing like sluts, and it should be stated that not the major percentage dressed that way, yet the girls were actually so naive about the male ego and urges. I just don't understand why they weren't taught better.
But, on the abusive relationship thing, I believe that neither Ms Paglia, anyone else or even me, know why women or men stay in those relationships. I am speaking of physical abuse problems. I think that is something that cannot be relegated to giving one reason for a group when each individual has a different reason. There may even be some who stay for the reason she is suggesting. I just think it would be a very small portion of the whole.
Shell and Susan B. say well much of what I tried to say (quickly) in my comment.
I.e. Paglia's comments seem to apply to violent rape as well (that's how I interpret it when she speaks about a dark alley) and are far less appropriate in that context.
Also, rape is about sex and violence, and she seems to treat it like it's only about sex. That's nonsense.
As I said in my comment, my "celebration" comment was inaccurate. I put it that way because I was speaking emotionally rather than rationally, which is rare for me. I do see Paglia's statements as defending rapists, though, when read as a whole -- at least in that she appears to blame the victim more than the criminal.
There is assault and battery, and then there is assault and battery.
Read some police reports, some E.R. accountings.
There is getting punched in the head. Then there is having someone throw acid in your face, take a knife to your throat, beat your face so badly you can no longer eat or breathe properly.
You read about people who've had gasoline dumped on them and been lit on fire....
I once spoke to a man who, as an M.P., smashed another man in the face with the butt of his rifle. It was a somewhat-justified action, and the M.P. was never prosecuted. Yet his victim had to have most of his shattered teeth extracted, and his jaw and nose were so shattered he was in intensive care for a year and never looked human again, and the M.P. never got over what he had done to that other person. Even though it was a self-defense situation.
I am not playing a one-upmanship game here. Just to be clear.
This is a very ugly conversation, isn't it?
Rape is not about anger and eroticism. It is about hatred and power. The sex is not the point, it's the tool. The entire discussion is ridiculous -- especially from the mouth of a supposed feminist.
Omnibus Driver: Your view that rape has nothing to do with sex is merely dogma. It has never been anything but wishful thinking. Talk to psychiatrists who've treated rapists--it's all about sex for most of them.
"Feminists" don't get to unilaterally declare something to be a fact simply because they want it to be so. Sorry.
Dean,
RE: your comment regarding my comments. Isn't the subject of this particular post as you addressed it:
So What Do You Think ?
That is what I did and I did it only after the Patterico entry. After that the battlefield went into hyperspace. I acknowledge that some of my comments have not been graceful but I thought this was an open forum inviting comments. I do not dis-respect you or your readers in fact I do not even know them. I am responding to a computer screen which presents what I perceive as dis-information and mis-information. So I comment. That's all I have ever done. I have since read many comments on this post and the new one (DMZ) that doesn't particularly honor Ms. Paglia with praise.
So if I may continue to comment, I will do so with your permission. I do think I have some opinions to offer, however, I'm not one skilled in literary skills and I step on a few feet mostly my own. Peace
"Feminists" don't get to unilaterally declare something to be a fact simply because they want it to be so. Sorry.
Sure they do; they've been doing so for over forty years.
Isn't that why we're having this discussion?
Catch,
You keep on posting. Dean can take it. This place would be rather dull if everyone agreed with him. And, for the record, I don't think everything you post is shallow crap.
So saeth the Q.O.A.E.
I think that starting with Susan Brownmiller's writing on rape, feminists have done themselves and all women a disservice by painting all women as sexual victims and all men as potential sexual predators. While violence is a trump card for men, when that card is taken off the table women can display some pretty vicious behavior toward men. There is no fairer sex in my opinion.
Additionally, feminists do men a disservice by shrugging at how they suffer at the hands of other men. Men beat men. Men rape men. Men kill men. Rather than label men the problem, I agree with Scott Harris that they should label uncontrolled violence the problem and make sure boys and young men have strong male role models that can teach them how to control and focus the tempest within them that is creative as it is destructive.
I've been a real bastard on the gay marriage issue, for several reasons. I want to make it plain here that I'm capable of agreeing with Dean now and then.
Rosemary,
I am honored. I will try to be polite and courteous, tho I often have foot and mouth
syndrome and sometimes I am really scratchy
and need to itch a lot. Life is too short for bad wine and little humor. Andrew understands the nature of humor and we have had some good exchanges. So I shall post again as I have an equal opportunity keyboard.
Peace
John,
We are always bitches and bastards on issues that affect us so personally. No biggie. BTW, you are one heck of a good bastard. ;-)
You've agreed with Dean before and I'm sure you will again. One thing I really like about you,you have the integrity to display your agreement as well as your disagreement. You are consistent. So many others would just not comment at all.
Catch,
I thought your comments were right on. And I thought it was over the top to fault you for "dissing" Paglia by calling her comments "crap" -- especially given that so many of her comments that you called "crap" were, in fact, crap.
Dean,
Not that it matters in the whole scheme of things and I doubt that it would make a difference to the ones who despise Paglia, but - did you cobble this together so that it appears as one essay?
I seem to recall that you got it from Salon or something like that, but that's just stuck in my head. Maybe I read that somewhere else.
Parts of this are from the Newsday essay and parts are directly from interviews done with Playboy and Spin. Regardless, her main points and some of the most offensive are laid out. - Yet, Paglia's opinions on rape are on Date Rape and academe, what thoughts these young women are armed with when arriving at University and how modern feminism is doing these women a huge disservice. What bothers me most, is that some of the posters are either ignorant of her focus or don't care because all rape apears to be the same - just rape. It's where some of this 'emotion' is coming from.
