Romantic Rape

A while ago I was in a class. The professor was talking about rape and about how we (only girls were in the class) were in the age group most likely to get raped. She talked about how a lot of anti-rape things actually romanticize rape. She told of a commercial with just a girl crying in her bed to sad music.
Some time, before or after that— I don't know. I remember seeing a DeviantArt piece on rape. It was in the "Daily Deviations." I know they aren't a reliable source for anything. I couldn't find the image again. It was just the torso and pelvis of a woman, her hands gingerly covering herself with a little bit of blood. She wasn't in the fetal position, she wasn't covering her breasts at all or even had much of a closed body posture. and her skin was perfect. there was not a bruise. don't struggle?
Even when I was searching for the image. The rape images that were trying to tell a serious message about rape being wrong. (not the jokes or the pornographic ones) Seemed to be very romanticized. pornographic. this is sexy. a few of them were kind of violent and not very romanticized. a lot of them were just the typical tape over mouth and "real men don't rape." tape. I know symbolizing that people who are raped don't usually tell anyone. but what else does it say? don't scream? you shouldn't tell anyone?

I could always go back to Twilight and other smut novels. I wonder sometimes people intentionally try to get us excited about these things. We should like a big strong guy who can "take" us whenever he'd like. In fact we should like it when he does. actually, I'm not sure I wonder about it at all.

Ramble: Anime-Loving Feminist

I've gone over why I don't like most anime. It is— in my experience, mostly demeaning to woman. I have had an acquaintance, who seems to enjoy anime, but also claimed to be a feminist. Saying how that people (white, male atheists) mostly as she would like to believe are blaming rape-victims, because they dress provocatively and walk alone at midnight.
...
that's all. Even if she is going to follow the generic feminist notion that nothing women do can will have any sort of change to the likelihood of their being raped, that still doesn't explain any of her like of anime. Yeah, there are some, maybe even a lot of anime, but most of the ones that I've seen are demeaning to women. How can you accept that while defending feminism? It's just never anything I really understood about women anime people. I mean not all anime is bad or demeaning. You'd just have to be very discriminating in your tastes. Oh, wait that's why she was upset— discrimination.
No, I don't suppose it makes any sense. I just had a bad day and people complaining about an article of hers and reminded us of our disagreements about rape. That and her liking anime bothered me and I had to ramble about something about it. Though, the article she wrote had nothing to do with anime.

It all seems so hypocritical to me. Maybe there is just something I'm missing.

it must be this.

A Rape of Uganda

I keep going back to wondering what is the motivation for rape. Of, course though there is the statement that sex is about power, so rape is both. That's not really what I wanted to talk about, though. Well, Rape was on the list, but not so much the power vs. lust. More on the what-the-fuck-are-people-thinking-?

Uganda. That's some pretty F-ed up stuff there. (have I sworn on this before?) Back to Uganda. I just read Harper's article on it. I think it scared the shit out of me.
The author talked about one uhm, man. At least I think the person is a man, maybe they are or maybe she is just pretending to be one. I wasn't clear on that. But I was clear that at this person at least used to be female and a lesbian. She didn't feel comfortable in a dress so the Church decided that she was possessed by a male spirit. They thought it best that performing an exorcism would be best. The men held her, talked in tongues, took off her clothes (exorcising evil spirits in those too?) fondled her– while it was all being called "holy" and eventually locked her in a room and raped her––– for a week. Then they called her "cured".
okay for one how does anyone ever start to think that raping someone is going to turn them straight? because they will realize they enjoy hetro sex? last time I read anything about rape it still said that it wasn't enjoyable. In fact I don't think I ever ran into the phrase "I was raped and it was fucking awesome." I don't think that will change.
If homosexuality was a choice, which it isn't, by the way, I'd imagine lesbians would be like "fuck this shit, guys are douche bags."

But back to the context. This was at a church. Now, the article didn't say if there were any white guys at this church, however there were white guys at other churches Blessed had been to. Blessed is the gay man the author talked with. Okay context, they are in a church they believe homosexuality is a sin because it is in the Bible. What else is in the bible? rape is 'punishable' ie wrong. Now, let's say she didn't say no, let's say she didn't "cry out". In fact even if we go as far to say she wanted it. (which clearly she hadn't.)
The author, Jeff Sharlet, went to several abstinence parties. There where signs in one of the churches among "Say no to homosexuality." there was "Avoid sex before marriage" and "always say no to sex."
sooo, Sex is okay if it's to get a male spirit/demon out of the body? a mob mentality and because it was curing her it was okay for them to give in to their sick thoughts and rape this poor girl.

