Sigh. I've been deleted and blocked by yet another feminist page on Facebook....

Malenkey and Autumn As a guy reading around the subject I found your discourse stimulating. Cheers for that :)

Drakonchik, thank you very much for a fascinating discussion. I totally agree that many men do not at all understand what they are doing as rape, and that many do not even set out with evil intentions. They just take what they see as theirs.

I'd love to continue, but I am about to get fired if I don't get any work done.

I consider myself a feminist but all this online stuff seems to be focused on naval-gazing and pseudo-intellectual oneupmanship.

I prefer politics where men and woman are together trying to address the appalling inequalities being caused by this government.

The endless flippin' 'I'm a better feminist than yew' and 'whataboutthemenz' irrelevancy makes me want to scream.

YY, agree it is both bodily and mental, definitely. Though not always a conscious mental process, as I was trying to say before.

Some men are really shocked to think of what they do as rape. We can try to make it black and white all we like, and simply say 'oh, he should have known' or 'I'm sure he knew deep down', but what frightens me is I don't think that is true. I think the conditioning is so deep, some men really, honestly, did not think about their power to access women's bodies. They honestly didn't 'know' what they did was rape.

(I'm definitely not saying this about all rapists, btw. I do believe some (many?) set out to hurt people and know what they are doing is wrong, or deny it's rape but secretly know it is. But I think a number really don't know.)

I am thinking a lot too. I'm being a bit incoherent because of it, but it is getting me thinking.

I agree about the patriarchy and entitlement to women's bodies being a huge issue.

I think my problem is, once we get into why some men rape, rather than what rape is (an invasion of someone's body against their consent), we are on dodgy ground. Of course it's crucial that we know more about why some men rape, just like it's crucial we try to understand why all violence is gendered. But IMO we mustn't start labelling further than that, because society can and will change, and we will find we've labelled the wrong attributes.

There is not something inherent in men that makes them rape, or cause any other violence. I truly believe that. I have to. The non-feminists would say, well, men are violent because of testosterone/evolution/whatever. This is effectively saying: men have to be this way and they will never change. Some men will always be born to be violent, or to be rapists'.

I find that appalling.

I still live in hope we'll be able to get to a society where no men rape. So, I have to believe that there is nothing inherent that makes some men into rapists while others aren't. That means I have to believe there's nothing inherent that distinguishes one person from another - it's all society.

Yes, I guess I am talking about why people rape. And yes, rape is a physical act. And you can't really argue (or I cannot conceive of it in my present cultural circumstances) that one can somehow think about a violent non-consensual sexual act as somehow not rape. At least you definitely cannot do it outside patriarchy. And it is hard for me to imagine anything outside patriarchy because that's all I've ever lived in.

So yes, rape is not only about what's in people's heads. But heads are their as much as bodies. It is the intention to overpower, to humiliate, to destroy, to debase, to silence.

See, Drakonchik, you really got me thinking here. Sorry everyone else for monopolising the thread. I can definitely see how men as class can be potential rapists, but definitely not because they all have a penis. To me it's rather because of what patriarchy says about men's entitlement to women's bodies.

autumn - I would say that you're talking about why people rape, not whether or not they're a potential rapist, though?

I think they are separate questions. And I think if you're talking about broomsticks etc., you are still talking about the physical? Those are physical items. They are not in someone's head. That is why I object to the idea that rape is purely about what is going on in someone's head, not about their bodies.

You are right that we're possibly getting off-topic!

But we are really getting into details that are not that relevant. To me the basic distinction is between the definition of a "potential rapist" as a physical capability and a psychological essence.

True, broomsticks and broken bottles do not generally transfer STDs or beget children, but . . .

Hmmmmm, if I were to call anyone a potential rapist, I would say they are because of the gender and power assumptions that are in their head, not because they have a penis.

(In the context of this thread I should clarify 'rape is about penises' doesn't mean 'rape is only about penises' but 'rape is about penises amongst other things').

autumn - true, UK law is inadequate.

But, rape is about penises. What's in a person's head isn't what transfers STDs or gets women pregnant, is it? Mental humiliation and violation is no doubt horrible, but there is a bodily element to this and I think we mustn't deny it.

I guess UK law defines penetration by an object other than a penis as sexual assault. Shall we broaden the discussion to include the women who experienced sexual assault as defined by UK law? It seems a bit unfair to exclude them.

I didn't label people outside the historical context.

I was arguing precisely that point.

It's not as simple as 'some men are evil and rape people because they are evil'. I find that very hard to accept, because I think it is basically sexist.

My husband is a potential rapist in that he has a penis. It has nothing to do with what was accepted as normal in the past.

However, my statement 'men as a class rape' is important for us to make, because we know that otherwise, some men and women will not examine their own situations. We ourselves won't. That is the part of the argument where it becomes useful to compare our society to the past. We have to realize that we all have blind spots (we as a society). We all need to analyse how we live.

I really don't see any alternative to this way of looking at men and women, other than to assume there is gendered evil in the world, and that is a horrible assumption.

UK law is, to me, hopelessly inadequate when it comes to rape. I would struggle to use it in place of a basic assumption of what rape is.

