the nature of s-xual assaults

amother

Wed, Oct 17 2007, 7:14 pm

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.

Clarissa

Wed, Oct 17 2007, 7:53 pm

amother wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Date rape is rape. There is no justification, even if they have been kissing or whatever. It is a violent act, if she has said no. A woman is entitled to draw the line, and if she is forced into a s-x act, then it is an act of violence. We don't put rape in quotes if it is date rape or acquaintaince rape -- it is also rape.

Clarissa

Wed, Oct 17 2007, 9:16 pm

Motek wrote:

Do you think the boy's goal is to hurt her? I don't. So I think you missed the distinction and why hindarochel's description applies to certain situations and not others. Can you acknowledge that her description does not fit?

I do not agree with her description. When a woman is saying no, begging someone not to violate her, it is all about hurting and power. There is a huge difference between consensual and non-consensual relations, and the line is clear. If a woman says no, she means no. If a man forcibly violates her, he is violent and is well aware that he is hurting his victim.

I'm so shocked that in this day and age people know so little about acquaintance rape, and still feel it's just a girl "leading a boy on" and him being a little out of control.

So the only actual rapes are of "good" girls who don't do anything s*xual and the other kind of rape is non-violent?

Wow.

HindaRochel

Thu, Oct 18 2007, 1:03 pm

Clarissa wrote:

Motek wrote:

Um, just to point out my description was about power and the use of relations as a tool of pain and degredation. That would include date rape, marital rape and any other kind of rape.

The boy who thought more was coming and it wasn't thinks because he has the feeling she has to come through because she "teased" him. It isn't right to tease but just as I woulldn't accept my child hitting another because s/he was teased, so a boy doesn't have the right to continue if he has been told to stop.

Atali

Thu, Oct 18 2007, 7:53 pm

Quote:

The boy who thought more was coming and it wasn't thinks because he has the feeling she has to come through because she "teased" him. It isn't right to tease but just as I woulldn't accept my child hitting another because s/he was teased, so a boy doesn't have the right to continue if he has been told to stop.

No one said that he did, there is no excuse whatsoever for rape. However, just as the kid doing the teasing provoked the other kid, so does the girl who "teases" her boyfriend.

Clarissa

Thu, Oct 18 2007, 8:49 pm

Atali wrote:

Quote:

No one said that he did, there is no excuse whatsoever for rape. However, just as the kid doing the teasing provoked the other kid, so does the girl who "teases" her boyfriend.

I question the use of "teasing." Do you mean kissing and fondling? Because teasing is a judgment. So a couple kisses and fondles but the woman doesn't want to have intercourse. Is she teasing and therefore is responsible, or at least partially responsible for the rape? No, because if a woman says no, even if she has kissed someone, it means no. If a wife says no to a husband and he forces her to have s*x against her will, it is also rape. Rape is forcing somebody to have s*x against their will, and it is not in any way like kids on a playground, where one is responsible for the other's act of aggression.

amother

Sat, Oct 20 2007, 10:59 pm

Clarissa wrote:

Murder is killing someone. Robbery is taking someone's property away against their wishes or without their knowledge. What do you call the person who drives the getaway car? He didn't murder. He didn't rob. He just drove a car. Yet the legal system calls that being an accessory to the crime and this can be punished with jail sentences.

The man did something against the woman's will when she said no. Agreed. To say that she has no responsibility when she was half-dressed, in his arms, and engaged in s-xual behavior, sounds as blameless as the getaway driver. Feminist garbage, IMO.

Clarissa

Sat, Oct 20 2007, 11:12 pm

Why "amother"?

Saying no to s*x is saying no to s*x, and to force s*x on somebody is rape. Plain and simple.

I feel like I'm reading something from fifty years ago. But continuing this is just upsetting me, so I'm out of the discussion. You can continue saying that the "bad" girls who fool around deserved what they were getting (and comparing them to criminals who drive getaway cars - egads), and only "good" girls are unfairly assaulted.

As far as this being "feminist garbage," I'll refrain from responding.

