Rape; social vice or normal social activity?

Read Comments Comments (5)

• Factually Reliable 12 years ago

  This article is very revealing. I have always wondered why people rape some young girls. So it is a mixture of physiological need and low income thus not being to afford the kind of woman you want. Ei asemoooooooooooooooooooo ...
  read full comment

  This article is very revealing. I have always wondered why people rape some young girls. So it is a mixture of physiological need and low income thus not being to afford the kind of woman you want. Ei asemoooooooooooooooooooooo

  reply
• Lolulou 12 years ago

  Rape is never acceptable and old rich men who do so just because they have money are completely irresponsible and a disgrace!!!

  Rape is never acceptable and old rich men who do so just because they have money are completely irresponsible and a disgrace!!!

  reply
• Amarkai Amarboi 12 years ago

  Rape is simply not a normal social activity. It is not only acceptable but also, a crime against humanity.

  Rape is simply not a normal social activity. It is not only acceptable but also, a crime against humanity.

  reply
• Jamie 12 years ago

  Whether something is "normal" and whether it is "acceptable" are two different things, and the notion of a "crime" is distinct from both.
  
  That rape is a crime under terms established by the United Nations is simply factua ...
  read full comment

  Whether something is "normal" and whether it is "acceptable" are two different things, and the notion of a "crime" is distinct from both.
  
  That rape is a crime under terms established by the United Nations is simply factual, but what good does that do anyone? The author here is trying to discuss the problem on a thought-provoking level. If the fact that rape is a criminal offense were sufficient, we'd not need to have such a discussion, because rape would not occur. It does anyway, so we need to talk about it.

  reply
• Jamie 12 years ago

  First, we need to agree on a definition for the term "normal social activity." That something is "normal" does not unto itself mean that it is "moral" or "legal;" indeed, many activities that are illegal are normal and may n ...
  read full comment

  First, we need to agree on a definition for the term "normal social activity." That something is "normal" does not unto itself mean that it is "moral" or "legal;" indeed, many activities that are illegal are normal and may not be viewed in moral terms at all (e.g. underage drinking in the United States).
  
  My assumption here is that the author is not asking whether rape is "acceptable" (which is clearly is not) but rather whether the social norms of modern human society -- things like money, gender inequality, and men scared of being called feminine -- make it more likely that someone will commit rape than would otherwise be the case.
  
  One thing we need to be very clear on is that the idea of rape does not exist outside of human conception. Animals engage in sexual behavior under one of three possible paradigms:
  
  1. Males inherently accept females' unwillingness to mate.
  
  2. Females are sufficiently powerful as to literally prevent unwanted males from mating with them.
  
  3. Males overpower females and mate with them anyway.
  
  The third outcome appears to be comparable to what we call "rape," but it is not, because sexual behavior is compulsive for animals and is not governed by a moral code. Rape, therefore, is not merely sexual behavior but is specifically tied to the notions of human morality.
  
  One problem that arises from this tie is that human morality varies by culture. Certainly, no woman *wants* to be raped -- that is impossible by definition, since consensual sex is not rape -- but people may not regard a particular encounter as rape given certain cultural norms. The best example of this is so-called "marital rape," which is a crime in Western societies but which is not universally accepted, since some culutres consider marriage to be an irrevocable guarantee of sexual access.
  
  The author of this article appears to be intent on crafting a deep, detailed narrative that explores these and other questions. Then, the article suddenly concludes with a few sentences in a short paragraph that might as well be summarized "don't blame the victim." Since the author spent the previous pages essentially offering some portion of blame to the victim, and justifying why that made sense, this add-on ending strikes me as convenient, perhaps having been added to try and diffuse objections from readers. If so, I suggest removing it: anyone inclined to hate the author will not be dissuaded by the final few lines, while other readers will recognize it for the populist capitulation that it is.

  reply