You know....when discussions like this get bogged down, I like to go back and see how they started.
This whole enterprise began when Caprice took exception to a couple of things Craven and I said.
Frankly I think the whole "it's not about sex" line to be overblown. It would read more honestly to say "it's not just about sex". It is sex. Even if we don't like to think that it is.
To which Caprice replied:
It is the sexual act, but I beg to differ on saying it is sex. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
I certainly didn't understand Caprice's point, because Craven had specifically said that it would be more honest to say it is not just
about sex. (Craven had made the word "just" bold.)
So the only way I could understand Caprice's reply is to assume Caprice considered it NOT TO BE ABOUT SEX AT ALL. That is the only way it makes sense -- since Craven was saying it was not JUST about sex.
I chimed in with:
Sex is a motivator -- although control, domination, and plain violence are huge ingredients.
To which, in part, Caprice responded
The motivator is not sex but power.
Note that I used the indefinite article "Sex is a
motivator -- and Caprice used the definite article "The
And frankly, everything went downhill from there.
SEX IS A MOTIVATOR IN A RAPE. No one is suggesting it is "the" motivator -- or "the only" motivator -- BUT IT IS A MOTIVATOR.
And I defy Caprice to show a study that conclusively shows that SEX plays NO PART in the motivation.
I honestly do not know why we are arguing this thing.
Rape is a horrible crime -- and I abhor anyone who engages in it. I also abhor any man who would beat the crap out of some woman just to show power or to satisfy a need to terrorize someone.
Let's get past this.
Unless you are prepared to show a study that completely eliminates SEX from the motivational factors in ALL rapes, Caprice -- the position Craven and I have taken on this issue is a reasonable, logical and defendable position.
Let's go on to the next thing.