RonFan wrote: » The overpowering factor still does not account for it. The reason for the difference is deeply psychological and hence not easily discernible. But it's our lack of understanding on that level, which leads us to think that the casual view of sex is functional. Time will tell that this is not the case. Younger generations of women coming up in this culture are more and more having a view of 'tease all men, toy with some' and this is what's leading to the problems termed inappropriately as "rape culture". The cultural trends leading to these issues are rapidly increasing and nearing epidemic levels, and you'll see that as time progresses. I hope you can try and understand I'm coming from a more nuanced position here.
neonsofa wrote: » But if people/society were to place more "value" on sex generally and were to view sex as a sacred act between only a loving married couple for example, then surely rape would still be traumatic for the victim, given that the once sacred act of love is now reduced to a physical act of pleasure for the rapist. Placing more "value" on sex surely makes rape more traumatic if anything?
RonFan wrote: » I'd be shocked if you honestly thought it's not self evident that heterosexual rape impacts females far more than males. This is just absolute common sense. Of course rape occurs in societies where promiscuity is frowned upon, but that is of the forceful kind in far more incidence. The vast majority of rapes in the west start off as consensual activity (say kissing etc.) which is directly linked to promiscuity being normalised. Sex is about mutual pleasure? Why then is prostitution so common (and incresingly so)?
ivytwine wrote: » Have you proof that prostitution is becoming more common?
RonFan wrote: » Of course it would still be traumatic, I've never implicated I'd have thought otherwise. Yes it does make rape more traumatic, that's why all of a sudden cheapening it can only result in chaos as is now the case.
ivytwine wrote: » It's pretty easily discernible as has been posted here. It's not logical of course, but then our reaction to any crime is not logical. I mean, we're all going to die, so who cares if someone gets murdered? I also would argue that pre-sexual revolution, or in the 60s/70s were the only time we had what could be termed a rape culture. (Hate the term myself). Women were blamed for rape routinely, and perpetrators protected. I think things are better now. Sexual abuse was so taboo. Marital rape wasn't a crime. There are tons of examples out there of how hidden this stuff in the past. I don't think rates have changed, I think we're talking about it now.
RonFan wrote: » You focused on that part which was merely in brackets because you had absolutely no answer to the actual question in hand. If sex is about mutual pleasure, why is prostitution admittedly common?
ivytwine wrote: » Where's the chaos? I gave you an example from 1945 in Europe where 100,000 women were raped. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32529679 Are you saying things are equally as bad since the sexual revolution? Because that would mean every single woman I know is a rape victim and as far as I know I'm the only one in my circle that unlucky.
RonFan wrote: » Sex is about mutual pleasure? Why then is prostitution so common (and incresingly so)?
ivytwine wrote: » Prostitution has been around since year dot. Again I'd like to know why it's *now* more common. I have no idea why people visit prostitutes tbh. Loneliness, unable to connect with others, sexual gratification... for most people sex is about mutual pleasure, which isn't about love either. You can still desire someone and not want a relationship while respecting their safety.
RonFan wrote: » There is of course a reason. Everything has a reason, though not always an easily discernible one as in the case of why rape is so traumatic. It is to do with the female's unconscious mind, that is why.
Widdershins wrote: » Prostitution is a way of earning money, for prostitutes, and a way of obtaining sex, for their clients. It is not usually the type of sex either would have if they had the choice of partner, relationship and situation. I'm totally baffled as to how prostitution is supposed to disprove that sex is about mutual pleasure.
RonFan wrote: » If the sexual mores are opened up and more sex is happening, the majority of the sex is going to be gotten by a minority of the men, and the majority are going to turn at higher frequency to prostitution to compensate. That is why it's increasing, as you'd see if you researched the question.
mzungu wrote: » While promiscuity is not frowned upon in the west, it does look like we are having less sex than the generation before us. Link Here So, I would not buy into the line of thought that sexual liberation has brought about a footloose and fancy-free era of promiscuity.
RonFan wrote: » She was arguing that both men and women can only get off if they believe the other partner to be enjoying the act, that's what I was disproving in referencing prostitution.
Widdershins wrote: » That just means they can't have mutually pleasurable sex so they settle for paid sex with a prostitute as a poor substitute.
RonFan wrote: » There is of course a reason. Everything has a reason, though not always an easily discernible one as in the case of why rape is so traumatic. It is to do with the female's unconscious mind, that is why. "pre-sexual revolution" attitudes were far better, I would argue. It was far easier to believe the woman because if she was not known to be the kind of women to engage in casual sex her testimony could more easily be believed. Now that casual sex is the norm there is no way whatsoever to prove rape.
ivytwine wrote: » only if you were a woman of a certain standing in society. And I'm not even referring to "loose women" or whatever mad Madonna/whore complex is in your head. Serving girls were often the victims of the upper classes' "droit de seigneur" and what recourse did they have? Women genuinely got put into laundries in this country for being too pretty, and they might have been the shyest girls going.
RonFan wrote: » You said sex is about mutual pleasure, then why is prostitution a billion euro industry? That was in a war time. Of course there's going to be rape then, what's it got to do with anything?
ivytwine wrote: » I said for most people. Maybe for prostitution it is different, I wouldn't know. As Widdershins says, prostitutes generally simulate pleasure. Same as all the theatrical groans in porn. And there's a difference between "oh I think she's faking this a bit" and "she's screaming in pain and crying."
ivytwine wrote: » Already said why I think people go to prostitutes, it's not my area of expertise. The WWII incidents support my belief that rape is about power, and I would like you to point to a singular example in the West in 2016 comparable to that, to support your assertion that incidence of rape has worsened since the sexual revolution.
RonFan wrote: » They do support your belief that rape is about power, but you claimed it's about power at the EXCLUSION of sexual gratification which is a baseless assertion. There's no reason why it can't be both.
RonFan wrote: » Then why can't the example you gave be included in the minority? Listen, I never intended for this to turn into debating for debating's sake. My original point was that it's a problem that the western psyche as a whole has a schismatic and dis integrative relationship to sexuality, and that this is what is causing the problems inappropriately termed "rape culture". It would be great if we could have more sophisticated discussions on the subject, but it always turns into nonsense about who should stop doing what as if that weren't already obvious and hence irrelevant.
ivytwine wrote: » Ah ok. I see it as definitely about power more than sexual gratification though. That's a part of it, but it's not a normal sexual gratification need. Part of the gratification comes from the power and terror over the victim. I think for serial offenders it's definitely power first or more. If you examine the other facets of their lives they need absolute control everywhere. Regarding the wartime rapes, this was definite power in my view.
RonFan wrote: » However the rapes that are being described as supposedly part of "rape culture" are not about power, as in the case of those in war time. They're about men who think they're "getting their hole" only to be denied definite consent but push their luck and go through with it anyway. It's massively different.
RonFan wrote: » It's not necessarily that there is more promiscuity happening, though I would be highly skeptical of claims that's so, but rather that promiscuity is being more normalised. The two aren't the same.
ivytwine wrote: » Well I think I said further back in the thread that I don't agree with the term nor that we have a huge incidence here. I think that there are far more constructive conversations to be had about this topic rather than the ones currently had. Like sentencing, bail etc, in this country, and supporting other countries where rape victims can actually be prosecuted. I certainly disagree with demonising men, it makes it so much harder for everyone.