If so and all rape is the same - then Paglia's comments are sure to 'sicken' some.
I am hardpressed to see any equivalence between the drunk sorority gal in the frat house who is oblivious to the hormonal jungle and its risks AND Serbian paramilitaries raping Bosnian Muslim women [after killing their men] in order to inflict the final humiliation on an entire culture.
Paglia's comments on date-rape, offered to real victims of violence where sex is one of the tools used against them, is sure to offend and no amount of discussion can be productive. Her comments are specifically to the college going, white middle class female who participates in candle holding 'Take Back the Night' walks [hopeless endeavor], the women who raise them, and the modern feminist who espouses male oppression and female victimization.
That this awareness seems to be missing from the posts of a number of folks, befuddled me until I grabbed my 1992 book. It's interesting to see the discussion go off to the outer limits when applying her opinions to one's grandmother being assaulted in the parking lot. Paglia's not that ridiculous nor full of doodoo in that realm to apply the same logic.
There are many themes running through the original topic and they are all getting mushed together in one essay and then in all the posts. All strong emotional topics and not divorced from one another, since Paglia herself migrates from one to the next. She just takes a little longer to get there then the posted topic suggests, despite her brevity.
Hmmm.
If I think this out clearly abit more - Paglia is very interested in sexual power - both female and male. In that context, she can draw upon varied instances where that plays out. Hence the comments on eroticism, danger, seduction, etc. and the revulsion when associating it with the subject of RAPE.
Hmmm again.
I don't know what to think right now, but as I like much of what she says, I'm aware that she is more sensitive to women's options and limitations than she appears to be in the excerpts.
I leave this here in this section.
Cheers
I came to this page very late in this discussion, but wanted to drop a thought anyway:
It seems to me that observer came closest to the mark on this one in his last post, pointing out that the comments are regarding modern feminists and "Date Rape". Another point she makes is that the majority of the ones she is referring to are middle-class white women (girls), who think they should be able to dress and act like sluts and not be expected to "put out". This is not to say that other groups don't have the same type of girls, but that one is far more prevalent.
Another point, however. It seems to me that she is also pointing out another thing alongside this: Teach your daughters that, while it is wrong for a man to force himself on her, that it should not be considered to diminish her or make her less of a woman, or less loved by her family. Also teach them that the RISK of something like that happening increases if they dress and act provocatively. Is it right? NO! But it HAPPENS. If they are taught to understand this, then if it happens, they will not be as devastated when it does, and if taught correctly, then they can still enjoy life and sex without being paranoid of it happening.
Regarding the "Sex and Violence" issue: If you read closely, Paglia is pointing out that, for men, sex is intimately linked with violence, and that they need to be taught to control and channel it so that they DON'T become lustful, raping pigs who only care for the excitement and pleasure of their next conquest. This is easier for some to do than for others. For myself, I recognized the powerful nature of my sex drive early on, and have been able to channel it into other endeavors, because I am very sensitive to others' pain, both physical and emotional. If I were not brought up properly, however, I might very well be one of the very animals that prey on unsuspecting little tarts who expect that they can lead men on in a bar to get them to buy drinks all night and then just leave with nothing more than a "See ya later!" as the bar closes. These girls, while they don't really deserve to get raped, do definitely deserve to be bitch-slapped so that a little sense might sink in. They are some of the ones Paglia was referring to, as well.
This has been one terrific thread that Camille Paglia has generated here. So many of the comments and commenters here are just saying so much. E,g.: John Kusch, Mrs. du Toit, Arnold Harris, Scott Harris, Dean Esmay himself, and, of course, me.
Dean is right. Girls must _not be taught that "boys are scum". They should be warned that _some_ boys _can_ be scum -- but that others choose not to be. And boys certainly must _not_ be taught that they're scum. They should be taught that they can _choose_ to be scum -- or not to be. Boys _and_ girls should both be imbued with a sense of honor, of chivalry, of that "reverence for oneself" which Nietzsche said was the stamp of a noble soul.
Susan B.'s comment was most interesting to me theologically.
"C.S. Lewis has pointed out that, "wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.""
I can only add to that this:
"wherever a woman lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."
and:
"wherever a man lies with a man, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."
Sex, in man and in woman, cannot be merely neutral. It is inseparably bound up with the most intense emotions, with love and with hate. We are, both men and women, inherently violent, aggressive, striving beings, but we must control and discipline this violence. Sex is violent, but it must be a tightly controlled, disciplined, sublimated violence and striving. I'm going to quote something else now, a passage which, more than any other I have ever read, sums up my feeling about sex:
"When they lay in bed together it was -- as it had to be, as the nature of the act demanded -- an act of violence. It was surrender, made the more complete by the force of their resistance. It was an act of tension, as the great things on earth are things of tension. It was tense as electricity, the force fed on resistance, rushing through wires of metal stretched tight; it was tense as water made into power by the restraining violence of a dam. The touch of his skin against hers was not a caress, but a wave of pain, it became pain by being wanted too much, by releasing in fulfillment all the past hours of desire and denial. It was an act of clenched teeth and hatred, it was the unendurable, the agony, an act of passion -- the word born to mean suffering -- it was the moment made of hatred, tension, pain -- the moment that broke its own elements, inverted them, triumphed, swept into a denial of all suffering, into its antithesis, into ecstasy."
-Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead"