NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm watching a film called Blindness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/) right now. There are some interesting social issues explored that I think could use discussion. The essential premise of the movie is that there is an unknown sickness that causes blindness. Those suffering from the affliction are quarantined without supervision. Eventually the quarantined are split into three 'wards', and one ward takes control of the food supply. At first they demand valuables in exchange for food...once that avenue is exhausted, they demand the women.

What particularly bothered me about this section of the film is that the men called for 'volunteers'. I don't think consent in this situation is possible for one. When one of the women dies and another takes revenge, the men complain that now there is going to be a 'war'. My thought at that moment was...the war began when these women released to be raped in exchange for food.

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?

I've not seen the movie, but I'm probably going to look it up. It sounds fascinating.
Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme.

I'm not sure, personally, but in a situation like that (trading something the person needs for sex), there may be no hitting, no blood, generally no one dies or needs medical attention (unless someone gets too rough).

However, that doesn't reduce it in my mind, just probably why it's viewed that way.
Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?

Not at all. If I were a woman, I would probably rather be assaulted with a deadly weapon (surviving) than raped. From discussions I have had, rape victims are forced to see sex in an entirely new (and disturbingly bad) way. It screws the victims up in a way that is never able to be undone. If anything, it's worse than what I would consider regular assault to be.

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?

Is it shown that way in movies though, in modern times? I can imagine historically, when women were seen more as material possessions, that you'd have examples where women were treated as bargaining chips. Alexander the Great supposedly married his old soldiers off to local women, as a way of subjugating the population - that kind of thing. You might see that in movies depicting the era. Rape is shown as being pretty horrifying on some movies. That Vietnam movie with Sean Penn is a good example. And of course, physical violence is often celebrated or glorified in movies, whereas rape isn't, even if it's glossed over sometimes.

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?

Certainly rape is a common weapon of war; I don't really understand where you're coming from about it been seen as "passive", though, outside of this particular movie (which I haven't seen...I vaguely remember the trailer, though). Generally speaking I'd say wartime sexual violence is treated the same as the "conventional" kind: when the other side does it, it's an atrocity. When "our" side does it....well, we don't talk about it much.

Rape may be passive in the movies, but in real life war?

Link to whole article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_re_af/af_congo_stop_the_rape)


More stories (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/23/koinange.rape.war/index.html)

Passive...No freaking way!

SOmetimes I think that it would be more trouble than it's worth to have a vagina. Then when I'm thinking clearer, I realize that the penis is really the problem. Next I think about how much I like my penis. Lastly I'm glad that I have a mind capable of coping rationally with having a penis. It's times like that, after hearing horror stories about women and the indignities they suffer and running this line of thought in my head that I'm really glad that I'm insane because sane people are crazy. *nod*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/08/18/berlin/index.html

It doesn't just happen in Africa.

*Your daily reminder that white people can be pretty frakking brutal too*

SOmetimes I think that it would be more trouble than it's worth to have a vagina. Then when I'm thinking clearer, I realize that the penis is really the problem. Next I think about how much I like my penis. Lastly I'm glad that I have a mind capable of coping rationally with having a penis. It's times like that, after hearing horror stories about women and the indignities they suffer and running this line of thought in my head that I'm really glad that I'm insane because sane people are crazy. *nod*

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/08/18/berlin/index.html

It doesn't just happen in Africa.

*Your daily reminder that white people can be pretty frakking brutal too*

A more recent example of a very valid point (http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/bosnia/rapes.html)

*doesn't read any more of these links because they are going to make her cry*

Is it shown that way in movies though, in modern times? I can imagine historically, when women were seen more as material possessions, that you'd have examples where women were treated as bargaining chips. Alexander the Great supposedly married his old soldiers off to local women, as a way of subjugating the population - that kind of thing. You might see that in movies depicting the era. Rape is shown as being pretty horrifying on some movies. That Vietnam movie with Sean Penn is a good example. And of course, physical violence is often celebrated or glorified in movies, whereas rape isn't, even if it's glossed over sometimes.

I'm not talking about it being glorified, I'm talking about it in real human terms. A group of people, faced with violence...can the 'sexual service' of the women in the group be seen as a less horrific act than the physical violence that would ensue otherwise?

I think some people here don't really understand rape all that well...that if it isn't horribly brutal, then it isn't rape. That's sort of the attitude I'm talking about. If a woman 'willingly' has sex with someone to prevent further violence, this can be seen as a better option to physical violence. I argue that there is no willingness, it's rape. Just because it isn't horrific doesn't mean that something fundamental has been compromised...something humane. And yet it seems to me that it might be an easy choice for those not facing the actual rape to make. Sure, she does this, we get this in return, what's the big deal? Better than us all suffering...

Rape may be passive in the movies, but in real life war?*snip*
Refrain from posting this, thanks. You can provide the links, but the copy/paste is unecessary.

I don't think rape is portrayed as passive in the movies, and I actually think you've misunderstood the way I've used the term 'passively' in the context of this thread.

What I'm talking about specifically is a kind of sexual servitude to avoid further violence. It has happened many times throughout history during times of conflict. In the examples you have posted, rape IS the violence. Of course, this has also been seen many times before.

What I'm trying to get at is the core of belief that would see a woman being coerced into sex with an aggressor for the sake of protecting others. I can understand it from the woman's point of view...but not from the people who would be willing to allow it to happen in order to stay safe themselves (aside from children who I certainly don't fault).

Now turning back to the links you've provided, you'll note that there is talk of 'peace'. That the 'peace' is too fragile to break by getting too outraged by the sexual violence. What does that say about the way people think about rape versus pure physical violence.

Nothing good.

Sex is gross and dirty. I mean, I'm 29 years old and still a virgin. I love GTA4 though.

What's so bad about violence anyways? Humans, lions, and even alligators are all violent species. If you ask me, violence ensures that the population of the planet doesn't over exceed it's carrying capacity and screw everything over.

