Rape Prevention: A New Advocate for Open-Ended Prevention Theory

[Tiassa]

Matters of Degrees

Here's a question: the paradigm of the psychological basis of rape is taken these days - I think - as a power issue.

Yet the rape of children by Catholic priests is considered to be a sexual one - again, I believe, recently - as an issue of sexual deprivation and repression.

Do these contrast, or have I misread these relative paradigms?

The contrast exists at one level, and flies out the window at another.

Not quite a digression: One of the weirdest things video games have taught me over the years is the "attribute slider". You know, as you flip through characters for a fighting game, or survey your team in a sports game. Speed, 80. Strength, 82. Agility, 79. That sort of thing. And in some games you could adjust those numbers, but it's generally a (quasi-) zero-sum endeavor; to increase one, you decrease another.

It's proven a useful tool for explaining certain things to certain people over time, but it also has its limits.

The power issue is undeniable in rape, but it is not the only factor. For many, the reminder about power had to do with the idea of some psycho grabbing a woman and raping her in a van down by the river, or something. Ted Bundy. Gary Ridgway. That sort of thing.

And the power issue is certainly prominent in marital rape.

It is less apparent in date rape, but the connection 'twixt sexual satisfaction and regard for other people as subordinate is necessary.

And while the rape of children by Catholic priests is not without fundamental connection to deprivation and repression, the act requires exploitation of the power issue.

As one considers various manifestations of rape in society, the differences can be described loosely like attribute sliders. If the psycho's "power issue" or authority need is 95, perhaps the marital rapist's is in the high eighties; maybe the date rapist's is in the seventies. Catholic priests? That's a tough one. It probably varies from rapist to rapist. The one holding boys down and muffling their screams are probably very high on the authority need scale. The one playing childish games in order to foster exposure and contact is seemingly less so, but the process is not without its exploitation of the power dynamic between abuser and victim.

Like I said, the illustration has its limitations.

Additionally, I can only reach so far after such explanations because they are intellectual propositions to me; I don't have a strong grasp of the visceral condition, and, in truth, that's a good thing. Some knowledge I just don't want.

But I don't think that power and gratification is an either-or proposition. Rather, I think the contrast you note is a matter of degrees.

 

[Bells]

Here's a question: the paradigm of the psychological basis of rape is taken these days - I think - as a power issue.

Yet the rape of children by Catholic priests is considered to be a sexual one - again, I believe, recently - as an issue of sexual deprivation and repression.

Do these contrast, or have I misread these relative paradigms?

It isn't just about power.

It is also about control.

From the clergy who rape children (even those who groom their child victims for however long it takes them) to stranger rapes, to spousal rapes or acquaintance rapes, power and control is a big factor.

 

[quadraphonics]

Here's a question: the paradigm of the psychological basis of rape is taken these days - I think - as a power issue.

Yet the rape of children by Catholic priests is considered to be a sexual one - again, I believe, recently - as an issue of sexual deprivation and repression.

Do these contrast, or have I misread these relative paradigms?

The pattest response to that issue that I've ever encountered was the observation that all sex is a "power issue."

Granted, that's a bit flip, but I think it drives home the point that the power basis isn't supposed to be exclusive of a sexual one, but rather a question of certain elements of said sexual basis getting out of balance or otherwise destructively expressed.

 

[Gustav]

after a bunch of deep thoughts i advice bi women to stay out of arizona for safety and peace of mind

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The thing about keeping all of that stuff invisible is that you can't draw any credibility for the process amongst the general membership from it. You guys might well have orderly, productive processes in place, or it might just be a highly politicized shouting match - us mere mortals have no way of knowing and so no way of being impressed when the process or its results are invoked.

We're chosen for our ability to remain calm in a crisis, and most of us do so most of the time. We've had a few moderators who were knowledgeable in their disciplines and had plenty of time to do their jobs, but they became too emotional and it interfered with fairness. So they were demoted.

We all have bad days and many of us have an individual member who has cleverly found our hot buttons so we react too strongly to his taunts. But the Elders Council as a group keeps us in line. I've had to promise to never again ban two specific members. Fortunately one has become such a notorious asshole that some other moderator will do it for me. My faith in communal justice is upheld.

In some cases it was only one. To be clear, most of the bans were notionally for "insult." But neither I nor anybody else ever seems to get banned for non-profane insults, and nor does profanity that isn't directed at any particular poster seem to get sanctioned. So the precedent seems to add up to a rule against profane insults. But, throw in the personal vendettas that certain powers have against me, and maybe talk of "precedent" is too idealized.

Aha. I wondered if it was something like that. You can use profanity and say, "Romney and Obama are both assholes who should be kicked to the curb in November by voting Libertarian," (Oh wait, I think I just quoted one of my own posts), and you can toss out an insult by saying, "You are a typical American sheep for disagreeing with me about that."

