the nature of s-xual assaults

HindaRochel

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 1:41 pm

Motek wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

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.

True. Yet HR has said that her description/definition includes all kinds of rape.

HR, I'll try again - do you think the boyfriend intends on hurting her?

Please realize that "date-rape" would include a girl and guy who just went out together...not necessarily that there was any relationship s*xual or otherwise. This could include a boy and girl on a shiddach date.

In some cases, yes. He is out to hurt her. She is a thing and he wants her to know she is a thing.

In other cases she is simply a non-entity or at least a being of lesser value. Certainly he, and his feelings, desires etc. outrant any of her fears, desires, emotional state, needs. Again, it is about power. He is basically saying "I am more important than you. My desires outrank yours.

Maybe he isn't trying to hurt her in such all such cases, though assuredly there are many cases that it does occur, but at the very least she doesn't rank too high in his conceited opinion.

Ruchel

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 2:51 pm

Kinneret wrote:

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.

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."

Although I don't think he wants to hurt the girlfriend, I agree with the whole rest. The toleration for that behaviour, coming from women no less, is scary.

Kinneret

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 4:17 pm

Crayon210 wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

Only if you believe it is a mitigating factor in rape. I don't think it is, so I see no purpose, other than apologetics, for placing the onus of his behavior onto her.

So you think that if the two of them had sat down to discuss the value of the US dollar versus the Israeli shekel in a Starbucks, the same thing would have happened?

I do not believe a woman is responsible for a man's behavior whether they are in public or private. A man who can control himself in public is perfectly capable of doing so in private.

The behavior of any given man is within his control, especially with regard to s-xual situations. Being alone with a woman, even a woman who has kissed him, does not entitle him to anything more than she wants to give. If he decides to take more, he is entirely and solely responsible for his actions.

Crayon210

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 4:26 pm

Kinneret wrote:

Crayon210 wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

Only if you believe it is a mitigating factor in rape. I don't think it is, so I see no purpose, other than apologetics, for placing the onus of his behavior onto her.

So you think that if the two of them had sat down to discuss the value of the US dollar versus the Israeli shekel in a Starbucks, the same thing would have happened?

I do not believe a woman is responsible for a man's behavior whether they are in public or private. A man who can control himself in public is perfectly capable of doing so in private.

Really? Halacha doesn't assume that.

Also, fine, let's say they had this discussion about the economy in private. You think that the guy would necessarily jump her?

And, I didn't say the woman is responsible for his behavior. But she should think twice about getting involved in a s-xual encounter that she may not be able to control.

Quote:

The behavior of any given man is within his control, especially with regard to s-xual situations. Being alone with a woman, even a woman who has kissed him, does not entitle him to anything more than she wants to give. If he decides to take more, he is entirely and solely responsible for his actions.

No one says he's entitled. The girl is definitely the victim. Does that feel better? Rolling Eyes

Tefila

Mon, Oct 22 2007, 7:50 pm

Quote:

do not believe a woman is responsible for a man's behavior whether they are in public or private. A man who can control himself in public is perfectly capable of doing so in private.

The behavior of any given man is within his control, especially with regard to s-xual situations. Being alone with a woman, even a woman who has kissed him, does not entitle him to anything more than she wants to give. If he decides to take more, he is entirely and solely responsible for his actions.

Listen for a man to say that to another man I agree, but a women has to know what is expected of her too. And concerning what we feel a man can or cannot do and what he should be able to overcome well Hashem made us all different .......................

To the Amother about chaluv akum why be anon, we now know who u are Cheers

Ruchel

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 9:52 am

A woman has to be tzanua.

A man has to control himself.

But if one is lacking, it doesn't mean the other can go too. I personally do not see a link between the two. Unless we are opposing being dressed like a sl*t and being tzanua, there is no link*. If I go around showing my elbows I won't be more attacked than if I cover them.

* and even then, it may just be that I will be attacked by another kind of sicko. A Middle Ages French text discusses sanctions for rapists, and it mentions two kinds. The first into attacking harlots, the second into good family girls and nuns. If Middle Ages men can see it, how come 2007 women cannot??

Kinneret

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 2:55 pm

Crayon210 wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

Crayon210 wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

Only if you believe it is a mitigating factor in rape. I don't think it is, so I see no purpose, other than apologetics, for placing the onus of his behavior onto her.

So you think that if the two of them had sat down to discuss the value of the US dollar versus the Israeli shekel in a Starbucks, the same thing would have happened?