Sex is just... Ugh... I don't even know how people look at porn. It's soooo gross and demeans both women and men alike.

Just because it isn't horrific doesn't mean that something fundamental has been compromised...something humane.

That's an excellent point, but this is what I don't understand:

Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict.

This doesn't at all jive with my understanding of history, or conflict. I think we're all familiar, and links in previous points demonstrate, how sexual coercion and violence has been used as a tool of agression and dominance. I'm hard pressed to think of an example of rape as a "bargaining chip" to prevent conflict.

SOmetimes I think that it would be more trouble than it's worth to have a vagina. Then when I'm thinking clearer, I realize that the penis is really the problem. Next I think about how much I like my penis. Lastly I'm glad that I have a mind capable of coping rationally with having a penis. It's times like that, after hearing horror stories about women and the indignities they suffer and running this line of thought in my head that I'm really glad that I'm insane because sane people are crazy. *nod*

That's thinking with your brain!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/08/18/berlin/index.html

It doesn't just happen in Africa.

*Your daily reminder that white people can be pretty frakking brutal too*

Your first link (the only one I've looked at so far) is quite interesting:

Rape has often been defined by writers on the subject as an act of violence which has little to do with sex. But that is a definition from the victim's perspective. To understand the crime, one needs to see things from the perpetrator's point of view, especially in the later stages when unaggravated rape had succeeded the extreme onslaught of January and February.

Many women found themselves forced to "concede" to one soldier in the hope that he would protect them from others.

...Sometimes the greatest danger came from one mother giving away the hiding place of other girls in a desperate bid to save her own daughter.

The link talks about how the rapes at first were acts of rage, revenge...and turned more into a kind of 'sexual conquest' of the 'conquerors'.

In the first case, the rage...it is easy to be horrified by the brutality. In the second case, where some women would 'offer' themselves up...I think it easy for the perpetrators especially to tell themselves that these women are willing. Others can also convince themselves of it. No one would dream of saying that a person consented to a physical beating in these situations...but the idea that a woman under duress consented...how is that a thought anyone could have at all? It's this idea that bothers me so much.

After the second stage of women offering themselves to one soldier to save themselves from others, came the post-battle need to survive starvation. Susan Brownmiller noted "the murky line that divides wartime rape from wartime prostitution".

The fourth stage was a strange form of cohabitation in which Red Army officers settled in with German "occupation wives".

But I think this sums it up best:

Even if the feminist definition of rape purely as an act of violence proves to be simplistic, there is no justification for male complacency. If anything, the events of 1945 reveal how thin the veneer of civilisation can be when there is little fear of retribution. It also suggests a much darker side to male sexuality than we might care to admit.

The reason the film, Blindness sort of got to me at that point was that these were regular people, crammed together in terrible circumstance...and how quickly it was that the veneer lifted...and women became commodities. It bothered me because it seems so entirely plausible, even in the 21 century, even in the civilised western world.

Sex is gross and dirty. I mean, I'm 29 years old and still a virgin. I love GTA4 though.

What's so bad about violence anyways? Humans, lions, and even alligators are all violent species. If you ask me, violence ensures that the population of the planet doesn't over exceed it's carrying capacity and screw everything over.

Sex is just... Ugh... I don't even know how people look at porn. It's soooo gross and demeans both women and men alike.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/youredoignitwrong.JPG

That's an excellent point, but this is what I don't understand:

This doesn't at all jive with my understanding of history, or conflict. I think we're all familiar, and links in previous points demonstrate, how sexual coercion and violence has been used as a tool of agression and dominance. I'm hard pressed to think of an example of rape as a "bargaining chip" to prevent conflict.

You should continue to read the link about mass rapes in Germany. Especially in occupied territories, women are absolutely bargaining chips.

If you only think about rape as something that happens in a sort of kidnapping, gang assault sort of scenario, and don't recognise that a woman 'willingly' having sex with the aggressor to secure food for her family is still rape, then this is the issue at the heart of this thread.

The reason the film, Blindness sort of got to me at that point was that these were regular people, crammed together in terrible circumstance...and how quickly it was that the veneer lifted...and women became commodities. It bothered me because it seems so entirely plausible, even in the 21 century, even in the civilised western world.

I've argued on the forum for a while now, that humanity hasn't really gotten that far from the evolutionary point where they fell off trees. Chumbly likes to argue that humanity is better than that, but really, I think it's just a facade. A mask of civility that comes off the moment it's convenient. We're far more instinctual than we'd like to accept.

Off-topic: Why is it socially acceptable to joke about murder but not about rape?

I've argued on the forum for a while now, that humanity hasn't really gotten that far from the evolutionary point where they fell off trees. Chumbly likes to argue that humanity is better than that, but really, I think it's just a facade. A mask of civility that comes off the moment it's convenient. We're far more instinctual than we'd like to accept.

I believe this as well. It's scary to think how close we are to savagery in the truest sense of the word. Natural disasters, lack of order...in a very short period of time our ideals can fade away and we become predators and prey.

Sex is gross and dirty. I mean, I'm 29 years old and still a virgin. I love GTA4 though.

I will never forgive that series for making fun of classical music.

What's so bad about violence anyways?

Give me a few instruments, a quiet room, your body, and twenty minutes to find out.

Humans, lions, and even alligators are all violent species. If you ask me, violence ensures that the population of the planet doesn't over exceed it's carrying capacity and screw everything over.

If the population grew too much, some persons might die! thank God for violence!

Sex is just... Ugh... I don't even know how people look at porn. It's soooo gross and demeans both women and men alike.

You are probably looking at the most perverse kind--incidentally, you are a pervert if you are "stimulated" by killing. Violent imagery is no different from pornography.

Off-topic: Why is it socially acceptable to joke about murder but not about rape?

Is it off-topic? I wonder.

If you only think about rape as something that happens in a sort of kidnapping, gang assault sort of scenario, and don't recognise that a woman 'willingly' having sex with the aggressor to secure food for her family is still rape, then this is the issue at the heart of this thread.

