Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Society and Rape Message-ID: <5492@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 17-May-85 15:18:45 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5492 Posted: Fri May 17 15:18:45 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 01:04:49 EDT Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 125 This is kind of long, so settle down and get comfortable, or use the old "q". Now that the subject's come up, and the usual responses have come out, we should try to form some kind of new opinions about the role of rape in society, and how to *deal* with the crisis. (Note: rape is a crisis, not a problem. Just because it's been around for thousands of years doesn't mean it's less serious.) The porpose of rape, it has been mentioned, is to create a situation in which an insecure male may humiliate/dominate/abuse/etc/etc a female by virtue (or vice) of their respective genders. I see two entirely different but related causes of rape: (Correct me if you disagree) 1) It is mentally gratifying to the rapist to see a woman (representative of all women) humiliated. I see this as not terribly different from the victor of a duel forcing the loser to eat excrement, except that you can recover from dysentery. I've heard that a woman never recovers from rape. This brings up the side-issue of why soldiers rape women in a country the soldiers conquer, and that the severity seems to be related to the difficulty of the war. The cause is possibly a desire to humiliate a member of "the enemy". Any sociologists care to comment? 2) It is physically gratifying to the rapist. This cannot be denied, but it seems to be less important. It does, however, contribute one terrifying agent: a man may rape women once, or some numbert of times, because of (1), but then continues because he *enjoys* it. It becomes an act which is pleasureable physically, and so he may become *addicted* to this course of behavior. He still believes that (1) is the real reason, and it is, but only in part. This may account for the claim (probably originated by a rapist, for reasons explainable only to those who understand the male ego) that the victim enjoys rape. The rapist enjoys it, and because he thinks of himself as a great lover (most men do) he is *sure* that she enjoyed it as well. But this stems not from the male perception of women, at least directly, so much as from the male perception of himself. The rapist may actually become psychologically dependent on the idea that his victim is enjoying the act of rape. I claim that the 1 in 3 college freshmen who would rape a woman if they thought they could get away with it (and *really*should* know better) for the most part would also hire a prostitute if she didn't charge much and he knew she wasn't a cop. I claim that most of these ignoramuses really want sex, not to humiliate a woman. Rapes committed by such people as these can be most easily prevented simply through education programs. The effects of rape in society are common and pervasive, and universally negative. I will indulge in a hackneyed phrase: Women live in fear of being raped. The reason this phrase has been around so long is that everyone who looks at the issue arrives at the same conclusion. Women are afraid of being alone in strange places, or familiar places; in short women are afraid that even now, some deranged male with unimaginable motives is out there. This affects everything from deciding on transpor- tation to facing down the boss when he's wrong. It has the effect of keeping women "in line", which means "in line with men's beliefs and expectations". A woman faces the possibility that if she offends too many men, one of them may be a rapist. But how many is too many? I would bet that too many is not a terribly large number at all. But what of men's views of women and rape? This is a tough one for me, because my views on rape are probably not typical. Most men (I hope) are not rapists. But the actions of the few, and their sheer amount of activity, affects the behavior of all women toward all men. And there is *NO* way to tell which of a roomfull of men are rapists, if any. The safe course is to assume they all are. The book mentioned in a previous article (asserting a conspiracy of societal forces) probably deals with just this: any man *physically* could be a rapist, and as for mentally, some could and some could not, but there's no way to tell. (I haven't read the book, so the above is my opinion only) I have stated in few words the wide-reaching effects of rape on women. Suffice it to say that there are few elements of a womans life, I would guess, that are unaffected. What the effects are, I can hardly imagine. But what should be done about rape? Many people have proposed ideas for new punishments for rape (stocks, castration, branding, etc.) but the real problem is the rapist is rarely caught, and if he is, the woman may be in for a mauling when the case goes to trial. The idea of deterrence does not strike me as effective because rape is essentially an irrational act (see 1 & 2 above) more like ritual murder than embezzling. So the proper course of action, in my opinion, is prevention, not punishment. Historical note: in the middle ages, women were considered property, so rape was considered a *serious* crime. But rapists didn't stop. How? Education would help, but only so much. It might prevent most rapes, which would be nice, but not enough. The theme of "A Clockwork Orange" could be used on the real tough ones that get caught, but you have to catch them first. A curfew on either men or women seems to me to be a proposal with negative connotations, and may be useful *only* because it's effective. (Side note: women live under an understood, by both men and women, curfew. The reason most women are raped in their homes is most women are in their homes most of the time. As a defence, it's not good enough.) But let's borrow a lesson from history. The vast majority of social advances have been made by the people, who up and decided to do essentially small things, all together, that caused essentially small changes. Periods of "great change" in history merely mean that there were more of these small changes going on. This is my perception of the activities of the women's movement as well. (Corrections are welcome) To achieve an end, a large group of women act as if it was achieved, and after a lot of blood, sweat, toil, tears, and lawsuits, voila, it's achieved. Petitions and protests are effective only if those in power will do something in response to the petitions and protests. On this issue, those in power haven't a clue about what to do. Old statement: "Humans were not given fire; we took it." I suggest that the answer to rape is for all women, and I do mean all women, to take a line of action that is essentially small, but will make raping women *extremely*dangerous* or at least difficult. One friend of mine, a woman, suggested that if women had evolved functional teeth in their labia, rape wouldn't be a problem. This is exactly the kind of thing that would work; unfortunately, no such thing. Any ideas? -fini- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (soon) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Q1: "The world is round. Forever. With all else, it's up to us." Q2: "Reason is Peace; Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength."