What if AIDS (or other major STD's) or pregnancy enters the mix? Certainly being forced against your will to become pregnant would be a pretty major violation. Being forced to contract AIDS, of course, would be murder.

Like I said in the post below - it's a personal matter. Being punched in the face is different than being raped. There IS something precious and sacred, to me anyway, about my vagina - like I said: it's MINE, and a lot of ME, my identity, is there. To have that taken away is devastating. Much much worse than being punched in the head.

I can't explain it any better than that. I do think that sexuality is a precious gift, with something divine about it - and that sharing that with someone is one of life's blessings. To have it perverted, or used against you, or to have it taken FROM you - is, to my mind, a desecration of the act itself.

Maybe we're saying the same thing!

I think a lot of the issue lies with - not giving boys and girls a sense of ownership over that part of their body. Many of my girlfriends who ended up being in sketchy situations in college had to learn the hard way - that their genitalia is theirs, and THEY get to say who gets to visit. And one of my best friends (a male) lost his virginity to a prostitute, bought for him by his father on his 16th birthday - His experience with that woman was so - bad, let's say - it took him a long time to undo the shame of that experience - because he didn't feel like he got to say Yes or No to it. It was chosen for him, and she basically just TOOK it from him. He had no sense of agency in the act.

A lot of promiscuity, I believe, comes from a lack of a sense of ownership over their bodies.

Again, this is a personal thing - and perhaps people will not know what I am talking about.

But that's my take.

I think you are right in one of your broadest points, that we need to quit putting rape in this special category of violations that give it way too much power. There are lots of ways of being violated in this life, and it's like you said, you can either move on, or spend the rest of your life dwelling on it and make yourself miserable.

This always comes to my mind when they have a rape trial and The Accuser is never mentioned by name, and her face is never shown. I think this just gives more power to the rapist. As if, as a society, we are saying that people who are raped should be too ashamed to show their faces.

It also comes to mind when (like on Friday in the SF Chronicle) the relase of a Registered Sex Offender is front page news, so that people in the community to which he is being released can be warned. Yet release a convicted murderer, and there's need for a warning. Is this because being sexually assaulted is worse that being murdered?

Don't get me started.

Well. Pregnancy is one question. A single act of sexual intercourse results in about a 4% chance of pregnancy. At least 50% of pregnancies result in spontaneous miscarriage. Nevertheless, I've always thought that any woman who suffers this indignity should immediately be given a D&C, without even bothering with a pregnancy test, just as a sort of cleaning-out, no-questions-asked way of dealing with a horrific event.

Although most doctors will tell you that a good strong dose of birth control pills--say the equivalent of four days' dosage--will be nearly as effective.

Without doubt, however, this sort of thing adds a whole new level of trauma and pain for most women. I reject the notion that "a man cannot understand," but I do think it adds a whole horrible layer to the matter. I won't say I can't imagine it--I can imagine quite well I think, I've had the experience of seeing and feeling my child moving inside my wife's abdomen--but it's still horrific. And still more reason to hurt the criminal as badly as possible.

As for STDs: Yeah, I've known people who've picked up STDs that way. That does raise it to about the level of attempted murder I'd say.

Oh, but I completely agree (just to confuse things a bit more) - that the hysteria surrounding the rape-conversation, is completely counter-productive. It's too polarizing.

The date-rape hysteria on college campuses (yes, hysteria) has taken over the rhetoric and it drives me nuts.

There's a huge difference between a stranger breaking into your house and raping you, or pulling you off into the bushes - and getting drunk with someone you don't really know and letting yourself get talked into something you don't really want to do. And then regretting it the next day.

Take responsibility for your own safety. You cannot control what other people do, and bad things still will happen - but take responsibility for your own safety. That's the bottom line.

And when you say No, MEAN IT. Don't giggle and push the hand away, being afraid to hurt someone's feelings. Be CLEAR. I think too many girls are afraid of hurting someone's feelings, and have not been taught that THEY are the boss of their own bodies - and THEY get to say what happens. So when confronted with someone who wants to get down their pants, they don't know what to do. They don't know how to say, "No" effectively.

My own take is that rape is a particularly nasty form of assault and should be treated as such. I'm not sure what the situation is now, but back in my youth, reporting a rape subjected the victim to even more nastiness by the police and the courts. The assumption was that she/he was asking for it one way or the other.

Red: My only comment is that there is "being punched in the face," and then there is serious assualt and battery, the kind that breaks bones, leaves scars, possibly leaves you walking with a limp and in a certain amount of pain for the rest of your life. I know a person who was physically assaulted so badly, whose throat was cut to severely the nerves to half the face were permanently severed.

I talked to an Irishman a year or so ago about a guy who made the mistake of mouthing off about the IRA in the wrong bar, and got both his legs cut off in an alley one night--and still has some people laughing behind his back at what a fool he was.

The human animal can be very dangerous, and very ugly.

Dean -

Absolutely. Of course, the world is an ugly place - to both sexes. Like I said in one of the comments below - there are things much worse than rape. I could list a ton of examples. We mustn't pathologize the experience so much that we lose perspective.

I was trying to make the point that identity IS tied up, to some degree, in our sexuality, let's say. Or - our sex organs. Many of the date-rape situations discussed have a lot to do with people not treating that part of their body with respect - cherishing that part of themselves as something THEY get to say what happens to.

Anyway, that's why I look at my own sexuality as something precious, something to be guarded over and protected. I'm not gonna give it to just ANYONE, because it means something to me.

Oops, one last thing, and then I truly will shut up:

I really think a distinction needs to be made between stranger-rape and date-rape. Which is a lot of what Paglia is about. She says that women are now taught that any uncomfortable or bad sexual experience could be seen as a rape, and that is nonsense.

Half of what I said above is in regards to date-rape.

Stranger-rape is a whole other animal, in my book.

Dean, having walked into the foray of the rape topic myself, I know all too well how it brings out real anger and hostility in commenters--more so than any other topic.

And I think that should be a clue. When people respond that way, with uncontrollable rage at having their assumptions challenged, there's something else going on.

It is on this issue, like no other, that I get really depressed about women's attitudes. There are men who repeat the 70s mantras too, but women are the worst offenders.

They (meaning "some"--generalization alert) will not talk about the subject like adults. If you dare bring up the subject it must mean that you don't think rape is an awful thing.

And you are also correct--it is NOT the worst thing, further, believing it is the worst thing is empowering to rapists. They are getting off on your humiliation and powerlessness.

Even back in the 70s, when I took a "rape awareness" class in high school, they gave us a list of tips/tricks to reduce your risk. Things like not looking vulnerable (walk with confidence), not acting frightened and going into the "please, please don't hurt me" mode. I remember one story of a woman who, upon being confronted by a rapist, picked her nose and put the snot on the guy's shirt. That simple act was enough (in that instance) to put the guy off.

It's no different than burglary, in terms of prevention. Don't leave your door unlocked. Don't put your purse/keys on a table near the front door that is visible from a front window. Keep your door and windows well lit, or difficult to get to (spikey bushes). We can talk about burglary prevention and people can talk about it reasonably, but when we talk about rape, the classic response is, "well men shouldn't DO that."

Well, that's not going to keep you safe. That is NOT going to stop it from happening.

Far too many women REALLY do live in fantasy land. They really think that if they walk around with crystals (or the like) in their pockets, and think positivity about the universe, that bad things do not happen. That is sooooo perversely childish.

The really ironic thing, is that attitude is the equivalent of "I choose not to worry my pretty little head about it." The fact that it is often militant feminists putting out this shit is even more shocking. If a man said that to a woman she'd go ballistic, but when women operate within this secret "I'm safe because I think I am, I think I am" mode, it is EXACTLY the same message we fought against in the 70s. If women don't behave like adults, if they don't confront REAL dangers with REAL solutions, it's no wonder women are still treated by many men as second class citizens--and CONTINUE to get raped.

Arm thyselves, girls. And it isn't about actually having to use the gun (but you damn well better learn how to use it properly). The act of taking responsibility, and the cock-sure "don't even THINK about fucking with me" demeanor it produces, adds confidence to your carriage and reduces your risk IMMEDIATELY!

You've often heard it said that rape is about power. Well, REAL rape IS about power, or maybe about the feeling of powerlessness. Date-rape on the other hand is probably more about sex, and perhaps misunderstanding.

My sister was "raped" statutorily at the age of 13 by a 19 year old. Of course when she was 13 she looked like an 18 year old. And she will admit today that she was just as much at fault at what happened. She provoked the guy and led him on, not telling him her age. She wanted to play with fire and she got burnt. Did it affect her? You bet. Does she believe the guy was trying to hurt her? No. She acknowledges that she made a bad decision.