That's not what I'm saying; what I would suggest is that these instances of "willing" sex are nevertheless acts of dominance by a conquering group, not means of preventing conflict. Once the power dynamic of occupier/occupied is established, then negotiating "willing" sex for food/protection/what have you is a way of enforcing that power, not mitigating it.

Is it off-topic? I wonder.

Only partially, or else I would not post it in this thread.

That's not what I'm saying; what I would suggest is that these instances of "willing" sex are nevertheless acts of dominance by a conquering group, not means of preventing conflict. Once the power dynamic of occupier/occupied is established, then negotiating "willing" sex for food/protection/what have you is a way of enforcing that power, not mitigating it.

Ah, in which case we are in agreement. It seems obvious to me that this is an act of violence, not a means to avoid violence. I think, however, that it is portrayed sometimes as the latter, rather than the former. It is this that confuses me.

I don't think the movie portrayed it in this manner...but certainly some of the protagonists in the 'powerless' group (not the women) were able to convince themselves that it was a lesser violence.

Ah, in which case we are in agreement. It seems obvious to me that this is an act of violence, not a means to avoid violence. I think, however, that it is portrayed sometimes as the latter, rather than the former. It is this that confuses me.

I haven't seen Blindness, and trying to comment on it would violate even my low standards about pulling things out of my ass. I think generally we, as a culture, tend to exaggerate peoples' degree of agency...maybe what you're describing is a symptom of that? I blame Locke.

I believe this as well. It's scary to think how close we are to savagery in the truest sense of the word. Natural disasters, lack of order...in a very short period of time our ideals can fade away and we become predators and prey.

It doesn't have to take natural disasters or lack of order. All it takes is a position of power and freedom from the fear of retribution. The Stanford prison experiment for example, proves how easy it is for people to drop that mask of civility and indulge in only their base desires.

People always recoil from sociopaths, serial killers and mass murderers, always saying that it's so unexpected. But what they don't recognize is that any one of them could be that sociopath, that serial killer, just as easily as flipping a coin.

People always recoil from sociopaths, serial killers and mass murderers, always saying that it's so unexpected. But what they don't recognize is that any one of them could be that sociopath, that serial killer, just as easily as flipping a coin.
They don't recognise it because that's just false. Dissocial personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder or other psycopathic personality disorders are chronic conditions, involving deep-seated behavioural problems.

We're all capable of killing, certainly, but only a very few of us are unfortunate enough to have the condition of sociopathy.

The issue of women in times of conflict isn't new. Aristophanes wrote a nice play about it called Lysistrata. Maybe it would work now, especially since we have much better communications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

I've argued on the forum for a while now, that humanity hasn't really gotten that far from the evolutionary point where they fell off trees. Chumbly likes to argue that humanity is better than that, but really, I think it's just a facade. A mask of civility that comes off the moment it's convenient. We're far more instinctual than we'd like to accept.

Would you say that rape is "instinctual?"

Off-topic: Why is it socially acceptable to joke about murder but not about rape?


personally, i think neither is an appropriate topic for a joke, i mean, you would not say it to a person who had lost someone or been raped, so why say it at all.

if you cannott say a joke directly to the person it is involving than it is more than likely offensive and hurtful and neither of those are characteristics of a joke.

They don't recognise it because that's just false. Dissocial personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder or other psycopathic personality disorders are chronic conditions, involving deep-seated behavioural problems.

We're all capable of killing, certainly, but only a very few of us are unfortunate enough to have the condition of sociopathy.

And of course you're going to pretend the Stanford Prison experiment never happened right? Sociopathy is rooted deep in every human being. It's covered by things like ethics and laws, but above all, repercussions. Once you take out fear of repercussions, everyone in a position to do so will become a sociopath. They stop recognizing other people as "just like me" and start painting them as cardboard figures to inflict whatever base desires they have to.

The right conditions, the right time, and any of us can become a monster.

Would you say that rape is "instinctual?"

About as much as the reproductive instinct.

I know what kind of trap you're trying to put here, and frankly, it just doesn't work.

Would you say that rape is "instinctual?"

I would say to some people sadly it would be. But this is to only the very sickest aspect of human psyche in our most disturbes beings.

Look at the 'CELLAR MONSTER', we would not go around doing things like that to anyone we loved, but to him it was normal, and us being human normal=instinct, which is why we do it.

And of course you're going to pretend the Stanford Prison experiment never happened right? Sociopathy is rooted deep in every human being. It's covered by things like ethics and laws, but above all, repercussions. Once you take out fear of repercussions, everyone in a position to do so will become a sociopath.

That might have been true once (though I personally don't think so), but I do not believe that if you took away such fears, everyone would instantly revert to sociopathy. Most people can be pushed to inhumanity given a brutal enough environment or enough conditioning, but we will not all instantly revert to sociopaths without the threat of "repercussions."

They stop recognizing other people as "just like me" and start painting them as cardboard figures to inflict whatever base desires they have to.

So you believe that no human truly believes in any higher moral principles, and that we would immediately abandon any values we hold without the above mentioned threat of "repercussions?"

The right conditions, the right time, and any of us can become a monster.

Perhaps. But I don't think for a moment its as easy as you seem to believe. At least not for everyone.

About as much as the reproductive instinct.

Do you have any evidence besides your own sad cynicism that the urge to rape is as universal as the urge to reproduce?

That might have been true once (though I personally don't think so), but I do not believe that if you took away such fears, everyone would instantly revert to sociopathy.

Why? Did someone engineer brutality out of the human genome when I wasn't looking?


Most people can be pushed to inhumanity given a brutal enough environment or enough conditioning, but we will not all instantly revert to sociopaths without the threat of "repercussions."

