Rape is not about sex? (soul, nature, society, biological)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently came across a passage in a book, published in 2002, that made me wonder about our current views:
I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out.
- Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (p. 362)
I think that, back in 2002, Pinker was essentially correct in this assessment. But I'm wondering: Have we, already as of 2016, reached this point of historical hindsight? Has academia and the general public pretty much gotten over this "extraordinary popular delusion"? Or are there still taboos surrounding this subject?
Just to be clear: Pinker was not denying that some rapes are all about power/control. Certainly you can find examples of mentally deranged men raping purely out of hatred for women and/or the need to assert power or control. But common sense suggests that some (probably most?) rapes are, indeed, about men using violence because they want sex and don't see any non-coercive way to get it. Obvious rape implies many failures: failures of self-control, imagination, intelligence, compassion, etc., and probably some failures of parenting and society to instill good values, etc. - but none of these failures imply that the rape was "not about sex."
Of course the larger context of Pinker's book is the idea of "the blank slate" - which is the larger picture he is really trying to argue against. He is arguing that children are born with at least some aspects of individual nature or human nature that parenting and social engineering generally won't be able to change. This notion of human nature, too, seems to be not so controversial as it was in the 80s and 90s when "the blank slate" was all the rage and sociobiology was seen as pure evil promoting genocide, etc.
I am not sure what Pinker is saying, I may have to read more to get clarity.
Men who can pay for sex still rape, like the guy Strauss Kahn. It is sex only from his side it is violence and power in the way he intimidated her on her side. If you are violated against your wish, even if it is only sex, it is rape a violent act.
What about sexual assault in the work place? Is that just sex?
So I don't know what Pinker is talkeing about.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Some rape is about power, or a violence/bullying fetish. Other times it's about misinterpretations of what the other person (usually a woman) wants. If it's about certain pedophiles, it's (as distasteful as it sounds) about those people being sexually turned on by prepubescent children. Most adults do limit their sexual advances to other adults (and even then, only within a certain socially appropriate age range), and will back off when the other partner is not reciprocating besides.
Still, some people for some reason do get off on having sexual preferences clearly demeaning to their partners. Sad but true.
I am not sure what Pinker is saying, I may have to read more to get clarity.
Men who can pay for sex still rape, like the guy Strauss Kahn. It is sex only from his side it is violence and power in the way he intimidated her on her side. If you are violated against your wish, even if it is only sex, it is rape a violent act.
What about sexual assault in the work place? Is that just sex?
So I don't know what Pinker is talkeing about.
I think I see a source of confusion. In this chapter of his book, Pinker is responding to a phrase that is often heard: "Rape is not about sex." Disagreeing with this statement is not the same as saying "Rape is only about sex." He would completely agree, for example, with this statement: "Rape is not just about sex."
If someone who says "Rape is not about sex" really means to say "Rape is not just about sex" then there is no disagreement. In addition to being about sex, rape is also about the various failures I mentioned in my previous post.
I think this quote from Pinker gives a good insight in his thinking:
"But the fact that rape has something to do with violence does not mean it has nothing to do with sex, any more than the fact that armed robbery has something to do with violence means it has nothing to do with greed. Evil men may use violence to get sex, just as they use violence to get other things they want." (p. 362)
Keep in mind Pinker's deeper agenda is to attack the notion of a "blank slate." We are not born blank slates. In the 1970s and 80s some feminists were concerned that sociobiology would be used to justify racism, sexism, etc. Pinker, as of 2002, is trying to point out that scientific data has already weighed in heavily on this. There is simply no scientific basis for saying that racism or sexism are rooted in biological differences. Male and female brains are biologically different, but this does not mean that women shouldn't be engineer or mathematicians, or political leaders, etc. In other words, people pushed the "blank slate" concept out of fear that sociobiology would be used to justify racism and sexism, but as it turns out, sociobiological data simply does not support racism or sexism in the first place, so pushing "the blank slate" is unnecessary and, of course, unscientific.
Anyway, the concept of rape got pulled into the limelight in the 80s because many sociobiologists did point out that there is a genetic advantage for men who rape. Thus, if there are any genes that correlate with a tendency toward rape, those genes will generally tend to survive in the gene pool. This does not justify rape, but any hint that rape might be "natural" was too freaky for people to think about, so they pushed the blank slate concept, despite the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence against it.
Interesting, and I don't think the author is necessarily wrong, but when I think of "power" I think of not only the overt notions of physical power, but rather the implied power of men and sort of "rape culture" that exists and that has existed for a long time.
