Thoughts on rape...
Apr. 16th, 2006 09:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerMore behind the cut tag....
I was reading some blogs and thinking - a dangerous combination tonight, because my head feels terrible, but I'm definitely recovering - and I finally found a quick, sound-byte like statement that I think sums up a lot of confusion about rape.
People talk about rape being a crime of power, or violence, or whatever you wish, but not about sex.
And I finally realized a good way to express that is that many people think of rape as a crime that a rapist commits, rather thank think of it as a crime that a rape victim suffers.
And tonight, I realize how subtle that can be.
If that was true, if rape was a crime that a rapist commits, then one must be a rapist to commit the crime (and everyone knows that rapists are terrible, horrible beasts). Whereas, if rape is viewed as a crime that a victim suffers, all that matters is that the damage was done. Who did it, what justifications they used, etc., don't matter as much.
There's more that I want to think and write about that, but I'm pretty exhausted now.
There is an interesting thing to note, though: if you view rape from the victim's perspective, that it is "about power and violence, not sex" makes a lot more sense. It brings to life the example Rivka gave me, of "if someone hits you over the head with a frying pan, the crime has nothing to do with cooking".
In the end, the victim is hurt with sex, punished with sex, and sex is clearly the weapon. But it's the exertion of power, the force, that makes it a crime.
I was reading some blogs and thinking - a dangerous combination tonight, because my head feels terrible, but I'm definitely recovering - and I finally found a quick, sound-byte like statement that I think sums up a lot of confusion about rape.
People talk about rape being a crime of power, or violence, or whatever you wish, but not about sex.
And I finally realized a good way to express that is that many people think of rape as a crime that a rapist commits, rather thank think of it as a crime that a rape victim suffers.
And tonight, I realize how subtle that can be.
If that was true, if rape was a crime that a rapist commits, then one must be a rapist to commit the crime (and everyone knows that rapists are terrible, horrible beasts). Whereas, if rape is viewed as a crime that a victim suffers, all that matters is that the damage was done. Who did it, what justifications they used, etc., don't matter as much.
There's more that I want to think and write about that, but I'm pretty exhausted now.
There is an interesting thing to note, though: if you view rape from the victim's perspective, that it is "about power and violence, not sex" makes a lot more sense. It brings to life the example Rivka gave me, of "if someone hits you over the head with a frying pan, the crime has nothing to do with cooking".
In the end, the victim is hurt with sex, punished with sex, and sex is clearly the weapon. But it's the exertion of power, the force, that makes it a crime.