Of course it's not instant. That's just stupid. But given the right conditions, they will slide into it. The Stanford experiment took just 8 days for it to get to the point where the researcher had to put a stop to it before it went too far and somebody ended up dead. 8 days. And the 'jailers' were already going off the far end by that time. Not one of them were willing to do more than make a weak protest or two. Do you think you're somehow different, special in some intrinsic way that you wouldn't be just as bad? You can insist on that if you want, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.


So you believe that no human truly believes in any higher moral principles, and that we would immediately abandon any values we hold without the above mentioned threat of "repercussions?"

It's there, inside you, the fear of your actions coming back to whack you. A social instinct to conform despite what the base instincts tell you that's ingrained into your genetic code well before you were born. Take that out, and only the id remains. You are an animal, same as the rest of the animal kingdom. Don't try to pretend that your moral principles are so mighty that they will resist the basic primal instincts when the opportunity to abandon them is abundant.


Perhaps. But I don't think for a moment its as easy as you seem to believe. At least not for everyone.

Hah! That's more the exception than the rule. The countless genocides and horrors that were inflicted upon the helpless throughout history, do you think that was done by a mere handful of people? Bollocks. They were done by tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people who were quick to slide into utter savagery on their victims for no other reason than it was war and everything was permitted because they were the victors.

How many stories do you hear of people in that victors circle opposing this sort of brutality? How many people do they encompass among the millions who didn't give a second thought towards ear collecting among civilians, live bayonet practice, cannibalism, murder of unarmed people or countless other horrors inflicted in the last century alone? A mere handful. Do you think you have the strength of character to be among that handful? Out of millions? How deluded.


Do you have any evidence besides your own sad cynicism that the urge to rape is as universal as the urge to reproduce?

Do you have any evidence that it isn't? Calling it the urge to rape is a red herring, and you know it. The urge to reproduce is the only factor that counts. Whether it translates into an actual relationship or rape depends entirely on the conditions and environment available.

You should continue to read the link about mass rapes in Germany. Especially in occupied territories, women are absolutely bargaining chips.

If you only think about rape as something that happens in a sort of kidnapping, gang assault sort of scenario, and don't recognise that a woman 'willingly' having sex with the aggressor to secure food for her family is still rape, then this is the issue at the heart of this thread.

Wait a second...

That doesn't sound like rape. That sounds like survival. If a woman is willing trades sex for anything, then how is that rape? That sounds like prostitution and/or surviving as best the woman can.

Why? Did someone engineer brutality out of the human genome when I wasn't looking?

No, but we have thousands of years of social values, philosophical systems, and both logical and sentimental thought.

Of course it's not instant. That's just stupid.

Of course. Perhaps I was exaggerating for effect. But I still don't think its as easy as you seem to believe.

But given the right conditions, they will slide into it. The Stanford experiment took just 8 days for it to get to the point where the researcher had to put a stop to it before it went too far and somebody ended up dead. 8 days. And the 'jailers' were already going off the far end by that time. Not one of them were willing to do more than make a weak protest or two.

How reliable is this one week-long experiment? How often has it been repeated?

Do you think you're somehow different, special in some intrinsic way that you wouldn't be just as bad? You can insist on that if you want, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.

I don't think I'm some paragon of virtue. Far from it. However, I like to believe that humans as a whole are not so brutal and primitive as you seem to think.

It's there, inside you, the fear of your actions coming back to whack you. A social instinct to conform despite what the base instincts tell you that's ingrained into your genetic code well before you were born. Take that out, and only the id remains.

Funny, I don't have the desire to go out and rape. If I were dropped down on an empty planet with an attractive woman and no threat of retribution, I still don't think I would.

Then there's your apparent claim that our instinct is to be sociopaths, but their's a "social instinct" that's also genetic that keeps us from doing so? WTF?

Maybe fear helps control people. In fact, I'm sure it does. But so do empathy, and logic.

Hah! That's more the exception than the rule. The countless genocides and horrors that were inflicted upon the helpless throughout history, do you think that was done by a mere handful of people? Bollocks. They were done by tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people who were quick to slide into utter savagery on their victims for no other reason than it was war and everything was permitted because they were the victors.

How many stories do you hear of people in that victors circle opposing this sort of brutality? How many people do they encompass among the millions who didn't give a second thought towards ear collecting among civilians, live bayonet practice, cannibalism, murder of unarmed people or countless other horrors inflicted in the last century alone? A mere handful.

A lot more than you think. I'm not going to go find a thousand sepperate examples of people showing compassion and mercy to their enemies during wartime, as I'm one man with limited time. But frankly, I think you're finding what you expect to find, as corny as that may sound.

Do you think you have the strength of character to be among that handful? Out of millions? How deluded.

I hope that I would do the right thing if ever so profoundly unfortunate as to find myself in such a situation. However, I don't consider myself exceptionally nobel. I just think humanity's better qualities are not so rare as you may believe.

Do you have any evidence that it isn't? Calling it the urge to rape is a red herring, and you know it.[/QUOTE]

It was not intended as such.

The urge to reproduce is the only factor that counts. Whether it translates into an actual relationship or rape depends entirely on the conditions and environment available.

So it is your opinion that, given no threat of "repercussions" and the lack of anyone willing to have a sexual relationship with us, the natural human response is to resort to rape?

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?
I don't see rape as a "passive" violence in conflict; I see it as a weapon used to destroy the women and, in some areas, the fabric of society itself. I see it as possible war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, depending on the scope and scale.

As per your statement that some have offered up their bodies to avoid bloodier conflict: That's in the same league as someone who offers up for example an arm or a leg for the same purpose - it could be a worthwhile sacrifice, but it's still a terrible act of violence.

The link talks about how the rapes at first were acts of rage, revenge...and turned more into a kind of 'sexual conquest' of the 'conquerors'.

In the first case, the rage...it is easy to be horrified by the brutality. In the second case, where some women would 'offer' themselves up...I think it easy for the perpetrators especially to tell themselves that these women are willing. Others can also convince themselves of it. No one would dream of saying that a person consented to a physical beating in these situations...but the idea that a woman under duress consented...how is that a thought anyone could have at all? It's this idea that bothers me so much.

