Posted on 10/04/2004 7:31:17 AM PDT by dead
Most men who think that are wrong. I, however, am not most men.
Neither do I. It simply doesn't matter how either of us views it. It's just a, generally speaking and historically supportable, fact.
I honestly think that the main reason that most men don't commit rape is because they have no innate desire to engage in nonconsexual sex.
I suppose so. That is an entirely different question. A man doesn't have to commit rape to get sex though. Given his advantages he can obtain permission fairly easily if he understands those advantages and has a little skill at psychological manipulation.
You have to understand that hopespringseternal's statement isn't about an individual experience it's a generalisation based on historical experience and biological facts. You may have ethics and personal standards of behavior. So do I. But we don't have to. That's one fact. Whenever a woman allows herself to be in a situation alone with a man she must face those facts.
Most men who don't think they are ... definitely aren't!
I think I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not completely sure. What I have said is that I don't think that most men abstain from raping women because of "ethics and personal standards of behavior." I think most men abstain from raping women because they have no innate desire to engage in nonconsexual sex. In other words, I don't think that most men ever have to confront any ethical questions - they don't find themselves saying, "I'd like to, but I shouldn't, and thus will restrain myself" because they wouldn't "like to" to begin with. It has nothing to do with "power" and everything to do with desire.
Whenever a woman allows herself to be in a situation alone with a man she must face those facts.
There's no question about that. Obviously, there are some men who do seem to have a desire for nonconsensual sex and there is no foolproof way for women to distinguish such men from the majority of men who (I believe) don't have such desires. So, yeah, women have to be cautious because there are some abnormal guys out there and no matter how efficiently we kill, castrate, incarcerate or adequately threaten them, we won't be able to completely eliminate the hazard. I wish we could. ;-)
I didn't include that but that's true too.
Obviously, there are some men who do seem to have a desire for nonconsensual sex and there is no foolproof way for women to distinguish such men from the majority of men who (I believe) don't have such desires.
That's true as well but what I'm saying and what I think hopespringseternal was saying isn't about rape or nonconsensual sex per se. Male dominance pervades ALL sexual relations between men and women. It's there whether you use it or not. That creates a psychological dynamic that exists no matter what the individual man is like. It can't be erased even by long term relations with a perfect gentleman. (It could be ignored or a woman could delude herself into believing it doesn't exist of course.) But it remains a possibility that any man could become an aggressor at any time. It would be a rare situation where the man lacked physical and mental superiority in terms of aggression IMO.
I wish we could too. I'm not even talking about that.
I suppose, but I can readily distinguish between, on the one hand, some aggression and dominance as part of normal consensual sexual activity and, on the other hand, force or compulsion at such a level that we find ourselves talking seriously about our graciously granting to women the power to say no. There remains for me a real difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex, and I really don't think most people desire the latter.
You know, I really do try to not be overly harsh in my judgments of folks who have somehow found themselves stuck with desires that I don't happen to share. I can't read stories about guys who have a thing for little kids or guys who have a thing for animals or guys who have a thing for dead bodies or even guys who have a thing for other guys without my having some feeling of thankfulness that I was lucky enough to not get stuck with that kind of desire, that kind of burden. It can't be easy - not in our world. ;-)
I suppose, but ...
You suppose? Do some men come with ironclad guarantees?
... but I can readily distinguish between, on the one hand, some aggression and dominance as part of normal consensual sexual activity and, on the other hand, force or compulsion ...
So can many, if not most, women. It is non-sequitur to the point.
... at such a level that we find ourselves talking seriously about our graciously granting to women the power to say no.
I think hopespringseternal addressed that thought quite well:
hse: Actually, there is very little nobility (graciousness) in it, and if you think there is you have a problem. Any of us has the power to "lie in wait" and kill someone. That few people do isn't evidence of noble character (graciousness), rather it is simply evidence that we are not of particularly nasty (ungracious) character .
I don't know what I could add to that except to say that I was never talking, seriously or flippantly, about "graciously granting to women the power to say no." Any woman with a modicum of wordy experience and two working brain cells knows that most men could take her by force if they wanted to. It never has to enter a mans mind that he would do that for that reality to exist. It simply does exist (fantasizing that it would be nice if no man ever wanted to notwithstanding).