Disclosed

Boyfriend and I were hanging out with a friend at his grandma's house. The guys were playing Magic, I was drawing and the grandma was watching TV. The TV ended up on a movie called Disclosure. (there is a novel that I need to read.) First thing I want to mention in the beginning the main character's(Tom) daughter didn't want to put on her coat, so he said something like "you should always listen to your father." her reply was "Rachel doesn't have a father she has two mommies." Uh, I approve.
The second point is that Tom is sexually harassed. They of course went into that "sex is about power." but even if we are 100% certain of this it's- more of a wanting of power, the need to control something. Not necessarily actually having that power and doing what you will with it. (which would make it more sexual.) Tom had said "sexually harassment is about power, when did I have the power?"
The female claimed he did it. In trying to say that he did it her lawyer was suggesting that Tom, who was attracted to the woman, had just "lost control" and had to have sex with her. Lost control? isn't that the opposite of being in control– having power? So, his lack of thought would have made him commit a crime. (not of course saying that raping someone because you are aroused is an excuse.) and they were just trying to get him to admit to raping her. This is all just fiction, of course, but I still have to question.
Of course sex itself is/can be about power. Which kinda confuses the sex/power myths about rape.
Mostly, I mentioned the movie, because a women can sexually harass a man. Due to the nature of the sexes it is less likely to happen, but it can.

I'm reading at the moment a Year of Living Biblically at one point he states that the idea of avoiding a woman while she's on her period isn't misogynistic– it's like grieving for the death of a potential life, but do we grieve for ever sperm a male ejaculates that doesn't end up as a life??

at the mall, today my boyfriend and I were looking for the Borders again and I was like "oh, it's this way. by the naked girls. Did you not remember passing the naked girls?" "No," he said. "because I am happily in a relationship." "I notices the naked girls." I don't know how he missed or forgot about the mostly naked girls.

Not Sex

This post is about sex and related topics, btw. (also, I should be working on homework.)

The thing is I'm also not sure where to start. I can start with this: I was involved in an internet argument about rape. also I just read a book about rape. a Natural history of Rape, actually. Written by scientists. (biology, Mr. Thornhill and anthropology, Mr. Palmer) Stating and making a case for rape being about sex and less violence or power. (it states that males with less influence, wealth, thing women want would be more likely to rape, but men with access to women will rape too.)

The argument was whether or not dress had to do with the likelihood of getting raped. My stance as most of the people that were vocal (except the opposing opinion, one woman)was that wearing revealing clothes will draw attention to the young woman in question. Her argument was we were blaming the victim. We were not, we were saying that a rapist would notice someone wearing revealing clothes and depending on the situation would be more likely to rape her-- provided she was vulnerable. Not saying that would be the only possible woman a rapist would pick.

I decided to read the book because, of another internet argument. I wondered if rape could be genetic. I did a search and found a site about scorpionflies. (pieces from the book of the book) Female scorpionflies (I can't find the page I read) prefer to mate with a male that brings a gift of saliva or a dead bug. She will avoid males without gifts. If a male does not have a gift but still wants to mate he has some sort of limb– a clamp located on the top of the abdomen. He will use this organ to hold a female while he mates with her. The organ has no other purpose; if the organ is covered in beeswax it prevents the male from forcing sex, but he can still mate with her if he has a gift.

The book argues that the majority of woman raped are when they are the most fertile (15ish to 22ish) and that they have the most psychological pain compared to younger or older females raped. This is because it greatly impairs their reproductive success. (they didn't get to choose; their mates might leave them; etc) (I was called out in the debate, because of that. "funny that was the first thing that came to your mind." I cited my source later, but she'd already said it was a mysogonistic thread and left.) The book states that rape is either an adaptation or by-product of one (the authors disagreed.) The fact that most rape victims are young women is one of the reasons they say for rape to be sexually motivated.

If rape was all about power why wouldn't rapists just beat women? and why do women experience more psychological pain after being raped versus being assaulted? If men rape just to prove their manliness, why wouldn't women rape to prove that they are more powerful then the patriarch? Some social scientists, the book states, would say that rape is entirely learned and getting rid of the patriarch would stop rape, but again if it's about power that also wouldn't work, especially if it was a matriarch. (of course, that's not a statement for it being biological(genetic and environment)/about sex.) If it is about power why do most rapists only used enough force to subdue the woman and most let them live?

If rape is about sex, wearing 'sexy' clothes will attract more attention from a rapist. That does not mean that only sexy women get raped. This also doesn't mean it is her fault. It is just something she should be aware of. It's not her fault. It is not the only reason women don't report rape. (because they think they will be blamed because they dressed sexy.) One other being their males might leave them, believing they have damaged goods or that she wasn't raped, but was covering for consensual sex. reproductive success is lost by a rape.

Just because it most probably have evolved does not make it right. I am not blaming any victims of rape for being raped.

Conservapedia Fun!

I am sure-- if you actually are reading this that you know what Conservapedia is. This post is dedicated to me commenting on things from then Feminism article.