As you said, it's a way for the rapist to protect himself: "It wasn't really rape, so I didn't really do anything bad."

Wait a second...

That doesn't sound like rape. That sounds like survival. If a woman is willing trades sex for anything, then how is that rape? That sounds like prostitution and/or surviving as best the woman can.

Where do you draw the line between willing prostitution and rape, when she prostitutes herself as a means of survival?

Where do you draw the line between willing prostitution and rape, when she prostitutes herself as a means of survival? If there is consent. If the woman of her own free will decides to sleep with a soldier for food, that is consent, and not rape.

Now I wish I hadn't read this thread, I'll be depressed for days.

I'll be blunt: rapists are the worst kind of scum, bar none. Context is irrelevant.

There should be a special way of punishing rapists. We should bring back hanging, drawing and quartering.

No, but we have thousands of years of social values, philosophical systems, and both logical and sentimental thought.

And humans have millions of years of ingrained instincts that have been passed down at the genetic level. Your thousands of years are a mere paper thin shell against that. And even then, thousands of years of these so-called social values also include thousands of years of social acceptance, even approval, of treating anyone not identified within the immediate sub group but still in the same species as worthy targets of complete and unrestricted brutality.

So your idea that these social mores would keep people from being utter animals is laughable.


But I still don't think its as easy as you seem to believe.


That's because you're sitting in your nice, civilized sphere of comfort, a thousand feet in the air above the muck that is human nature, never realizing that one good kick is all it'd take for that tower to come crumbling down.


How reliable is this one week-long experiment? How often has it been repeated?

Reliable enough, and repeated around the globe almost daily given how many prison abuses, officially sanctioned or not, happen around the world, how easily people slip from seemingly nice people into murderous fucks who get their kicks from raping people with knives in between gunning down entire villages.

All it takes is the right environment, and anyone can turn into a monster.

You deny it, because you never imagine yourself in such an environment, deny its effects on you.


However, I like to believe that humans as a whole are not so brutal and primitive as you seem to think.

Think what you like, the reality of the world beyond shows just how wrong your thoughts are.


Funny, I don't have the desire to go out and rape. If I were dropped down on an empty planet with an attractive woman and no threat of retribution, I still don't think I would.

Of course you don't think you would. I'd bet that if you told the jailers of the Stanford Experiment that five days down the line, they'd be beating up classmates for kicks and stuffing them into closets for days, they'd think you were nuts too.

You deny your nature now. It's easy to do when you're sitting in comfort. But you won't find it so easy when the conditions are right.


Then there's your apparent claim that our instinct is to be sociopaths, but their's a "social instinct" that's also genetic that keeps us from doing so? WTF?

The want and the do not parts of instinct. A mouse has instincts that lead it to find food, but it's also got the same instincts that keeps it from going near a cat in the process. Does that make it clear?


A lot more than you think. I'm not going to go find a thousand sepperate examples of people showing compassion and mercy to their enemies during wartime, as I'm one man with limited time.

You can find me a thousand separate examples of people showing compassion, that's easy enough. Find me a thousand examples of people showing compassion in an environment where it's every person for themselves, or where brutality is the norm. That's a lot harder to do.

And even if you tried, I could counter with a million cases of people being merciless, murderous bastards, with enough corpses to build a damned city out of their bones.

It doesn't matter if you can find one, or a thousand cases of compassion in environments where compassion is a weakness. It will always be outnumbered by cases of callous brutality. Always.


I hope that I would do the right thing if ever so profoundly unfortunate as to find myself in such a situation. However, I don't consider myself exceptionally nobel. I just think humanity's better qualities are not so rare as you may believe.

Romanticism is always appealing since it portrays people in better light than what they people are really like.


So it is your opinion that, given no threat of "repercussions" and the lack of anyone willing to have a sexual relationship with us, the natural human response is to resort to rape?

Rape and murder squads in Darfur and various war torn parts of the world indicates just as much. In fact, the high incidence of rape that occurs around the world in countries where such crimes are rarely punished, much less brought to court, proves that only the lack of repercussions is all that is needed. And not only for rape.

If there is consent. If the woman of her own free will decides to sleep with a soldier for food, that is consent, and not rape.

That's the point. If the alternative is starvation, or violence to the woman/and or her family, there's not much "free will" involved.

That might have been true once (though I personally don't think so), but I do not believe that if you took away such fears, everyone would instantly revert to sociopathy. Most people can be pushed to inhumanity given a brutal enough environment or enough conditioning, but we will not all instantly revert to sociopaths without the threat of "repercussions."



So you believe that no human truly believes in any higher moral principles, and that we would immediately abandon any values we hold without the above mentioned threat of "repercussions?"That's not the point. It doesn't have to be 'everyone will do x if y happens'. All it takes is a few, and then those bound by morals become the prey. I think that's what is the most scary about it. You either become a monster to protect yourself and your loved ones...in which case the personal justification may not be that difficult, or you stick to your ethics while people around you abandon theirs.

Wait a second...

That doesn't sound like rape. That sounds like survival. If a woman is willing trades sex for anything, then how is that rape? That sounds like prostitution and/or surviving as best the woman can.

And there we have the attitude I've been talking about all along.

If the option is, die of starvation or sexually serve the aggressors, you are claiming that there is the ability to consent? Soldiers will kill your children if you don't have sex with them...that is 'trading sex', 'not rape', just 'prostitution/surviving'?

If those soldiers just randomly beat the living crap out of some guy, because that is the urge they wanted to satisfy at that time, would that be okay? Is the scenario of 'willing woman' trading sex to avoid starvation really a lesser violence?

I'm watching a film called Blindness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/) right now. There are some interesting social issues explored that I think could use discussion. The essential premise of the movie is that there is an unknown sickness that causes blindness. Those suffering from the affliction are quarantined without supervision. Eventually the quarantined are split into three 'wards', and one ward takes control of the food supply. At first they demand valuables in exchange for food...once that avenue is exhausted, they demand the women.