But if you combine profanity with insult and say, "You are a dick for disagreeing with me about that," then you've crossed the line. As the Linguistics Moderator I have a particular problem with that. Profanity is the last resort of the person with a limited vocabulary, or one who can't think straight when he's angry. In both cases he needs to improve the quality of his discourse.

Nonetheless, some of our people have thick skins and give as good as they get. I try not to spend too much time being a playground monitor, telling our members to act the age that matches their chronological maturity rather than their emotional maturity. So what I often do is simply delete the posts, listing "attempt to incite a flame war" as the reason. That's trolling: derailing a discussion so it makes no forward progress. And it has the benefit of being the worst possible punishment for many of our members: Seeing the words they're so proud of vanish into the ether.

Apparently you've never posted one of your trademark cussword insults in Linguistics or Arts & Culture, or you would have already had this experience. It's so much easier for both the moderator and the members. I don't have to explain myself to anybody, and the members get their discussion back.

I can assure you that you (collectively) do not allow me, personally, to address people here in significantly stronger terms than that. In fact I'd wager that I would catch a ban for calling certain specific powers here "bastard."

Perhaps so, although as I said the worst I would do is delete your post. Being punished more strongly for flaming a moderator than a general member may seem a little unfair, but most organizations frown upon insulting the leadership under the guise of "maintaining respect for order." Look at what the members of a certain Middle Eastern cult of believers in supernatural creatures and phenomena do when people insult their Supreme Leader.

If you're going to exclude the question of whether the bans are just at the outset, then you clearly don't want to know.

I'm not excluding anything. As I said, next time it happens, notify me at the time.

Let's just say that there are limits to my respect for authority and that I prefer to catch a ban than to compromise on certain things. I understand that. Actually, let's go a bit further and say that certain of them were done on purpose, both to make a point and to give me a vacation when I've needed to concentrate on other things.

I understand. This is one of the many reasons I prefer to delete a post than issue a ban. You'll be very unhappy to find your eloquent expression of contempt for the moderators deleted, and you won't get your vacation. You lose doubly!

Anyway I'm sure the same issues will arise again at some point, so you can watch for yourself at that time.

Apparently you and I don't hang out on the same boards, so I will probably continue to miss it.

Again, the "precedent" seems to be the combination of profanity and insult. Insults alone seem to go right by, as does profanity not directed at anyone in particular. When combined, at least by myself, the result is a ban.

I've already expressed my understanding of that judgment. My only disagreement is in how to deal with it. In a place like this, the worst thing you can do to anybody is erase his post.

Given the source of these bans, I am quite confident that you will get exactly nowhere in "investigating" them, but thanks for your statement there regardless.

If that is a thinly veiled reference to James R, he and I have had many arguments. I think his skin is too thin and he thinks I'm a quintessential foul-mouthed Yank with no respect for anything or anybody. But we usually manage to reach agreement.

 

[Tiassa]

Monkeyshines, or, Something About the Topic

Monkeyshines, or, Something About the Topic

So, aside from our neighbor Arauca's monkeyshining, is there any real substance to this open-ended prevention theory? I mean, four years ago, rape advocates were trying to reduce men to machines who could not be held responsible for their actions. Now we've got one who considers a female human being the equivalent of a desperately horny man's right hand.

This would be morbidly offensive, of course, except that it's so hard to take seriously. And anything I might say condemning our neighbor for reducing rape to a half-witted masturbation joke is useless; Arauca has made the point well enough on his own.

Here, let us try this: Last year, we engaged a discussion about the idea of ladies night is misandrous. In New Jersey, one bar owner argued in defense of Ladies' Night that seventy percent of his patrons on Ladies' Night were men, and they, too, were enjoying the discounts offered women.

And as one member noted, the purpose of Ladies' Night is to "fill up the room". The New Jersey bar owner made the same argument.

So, setting aside the question of whether Ladies' Night is unfairly discriminatory against men (the state of New Jersey said it is), here's the question:

• If you own a bar, how would you feel if the state told women that the best thing to do was to not go to bars?​

Because, quite clearly, the question of how open-ended prevention theory actually affects women doesn't seem to be important to those who prescribe such measures.

Very well. I mean, hell, if its advocates are going to compare men to machines in order to excuse them from responsibility for their actions, or compare rape to masturbation, there's not really much to say. The issue essentially has two camps: One that thinks the better solution is to not rape anyone, and another that puts the burden of not being raped on rape victims.

That part seems pretty clear-cut.

Thus, how does such a standard affect other people?

Let's start with the bar owner. When the government is telling women—a statistical majority of the population—to stay out of your establishment because of nothing in particular that you have done, but, rather, because it is unrealistic to expect men to not rape women in bars, well ... yeah, I know it sounds like a psychotherapist, but how does that make you feel? The state is telling over half the population to stay the hell out of your establishment?

And when we add to that the inherently sexist—but observable—consideration that more women in your bar means more men? I mean, what is the state doing to your business, then?

That is to say, since the issues pertaining to the individual seem so clearly defined, what are the more communal effects of open-ended prevention theory?