TammyTammy

Sat, Oct 20 2007, 11:17 pm

amother wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Yeah, fine. However, keep in mind that HR's point was made in the context of assaults, not lovemaking gone too far. In those cases, rape is about power and not relations.

Tammy

Lechatchila Ariber

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 12:06 am

Clarissa wrote:

Atali wrote:

Quote:

No one said that he did, there is no excuse whatsoever for rape. However, just as the kid doing the teasing provoked the other kid, so does the girl who "teases" her boyfriend.

Clarissa I think all agree that non consensual s-x is rape, but do you really equate a stranger jumping a woman in a parking lot and raping her or breaking and entering and then raping her ..to a boyfriend being kissed, fondled, aroused, and then not being able to hold himself back?
granted, they are both wrong
the same? I think not.

mimivan

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 12:33 am

Some of you will think this is naive, but it seems obvious...
With the laws of yichud and with shomer negiah on shidduch dates, and dates ONLY for the purpose of looking for a spouse, not for "hanging out" , why is "date rape" happening in the frum world at all?

I understand unfortunately there are occasionaly cases of incest and abuse by male teachers on boys and marital rape because laws of yichud and shomer negiah wouldn't apply and therefore, guard the victims in these cases, but ordinary acquaintance rape and when thiings "go too far" on dates?

If there is no negiah on shidduch dates, how can things go "too far" and if there is no yichud, how can a woman be a victim of, let's say, a plumber or aneighbor....

These things should not be happening, so isn't this discussion academic (except for the exceptions mentioned above)?? (I know they do happen..but in a halachically sound situation...??)

Motek

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 10:23 am

mimivan wrote:

With the laws of yichud and with shomer negiah on shidduch dates, and dates ONLY for the purpose of looking for a spouse, not for "hanging out" , why is "date rape" happening in the frum world at all?

Good point and not naive and yes it's obvious that being in a situation which leads to s-x, wanted or unwanted, is not frum behavior!

I asked my husband what the halachos are about rape aside from the examples specified in Chumash. (He didn't look it up, just said what he thought based on what he remembered).

I asked - what if it's a [gentile] who assaults a Jewish woman? He said that if we were able to do it (I.e. beis din), we would probably kill him.

I asked - what about a Jewish man and a Jewish woman. He said that there had to be witnesses to their seclusion (or the act). And like mimivan said - they should not be secluded! So if it was a boyfriend and girlfriend and what is known as date rape, beis din would give them both malkus (lashes)!

If a Jewish man stalked and assaulted a Jewish woman, even without witnesses, if beis din was convinced that he did it, they would punish him.

Tefila

Sun, Oct 21 2007, 10:28 am

I agree in cases of abnormal rape like that of a senior or a child or a diabled it is a control issue Exclamation

But between two peope the same age level and especially with teens hormones and all, it is in most cases six of one and half dozen of the other Exclamation

And yes just as smile a chat, from a guy can send a wrong message to a teenage girl. So too can a teenage girl who dresses not tznius be sending the wrong vibes.

Thats why the laws of tznius and yichud are so very important tznius alone is not enuf yichud is also called for.

Kinneret

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 12:07 pm

amother wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I find this sort of thinking extremely disturbing. It seems obscene to me that people will blame crime victims for the perpetrators' actions. Basically, the above argument boils down to "if a person wants X enough, it is not really his fault when he does something illegal to get it" and that is wrong. Interestingly, this argument would never be applied to situations that are not s-xual in nature, so why would we twist the principle in order to serve as apologists for rapists?

Men are not "teased beyond endurance," which is a preposterous idea. Men make a conscious decision to take something someone else does not want to give them. Men/boys are not dragged into these situations by women/girls but engage in them willingly, which means the boys/men are solely responsible for their own actions.

Motek- to answer your question- yes, the boy in the situation you describe does want to hurt his girlfriend. He may not want to hurt her in the same way or for the same reasons as a serial rapist wants to hurt women, but if he did not want to hurt her, he would stop when she said "no."