But when a woman is REALLY raped, then a man is violating her at the source of her identity. Women naturally hold the reins in consensual sexual relationships. It is women who call other women "sluts" for "giving it away." It is women who have historically held the power of sex.

Why is that men have "scored" if they bed a woman? It is because men want it, and women have it. If it were not for sex, men wouldn't have any use for women, and women would truly be powerless before men who are physically superior in terms of strength and the willingness to use violence. It is the power of sex that tames the man, or it should.

I once heard a comedienne joke, "I can have sex any time I want. All I have to do is go to a bar and let it be known I am interested, and I will have multiple volunteers." Men cannot say the same thing. If men could, then women would be buying the drinks, and paying for the dates, not men.

I think both men and women do not fully comprehend the power that women have over men in the arena of sex. But Madison Avenue understands it. Why do women's magazines have article after article teaching women how to enhance the looks (i.e. their sexual power) and how to use their power to manipulate men. And why do men enthusiastically volunteer to be manipulated through porn, and relationships?

It is not bad for women to have this power. It balances out the power men have in other areas of life. Without this power that women possess, the world would be out of kilter. But we do need to be honest about that power, and expect women to use their power responsibly for the benefit of themselves and society in the same way we expect young men to harness their violent tendencies for the benefit of others.

In the midst of all this power play, there are some men who refuse to control themselves. And there are also women who use their power to manipulate men (prostitution and porn.) Sometimes, unsuspecting women are violated 1)by men who care only for exercising their power, and/or 2) by men who themselves have come to feel powerless and strike out.

But whenever it happens, it a violation of more than a woman's sexuality. It is a violation of the seat of a woman's authority in relationships. It has the potential to damage her ability to trust indefinitely. And this violation of trust and authority, more than the sexual violation, is why Rape is evil.

On the other hand, I have little sympathy for women who assert a right to flaunt and abuse the power they have over men, and then be shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, when a man she has been toying with returns the favor.

Better that we all learn to acknowledge, respect, and value others, and learn to use the natural power we have been given to the benefit of ourselves, those we love, and society at large. This takes the patient nurturing and REALISTIC instruction of our children. Boys should be and are taught to constrain their violent natures. Girls should also be taught to control themselves in an appropriate manner.

The power that men and women have over each other is meant for good. Societies which oppress women because they fear their sexuality are out of balance, and are doomed to fail. But the very fact that these societies exist (see Islam) should be instructive to women that men really do fear women in this way, because many times we do feel powerless to the women in our lives. This can be abused. But it should be of benefit to both men and women.

I tell my daughters that girls who give it away waste their power and diminish the power that other girls should have. And those who flaunt their sexuality are at least negligent, and might be abusive. As a father, I cannot teach my daughters how to effectively use their sexuality. Thank God they have a mother for that.

But I can honestly let them know that they are NOT powerless, and let them know that the game of sex and power between the sexes is wonderful and fun if played within certain boundaries. Outside those boundaries, it is dangerous, and uncertain.

I teach my son to control his violent nature, but I do not condemn his violent nature. I also do not condemn the nature of my daughters, but I do want them to control themselves - to be empowered to make wise choices that will accrue to their benefit, not their harm.

The thing to remember is that rape is, more than anything, a control issue. The horrific thing about rape is not the act itself, exactly, but about the loss of control that accompanies it. Control is a very important part of an individual's self-image, and the trauma of feeling that it can be taken away at any time is the legacy of rape.

Of course, rape is not the only way that control can be taken from someone, and rape does not necessarily take away that sense of control. So you can get the equivalent of rape trauma from another type of assault, and the level of trauma depends on the victim.

Damn Dean. You sure know how to get things started. Maybe I need to stick a progressive thug label on ya too. :)

Back to the topic. I can had way too much to this conversation since I've seen both men and women raped in my street gang days. I've also seen men and women beat up, drugged out, and OD'd. And none of them were worse, IMO. The beat up walked around permanently disfigured physically and mentally. The drugged out were walking zombies whom you could break their arm and they wouldn't feel it, only the drug. And the OD'd just died horribly.

But one thing about rape that stings me is how both female and male rape victims both feel that they have loss something. That loss scared me then and scares me know. The loss can turn into anything: rage, depression, etc. And people that feel an integral part of their self has been stolen are dangerous; to themselves and others.

Durbin, and that was Paglia's point--why she sticks it to us so grossly. You say, and the meme goes, "rape is about control." OK. I'll concede that point. So how does Paglia confront that?

Sex is about control.

They are indistinguishable. Women consenting to sex is about handing over control--it is an extension of trust (or in the case of forced rape, the TAKING of control). The orgasm is a "letting go" of control--allowing the body to take us over--letting go of phyical conventions and release.

It would be correct to say that it is "about sex" and it is "about control." It's the same thing.

That's one of the reasons Paglia pisses people off so much. She concedes the point that it is "about control." My gawd, if you suggested otherwise you'd be run out of town on a rail. But she takes it that next step... and the only response to her argument is "SHE'S SICK!" Classic denial.

BTW, as an extension of my comments above, there are women who are afraid of the power they have, and want to deny that it exists. This is a combination of ignorance, and the desire to shirk responsibility.

Part of being a parent is educating our children not to be ignorant. And another part of being a parent is demanding that our children take on the appropriate amount of responisibility at the appropriate times in life. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding about this issue has to do with the extension of adolescence in our modern times, and with it, the unwillingness of parents to treat their children like adults.

I believe that we should make more demands of our children than we normally do. They are not fragile. And they want to be able to show they can handle situations when demands are placed on them. This builds true self-esteem, and if, God forbid, something happens that violates that self-esteem, then it is more likely to recover quickly if built on a firm foundation of real responsibility and accomplishment. Girls who KNOW who they are and value who they are, are much more likely to refuse to allow adverse experiences to permanently damage them.

"rape is about control." OK. I'll concede that point. So how does Paglia confront that?

Sex is about control.

They are indistinguishable...

Mrs. du Toit, did you just make a exact comparison between the control exerted by the rapist and the 'control' a sexually attractive woman holds over a man? An exact comparison? Well, you know what, that is sick - and you're the only one in denial with your faux-indignation at the results when you spout off these incredible relativisms. Un-be-lieveable.

Dean, I take exception, again to your comments.

One of the worst things I think our culture has done to rape victims...As if having it happen to you is so severe, so horrible, so unthinkable, that, really, suicide might even be preferable.

You know, I think that rape-councilors et el might take some umbrage at that characterisaing. Suicide might be preferable. Where do you come up with that?

We need to stop treating rape like a religious matter, like a sacrosant event, like the most unimaginable possible violation.

Dean, again, what's with the mischaracterisation? One can consider rape to be one of the worst possible violations (I do - the idea of being raped sickens and frightens me more deeply than any physical assault short of torture does) without mytholigising it or considering it sacrosanct (???).

but one that any strong person can recover from, can move on from.

The implication here being that only weak people find it extremely difficult to recover from. I reject that entirely. Different people respond in different ways, some find it easier or harder, but I wouldn't characterise them as weak or strong dependent on how they react. I smacks of blaming the victim to me.

As for the rest of Mrs. du Toit's spiel, I won't even start with this veteren. She types too quick for me anyhow.

First of all, that was a fantastically thoughtful post.

Now as far as rape goes, while I agree with some of Dean's opinion, I DO think that there is something extra-horrible about rape. It is a violent interpretation of an act that also happens to be the ultimate expression of love. Having such a violent experience imprinted on your sexual psyche has ramifications beyond the fear and pain of the act itslf.

I'll give you an example: I've had my ass kicked many, many times. Been knocked out with a bottle, mugged (attempted) with a cheap-shot from behind, etc. etc. But in the course of my daily life, I am not forced to overcome an association between any of those events and something that is typically a positive, normal behavior (like sex). The only thing that brings up memories of getting hit over the head is, well, getting hit over the head again.