While I'm glad to hear that you're not harshly judgmental about the neurosis of others I think your last paragraph is something I really didn't need to know. I don't see any connection between those thoughts and the psychological dynamic between men and women.
It is the general dynamic I have focused on not aberrant behaviors. The history of man's tendencies and abilities to intimidate and overpower women exists irregardless of exceptions to it good or bad. To all but the most rigidly sheltered woman that history colors their conscious and unconscious thoughts regarding men.
wordy = worldly (spellcheck misedited me)
I tried phone sex and got an ear infection.
In my experience, for most guys sex is 80% physical and 20% emotional. For most women it is 20% physical and 80% emotional. Modern women seem to have two mindsets:
1. Having sex will get me loved. (Majority opinion) Or...
2. I won't have sex until I am in love. (Vocal Minority).
Modern men tend to fall into one mindset:
1. I want to have sex.
This explains why there are more female prostitutes than male prostitutes. Women tie up sex with emotional strings and men tend to do so much less. In fact, when I was young and single, men who EXPECTED an emotional commitment from sex were considered wimps.
So what does this have to do with men enjoying watching women get it on?
Since, for many men, an emotional commitment is small part of sex and the best part is physical gratification, they don't care why the two women are there, they just see two women as twice the fun. Most women, watching two men have sex, would be consumed with the "does he like him better than me" thought to the point where it would not be enjoyable. The few women I have met that have had sex with two men have all pointed out that THEY were the center of attention and that the men weren't interested in each other. The guys who have have sex with two women have been more thrilled with being part of the action and were not interested in who was the primary focus of attention.
In mathematical terms: for most women, sex is a subset of love. For most men, love is a subset of sex.
Agreed. The bull dykes who frequented the Women's Center at the higher education establishment from which I graduated usually had combat boots and better beards than General Grant.
I guess we've been focusing on two different aspects of that sentence. Clearly, if weapons or other equalizing instruments are not considered, there is an obvious imbalance of physical power between the sexes. My focus has been on the "if they wanted to" portion of that sentence. Men who have no desire to engage in nonconsensual sex have no occasion to imagine themselves "granting to women the power to say no."
Picture a woman driving her big SUV down a city street. Clearly, she has the power to jump the curb and collide with a group of males sitting at a sidewalk table, something those males wouldn't like. If she doesn't do so, I guess we could say that in some sense she has granted these males the power to say no to such a collision, but do you think such thoughts occur to her (assuming that she doesn't desire such a collision)?
Yes, you have been reframing a generalisation into a literalisation which changes the context from an historical perspective to the individual or personal perspective. Apples and oranges. Sorry to be stubborn but I didn't want to go there.
Men who have no desire to engage in nonconsensual sex have no occasion to imagine themselves "granting to women the power to say no."
That's personal. That's what you know about yourself.
If she doesn't do so, I guess we could say that in some sense she has granted these males the power to say no to such a collision, but do you think such thoughts occur to her (assuming that she doesn't desire such a collision)?
No need to know whether she desires to hit them or not. In spite of the stereotype of 'women drivers' there is not enough of a history or precedent there to create a universal doubt in the mens minds about what a woman driver might do. The arguement is also not equal because there is no chance to decline or protest being hit by a car while sitting by a road.
Again it is not about what an individual man thinks but what expectation any woman can have of any man at any time based on the man/woman experience of all history and, based on the same, what a woman can reasonably expect to do about it. As you said, given no equalizers (individual experience again), not much. (Men usually have more experience with weapons, for that matter, and would likely have the ability to disarm a woman. Size and strength are only two aspects of aggression after all.)
Men have the advantage and have been known in all times and places to use it. It's not easy to make a profile that will determine which ones will.
Put another way; the man who has no interest in non-consensual sex has, in essence, given the women in his life permission to decide simply because he could change his mind about it. Even if he never consciously made a decision about it. It's not about what any man thinks it's about the reality women face.
My wife brought this to my attention in conversation and I took it personally at first too. (In a general way as a man.)(And I didn't like it) It seems ugly. But reality doesn't care what it seems like. The reality of 'waterfall' is rather ugly if your boat is going over it. It seems unfair. It is. But is it unfair that women have to bear children or is it unfair that men can't bear children? Reality doesn't care about fair. Reality just is. That's what hopespringseternal's post was about. What is.
FWIW I'm no feminist and neither is my wife. Far from it. Especially her!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.