the nature of s-xual assaults

amother

Tue, Feb 19 2008, 10:00 am

Kinneret wrote:

Men are not "teased beyond endurance," which is a preposterous idea.

Rashi, parshas Ki Sisa, 32:31

Moshe says to Hashem: You are the one who caused them [to make the golden calf] because you gave them an abundance of gold. What should they do in order not to sin? [asked rhetorically]. It is comparable to a king who dined and wined his son and attired him ornately, and hung a purse around his neck, and placed him at the entrance of a house of prostitution. What should the son do that he should not sin ...

louche

Tue, Feb 19 2008, 4:46 pm

EstiS wrote:

being kissed, fondled, aroused, and then not being able to hold himself back?
granted, they are both wrong
the same? I think not.

without getting too graphic and getting thrown off the forum, there are other ways for a man to find release if the woman says no after he's aroused. And don't give me any baloney about hashchotas zera, because rape is also a sin.

and contrary to popular belief, no man ever died of the discomfort of being aroused and NOT achieving the ultimate release.

ora_43

Tue, Feb 19 2008, 5:42 pm

amother wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Rape is about power. Rape uses s x as a form of wielding power over another person. Grannies in flannels and girls in pigtails and laboring women have all been victims. If someone thinks that wearing a tznua outfit is going to keep the baddies away, guess again. Some sickos will target the modest person because it pleases them to hurt someone who guards her personal space. Some guys target harlots. Some guys target women who look like their mommies when they were 8. Some times the person attacked is a guy.

This isn't about women's modesty being violated, it is about using power to hurt and cause pain.

Just want to say that none of this is true for the "rape" that goes on between boy and girlfriends when the boy has been titillated and teased beyond his endurance. His goal isn't power or to hurt her.

IMO the idea of "titillated beyond endurance" is dangerous, as others have pointed out. He's responsible for his actions no matter how titillated he may be.

OTOH, I think you're right that date rape seems to disprove the theory that rape is entirely about power. Yes, grannies and little girls are raped, but most rapes are of women in their late teens or early- to mid-20s who know their attackers. It's not entirely random, young attractive women really are more likely to be raped (the most common victim type in the states, btw, is a drunk girl in her early 20s, most common rapist is slightly-less-drunk man around the same age who knows her).

Also, most people who rape little girls do so because they are attracted davka to little girls--they would not rape an adult, b/c they aren't attracted to adults. Serial rapists tend to pick a certain type of victim, the type they feel desire for. Power plays a role and s-xual urges play a role (I'm not sure why we're blanking out the "e," but I'm happy to play along).

Ruchel

Wed, Feb 20 2008, 3:51 am

Louche, right. There's even another solution: the guy tells the girl to stop.

Ora: some also rape out of hatred for women, or women who look like their mother as a revenge

The women who say we expect too much of men, boys will be boys, think we're not nice, "not understanding". I don't know... I think we're the nice ones, because we believe men are Mentschen, not animals/babies, and as such we expect them to behave a bit...

Kinneret

Wed, Feb 20 2008, 1:46 pm

ora_43 wrote:

OTOH, I think you're right that date rape seems to disprove the theory that rape is entirely about power. Yes, grannies and little girls are raped, but most rapes are of women in their late teens or early- to mid-20s who know their attackers. It's not entirely random, young attractive women really are more likely to be raped (the most common victim type in the states, btw, is a drunk girl in her early 20s, most common rapist is slightly-less-drunk man around the same age who knows her).

I don't think a man knowing the woman he rapes means the rape isn't about power. These rapes occur because the men involved believe they have the right to this woman's body, regardless of how she feels about it. In his mind, the woman does not have the right to say "no" and deny him something he wants, so he will take it from her by the use of force. How is that not about power? If it was just about s*x, he wouldn't want to force her; he'd want a willing partner.

Kinneret

Wed, Feb 20 2008, 1:48 pm

amother wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

Men are not "teased beyond endurance," which is a preposterous idea.

This is not remotely comparable to rape, unless you actually believe it is Hashem's fault for creating women.

ora_43

Wed, Feb 20 2008, 7:40 pm

Kinneret wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

I didn't say rape isn't about power. Obviously there's some power issue b/c of the whole coersion aspect.

What I said is that rape isn't ENTIRELY about power. If rape was simply a means to show male dominance (as some feminists have suggested) or a way of causing pain and humiliation, the victims chosen would probably be much more random than they are, while in fact women of certain ages are much more likely to be attacked. In addition, many rapists who are caught and go into treatment programs say they had strong s-xual urges. Of course they have other issues too, but the s-x part is there.

Also, rape doesn't always involve the use of force (although IMO in cases without force drawing the line between rape and not rape can get blurry).

I think this is clear in the Tanach. In the case of S'dom and Amora and the later pilegesh b'Givah, rape seems to be used as a tool to humiliate and attack outsiders. However, in the cases of Dinah and Shechem and Amnon and Tamar, rape had a lot to do with desire as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other (power or s-x), IMO it's usually a combination of factors.

Motek

Thu, Feb 21 2008, 7:07 pm

Ruchel wrote:

It is interesting that while for some bigots in the outside society, the woman probably "provoked him a bit", or even "asked for it", by us Jews even a "seduced" woman or one who didn't cry for help or who REFUSED help is still considered "raped".

But she can be stoned to death if she was betrothed to someone and it takes place in the city, and she does not cry out. The verse says explicitly, "because she did not cry out."

kinneret wrote:

This is not remotely comparable to rape, unless you actually believe it is Hashem's fault for creating women.

I don't understand what you mean as it relates to the quote from Ki Sisa.

HindaRochel

Fri, Feb 22 2008, 2:58 am

Motek wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

But she can be stoned to death if she was betrothed to someone and it takes place in the city, and she does not cry out. The verse says explicitly, "because she did not cry out."

kinneret wrote:

This is not remotely comparable to rape, unless you actually believe it is Hashem's fault for creating women.

I don't understand what you mean as it relates to the quote from Ki Sisa.

I asked a Rav about this once. It isn't to be taken so literally.
Basically it goes like this: If you came across a betrothed woman and a man and they were in the act and they were in the city, both would be culpable because she could have cried out. BUT if she did cry out, or she can't cry out, if she has passed out from fear or drugs or he has a gun to her head, or he has threatened her or whatever she isn't judged. Today, we probably wouldn't consider the woman "in the city" as even being in the fields, as it is a different set of circumstances now.

If you came across such a couple in the fields the woman was exonerated.

And remember, those catching them had to warn them that what they were doing was wrong, what the punishment was and did they understand that and then they had to continue with their wrong doing.

Motek

Tue, Feb 26 2008, 7:53 pm

Ruchel wrote:

I can't find it... but I was taught about will power and free choice.

I think Moshe Rabeinu was familiar with the concepts of will power and free choice Wink

Here is the quote:

Rashi, parshas Ki Sisa, 32:31

Moshe says to Hashem: You are the one who caused them [to make the golden calf] because you gave them an abundance of gold. What should they do in order not to sin? [asked rhetorically]. It is comparable to a king who dined and wined his son and attired him ornately, and hung a purse around his neck, and placed him at the entrance of a house of prostitution. What should the son do that he should not sin ...