I think a big part of the problem is control, and who has it (or doesn't have it). Lots of groups approach the situation differently, based on what will give them the biggest FEELING of control (not actual control). Perhaps, rape as the result of risky/dangerous behavior is less horrifying for the victim because they have a sense of "hmmm, I can avoid this in the future by NOT doing these things". RAPE IS WRONG but in that situation the victim has a way to justify in his/her own head the TEMPORARY loss of control. What about the victim that is dressed practically like a nun and raped during her daily walk through a "safe" suburb? There was absolutely nothing she/he could do, no risky behavior to avoid in the future. Thats a complete loss of control which could be repeated at any time. I think that more damage is done from the lack of control than from the physical act. Its not about "sex", its about control (although sex occassionally has tones of domination that confuse the issue)

Then, there are secondary victims (family and friends, activist groups). I've actually seen a girl tell her parents she was raped, in high-school. She was a nice girl, in a safe situation, doing nothing questionable. She never did anything "questionable". I had always thought her parents were normal, until that point. They turned on her like a pack of wild-dogs, calling her a "drunk lieing whore". They made her answer questions like "well, what were you wearing?" and "did lead him on?" and "if you fought back, why aren't you beat up?" I graduated and went off to college a few months later. I heard from other friends that things got worse. Drug tests, doctors visits, waking her in the middle of the night to "discuss" it, making her write letters seeking counsel and advice from her clergy and school administators, etc. I don't think they were trying so much to punish her as trying to seize some sort of control over the situation, so that they wouldn't have to deal with the fact that the world is a dangerous place and that sometimes their children will be hurt in spite of all reasonable protections.

There are activist-groups/politicians that can "spin" the issue to control a social adgenda. They aren't really interested in the victim's personal power and control either. They're generally more concerned with how the crime can be used to further their own adgenda. Thats painting groups with a broad brush, and I'm sure there are exceptions.

Then, there are friends. They generally neither have nor want any sense of responsibility or control over the victims life. They don't define the victim by the crime. Instead of being a rape-victim/survivor, the person is just a friend that happened to be raped (or mugged, or stabbed).

You're doing exactly what I said many people do, Max. You're immediately asserting a tolerance for rape in wishing to look at the issue dispassionately.

OK, here's another one:
I eat. I buy my food at the grocery store. I do all that because I'm hungry--hunger drives people to do all sorts of things, some good, some awful.

(Insert reference to Les Miserables here, as a classic case of hunger driving reckless and dangerous behavior.)

I pay for my food and I earn the money to pay for it.

Some people steal their food.

What drives that behavior? Is it not ALL based on the same core feeling, HUNGER?

So is hunger bad/evil or good? Hunger just is--we place a value judgement on HOW it is sated, not that fact that we do satisfy it.

That seems to be what you concluded from the issue of "control." Is control/power bad? Not inherently. But it can motivate someone in one way or the other: they can earn it and seek it honestly or they can steal it (in the case of rape).

Yes, I do type fast--about 120 wpm. Irritating as hell, I know.

I find myself feeling rather sad and sorry for Paglia. Her view of sex and control, and violence and control, and women and control, and men and their lack-of-control seem to be nothing more than an elaborate attempt to convince herself that women are in control of the situation. It must a tiring and depressing world-view.

Great post, Scott Harris. Awesome, really.

"learn to acknowledge, respect, and value others, and learn to use the natural power we have been given to the benefit of ourselves, those we love, and society at large"

There's the rub. Kudos Scott.

Wanted to get into it regarding the whole 'giving it away wastes and diminishes their power' but cannot find the time. Simply stated; base your power in who you are.

Give everything you can to everyone you know.
All those who exist are unique, independent universes with their own truths and their own realities.
Understand and accept this and you will know the answer.

-quote from The Dead Guy

Here's some advice, Ms. Du Toit: if you don't mean it, don't say it. You drew a direct equivalence between the two types of control - one being the coersive type and the other being non-coersive - and that is why people find you to be a contraversialist and offensive. The hunger analogy doesn't fit in anywhere. You're making a different point. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

So what you are implying Max, is that I am incapable of differentiating between control which is acted out as a crime (as in rape) and control which is acted out with consent? And you are inferring that I was suggesting that there is no difference, because that's the way you interpreted what I wrote?

You just admitted, you asshole, that there are multiple types of control because you listed them (coercive and non-coercive), but because I didn't specifically list them, but you thought of them, therefore I didn’t really mean that? Maybe I was treating people like adults, rather than Kindergartners and expected they’d ALSO understand that.

Who's fucking with people's intentions here?

How bout this? Try giving people the benefit of the doubt, like I did in trying to clarify the point with another example of analogy that I thought might help explain the point I was making. Instead, you refuse to even consider that the analogy I gave explains what I intended to express--that which you MISUNDERSTOOD.

...and that is why people find you to be a contraversialist and offensive

[emphasis mine]

Generalizations and appeals to authority now? Geesh.

Where EXACTLY did I state that all power is equal--that all control is equal, and that there is moral relevance to sating a desire for power in one way or another?

You have successfully changed the subject from one of discussing if sex and power/control are synonymous to one of attacking me personally. Care to stick with the topic or would you like to try to assassinate my character and intentions some more?

Hi :-)

I found this site from my blogsnob ad.

I found what you had to say was very very interesting. I liked the way you worded everyhting and it was very thought provoking.

As a woman who has fortunately never had such a horrible experience, I can't speak from personal knowledge. I did, however, once have a college roomate who had been raped (in high school) by her boyfriend. She used the rape as an "excuse" for her not being albe to get intimate with a man. That would be all well and good if I hadn't found out a few days later that she had slept with at least 4 different men within 3 months.

Nevertheless she continued to use the rape as a constant source of pity-grabbing.

It sickened me to no end. It was obvious that she was not traumatized by it- she only wanted people to think that. Her life had gone on. The man who raped her was dead (drowned - unrelated).

I think I agree with you. I think that as it is with any horrifying experience (be it a rape or stabbing or what-have-you) people DO move on and live their lives through, and rape should not be treated as any worse than other violations.

Women should not have to put up with rape (as seemed suggested by Paglia), but we shouldn't let it tear us down either. I'm not saying they should just brush it off. There will be a healing period, as with all violations. But is should be something to survive from and teach others about.

I don't know if what I wrote had any revelence to your post but it just rolled out of my head LOL

Thanks for the good read :-)

Not only is this off-topic, but I'm crossing swords with Mrs. du Toit. Bringing me to question my sanity today.

(Insert reference to Les Miserables here, as a classic case of hunger driving reckless and dangerous behavior.)
I thought that was wonderful book, it spoke to me of overcoming the physical hardship. After all, Jean rose from being a hungry convict and took Cosette with him, and Marius rose from being a hungry lawyer.

That's another thing I like about the book: starving lawyers.

Dean,

The portion you say you disagree with is the portion that offended me the most, and the main portion that I quoted, asking: "All of who are expressing your agreement with this woman: can you at least disassociate yourself from the tripe I just quoted??" I understand that you didn't say you agreed with all of it, which is why I specifically quoted that part, hoping that you and others would at least repudiate that part.

Now that you have done that, I am greatly mollified. That part was the part that jumped out at me; the possibility that anyone could agree with that was very distasteful to me. The suggestion that women can be jumped in a dark alley and that's "okay" because we can't regulate male sexuality is, I think, so clearly wrong that it's not even worth debating.

Not long ago, MSN's lead page offered an article on thirty things women wished men knew. Most were unexceptionable. The thirtieth was that--said the author--that women want their man to pick them up, carry them to bed, and take without asking.
The article did not break new ground. It's an old theme.
It's also difficult to reconcile with the discussion so far.
One individual, a guy as will be obvious, snorted and said the reason for this was to have a near-rape to hold over the poor chump's head if he were ever uncooperative.
However, to the extent that this theme exists in society, date-rape is more likely.
The guy, besides being horny, is asking himself if this is the time he's supposed to do it. If he doesn't, does he fail some kind of macho test.
Does no always mean no?
What if every guy took every no for no?
Just asking.

Frankly, I have NEVER understood the appeal of rape to other men. If my wife doesn't want me, I don't get any pleasure from sex. I may get an emotional release, but that is all it is, and it provides no satisfaction. It kind of pisses me off when she simply "services" me. Its like I wasn't worth the effort for her to emotionally engage that day.

So the concept of raping a woman is foreign to me. I doubt I could even get it up.

Well I am going to comment and straighten out my post yesterday.

One of my very first post was to Dean and how many people know he is well read and not to take on people that he will not be able to get to by referring to his views on all things. You don't need to, we are your fans and appreciate a wide varity of topics you impart out of your vast well read knowledge.

I sensed this subject was going to be difficult and threw in coming on down to Texas, drink some beer, go the the rodeo and go dancing with Rosemary. I even posted again in assuring you all were invited and those of us in the south would love to have you.