What particularly bothered me about this section of the film is that the men called for 'volunteers'. I don't think consent in this situation is possible for one. When one of the women dies and another takes revenge, the men complain that now there is going to be a 'war'. My thought at that moment was...the war began when these women released to be raped in exchange for food.

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?
it bothers you because its stupid. the women arent property of the group.

if they wanted women for sex they would have offered to have women join their group for a share of the food that they hold as long as they are willing to have sex with whatever men in the group wanted it.

the men dont control the women and there is no upside to sharing food for sex with those who would not provide the sex.

If there is consent. If the woman of her own free will decides to sleep with a soldier for food, that is consent, and not rape.

Unreal.

You cannot bandy around words like 'free will' in situations where there is no possibility to exercise free will.

Let's not make it about food, which you seem to regard as a luxury. A woman's children will be murdered unless she sleeps with the soldier. Your argument would have her 'consenting of her own free will'?

If there is consent. If the woman of her own free will decides to sleep with a soldier for food, that is consent, and not rape.

There isn't consent. This is at the very least under duress and there is no consent under duress. Women who are forced either by other people or by circumstance to have sex to live or to ensure their loved ones live are being abused. This is a very similar situation to human sex trafficking. Women are basically given no choice, die or be raped. The woman is not the one in control of this situation, she is the one being controlled.

Even women who consent to prostitution can find themselves trafficked if they end up in forced labour conditions. Consent at the outset is not a 'cover all' for any events that happen after.

Even women who consent to prostitution can find themselves trafficked if they end up in forced labour conditions. Consent at the outset is not a 'cover all' for any events that happen after.

Of course.

You should continue to read the link about mass rapes in Germany. Especially in occupied territories, women are absolutely bargaining chips.

If you only think about rape as something that happens in a sort of kidnapping, gang assault sort of scenario, and don't recognise that a woman 'willingly' having sex with the aggressor to secure food for her family is still rape, then this is the issue at the heart of this thread.
What you are describing is a situation of extortion. "Do Y for me, or I will do X to you/others you care about." There is nothing passive about it -- it's a crime dependent on the application of force. "Do what I demand, or I will see to it that you suffer an even greater loss up to and including your own death."

And the "choice" involved for the victim of such extortion is not dissimilar to the "choice" presented to an animal caught in a trap -- be killed in the trap, or chew their own leg off to escape. The victim may opt for one over the other, but to say that one is "good" or "not bad" is ridiculous. Both are bad and both do permanent and severe damage to the victim and anyone or anything dependent on the victim.

Unless the victim can find and make use of another way out -- a way to reopen the trap/get out of the clutches of the extortionist -- then the only "choice" is which kind of permanent, life-damaging/destroying harm you will opt to suffer. Since the victim's "choices" are limited by the force of the extortionist, then I would say it is also ridiculous to say that the victim is exercising their own free will in making said "choice." If they had the ability to exercise their own free will, no doubt, they would choose a third option, don't you think -- such as choosing not to be in that situation at all? But when our options are so limited by someone else, and that same someone blocks us from opting out of the situation altogether, then I don't see any way to claim that free will is being exercised.

That's not what I'm saying; what I would suggest is that these instances of "willing" sex are nevertheless acts of dominance by a conquering group, not means of preventing conflict. Once the power dynamic of occupier/occupied is established, then negotiating "willing" sex for food/protection/what have you is a way of enforcing that power, not mitigating it.
Absolutely. I agree.

Ah, in which case we are in agreement. It seems obvious to me that this is an act of violence, not a means to avoid violence. I think, however, that it is portrayed sometimes as the latter, rather than the former. It is this that confuses me.

I don't think the movie portrayed it in this manner...but certainly some of the protagonists in the 'powerless' group (not the women) were able to convince themselves that it was a lesser violence.
Just as an animal in a trap might decide it is better to lose a leg than stay in the trap. When a person is IN a horrible situation in which they cannot avoid being harmed in some terrible and permanent way, then they might make value judgments as to what kind of harm they think they can handle better. But that in no way suggests that the harm actually is somehow not harmful.

Note: I have not seen "Blindness" and am not commenting on the movie plot.

Wait a second...

That doesn't sound like rape. That sounds like survival. If a woman is willing trades sex for anything, then how is that rape? That sounds like prostitution and/or surviving as best the woman can.
Let's see if you can get this comparison:

A) A woman has a choice of ways to support herself and her family. She opts to trade sex for food/clothing/shelter/money/etc. She could get those things other ways, but she opts to sell/trade sex. THAT is prostitution and is an act of free will on the part of the woman.

B) A woman is under the power of someone else who demands that she give them sex or else they will harm her or her children, etc. To sweeten the threat a little, they also say that if she complies, not only will they not inflict the harm, but they might toss her some extra scraps from the table, too, if she's a good enough fuck. Because of the circumstances of the moment, the woman cannot escape the situation. THAT is rape by extortion and is NOT an act of free will on the part of the woman.

personally, i think neither is an appropriate topic for a joke, i mean, you would not say it to a person who had lost someone or been raped, so why say it at all.

if you cannott say a joke directly to the person it is involving than it is more than likely offensive and hurtful and neither of those are characteristics of a joke.

There is a scene in the film, The Last Action Hero, in which a villain comes-out of a film into reality, then shoots somebody (at night in a run-down neighborhood) to see the repercussions:

Benedict: I wonder if you could help me?
Mechanic: Sure, what do ya need?.
Benedict: Well...

Benedict shoots him. He listens for a while, then shouts:

Benedict: I have just shot someone, I did it on purpose.
[listens some more, still nothing]
Benedict: I said, I have just killed a man and I wish to confess!
[listens some more, someone tells him to shut up. He looks pleased]

The sequence is meant to be humorous, but many would object to it if it involved rape rather than murder.