Feminism originally was an expression used by suffragettes - who were predominantly pro-life - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the United States and the United Kingdom. By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

abortion was illegal by 1870, before women's right to vote and well they were kind of more concerned with getting rights. Please tell me why women can't have the same roles as men? Yes, I have said their are genetic differences between the sexes, but it doesn't mean that a female can't do the same things that males do.

"Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:"

* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)

Yes, uhm, yes? let's see differences... body structure, better ability to see color (males have a better time with depth perception and stuff about how objects take up space. I don't know if that's what it is. It was developed for hunting.) different sexual preferences, (women tend to want men with resources, are more picky about mates) but nothing that makes one sex better then the other. different, but equal.

* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)

Yes, because otherwise we are expecting all the rights of men while being treaded better then them. We cannot have the best of both worlds. If I hold the door for you I expect you to enter and to thank me, that is all. I do not want you to stand there ad insist I go in first. (there was an instance of this where my boyfriend was holding the other door and he stopped to insist I went in first, but did not for my boyfriend) side note: the "see battle of the sexes" is there because that was a link to another part of the site that did not go there.

* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal

a traditional marriage is a patriarchy. Especially if we look in the Bible.

Gen4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Ephesian5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

etc,etc...

Under English common law, which was adopted by the states after independence, the identity of the wife was merged into that of the husband; he was a legal person but she was not. Upon marriage, he received all her personal property, and managed all property owned by her. In return, the husband was obliged to support his wife and children. A married woman, therefore, could not sign a contract without the signature of her husband.

again I probably could find more. (sorry, that wasn't cited it was making my computer run slow.)(also, that was of course, changed)

* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives, and especially dislike those who defend such roles

If you are happy, fine, as long as you are doing so freely.

* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking

no, I sew. I do not know how to bake and have no interest in learning. Of, course, should I wish to bake a cake I can read directions, but so can my boyfriend.

* support affirmative action for women

meh, whatever.

* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do

No, but they shouldn't feel like they need to wear a dress at any occasion, ever. (Men can wear dresses if they like too, I prefer they look good in them, because that's what women's cloths are usually for-- looking good.)

* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines

While, I don't approve of most combat. I see no reason why a female cannot join the military if she so wishes. She is just as capable. Perhaps more so if it is so that childbirth is more painful then kidney stones. (I do not know.)

* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.

Why should she have to? She isn't his property. What if she doesn't like his last name? It also gets rid of the idea that people should have sons to carry on the family name. again, she can if she wants.

* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)

He had six wives! there was more of them then of him! besides his wives he is also known for separating the church of England from the Roman Catholic.
as for "distorting" history. I have no knowledge since that is the only example he gave. But since women weren't important they would not have been written about as much.

* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey"; object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"

Temptress isn't even a complement! The jury for myself is still out on "Ma'am" as for "sweetheart" and "honey" Sometimes I get annoyed when Boyfriend calls me "dear" and I am not sweet or made of honey. Besides, I'm pretty sure some guys get called that. Oh, bytheway I really don't like it when a guy who is not my boyfriend calls me such. I've gotten used to it as far as females go. They have a habit of calling people "hun" and "sweety" and such. and hun goes for any gender. So, it's not all that feminine in how girls use it.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a staunch advocate of civil rights and non-violence said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection."

Irrelevant, just because he was an advocate of civil rights does not make him infallible.

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and Marx, is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."

as opposite to... slavery of the husband/father? or are your just upset, because if that's true you will be a slave to the state too and you won't have any slaves of your own? Besides what's wrong with Hegel and Marx? also, you are the only one saying feminism is grounding itself there?

The rest, while some of it isn't hateful toward men, most is and it is just saying that feminism is what everyone else has so-called taken from their Limaugh word "femi-nazis" The rest is just perpetuating the fact that most people now of this generation won't call themselves a feminist for fear of being called someone who hates men or thinks women are better. That is not what Feminism is. That is an extreme version-- kind of like reverse racism. Treating some other group of people like shit, because they used to treat your people like shit doesn't work. The people you are treating like shit didn't have anything to do with the ones that used to treat your kind like shit besides being the same-- whatever. Follow me? If we repress another group, later they will rise up and repress us again.

I have a problem

Boyfriend is a writing major and, knows the possible implications of words, very rarely calls me sexy, hot, or variants of those. He will call me pretty, beautiful or elegant. (and he has a habit of kissing my hand. Hence the drawing of us as knights) This is not the problem. I'd rather him call me what he does then what he doesn't very much.

The problem is the only think I can call him is handsome. Cute is for fuzzy animals-- usually, anyway I think he might take a fence (okay, okay, offense) to that. Well, Handsome is what I always think is a guy is wearing a fancy outfit. (of course, he needs to be good looking too.)

Well, it doesn't matter, handsome is well enough.