The next thing I ended up responding to was when a woman is attacked she is a victim AT THE TIME IT IS HAPPENING. She is being harmed, she is being hurt at the time it happened. I also felt if she was drinking and dressed not as she should be in her mind or what friends and family might suggest she did wrong is NOT a reason to be attacked. I spoke of my daughter being attacked because of alcohol in her. I did not say she was drunk, I did not say how she was dressed other than it could be assumed she was not dressed like she was suggesting some kind of response to make it alright to be attacked.
Maybe I just spelled it out a bit better, who really cares? I did at the time it happened to her and was so upset when others came down on her for the alcohol and the uniform she was wearing that was sexy. She worked in a classy steak house and looked as good as a playboy bunny. Those two things, the alcohol and the dress had nothing to do with her being attacked and being a victim at the time.

Then I referenced a movie that got peoples dander. It was the Accused (found out the name in a later post) starring Jodi Foster and Kelly McGillis was the lawyer. The movie was a rough movie to watch. I did not mean to cause uncomfort but I did.

At the time of an attack, you are a victim. If family and friends are there to be supportive and or help see the attacker gets his just reward then that is as it should be. Sometimes the girl, woman is not supported by all friends and family members. She will remember this attack throughout her life no matter if she is strong or weak. She will remember and if she has help, if she has love and understanding she will come through the attack much better.

I can't tell you how bad I feel that people can assume that the attacker did not leave a mark on that person or that she or he will not think about it. Did my daughter go on with her life? Did she have some issues to overcome no matter what kind of support she had? Yes she did. But the road to healing after an attack is a road none of us can take other than that person that has to walk it.

Patterico,

(Last post for a while--promise--I really don’t mean to monopolize.

I do not think that Paglia was suggesting that alley jumping was acceptable. It is important to put the statements in historical context, of the 60s.

She even qualified it: “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.”

She’s not suggesting that rape is OK. She’s saying that being out on your own, being responsible for yourself (unescorted and unaccompanied) it’s OK—you can overcome that, too.

One of the arguments against women having equal rights and opportunity was that they were more vulnerable and fragile. Women were not to dress sexy, go out on their own, live alone, etc., because it was considered too dangerous for them.

The response of feminists of the time (not the gender-feminists of today) is that we accept that. We accept the additional risks. Yes, we’re vulnerable—so are men, but we are willing to rise to the occasion. We’re willing to take the extra risk of attack by being out alone (living alone, etc.) because we value our freedom more than our security. And we can heal. We can overcome whatever horrors cross our path because we’re not as fragile as you think.

A very similar argument goes on today with respect to safety versus security. Do you want to be safe and give up freedom for it? That was the argument from the era in which Paglia addresses the subject. We choose FREEDOM. There are costs to that freedom—one of the horrible costs of that freedom is that while a woman is out on her own, traveling unescorted through an alley, she MAY be raped, but we’re not going to surrender our freedom of traveling alone for fear of rape, and if it happens, we can recover.

You said they were indistinguishable and impugned the motives of people who are offended because they presume you mean what you say. You're defending an author who blurs the distinction and accusing people who take exception to that blurring as being in denial. I pointed out exactly what I mean by that in the previous thread.

I wish to the heavens that I could find this interview with a female POW from Gulf 1. She was pretty banged up, when she got captured and was subsequently raped. But she was just so incredibly matter-of-fact about it. I don't know what kind of things are going on in her head, but I certainly respect the fact that she effectively got up, dusted herself off, and got back on the bike, so to speak.

Personally, I find rape to be one of the most horrible crimes. If a man attempted to rape me, he would have to kill me in order to do the deed. I would rather he killed me than rape me. That's how strongly I feel about it. That may be stupid and selfish, but that's how I feel.

Sex should be a sacred thing. It's the fact that's no longer viewed that way that 12-year-olds are performing oral sex on each other in school.

Mrs. du Toit! Ha, ha I have to wonder if you and I are on some kind of metaphysical meeting of the minds here. I said metaphysical because of Shirley McLain and her out of body experiences that people cracked up over back in the 70's? Hey maybe she knew how to live and people called her wacko. Like Me! Remember Richard Bach and his best seller, Illusions? Then later Neil Diamond came together with Richard Bach and did the musical score for that movie?

Ha, I will go one better with illusions and era's...one of my favorite subjects. Era's, oh my imagine having this conversation a few era's back? I don't think so. Remember, "Jesus Christ Superstar" Oh and that funny one I went to with one of my sons took me to where people were throwing things at the movie screen! Who know the name of that funny movie? Hey if you took a freiend or relative to that, then you are way cool.

Anyway I believe you are a lot younger than this ole' gal that loves to post here because this is one terrific site that Dean and Rosemary have. It's a hella of a good blog. Look at are timing Mrs.du Toit!

O.K. folks go on and get serious again. This was a commercial of pure insane Janelle! Don't like it...tough! Get over it!

Richard Aubrey, the important distinction in that MSN survey is that a woman wants *her* man to take her. Not any man, not a casual date, but her mate. (Insert caveat that yes, rape does happen within relationships, but I'd submit that in a healthy relationship, this isn't a concern.)

As I responded below, it's not about anger and eroticism -- it's about rage and power. And no, we do NOT need to stop treating rape like the most unimaginable violation. Frequently the victims feel violated again and again -- both by the media and the court system. And "We need to look at it for what it is: a brutal, uncivilized, barbaric act, but one that any strong person can recover from, can move on from." You completely miss the point that MOST rape victims are chosen precisely because they are NOT strong people -- either physically or emotionally.

Another thing you completely miss -- rape is an act that can get a girl or a woman pregnant. And in some states girls can't get abortions if their parents won't let them. That certainly compounds the damage. And to any "strong" adult woman who has to look to her own conscience and decide, is another thing most men will never be able to understand. The damage inflicted is not all physical -- it's emotional as well. No matter what your choice is, people judge you.

Scott Harris expressed my own feeling exactly here. I can't imagine wanting sex with a woman who isn't feeling what I feel, knowing in her inner being the ecstasy that I know. I need her orgasm as much as mine. I worship her clitoris. That's why I worship Lesbianism so much, a woman who sees and feels in the Divine pulchritude of Woman what I see and feel. And that's also why I'm not turned on by prostitution, a woman who has to be _paid_ to have sex with me wouldn't be worth it. But even prostitution is consensual. Rape is not, and, as I said before, I _hate_ all rapists.

A woman's attitude should not be "I'd rather dies than be raped" but rather "I'd rather _KILL_ than be raped!" DEATH to all rapists, I say. Gun them down. Shoot them all down dead without mercy. Women: arm yourselves!

Just in case I wasn't clear enough on that last point:
KILL ALL RAPISTS! KILL! KILL!! KILL!!! KILL!!!!

You completely miss the point that MOST rape victims are chosen precisely because they are NOT strong people -- either physically or emotionally.

I hate when people use words like "most". Especially, when proceeding to insult the targets they think they are defending.

How dare you suggest that rape victims are chosen because they are weak? Physically or emotionally weak? That is extremely insulting.

So you think a guy is hanging out in an alley determining the emotional stability of a woman before he attacks her?

I do not want to lessen rape's damage to men and women. But there are degrees of physical abuse that are worse than rape. And if you seen them, you would understand. I won't get into detail about those acts, it's bad enough that I seen them. Now that I think about this, I hate Camille Paglia for writing about this.

But I will say this, the tools of the torturer are varied and devastating. And they don't have to rape you to shatter your soul. And when you see a torturer at work... Many of you can't fathom how horrible, terrible, and absolutely demonic they can get...

Since I believe that Rape is about a man exerting his power over the power of the woman he is raping, I have been trying to figure out what the reverse would be. What is the male victim equivalent of Rape? I suppose that would be being falsely accused of rape.

So despite my revulsion at Rape, I am loathe to sacrifice the Constitutional protections of the accused. Yes, publicly accusing a rapist may amount to additional stress and grief on the victim.

But the opportunity to reverse the situation by falsely accusing a man of Rape cannot be overstated. And I have had enough experience with enough women to know that they are just as capable of evil as men.

I agree with Stephen. Death to Rapists. I would add Death to those who falsely accuse men of Rape. It is no less devastating than the act itself.

Rosemary,

Perhaps the idea that a rapist looks for the easiest target, as opposed to the "weakest" would not offend the sensibilities?

Incarcerated rapists have admitted that. They DO look for the target they view as the easiest. How they define that can be diverse, but often it is a woman who is smaller than he, one who looks afraid or timid (in the way she might be clutching her purse, or reacting to noises by being startled instead of confrontational). Essentially, they don't want a woman that is going to give them trouble, or one that appears to be able to defend herself.

One of the most telling is if she will make eye contact. That's a powerful gesture with those on the street--a long deadly stare as opposed to an immediate look away.