If anything "classical" rape is more about power than sex, although one can't deny that there is a reason why certain men do rape rather than just harm. Just at a certain point it doesn't really matter.
As far as blank slate, etc...I don't really buy one argument or the other, I think its a mix of learned behaviors and genes.
I also think that we're far from blaming genetics or what our genes "point to" as we aren't base animals anymore and have been civilized for thousands of years.
To be mindful of the Other as an equal an not an object is something that is greatly needed and not just to eschew rape culture; it can and does apply to all facets of life. Its really a narrative I don't mind buying into.
I think I see a source of confusion. In this chapter of his book, Pinker is responding to a phrase that is often heard: "Rape is not about sex." Disagreeing with this statement is not the same as saying "Rape is only about sex." He would completely agree, for example, with this statement: "Rape is not just about sex."
If someone who says "Rape is not about sex" really means to say "Rape is not just about sex" then there is no disagreement. In addition to being about sex, rape is also about the various failures I mentioned in my previous post.
I think this quote from Pinker gives a good insight in his thinking:
"But the fact that rape has something to do with violence does not mean it has nothing to do with sex, any more than the fact that armed robbery has something to do with violence means it has nothing to do with greed. Evil men may use violence to get sex, just as they use violence to get other things they want." (p. 362)
Keep in mind Pinker's deeper agenda is to attack the notion of a "blank slate." We are not born blank slates. In the 1970s and 80s some feminists were concerned that sociobiology would be used to justify racism, sexism, etc. Pinker, as of 2002, is trying to point out that scientific data has already weighed in heavily on this. There is simply no scientific basis for saying that racism or sexism are rooted in biological differences. Male and female brains are biologically different, but this does not mean that women shouldn't be engineer or mathematicians, or political leaders, etc. In other words, people pushed the "blank slate" concept out of fear that sociobiology would be used to justify racism and sexism, but as it turns out, sociobiological data simply does not support racism or sexism in the first place, so pushing "the blank slate" is unnecessary and, of course, unscientific.
Anyway, the concept of rape got pulled into the limelight in the 80s because many sociobiologists did point out that there is a genetic advantage for men who rape. Thus, if there are any genes that correlate with a tendency toward rape, those genes will generally tend to survive in the gene pool. This does not justify rape, but any hint that rape might be "natural" was too freaky for people to think about, so they pushed the blank slate concept, despite the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence against it.
I haven't read Pinker so my comments are from that limited perspective, but what you quote from him and the inferences you make seem true enough. The appeal to nature fallacy is pretty powerful, and I understand why people are uncomfortable making statements like "rape has genetic advantages" without qualifying it 16 different ways. Likewise, I see why people challenge such a statement when it's unqualified, or even when it is qualified. Logically, just as what's "natural" isn't necessarily good, what's true isn't necessarily good in some contexts. Rape victims don't really need to hear about or in any way benefit from the truth that rape has or had genetic advantages.
But on a less visceral level, it's worthwhile to look at such an ugly truth. Facing the inevitable potential for rape can possibly lead us to abdicate responsibility for preventing it, but it can also help us target the real and diverse causes. Some rapists are almost entirely the product of their environments. Some are almost entirely the product of their genetic make-up. Most are some combination of experience and inherent tendencies. If prevention is aimed entirely at the environmental side of the spectrum (blank slate advocates) then most of the spectrum isn't impacted by those efforts. What a waste.
Anyone who is thinking rape is about sex has gotten wrong what sex is...
Keep in mind that Pinker is talking in terms of biology. If a rape victim gets pregnant, or could have gotten pregnant then, biologically speaking, sex happened. In this light, to say that "rape is not about sex" is rather absurd. To put it simply: sex not always a loving or consensual act. I would say that any act that involves someone having an orgasm is, to some extent, "about sex".
And to repeat: To say that some instances of rape are about sex is not to say that these rapes are only about sex. As I said in the OP, rape also very clearly implies various sorts of failures on the part of the rapist, and in some cases failures on the part of parents and/or society.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-03-2016 at 12:24 PM..
As far as blank slate, etc...I don't really buy one argument or the other, I think its a mix of learned behaviors and genes.
This is exactly what Pinker is saying. (And it is what all sociobiologists say as well.) I'm not aware of any scientists who claims that any behavior is 100% genetic. The trick is always to figure out how much of any given behavior is statistically predictable based on genetics. This is where identical twins studies, etc., come in handy.
Just to emphasize: No one is saying that any behavior is determined completely by genetics. Even the most purely mechanical genetic processes at the molecular level are to a significant degree based on environmental factors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
