The end bit was meant to read 'ok for men to dress like meN'.
Intrepid and spendius my dear critics, be very careful before you criticize somebody. My statements are based on facts (very simplified as stated but facts none the less). Please refer to my earlier post about where I got my information.
material girl, I also agree that women should not be regarded as asking to be raped if they wear clothes that compliment their figures and that make them look more attractive. I also strongly believe that rapists should be more severely punished. in South Africa the average rapist can look forward to about 6 months "hard time". And around here we have people who rape little babies because they believe it is a cure for AIDS. Obviously we have big problems.
It is quite interesting that you wonder about men being raped. We are currently discussing that topic in my one philosophy class. I believe that men are raped quite often but do not report it, because they fear that society will ridicule them for complaining about something that is supposed to be fun. Which is not true (rape is never fun).
jnkie wrote-
Quote:Intrepid and spendius my dear critics, be very careful before you criticize somebody. My statements are based on facts (very simplified as stated but facts none the less). Please refer to my earlier post about where I got my information.
Right.I've read it all again.There are no facts.
There is a bad error though.The idea that society thinks.Society is a thing.It can't think.You must have watched too many selected programmes and read too many selected articles.Selected by you to confirm your own positions I mean.
You are very nasty and not helpfull at all. Sorry if I offended your intelligence, but what I am saying is based on fact (as given to me by my lecturer). I may have made some grammatical errors (the society thinks thing), but if you know so much why don't you clarify the entire thing for me.
Spendius, this is supposed to be fun way to exchange views and thoughts not a medium to attack people who are trying to figure things out for themselves.
Jnkie,
I will have to read this text you speak of because frankly, I don't think that the "facts" this person has used to write about rape are entirely correct. (but I need to read it to make an educated statement, of course) In my interpretation of what you said, I don't think that rape exists because society give rapists any other choice or somehow promotes it. I think rape exists because it's the most intimate way to violate someone. Beating the **** out of them proves a point but doesn't drive it home nearly as hard as raping them would. Rapists are mentally twisted people. They wouldn't function properly in a society that didn't sell sex either.
I do agree about your views on how people view rape survivors. It's the number one reason why people don't report it. They think they will not be believed (it was their fault and they were really asking for it) or that they will be seen differently (whore, dirty, promiscious).
What are you trying to figure out?
I thought you were a bit preachy.
People being nice to you will teach you very little.
Well Ladies and Gents
Couldn't find the paper, but here are some notes on the paper.
Jinkie, if you have the paper, go for it.
Couple things:
I'm with Intripid & Spendius....Where is she getting these facts from?
Who is she to define what the model was in yesteryear?
Sounds to me like she's made up her mind about a few things, then built up "facts" to support it.
Just because she titles herself philospher, and writes papers and lectures, doesn't convince me she knows what she's talking about?
Old joke, but good message.......What do you call a Doctor who graduated LAST in his class?
Doctor....need I say more?
BTW Jinkie old bean, not like Spendius needs to be defended (you'll soon find THAT out), but A2Kers don't cotten to strangers calling our kind "nasty"
Lecture Notes on Pamela Foa
Philosophy 304, Summer 1999
Michael F. Goodman
Department of Philosophy
Humboldt State University
Go to:
eMail
Course Prospectus
LINKS
Michael's Homepage
The title of Foa's paper is "What's Wrong with Rape?"
Rape is wrong. Seemingly this is an indiputable fact. Well, why is it? Because it weakens, for a time, the economic productiveness of many people who are raped? Because while the biologically intended use of the body parts (sexual organs) is met, the psychologically intended use is not met (that is, sex is supposed to be tender and not hurtful)? These would be silly reasons for calling rape wrong. Most of us are aware that rape is viewed now as a crime of violence rather than as a sex crime. This fact points to the moral impermissiveness of rape. That is, rape is wrong on moral grounds. The traditional argument here is that since it is morally wrong to treat a person as a nonperson, and since using someone against her/his will is to do just that, and since rape is the use of another person against her/his wishes, then rape is morally wrong. Call this the "Respect for Persons" argument against rape (RFP for short). Pamela Foa sees that there is value in this argument. She says it gives us one way of understanding how one's person can be violated. In her opinion, this lack of respect is always present in rape.