I do not believe a woman is responsible for a man's behavior whether they are in public or private. A man who can control himself in public is perfectly capable of doing so in private.

Really? Halacha doesn't assume that.

Nonsense. Halacha assumes assumes self-control because it assumes free will. It does not assume (as have some of the women in these threads on assault) if a man is faced with temptation, s-xual or otherwise, he has no ability to resist. I am not suggesting it is easy to resist temptation, merely that it is quite possible and entirely within the control of the individual.

Quote:

Also, fine, let's say they had this discussion about the economy in private. You think that the guy would necessarily jump her?

Necessarily? No. I also don't think a man will necessarily attack a woman because she kissed him.

Quote:

And, I didn't say the woman is responsible for his behavior. But she should think twice about getting involved in a s-xual encounter that she may not be able to control.

Okay but the OP did say women were responsible for male behavior, and with all due respect, your comments about relations drive demonstrate a lack of understanding about the nature of s-xual assault. I don't believe anyone is disputing what you say about being wary of s-xual situations outside of approved contexts, but I am surprised it seems to occur to so few to suggest the onus of this falls more heavily on boys than girls.

Quote:

No one says he's entitled. The girl is definitely the victim. Does that feel better? Rolling Eyes

Since you seem to have problems being civil with someone who disagrees with you, I'll bow out of this discussion now, but I will say the eye-rolling emoticon is a cute little guy.

Motek

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 8:28 pm

Kinneret wrote:

Halacha assumes assumes self-control because it assumes free will. It does not assume (as have some of the women in these threads on assault) if a man is faced with temptation, s-xual or otherwise, he has no ability to resist.

How do you understand the laws of yichud? The laws of harchakos in Family Purity laws?

The way I understand them is, we have free will and we are expected to use our self control not to engage in forbidden s-xual acts. Like most laws of the Torah (for example, kashrus, Shabbos), the rabbis enacted "fences" around the laws to make it more likely that we will not transgress.

So of course we should be able to resist s-xual intercourse with our husbands when we are nidda and s-xual intercourse with men who are not our husbands, because the halacha requires this us of, but the rabbis knew that we need laws "around" the laws and choosing to seclude oneself with a man is going against these laws.

Quote:

I am not suggesting it is easy to resist temptation, merely that it is quite possible and entirely within the control of the individual.

Yet the halachos are not to seclude ourselves and not to touch, speak suggestively and the like because it is assumed, by the rabbis, that we will be unsuccessful in resisting temptation otherwise. That's why we have laws d'rabbanan.

Quote:

I am surprised it seems to occur to so few to suggest the onus of this falls more heavily on boys than girls.

Here you say that the girl bears some responsibility, which is quite reasonable since she chose to seclude herself with him and (in many cases) engaged in forbidden (for Jews) behavior such as touching. That's a switch from earlier on where you said the girl is not responsible for his behavior.

Kinneret

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 11:47 am

Motek- as Ruchel quite sensibly points out, not everyone is familiar with halacha, but if we assume they are:

Motek wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

How do you understand the laws of yichud? The laws of harchakos in Family Purity laws?

I understand we are given ways to help us avoid temptation. It does not follow, however, that outside of these "fences," our free will dissipates. Without the fences, it becomes more difficult to resist temptation; it does not become impossible. No one is with us at home to ensure we follow the laws of nidda because it is assumed we have the will to do so. No one follows men around to make sure they do not touch self because it is assumed they have the will to refrain.

Quote:

I disagree it is assumed we would be "unsuccessful," but rather the rabbis knew they could make it easier for us. Avoiding temptation makes it easier to resist, but that does not mean we have no ability to resist temptation when faced with it.

Quote:

I am not saying the girl bears responsibility for the boy's behavior, nor do I think it is the least bit reasonable to suggest that if a girl secludes herself with a boy, she becomes responsible for his behavior while they are secluded. She is responsible for her own transgression (if such behavior is a transgression for her), but should the boy s-xually assault her while they are alone, he is solely responsible for his actions. She has not caused them or brought them on herself because it was the boy who made the decision to commit a s-xual assault; she did not make the decision for him.

I find it curious no one condemns the boy for secluding himself with the girl, nor does anyone suggest it is incumbent upon the boy to remove himself from a situation wherein he is being or feels he may be tempted beyond his will to resist, especially if he might hurt another person. I do not belong to the school of thought which insists men have no free will in the presence of women, and obviously, it is possible for boys and girls to be alone together, even to kiss and touch each other without it ending up in s-xual assault.