That Pagalia article was a load of crap. You are way off base if you think that woman is anything but an immoral pus bag trying to normalize her bizarre sexual lifestyle. Rapists are predators and civilization has problems with predators. This is evidenced by the existence of prisons and police forces. Such behavior is unacceptable in a civilized society. We can debate that civilized society strives to remove the predator out of man but that is part of the reason civilized society works. This is generally viewed as a good thing. Civilized people expend great effort to fight predatory behavior.

Men and women know very well the predatory nature of evil people. This knowledge that they exist does not protect us from becoming victims. Her assertion that there are loads of naive women running around this country making themselves rape targets is nonsensical at best. It is a miserable attempt to justify criminal and predatory behavior.

Just when I thought I read it all, she proposes that battered wives are having some sort of S&M sexual adventure. The battered women I've known weren't having sex. They were getting the snot beaten out of them by angry spouses/mates who usually had drug problems and certainly anger issues. The bizarre distortion of this reality was truly mind numbing.

I'm stunned that you have sunk to the level of not only posting this woman's drivel but also supporting it.

Ralph, simple question, If "No" means "NO", does "Yes" mean "Yes"?

If women are in a relationship (no mater the type: loving, perfect, mediocre, awful, violent, etc.) and they choose to stay in it, for whatever reason, do we accept their staying as a "Yes" to the status quo or do we, just like people did 50 years ago, attempt to second guess what she wants or needs?

It's the opposite side of the same coin. 100 years ago women were supposedly under the thumb of the oppresive male. Now she's under the thumb of the radical feminist. Is she capable of making choices OR NOT?

She may be deranged, ill, or emotionally unstable, or getting exactly what she wants (even if it offends us and we wish she'd chose otherwise) but if SHE CHOOSES to stay, who is going to tell her the choice is wrong FOR HER? Are you? Are women too weak or unstable to make choices?

That isn't what you MEAN to say, but that is what you're saying. Respect her choice--no matter what it is and recognize that it is a choice to stay or leave.

Mrs. du Toit,

My sensibilities are only offended at the idea that a rapists mostly target"emotionally weak" women.

I'm not naive enough to believe they aren't looking for someone they could "take". Just the emotionally weak bit was a pisser.

"I could be wrong."
No, you're not. You're quite correct, and eloquently so. Thank you.

Mrs. du Toit,
I don't view it that way at all. An old neighbor of mine had two children, no job and very little support. I suspect her husband became a cocaine addict. My wife befriended her and provided support the best she could. I suspect her husband continually made promises that he would pull his shit together and all that but the beatings continued. She was clearly between a rock and hard place. She eventually divorced him and went on welfare. That was truly a courageous decision. She is now working and living in an apartment that is a step down from the lifestyle she once had. Although she is not in the best financial situation, her demeanor is far better than what I had come to know. It is almost like a great weight was lifted off her.

It is not our responsibility to tell these women what to do. That said, I do believe that it is society's responsibility to provide these women with alternatives when they seek them. That would include advice, counseling and safe houses. This is a real problem and couching it in any other terms is disingenuous at best.

Has anyone pointed out how old that Paglia piece is? I mean, I know I read the book it appears in over a decade ago. Why does it surface now?

That said, she has a couple good points. One is that there's a difference between saying that someone was "asking to be raped," in the sense of having done something really dumb, and "asking to be raped" in the sense of wanting to be raped; just as there's a difference between leaving your purse on a bench in Central Park and expecting it to be there three hours later vs. positively demanding that other people carry away your belongings.

I've done stupid, risky things in my time — no, not gone to frat parties and gotten stoned (not my style), but taken post-midnight walks through the dodgier parts of Berkeley when I couldn't sleep, back in undergrad days. This was clueless, exactly as clueless as it would have been to leave my purse and expect to find it the next morning. I was never attacked, but I easily might have been.

Michelle,
What kind of society do we live in where you have to feel guilty about walking down the street? This is Pagalia's world where walking down the street becomes the equivalent of leaving your car keys on the hood or leaving your billfold with hundred dollar bills hanging out on the park bench. It is nonsensical. Pagalia's standard for society is that walking out your front door is really an adventure in survival. I say that this standard is a poor standard and society needs to aspire for better. When I drive down the streets of our large urban areas and see all the houses with bars on the doors and windows, I see a flawed society. We must strive for better.

(Dean, you saw fit to re-run the same response seeking from the Paglia piece. So I am re-submitting my same comment from the first one, addressing the only answer I know to rape.)

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

Shell, you are correct as to the article I mentioned.
But you miss two items. The first is figuring out when a man is "her" man. After all, he's the one trying to figure out this particular case. There was no mention of married or engaged. The implication was that the two would be an item, but no further than that. How is he supposed to know if he's "her" man for purposes of the macho test?
Second, the theme is abroad and it does not include "her" man. One commentator said that all romance novels include a velvet rape, to paraphrase. That's where Edmund/ward/win/gar, the darkly handsome, sullen and mysterious Earl of Loamshire, who's been cheated of his rightful heritage and forced to make a living as a pirate, takes the spunky heroine off to his pirate ship (he's the captain, it goes without saying) and ravishes her. She, quite naturally, falls in love with him, or anyway, she does after some more ravishing. This is a billion-dollar a year business. It has to mean something.
I wonder if a rapist could try the defense that he was visiting a relative and had nothing to do for a month but read romance novels. They messed up his mind and he thought that was what he was supposed to do.
After the William French Smith rape case, we had a lot of talk about no meaning no. As a result, one country/western singer withdrew a song she'd released which had the message that if you were a real man you wouldn't take no for an answer. You might get lucky. The implication was that you might not, too, and end up in trouble. But real men took the risk. The people who wrote the song, and fronted the money for production and distribution, are in the business of guessing what would resonate with an audience. To succeed, they have to be right a lot of the time.
Somewhere out there, they figured, were guys who thought back to a time when they took no for an answer and another guy didn't. And the other guy and the girl in question are now happily married, although the first kid came along in about three months.
And there's a woman who wishes a particular guy had pressed her.
And that's who the song was for.
And none of these have to do with people being an item prior to The Question.
I was going through a stack of books on relationships one slow summer, and encountered one which said that a real man, among other things, knew when "no" meant "no". Implicitly, he could tell when it didn't, too. We have a writer and practitioner in behavioral and relationship issues who thinks it's a real issue.
So the theme is out there.
Oh, well, as a friend of mine said, without ambiguity, dating would be hardly more exciting than bowling alone.

Unfortunately, I am totally swamped and pressed for time. I wish I had more time.

Dean, I dunno. I am reading that original post again. It is sounding like a "celebration" again. What is this horseshit about the "fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape"?

Which is different, I hasten to add, from a "gang-bang." Rape is defined by the lack of consent; not every gang-bang is a gang-rape, so if Paglia wanted to talk about how much "fun" a gang-bang is, she should have goddamned well said so. She didn't.

It disturbs me greatly to see you suggesting you might agree with that.

Rather than do a new post, I'll leave it at this for now, because I'm so pressed for time, and I feel angry again. And I shouldn't blog while angry. I'll say something I regret.

Ralph,

I didn't THINK you did, but that is all too often the underlying meaning.

By all means, offer support and encouragement. But your wife did that. She didn't leave the first time he hurt her. She left when she determined it was the right thing to do.

I think we do women a disservice when we give them a pity party when they're in an abusive relationship. A pity party is VERY different from sympathy, emotional support, and discussing options (if she's seeking options).

Empowerment is key, I believe. Reinforcing her hopeless feelings by attempting a "rescue" doesn't really help her. The police swooping in and carrying her off to a battered shelter all too often turns into her returning (which drives cops scatty). Offering the shelter as an option is cool, but telling her she has to go is another matter. Reminding her that she has choices, even if they aren't great options, is what she needs to regain control (again, if that is what she wants), and accept responsibility for all aspects of her life, including choices we think are sucky.

It's awful to talk about, but some women really do thrive on pity or are drama queens. It's difficult if you suspect that is the case.

It also becomes incredibly difficult if there are kids in the relationship. That's a tough one and difficult to know when the relationship is also damaging the kids--who ARE innocent bystanders and don't have a choice leave.

Btw, for benefit of another commenter: there is no such thing as "asking to be raped" -- it's a contradiction in terms. Once you understand that, you can brush a lot of this nonsense aside.

Scott Harris writes:

"If it were not for sex, men wouldn't have any use for women, and women would truly be powerless before men who are physically superior in terms of strength and the willingness to use violence. It is the power of sex that tames the man, or it should."

I just can't agree with that. Even without sexual attraction, men need women. Men aren't attracted to all women, but they still need women -- even the ones they don't want to screw.

Sex might be a modifying factor in the power exchange between most men and most women, but it's only part of the story. Otherwise gay men wouldn't associate with women, as we can get all the sex we want with out own kind.