RFP turns on the claim that rape involves persons (though it is possible to talk coherently about raping a sheep or a dog, we are talking about people here, human beings). It turns on the claim that there is a violation of a persons personhood in rape. It turns on the claim that the rapist is treating the victim as less than a person. Foa balks here, and is unwilling to say that this is the important part of the wrongness of rape. She's worried that if RFP is the only argument (or even the primary argument) by which rape is shown to be wrong, then it becomes just another crime, like a mugging, or vandalism of personal property, or assault and battery, etc.
In part, RFP makes use of the idea that women and men are equal in the sense of "having the full array of moral and legal right and privileges". (Foa, 585) But, she says, since rape of children is at least as bad as rape of an adult, and since children are not usually thought to be "equal" to adults, the wrongness of rape must go beyond the criminality of the act of a violation of the personhood of an equal.
Let me respond briefly here. Would the mugging, or the assault and battery, or the vandalization of the property of a child be less wrong in the eyes of the law (and more pertinent here) and in the moral sense of 'wrong' than the same acts on an adult? Of course not. Hence, a hairline crack in the wall of the argument Foa is building.
For Foa, the special wrongness of rape stems from the fact that it is sexual in nature. It is a humiliation of the woman (as though men are never raped) based on society's view of her as essentially a sexual being. It is based on a view of society about the nature of sexual activities as well as about the nature of women. Further, the essentially intimate nature of sexuality is another reason why rape (an especially nonintimate encounter) is wrong.
Brief response. If rape is never intimate and if all sex is intimate, then doesn't it follow that rape is not sex? This is another idea going along with the view that rape is not a sex crime.
One thing which might tend to get us past looking at rape in the way Foa is doing is something she herself says. If we could break the Victorian bonds of our views about sex, we might not continue to see rape as more wrong (even "especially horrible") than other criminal wrongs. If we could get past thinking that even in rape the woman (man) is in a state of pleasure, that women are essentially sexual beings, that sex is dirty, then the sexual nature of rape would not be the touchstone of our thinking of it as more wrong than other criminal acts.
I submit that our Victorian shackles are loosening ever more rapidly in our society. The courts don't anymore have the presumption that the rapist somehow "brought it on her/himself", or was "asking for it" (even if proven that the victim had been seen wearing what would be thought of as seductive clothes, jewelry, cologne, and so on). This is partly the result of our taking seriously the idea that "No" means "No". Even if a couple begins engaging in sexual activity and one partner suddenly decides not to continue, we feel the obligation of the other person is to cease all activity, simply because of the unwillingness of the other. No doubt this can be a cause of frustration. One might ask, "Well, why did you lead me on?" Or "Why tease me like this?" Nonetheless, even if this leading on or teasing is thought to be morally wrong, it does not follow that rape is the proper way to respond. On the contrary, it is clear that it is not proper.
I don't get the impression that Foa is arguing that it is merely the view of society that makes rape so horribly wrong, but that it would be this wrong even if society were to completely alter its views of sexuality. This latter view would be ontological in nature and therefore I'm not confident in my interpretation because Foa says the argument she wants to run is not ontological in nature. My way of giving her the benefit of the doubt (or as much rope as she wants).