Thanks Mur'v, you lay things out very well. I suspect that some people will still disagree...but then again, some people insist that choosing to die is always an option, thus ensuring free will in all situations.

Its to be less feared by the Non-Raped...

Its to be less feared by the Non-Raped...

Well I certainly wonder if that's a part of it...self-interest. Going back to the situation in the movie, the group as a whole faced starvation if the women didn't comply. There was, of course the option to fight with the other group to get food. Somehow it was seen as less dangerous for the women to offer themselves up than to fight with the other group.

Now what does that say? It says that the violence involved in rape is less to be feared than the violence the group could otherwise face. Well, in a way that's certainly true. None of the men faced sexual violence, so half the group was 'safe' in that sense. If they were to choose to fight the issue, then all of the group would face the violence.

However, as the movie aptly pointed out, there was no avoidance of violence in reality for the women, only an avoidance of violence for the men.

Well I certainly wonder if that's a part of it...self-interest. Going back to the situation in the movie, the group as a whole faced starvation if the women didn't comply. There was, of course the option to fight with the other group to get food. Somehow it was seen as less dangerous for the women to offer themselves up than to fight with the other group.

Now what does that say? It says that the violence involved in rape is less to be feared than the violence the group could otherwise face. Well, in a way that's certainly true. None of the men faced sexual violence, so half the group was 'safe' in that sense. If they were to choose to fight the issue, then all of the group would face the violence.

However, as the movie aptly pointed out, there was no avoidance of violence in reality for the women, only an avoidance of violence for the men.

Humans for yah, Self-Preservation 1st, Morality 2nd...

Humans for yah, Self-Preservation 1st, Morality 2nd...

When it comes to basic issues of survival, yes, I would say in most cases that is true.

it bothers you because its stupid. the women arent property of the group.

if they wanted women for sex they would have offered to have women join their group for a share of the food that they hold as long as they are willing to have sex with whatever men in the group wanted it.

the men dont control the women and there is no upside to sharing food for sex with those who would not provide the sex.

I'm going to have to go ahead and give you an F for your poor grammar usage.

Thanks Mur'v, you lay things out very well. I suspect that some people will still disagree...but then again, some people insist that choosing to die is always an option, thus ensuring free will in all situations.
True, there always are such people who, in my opinion, short-circuit discussion by applying urealistic "standards". But I think one of my points would cover even that cop-out, namely the one about someone else limiting our options for us.

Let's say that choosing to die is an option. Well, so is choosing to comply with the demand. The point is that the universe contains other options as well, but when the extortionist is blocking us from choosing or even considering any of those other options, then that blocking, all by itself, restricts our ability to exercise free will. We do not get to choose among all the possible outcomes the one that WE feel is the most desirable under the circumstances. Instead, we are forced to choose only among those that our enemy presents to us, all of which are bad for us and none of which we would choose if we really did have freedom.

The loss of freedom to choose begins with the limitation of available options, when that limitation is so severe that there can be no good outcome for the chooser. This is underscored when the restrictions include not allowing us to opt out of choosing altogether, to opt out of participation in the conflict/confrontation. What is really happening in such a situation is that there is only one outcome -- that the victim will be harmed -- and there is no choice about that at all. Therefore, no matter what the victim "chooses", the choice is not made freely, especially if they could not choose not to choose.

I'm going to have to go ahead and give you an F for your poor grammar usage.
I'm going to give you an F- for failure to contribute anything of interest to the discussion. Ash's grammar notwithstanding, she at least made a point. Do you have one you would like to make?

(Also, fyi, it's not "poor grammar usage." It's either poor grammar or good grammar. There is no need to add "usage" to it as "grammar" refers to the structure of sentences in general. If a carpenter had built a rickety cabinet, would you say it was a case of "poor construction usage"?)

pimp exist so it seems reasonable to me.

I'm going to give you an F- for failure to contribute anything of interest to the discussion. Ash's grammar notwithstanding, she at least made a point. Do you have one you would like to make?

Yeah, debauchery is wrong and women should leave it up to the men to fight and do all the BIG deciding.

Can you even imagine what it would be like if a woman was president during WW2? We'd have been screwed. It takes a MAN to know what's right. After all, we're more of the doers and thinkers while women are the ones who need to play it safe and look after the family at home.

Their primary role is that of caretakers, not leaders. That's why you see more nurses that are women and men that are doctors.

Satisfied?

Yeah, debauchery is wrong and women should leave it up to the men to fight and do all the BIG deciding.

Can you even imagine what it would be like if a woman was president during WW2? We'd have been screwed. It takes a MAN to know what's right. After all, we're more of the doers and thinkers while women are the ones who need to play it safe and look after the family at home.

Their primary role is that of caretakers, not leaders. That's why you see more nurses that are women and men that are doctors.

Satisfied?
Entirely. *dismisses noob*

I'm going to have to go ahead and give you an F for your poor grammar usage.
you better show my grammatical errors then.

Hey, a choice between an excruciating, painful and horrible death by starvation and having some hairy soldier stick his syphilitic penis in you is a choice! She chose... poorly! She should have ignored her survival instincts and committed honourable suicide rather than shame her father!

...similarly, a choice between a normal, loving mother watching her children get raped/killed, or consenting to having sex with a dashing stranger carrying arms for his own self-defense, and the defense of his nation and freedom!

Just because no sane, rational, emotionally functional human being would make any but one choice here doesn't mean there aren't multiple choices! In fact, there are even more choices than these false dichotomies. She could get rescued by an alien spaceship, for example, or suddenly mutate into a fire-breathing lightning dragon with magical powers.

Frankly, it's close minded to say she "had no choice." Of course she did, because God gave her free will, and she used His free will to consent to intercourse with another consenting human being in an act of love...

Though I believe that there are situations that could be called prostitution or sexual abuse (which would be different from rape) where the woman really has a choice, I'd still call it rape in the scenario Neesika has described,

If there is consent. If the woman of her own free will decides to sleep with a soldier for food, that is consent, and not rape.