Women are glorious, whether or not you want to get inside them.

Mrs. du Toit,
Relationships can be complicated. I will be the first to admit that. Based on my life experiences, battered women don't play drama queen. They hide the abuse. If a spouse calls the police after being assaulted, any number of scenarios can result. If a woman continually returns to an abusive man, I know of no laws that prevent that. The police can get as exasperated as they like.

I don't doubt that some women wrongfully accuse men of rape and I don't doubt that some women bait men into violence. That doesn't give a free pass to rapists or wife abusers.

Domestic violence is a real problem in America.
It is not some S&M sex game. Rape is rape and it is illegal. It is not some cat and mouse game.

Patterico, is it possible that Paglia was remarking that it was guys who enjoy the gang rape?
Or are we not supposed to notice that, either?

It's more than possible. That is what she was saying.

And, taken as a whole, she seems to approve of the "fun" they are having. To admire it.

I think Max M said it well in several comments on the other thread. The more I re-read her comments, the more I see them to be sick and misguided.

I think that John and Scott are both right.

I've heard men make jokes about how they don't want to be friends with women - unless it's leads to getting laid. I think that there just might be something to that.

And to John's point about gay men and women. That is a very special relationship. Gay men are more in tune with women. Women like the fact that they can be friends with a man and know without a doubt that the man doesn't want to get in her pants. It isn't always that clear between heterosexual man-woman friendships.

In the back of our mind, we wonder if a man has an ulterior motive for being our friend. No doubts with a gay man. Plus, women are in competition with each other for men and this is just not the case with gay men.

Dean I did read the entirety of Paglia's remarks as I said (in a comment left yesterday in the original post) that after the first sentence she lost me. By "she lost me" I meant that I thought her remarks on this subject was more or less nonsense. I read the whole thing and agree with Ralph who has stated it much more succintly than I. It's not to be taken seriously. Her dissection of the female experience of rape was basically telling us if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it. I'm not buying it. There was a lot more to her remarks but I didn't read much that I found valuable. You asked us to respond either in agreement or disagreement. And when I did you dismiss my remarks as "the one woman who disagreed admitted she didn't read any but the first sentence." Not true.

I certainly don't feel that a rape victim has to stay in the victim mode for the rest of her life. Rape can be put behind you. I'd venture to say that the majority of victims do just that. I know a 70 year old woman who was tied to a tree and gang raped when she was 15 years old. She went on to have a wonderful marriage, several children and a career as a missionary with her husband. She found the strength to rise above the humiliation she suffered. Because that is what rape is - humiliation and the sexual satisfaction that inflicting humiliation on his victim brings to the rapists.

Sex is a very private aspect of our lives. It's difficult to come to terms with a sexual violation of one's body. In our culture, good sex is meant to be an intimate physical and emotional experience not violent coercion. Whether the victim is male or female, the humilation of rape is devastating at the time. No one is going to just pick themselves up and dust themselves off as Paglia suggests. However, he/she can reach resolution given some inner light in the aftermath. Where that light comes from is an individual experience with no set formula. But it is done all the time. Victims do get over it and go on with their lives. But all wounds leave scars.

Jane M, I'm sorry, I took your remarks to mean you didn't really read it.

But:

1) I never got "boys will be boys" out of it and I am rather mystified by anyone who does. That's the exact opposite of the message I took away.

2) I never got "rape is not to be taken seriously" out if it either, and I don't see how anyone who reads it carefully would come to that conclusion either.

I got something entirely different out of it, which I found profound and very important, and I found it full of things more people need to think about and talk about like adults. But, well, not everyone's going to see the same things I guess.

Dean

You're quite a bit more intellectual than I am (although I'm no dummy) so let's just say I can't relate to this subject as explained by Paglia. As always, I respect your opinions and the thoughtfulness you give to expressing them.
This is the first time I've found myself in major disagreement with you (except, the God thing - that too). Still, I learn more from this site almost every day than I would have ever imagined. So thanks - keep on arguing. I love it.

The things Dean didn't get out of it, are exactly what I *did* get of it -- and I see them more and more, the more I re-read it.

That said, I echo the comments regarding the site, though I do think less hostility towards the commenters (I am thinking of Catch, for example) would promote the "liberal" goal more. I'll admit that I am unfamiliar with his track record, but I thought his comments on the related thread were spot-on, and didn't deserve the response he got.

Jane M.,
Her focus on rape is on the issue of Date-Rape. Maybe this sheds some new light, maybe not. It is another excerpt.

"Real acquaintance rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history. Once fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated, and hung out to dry.

But the old clans and rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not prepared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anthing, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No they can't. Women will always be in sexual danger."

and then,

"The date-rape controversy show feminism hitting the wall of its own broken promises. The women of my Sixties generation were the first respectable girls in history to swear like sailors, get drunk, stay out all night-in short, to act like men. We sought total sexual freedom and equality. But as time as passed, we woke up to cold reality The old double standard protected women. When anything goes, it's women who lose.

Sex, Art and American Culture 1992 Camile Paglia
pgs. 50, 51

There is indeed a "Dionysian" delirium among the participants in a gang rape. There is the same delirium among the participants in a lynch mob.

I stand by every word I wrote. But Scott Harris is right. Rape must be carefully defined and any man accused of it in a court of law must be guaranteed due process of the law, innocent until proven guilty. The more heinous the crime, and hence the more stringent the punishment, the more important this principle becomes.

But no "Twinkie" defenses should be allowed, no excuses, no "I couldn't help it!", no "she was wearing a short skirt" or "she's a slut" crap. If he did it, he did it, and so he gets it. Period.

I think we need to remember a few things: (1) while Paglia's beliefs haven't changed, in my understanding, since 1991, this piece is that old and was positioned very purposefully at publication. Michelle Dulak alluded to this, above. I started college (across town from Paglia's school, the University of the Arts, as it happens) in 1991, and believe me, the line on sex from the first five minutes of freshman orientation on was, "How could you even think that any man on Earth could possibly want to take a woman sexually without hours of warm and fuzzy, mutually respectful foreplay? Why, it must be evil patriarchal society that produces rape, like all other evil." She was slashing away verbally to make her point because there was a lot of malarkey flying around.

...(2) The line that Dean expressed repugnance for was specifically, in context, directed to women of adventurous spirit. That is, men who rock climb or go on safaris or whatever risk death because they're putting themselves in the control of unpredictable forces. If you're going to be a sexual adventuress and go anywhere and do anything at whim, you similarly have to take the resulting blows as part of living dangerously. (3) The way rape is seen as an identity-rending crime is not rooted just in biological sex differences but also in the way we form our personal identities in American culture. Many of the commenters here are very charming in their convictions that we're all nice people who can be chummy together, but the historical record shows that even normal parents can produce miscreants of horrifying psychopathology. If you insist on believing that people are naturally sweet-tempered, and not that we're civilized through constant repetition and scolding and exposure to good behavior (and even then that primitive ambivalence remains in our souls), then you have no choice but to think of rape as a breakdown of your entire worldview and self-conception and wonder how you can ever face the great wide world again.

Now, of course, she's talking in sweeping terms about how we acculturate young people across society. These aren't the things you actually say to a woman who's just come into a counseling center a week after being victimized. But still, even though I don't agree with everything Paglia's ever written, I think she worries about the right things. If you live abroad for any length of time, it becomes very clear that even other cultures with far stricter codes of etiquette than America have a much more fully-developed way of channeling and containing primitive impulses. observer quoted the right passages: either we have a society where we move around freely and accept that we'll always be in the company of people our families can't vouch for and whose intentions we can't know, or we go back to stand-offishness toward strangers and proper introductions and the limitations that went with them.

You ever try to write about something and just can't put in words? This is one of those subjects - for me, best left alone with the caveat that the rapist should be flogged regularly for his crime.

I'd rather be raped than lose my life. Rather be raped than tortured. Rather be raped, in fact, than have any permanent damage done to my face.

I'd rather be raped vaginally than anally, and that's one reason I especially feel bad for male victims of rape: I know the physical pain is probably worse for them than for a female victim. (Now people are going to argue with me about that. Fine. Suffice it to say that on my particular body, one set of tissue is more elastic than the other. Your results may vary.)

For me, the very worst part of most possible rape scenarios would be fear of losing my life. I would be spending every moment scheming to try to keep it from turning into a murder. The pain would pale next to the fear, and I would do anything it took--convincing the guy I'd fallen in love with him, running away, anything--to try to increase my chances of survival.

Life is a gift. A wonderful gift. My vagina is just an organ, and would eventually heal.