One excellent example of Foa's ignorance of present conditions in our society seems to me captured in the following picture she gives of what children are taught. "Long before intercourse can be a central issue, when children are prepubescent, boys are instructed to lunge for a kiss and girls are instructed to permit nothing more than a peck on the cheek." (Foa, 589) Where did this come from? 1950's high comedy. 1950's children being instructed by parents (and uncles and aunts) who were raised in the 1930's. Foa's paper is 21 years old and that must explain it because things have changed, for the most part, in American culture. Or have they? This, of course, is an empirical question which must be answered in the ordinary way of empirical questions. We go out and look and ask, and speak and judge, and reason and conclude. My experience, having 4 teenagers in the house (and many of their friends) at the present time (and studying them pretty closely at times (hopefully without their suspecting)), and having coached a Little Leagues team for the past 10 years (where boys and girls mix it up regularly) is that there is a lot of sexual and nonsexual "grabassing" going on on both sides. I don't see girls backing up, or boys being more agressive than girls, or "lunging for kisses" or "allowing kisses on the cheek only". What do I see? I see playful kids awakening to their sexual desires, confused about how to act. They're low level consciousness how to act is a clue to the fact that they're not taught very much in the first place. They find their way through trial and error. Foa's claims about how children are instructed on what not to do is simply laughable. Either that or she's living in a very different world from mine.
The best idea Foa comes up with in the paper is the idea that sex between friends is the best alternative to rape. Importantly, this will involve listening to one another (as friends listen to friends); this will involve the necessary intimacy attending consensual sex. However, she is quick to point out that sex between friends need not be the only sort of legitimate sex people can have which avoids the evils of rape. It is just that she sees the situation of "lovers involved in a healthy relationship" as having many, if not most, of the features of sex between friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment: Foa thinks that raping one's pet dog is wrong but not because it involves unnatural desires. Give her argument in as clear and concise a way as you can. Pay special attention to the structure of the argument (i.e., premises and conclusion). Use no quotes. Give the argument in your own words. Please post your answers to my E-mail no later than 12n, Friday, 18 June 1999.
Jnkie, I didnt mean to imply rape is fun.Its not hence it being called rape.I just meant the public may not see it as rape for one reason or another and therefore wonder why the victim is complaining..
Ive heard that babies are raped as people think its a cure for AIDS, how screwed up is that!!
I saw a documentary about that kind of thing that said people would prefer to believe witch doctors rather than medical doctors so they carry on raping kids.
Somebody need to change the way people think in that area.
i assume its men raping babies, as tho there is only a cure for men, not women!
Spendius and Intrepid I owe you an apology. You were right. What I regarded as fact was in fact only one persons opinion. And a flawed opinion at that. Thanks to Chai Tea for clearing that up for me. My lecturer is still arguing that Foa's opinion is in fact correct. I was even threatened with poor grades if I disagree...but that is a entirely different problem. I hope that I will still be welcome to participate in future discussions. I promise not to get so defensive when people disagree with me.
Material girl, I could not agree more. Also I didn't think that you implied rape is fun. I meant that society might unfairly judge a man(or woman for that matter) if they were raped.
As for changing the way people around here think...good luck. The government has launched countless campaigns to educate people, but most still cling to traditional healing. I think that most Africans will probably never fully trust the West, but who can blame them?
Surely they can see that raping babies hasnt rid them of the disease!
Is there even one case were its worked!!!!Its silly and horrid.
Im not criticising and im not familiar with world events but what do you mean Africans dont trust the west?
Well, most Africans were or still are oppressed by the West(read developed countries). Even if this is not really true today. Africa wants help, but they want it on their terms. That is why Africa is still in the state it is(my opinion). Instead of taking responsibility for the state of the continent and fixing it, Africans prefer to beg for aid (which is then used for everything except what it was intended for). So essentially Africa blames the west for our troubles and Africa expects the west to solve our problems, but africa does not want the west to interfere with the way things are done here. As you can see, this is a very complex problem that has been coming for centuries. As to a solution, I just do not know. But its not all doom an gloom. The sun shines for 9 to 12 hours a day (really shines), we have lots of open spaces. We have amazing cultural diversity. We have meat on the bone and biltong(beef jerky, only better). I could ramble on forever, but I don't want to bore you. Hope this sorta answers your question...