I do want to add that I appreciate the civil disagreement Very Happy

Ruchel

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 12:12 pm

Kinneret wrote:

Without the fences, it becomes more difficult to resist temptation; it does not become impossible. No one is with us at home to ensure we follow the laws of nidda because it is assumed we have the will to do so. No one follows men around to make sure they do not touch self because it is assumed they have the will to refrain.

I disagree it is assumed we would be "unsuccessful," but rather the rabbis knew they could make it easier for us. Avoiding temptation makes it easier to resist, but that does not mean we have no ability to resist temptation when faced with it.

She is responsible for her own transgression (if such behavior is a transgression for her), but should the boy s-xually assault her while they are alone, he is solely responsible for his actions. She has not caused them or brought them on herself because it was the boy who made the decision to commit a s-xual assault; she did not make the decision for him.

I find it curious no one condemns the boy for secluding himself with the girl, nor does anyone suggest it is incumbent upon the boy to remove himself from a situation wherein he is being or feels he may be tempted beyond his will to resist, especially if he might hurt another person. I do not belong to the school of thought which insists men have no free will in the presence of women, and obviously, it is possible for boys and girls to be alone together, even to kiss and touch each other without it ending up in s-xual assault.

ditto to all

Big double standard here. I wonder if this toleration is because men are implicitely supposed to be "the other", some kind of scary subhuman thing lol

In communities where boys and girls are more mixed and treated "similar", they don't all turn promiscuous but on contrary they rarely will marry in this pool of people. I'm thinking kibbutz, nothing is less s-xy than the "non gendered" life in old style kibbutzim. Either they marry the preschol sweetheart, or outside.

Same in old style Mo youth groups (those who did mixed swimming, dancing...) I attended. Although there was a core of bad elements who were "obsessed by the opposite gender" (like, 4 girls and 2 boys in my memory), most others criticized that very harshly. Now, those who are in a relationship are either with someone met outside, or with the person I remember they liked 10 years ago.

Motek

Thu, Oct 25 2007, 7:31 pm

Kinneret wrote:

I disagree it is assumed we would be "unsuccessful," but rather the rabbis knew they could make it easier for us.

That is not what I learned. I learned that as the generations go by there is yeridas ha'doros in which we are less spiritually sensitive and therefore we need fences around the laws to make it more likely that we will keep the law.

Quote:

Okay, fine. Some were not willing to consider that the girl did anything wrong at all as though she is not to be faulted for inviting him to her apartment and sitting in his lap.

Quote:

I find it curious no one condemns the boy for secluding himself with the girl

I think because we are talking about the girl and the girl's perspective. Of course it's wrong for both boy and girl to seclude themselves, whether it's the boy inviting the girl over to his place, or the girl inviting the boy over to her's.

Kinneret

Fri, Oct 26 2007, 2:02 pm

Motek wrote:

Kinneret wrote:

I disagree it is assumed we would be "unsuccessful," but rather the rabbis knew they could make it easier for us.

I don't see how that's different from what I said because I definitely agree with you the fences make it easier for us to follow the law. I'm just saying it doesn't follow that, because the fences make it easier, it is impossible to follow the law without them. Again, no one is with us at home to make sure we follow the laws of nidda and etc. So we are still absolutely expected to exercise our free will to follow the law even when there are no fences.

Quote:

Some were not willing to consider that the girl did anything wrong at all as though she is not to be faulted for inviting him to her apartment and sitting in his lap.

I'm afraid I must disagree, but perhaps you could point me to where someone says that? I may have missed it. I have only seen women claiming the girl is not responsible for the boy's actions. There is a difference between saying "it's wrong for an unmarried girl to sit on a boy's lap," and "she was s-xually assaulted because she sat on a boy's lap." The latter is fundamentally untrue and is an attempt to mitigate male responsibility for male actions.

A number of people in this thread have claimed either rape is not rape or that rape is somehow mitigated in a situation wherein a girl was immodestly dressed or was alone with a boy. That is not only ridiculous; it's deeply disturbing.

Quote:

I think because we are talking about the girl and the girl's perspective.

I wish I could agree this is the reason no one has condemned the boy or suggested he should remove himself from a situation wherein he may hurt another. To be clear, I'm sure everyone agrees with us about it being wrong for a boy to seclude himself with a girl, but obviously, there are a lot of people here who feel the girl bears more responsibility and is somehow responsible for not only her actions but his as well. At best, this line of thinking is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of s-xual assault.