I dunno, man. I don't think force is the only kind of coercion. The circumstances could include an element of duress.

Even if sex here were viewed as a commodity to be traded for food, if the woman is in an emergency situation, on the brink of starvation, her desperation results in an imbalance of power. She's not in a position to be able to bargain fairly.

So her consent in the immediate instance may have been a product of systemically unjust conditions.

I'm watching a film called Blindness (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861689/) right now. There are some interesting social issues explored that I think could use discussion. The essential premise of the movie is that there is an unknown sickness that causes blindness. Those suffering from the affliction are quarantined without supervision. Eventually the quarantined are split into three 'wards', and one ward takes control of the food supply. At first they demand valuables in exchange for food...once that avenue is exhausted, they demand the women.

What particularly bothered me about this section of the film is that the men called for 'volunteers'. I don't think consent in this situation is possible for one. When one of the women dies and another takes revenge, the men complain that now there is going to be a 'war'. My thought at that moment was...the war began when these women released to be raped in exchange for food.

Why is rape seen as a 'passive' violence in times of conflict? I don't believe everyone has this opinion, but it seems a common theme. Women throughout history have offered their bodies to the agressors in order to avoid bloodier conflict. Is sexual violence less to be feared than all out physical violence?

This seems like an expression of the most predatory and violative aspect of war.

When Conan answers the riddle of "what is best in life", he says "To crush your enemy, to see him driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women." Barbaric even in when rendered in caricature.

"I can not only kill you, I can take your woman as if property and penetrate her at will." If two men kill one another over a span of soil, they can at least pretend its just natural competition over resources in a habitat. When they want human beings as sexual spoils, we can't even pretend its just what any animal would do.

Yeah, debauchery is wrong and women should leave it up to the men to fight and do all the BIG deciding.

Can you even imagine what it would be like if a woman was president during WW2? We'd have been screwed. It takes a MAN to know what's right. After all, we're more of the doers and thinkers while women are the ones who need to play it safe and look after the family at home.

Their primary role is that of caretakers, not leaders. That's why you see more nurses that are women and men that are doctors.

Satisfied?

Trollin' trollin' trollin'

Just because no sane, rational, emotionally functional human being would make any but one choice here doesn't mean there aren't multiple choices! In fact, there are even more choices than these false dichotomies. She could get rescued by an alien spaceship, for example, or suddenly mutate into a fire-breathing lightning dragon with magical powers.

Frat parties would be very interesting if women, when threatened, could choose to transform into firebreathing lightning dragons with magical powers.

I like satire with spaceship references.

That said, even in peace time, its seems like there are a lot of institutionalized factors that impact their choices.

Let's see if you can get this comparison:

A) A woman has a choice of ways to support herself and her family. She opts to trade sex for food/clothing/shelter/money/etc. She could get those things other ways, but she opts to sell/trade sex. THAT is prostitution and is an act of free will on the part of the woman.

B) A woman is under the power of someone else who demands that she give them sex or else they will harm her or her children, etc. To sweeten the threat a little, they also say that if she complies, not only will they not inflict the harm, but they might toss her some extra scraps from the table, too, if she's a good enough fuck. Because of the circumstances of the moment, the woman cannot escape the situation. THAT is rape by extortion and is NOT an act of free will on the part of the woman.

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Sex at gunpoint is rape.

But, as you said, if a woman decided that the easiest way to get food and other necessicities was to sleep with the occupying soldiers then I don't think that would be rape.

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Sex at gunpoint is rape.

But, as you said, if a woman decided that the easiest way to get food and other necessicities was to sleep with the occupying soldiers then I don't think that would be rape.

Fortunately our Women are the Occupying Soldiers, so Im confident America has fulfilled its Duties, :p lol

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Sex at gunpoint is rape.

But, as you said, if a woman decided that the easiest way to get food and other necessicities was to sleep with the occupying soldiers then I don't think that would be rape.
Then you are not paying attention to the conversation, if you do not understand that what Neesika is talking about is situations of rape.

Then you are not paying attention to the conversation, if you do not understand that what Neesika is talking about is situations of rape.

Decided not to keep the label, eh? ;)

I actually thought he was Joking, lol...

Decided not to keep the label, eh? ;)

I actually thought he was Joking, lol...
Yeah, I decided to take a different tack, but as for joking, nah, I think TG made a remark that was off the point and, frankly, I'm pressuring him about it because it annoys me when everyone is talking about ABC and someone comes along with, "Well, I think MNO," as if that has any relevance at all.

Hey, a choice between an excruciating, painful and horrible death by starvation and having some hairy soldier stick his syphilitic penis in you is a choice! She chose... poorly! She should have ignored her survival instincts and committed honourable suicide rather than shame her father!

...similarly, a choice between a normal, loving mother watching her children get raped/killed, or consenting to having sex with a dashing stranger carrying arms for his own self-defense, and the defense of his nation and freedom!

Just because no sane, rational, emotionally functional human being would make any but one choice here doesn't mean there aren't multiple choices! In fact, there are even more choices than these false dichotomies. She could get rescued by an alien spaceship, for example, or suddenly mutate into a fire-breathing lightning dragon with magical powers.

Frankly, it's close minded to say she "had no choice." Of course she did, because God gave her free will, and she used His free will to consent to intercourse with another consenting human being in an act of love...
How can I possibly not like you when you construct breathtaking masterpieces like this?

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Sex at gunpoint is rape.

But, as you said, if a woman decided that the easiest way to get food and other necessicities was to sleep with the occupying soldiers then I don't think that would be rape.

It's not the "easiest" way. It's the only way. Let me put it this way. Sex at gunpoint or sex to stave off death by starvation. At the end of the day, there's no fundamental difference. There's still coercion.

If you want to argue that it isn't, then putting a gun to your hand and demanding your valuables isn't theft, because you chose to give me your stuff.