Attila,

Some years back we had a rather nasty rape. Woman was kidnapped, brutalized, then raped. She had some bruises, some cuts and scrapes. What killed her was the bleeding from her vagina. The only thing the rapist used in the rape itself was his penis.

BTW, the victim managed to walk a mile before collapsing from massive bloodloss.

Yes, most women can get absolutely massive objects (compared to even the largest penis) through their vaginas (a baby's head that is), but only if the woman is ready for it. The sudden, abrupt introduction of a phallus of large size will tear the vaginal wall and cause bleeding. In some cases massive bleeding leading to death from blood loss.

Point? Don't be so sanguine about your chances. Could lead to a painful desanguination.

FYI: They caught the bastard. He's now on California's death row.

I notice that none of you commenting on this topic -- NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE OF YOU -- has responded to the obvious answer that I raised here and in Dean's earlier discussion about Camille Paglia's comments:

Namely, that if you want to stop a rapist and stop him from causing you certain debasement, along with possible infection, internal injuries or external physical injuries and/or possible death, then you should equip yourself with an appropriate firearm and licensing to carry it, and be prepared to kill the rapist if you cannot get him to back off from physically attacking you.

If you cannot commit yourself to an active, armed self-defense, but insist instead on merely whining about the unfairness and beastliness of it all, then you are merely self-deceiving fools. To be sure, most men will respect your rights even if you are not armed and deadly. But hard core rapists will not, and they will be the ones who shall be confronting you while you are purposely disarmed.

Around Madison, Wisconsin, the well-known liberal community in south central Wisconsin, the women there go out and organize night-time marches, carrying lighted candles and chanting meaningless slogans such as "Take back the night!" What utter bull-shit, when their time would be far better spent getting their liberal state government to authorize a personal protection (concealed carry) bill with sufficient strength to overcome the liberal Democrat governor's veto.

I have to think that anyone who does not agree with what I have written above is willing to temporize with the rapists more than they are ready to give women the immediate means of self-defense to stop this vile practice in its tracks.

So go ahead. Be stupid weaklings and hypocrites and watch as women get raped. Or get armed and do something about it.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I'll comment on that Arnold.

You are absolutely right!!!!!!

Michigan has concealed carry. As soon as we can afford a nice handgun - I will get one. Till then I take my 100lb German Shepherd with me when I go out alone at night. He's very protective of me. He's made more than one man crap his pants in the past.

Not just strange men either. Once a few years back, Dean and I were wrestling on the floor and I screamed for help(in jest). The dog charged Dean and put his teeth on Dean's arm. He did not bite him, he stayed Dean's arm until he (the dog) was sure I was in no danger. After that, Dean insisted I take the dog when I go out alone. Damn good dog.

It's true that so much about rape/sex is about who has the control. Is it something I am willingly sharing or having coercively taken from me?

From conversations with friends who work in crisis centers, women who feel they maintained some kind of control (ie, fighting back) have a far easier time putting their lives back together and recover more quickly than those who followed the old line of thinking that they ought to just go along with it so they wouldn't get hurt.

And yes, there are times when I want my husband to see thru my "no"; gentle persistance, showing me he loves me and desires me is often just the thing to help me break out of a funk!

Arnold Harris of Mt. Horeb, WI, is absolutely right 100%. I made the same point myself in my comments here and in the Paglia thread. Gun. Shoot. Kill. Dead (the rapist, not you). It's the only way, the only language the vermin understand. Women: arm yourselves! And I'll repeat: KILL ALL RAPISTS! KILL! KILL!! KILL!!! KILL!!!!

Sean Kinsell writes:
"Many of the commenters here are very charming in their convictions that we're all nice people who can be chummy together,"
and:
"If you insist on believing that people are naturally sweet-tempered,"

ha! ha! ha! ha! If you still believe that, then you just haven't been reading any of Steven Malcolm Anderson's comments here in Dean's World. I've been criticized for many things, but never for being too nice or chummy or sweet-tempered. ha! ha! ha! ha!

Ralph Stefan,

What kind of society do we live in where you have to feel guilty about walking down the street? This is Paglia's world where walking down the street becomes the equivalent of leaving your car keys on the hood or leaving your billfold with hundred dollar bills hanging out on the park bench. It is nonsensical.

I don't feel "guilty." I feel stupid. There's a difference.

If a man in a suit walked down the same streets at the same hour, he'd have been equally stupid. Sooner or later he would've been mugged, and possibly injured or killed. A man who looked as though he had no money might possibly have been safe — at least from attack by strangers.

And what sort of society do we live in, where the moment a car or a purse or a wallet is undefended, someone naturally steals it? Really.

Arnold: What about those of us who can't get guns? Even in states with concealed carry, there are often huge bureaucratic obstacles to getting a permit. In New York State, it can take up to 2 years. What am I supposed to do about rape between now and 2006? Not to mention, there are lots of law abiding, innocent citizens who are barred from getting guns. In some states, seeking treatment for depression or other psychiatric illness in the past is a disqualifier. So I repeat, for those of us who can't get a gun, what then?

Amy, I know exactly where you're coming from. Well, first off, I can't buy a gun yet anyway (not a US citizen, but supposedly the INS is working on that). But even after I become a citizen, first I'd have to get through Maryland's fairly draconian concealed carry permit system, and then I could only carry it when I wasn't working, since I work on a University campus, and weapons, even licensed ones, are forbidden on pain of dismissal.

Arnold,

I posted a reply to you on the John Kerry--gay marriage discussion below.

(Catch 22: This is the response I made to your comments on the use of a concealed carry firearm to kill a drunken road-rage driver, the case you cited, and an action you apparently approved of.)

Catch 22,

Where on earth do you get the idea that anyone can shoot a drunkard, merely because of his belligerence? If this is your idea of safe and appropriate usage of firearms, I would not issue you a permit to carry one, either, were it in my discretion.

I too would have jailed the restaurant manager who shot the drunken, road-rage prone driver. Regardless of the provocation, the manager was not truly in danger of his life from the drunk, regardless of the drunk's ugly and threatening demeanor. Where citizens are legally armed, they are nevertheless expected to walk away from trouble whenever it is avoidable. In this case, he was in position to drive away from it.

The other matter here was that he was illegally carrying a concealed permit for which he had no permit. I am a gun owner who practices an almost super-refined level of responsibility in regard to firearms, and most else as well. If I didn't, I would not long be able to maintain possession of my prized Thompson submachine guns which are registered with the US Treasury Department. And that would be a shame, because I love them.

Maybe I sound to you and some others on Dean's World as if I were some sort of senior citizen version of Dirty Harry. But if you think that, you misread me completely.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

The manager was under physical attack by a raged person charging him. The manager was taking charge of that attack. He was not in a position to drive away from him. He had played bumper tag with the manager's car for an hour from the time he left the restraurant. He made many attempts to get away from the guy. And he had a registered pistol but not a concealed carry permit. He did what he did to protect himself, it was in the mountains, Should he have waited to be sideswiped into a ravine ? The drugged up drunkard could have driven away, he chose instead to go get him physically out of his car. He wasn't playing Dirty Harry. He carried the pistol because he always carried large sums of cash from the restaurant. The banks aren't open at 2 AM.

There is a big difference between a super-refined level of responsibility and a person
acting under duress at 4 AM in the morning.The manager did act in the manner that he thought was correct at that time. Even if he had had a concealed permit, he would have probably done the same. But he wasn't convicted for not having a concealed weapons permit. I wasn't condoning his actions, I just happen to know the person.
(see John Kerry-gay marriage posting)

In response to Patterico:

No, it does not appear to me that Paglia was celebrating gang rape. On the contrary, she was pointing out that for a man who is under the control of his emotions/hormones/id (for Freudians), rape has a fun ASPECT because of the power it gives them, and that, when it is in a gang context, the ones involved get caught up in an orgiastic rush which merely exacerbates the problem. This is a particularly dangerous thing, because it will cause people who are not normally susceptible to violent acts to indulge in some of the most despicable behavior imaginable. They are still guilty, nonetheless (see again The Accused, mentioned elsewhere).

Amy, besides the obvious "get one any way... the Second Amendment is the only license you need" or the quote "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" I understand the problem of obtaining arms in areas that wish to unConstitutionally restrict them. You have to choose between the fear of the state or the rapist.

Move to a less restrictive state or carry without the nanny state's blessings.

Here's another point about the pathological nature of today's society: When I was in college, there was a pamphlet being passed around by some feminist group regarding date rape. This pamphlet said, in no uncertain terms, that the woman should be able to do anything, literally ANYTHING, that she felt like doing with a man, including not only flirting and teasing, but up to and including heavy petting and mutual masturbation, with every implication that she was going to "go all the way", then back off and say "No, that's enough." If the man just wasn't up to controlling himself at that point, and had sex with her anyway, it was rape.

Now, after all the howling "Of course it's rape!", consider this: nowhere in this pamphlet did it suggest that the woman try to avoid reaching that point, it only said that she had total say-so, no matter what. While I think that a man should be able to control himself, there can come a point where the decision making process is short-circuited, with dire consequences, and an intelligent woman should be counseled to avoid that point, rather than say she has every right to it without consequences.

I just wanted to make a quick comment on concealed carry. I came out as against concealed carry in Wisconsin, and I'm glad our Governor vetoed it.

However, that doesn't mean I'm against carrying firearms. I merely think we should do it openly, like police officers do. I think that if we want the right to pack heat, we shouldn't have to hide it. People shouldn't have to *guess* who has a gun -- it's a fear-based psychological ploy that I think detracts from a civil society.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced that carrying a firearm is a deterrent against violent crime, whether against women or men. There are places in this country where lots of people pack heat, legit or not, and it doesn't seem to stop gun deaths or other violent crime.

As an actual citizen of Madison, WI -- and not Mt. Horeb, which is a far cry both geographically and culturally from Madison proper -- I happen to agree with Arnold Harris that "Take Back the Night" marches are somewhat silly. (I know of a specific instance where a gay man was forced to leave a "women's safe space" -- as if by his mere existence he presented the threat of rape.) They're a feel-good symbolic exercise in women's solidarity, but they neither address the real-life conditions of rape nor offer any real-life solutions to it. That said, I think that there are steps other than carrying firearms that women can take to keep themselves safe, including:

1) Avoid walking alone in secluded areas or quiet streets, particularly at night.

2) Take a self-defense class and carry a knife (less than six inches is generally legal -- check your local laws).

3) Learn and utilize body language that sends a clear "don't mess with me" signal to anyone who might be watching you. (When I see women walking down the street with their arms crossed in front of their breasts and their heads down, I think, "easy pickings" -- and I'm not even a rapist.)

4) If you *are* attacked, DO NOT COOPERATE and HURT YOUR ATTACKER. The "ride it out" theory will not necessarily save you from further injury.

There are currently no clear numbers on the effectiveness of concealed firearms in preventing rape. Rapists are acting on compulsive pathological urges and we cannot guarantee that the threat of a gun will be enough to deter them. If the gun fails or is taken from her, a women needs other options. It is as naive to think of guns as a total solution as it is to think of guns as a total problem.

I am a little puzzled that anyone would consider these two posts (or the comments, for that matter) to be a "celebration of rape." No one has defended rape or rapists that I can see.

Like Steven Malcolm Anderson, I am a longtime fan of Camille Paglia and I see no problem with her very realistic advice. If anything, it's a form of pre-rape, early interventionist, tough love for victims who might otherwise do something foolish. (A little like saying, "If you don't lock your door, you're a stupid fool!")

I also agree with Steven: "KILL THE RAPISTS!" Armed women are the best deterrent.

(I'm sure that some of the more loquacious anti-rape activists simultaneously subscribe to the cult of victimization, and believe in keeping women fearful, pushing dire theories like "every man is a rapist" instead of arming women.)

A very thoughtful post and excellent comments!

Michelle,
You can feel stupid all you want about walking down the street. The reality is, any rational person should not think much of it. Pagalia and her likes want us to feel stupid and guilty about behavior as obscene as walking down the street. It is OUR fault that criminals attack people because we present ourselves as victims. I can't begin to tell you how flawed this logic is. Perhaps we should build prisons for the law abiding people and let the criminals roam the streets. Whaddaya think?

As for all you gun nuts talking about blowing holes in people, I suspect you have watched too many Dirty Harry movies. My next car is going to be a M-1 Abrahms. I will drive down the street with impunity and I will live my life free of fear.

Ralph:

Rapists, like all humans who behave in a predatory manner toward other humans, are opportunistic. They do not randomly select their victims. They choose victims who present opportunity and who appear vulnerable.

None of that excuses rape. But your feelings about rape do not change the fact that rape, like other violent crimes, is opportunistic.

The only defense is to withhold opportunity. This does not mean that walking down the street is an invitation to rape. This means that individual human beings are responsible for their own safety. The police can help *after* a crime is committed, but there's little they can do beforehand.

I agree that the gun-as-social-band-aid approach is misguided; yet reality dictates that we must take care of ourselves.

Your characterization of Paglia as blaming the victim seems off the mark. She's clearly anti-rape. She's clearly for harsh punishment of rapists. She's merely asking women to acknowledge reality: There's danger out there. Protect yourselves. Don't put yourselves at risk. Understand that there are rapists out there, and understand that even well-meaning principled men, with enough alcohol and titillation, can and do get out of control. Do not attempt to disregard reality and then cry foul when reality runs roughshod over you.

Let's say I walk into a predominantly black neighborhood wearing a placard that says "NIGGERS GO HOME TO AFRICA". Let's say I get my ass kicked. Was it wrong that I got my ass kicked? Yes. Was it surprising that I got my ass kicked? No.

Women who are singled out by predatory men, stalked, attacked and raped are victims whose only defense is self-defense, whether with fist, weapon or firearm. No amount of legislation or punishment will stop rape. It is a behavior that will likely never be eradicated until we have a much better understanding of human behavior. The best we can do for now is: Empower women to defend themselves, teach them how to minimize their risk, and permanently remove offenders from society.

Women who get drunk at parties, however, who go upstairs with men they barely know, who then have sex forced upon them in the heat of the moment, are victims whose only defense is NOT GETTING DRUNK WITH MEN THEY DON'T KNOW AND PUTTING THEMSELVES INTO SEXUAL SITUATIONS.

This isn't sexism. This is common sense.

John,
You'd get more than your ass kicked. There were plenty of safety tips handed out and people should take precautions. I don't need to walk around with a Howitzer to not live in fear.

I could give a rat's ass what rapists think. I'm not freaking batman. I've been plenty drunk and had all shades of foreplay/sex including mutual masturbation with women who didn't want to have sex proper. I've also had coitus proper with women who wanted it proper. This deal where women tease men into rape is rediculous. If a woman wants to explore sexuality, she shouldn't be obligated to have coitus. This is true for men as well. This is especially true for younger people. If you actually can't control your sex urges, I'd recommend a number of rounds of sex with a prostitute until you think you can control yourself.

After taking Dean's advice and reading Paglia's remarks several times over again and also reading most of the 166 comments left on this subject, I will confess I do see Paglia's point and got past just plain being offended by her. I'm also a woman of the 60s. I experienced a lot of what Paglia talks about - feeling free and all that but in the end I was raised in a very conservative culture long before hippies or feminists existed in the popular culture. So, yes, I would agree to some of what she says. She essentially is telling women to grow up and don't be surprised if you put your self at risk for sexual assault that you end up raped. She also advises us not to give up our personal freedom and stay behind drawn blinds and bolted doors our whole life because we fear rape.

What I'm now struggling to understand is the perceived need of all women to pack heat as some here advocate. ???? If I don't pack heat, I can't complain if assaulted and raped? I'm whining if I don't have a deadly weapon at the ready on the off chance I will be stalked and overcome by a sexual predator ??? The entire populace must carry loaded revolvers in their purse or pocket lest psychopaths take them by surprise and rape or murder (or both) us all? I would lose my job if I packed a gun in with my lunch bag so I'd be safe getting to my car from my office.

I served in the NG and the Army Reserves and fired an M-16 with a bullseye the very first round I ever fired and ended up with sharp-shooter level. I am not afraid of guns and would not hesitate to kill an attacker if I were able. I support 2nd amendment rights most assuredly. My husband keeps a hand-gun in the house for protection. Buuuut, I have grave reservations about Arnold's and Mrs DuToit's position that universal arming of all adult law-abiding citizens is a reasonable tool for survival in a civilized society. I'd rather just not go out alone at night. At my age, let's face it, a late night is getting back home by 8 or 9 PM.

John Kusch:
"They're a feel-good symbolic exercise in women's solidarity, but they neither address the real-life conditions of rape nor offer any real-life solutions to it."

I'd go further than that, John, and say that they reinforce dangerous delusions, when they don't actually create them. The campuses that I'm familiar with from when I was in college had private police forces, private rape crisis counseling, escort services from dark to dawn, and blue-light emergency phones every 20 feet--the places looked as if they'd been invaded by giant blue lightning bugs.

There was also the same sort of women-share-no-blame background noise from faculty and student