A penis makes, to me, rape about sex because a penis is genitals, a sexual organ, part of a human being. And it is really not necessary for rape. Rape is not about a penis. It's really more about what's in a person's head.

*Drakonchik", yes, I agree. But can we really just look at things and label people outside the historical context? Yes, men in the past thought nothing of demanding that their wives perform marital duties (i.e. rape in marriage). But most women probably not thought much of it either and even instructed their daughters to just bear it for the sake of marriage, children, whatever . . . I struggle in labeling my husband and son as potential rapists because of what was accepted as normality in the past.

But I do feel that we are disagreeing while agreeing at the same time. I do understand that marital rape actually happens left, right and centre in our own world today. I do understand the need for constant reflexivity and gods know my husband gets lectured on feminist issues all the time. At the same time, I struggle translating "physical capability" to rape into a situation when the "potential rapist" becomes a part of what a man IS, his essence, his identity. It de-humanises and individualises men too much (paradoxically at the same time) for me. It draws the attention away from patriarchy as a system in which we all, not just men, think and act. If all men are potential rapist, then all women are potential accessories to rape.

Sorry, annie, realizing this may be wandering off your point and into the discussion you were trying to have ... I'll stop if you'd rather.

I don't think rape is about sex either. But under UK law, people who have penises can rape and people who don't, can't.

I don't really understand why penises would make rape about sex?

I also do not understand the focus on the penis. That makes rape a bodily, sexual act. But to me rape is not about sex. It's about power. And a penis is certainly not necessary. One only has to read "Democratic Republic" of Congo news . . .

tort - sorry, I missed your post, but thank you.

autumn - I think it is helpful, though, precisely because we (men and women) find it hard to think of ourselves and our loved ones that way.

I don't think all rapists do it because they are fundamentally not good people. I think a lot of rapists do it because they have not been taught to identify what they do as rape.

I think if you went back a hundred years, you would find many men and women who believed it was perfectly ok for a man to say sternly to his wife 'now, I want to have sex, stop being silly and let me'. Because it was legal and many people felt it was a woman's duty in marriage. Were those husbands being deliberately cruel? Almost certainly not. Were the women who agreed it was their duty and their daughters' duty being cruel to themselves? Again, probably not.

But we now would take a different view.

Given that most rape is not committed by strangers who violently overpower women, I think this is really important.

Hmmmm, interesting discussion. Is it helpful to treat all men as potential rapists? I am not sure. On one hand, most (99.999%? But I imagine it is possible for a woman to commit sexual assault and some do) rapists are men, and it would be helpful for each man to reflect on his attitudes, thoughts and behaviour. On the other hand, I certainly find it hard to think about my father, husband and son as "potential rapists". The same as I would find it hard to think of myself as a "potential burglar, murderer, tobacco company executive, etc.". It smacks to me of original sin doctrine and the feeling of personal worthlessness and pollution it brings. And I don't think that low self-esteem is a way to raise citizens. I would rather my son thought of himself as a fundamentally good person who knows what rape is and who would never imagine committing it, even though technically he is of course capable of it in the same way as he is capable of murder. This is different from him thinking "I am a potential rapist and the only thing that it stopping me is my feminist outlook." I don't want him to identify with rape at all. Rape should be an inconceivably horrid act, the same as murder. But this should not preclude reflexivity, in the same way that not identifying myself as a "potential murderer" does not preclude me in examining the effect my consumption practices have on the lives of other people and the environment.

And saying that most men dream about buggering animals smacks of "heathens killing babies and drinking their blood".

Saying all this, I do not deny the usefulness of a class-based discussion. But it does often beg for contextualisation. Yes, white people enslaved black people. However, there are loads of white people, living outside the Americas and Western Europe, who had nothing to do with it. They were busy enslaving other, non-African, people or being enslaved themselves.

'All women have the potential to leave a good husband for a rich man then take the children to a remote part of the uk such that the husband can't easily get access'

That is a totally different statement, though.

Not all women are married.
Not all women have children.
Not all women are able to leave their houses - there are women who are too terrified to go.
Not all women have the money to travel.

However, all men who have penises are potential rapists. This is simply because rape is defined the way it is defined.

If I said 'All men have the potential to drag a woman into a dark alley and rape her', that would be an unacceptable generalization, because many men would not be physically capable of doing that.

But a man who has a functioning penis is capable of rape.

Is it not more offensive to men to suggest there is something other, that only affects men, that makes them decide to rape? I don't believe my DH has anything other than his penis that could possibly make him a potential rapist. I find the idea really upsetting. I am aware this is also a 'not my Nigel' argument, but surely it's a better one than 'not my Nigel, he's not got male-evil-gene and a penis'?

No, I get where you're coming from lizzy. I have two brothers and a DH and many lovely male friends.

But I would say that saying 'all men are potential rapists' or 'men watch porn' (not 'all men watch porn which is a generalization that'd make me furious), are simply class descriptions.

If people misinterpret, that's a pity, and I think the response annie got was wrong. But IMO it's not the phrasing that should be changed, it's the response when someone doesn't understand what it means.

Someone simply needs to explain as tunip did that feminism is about class analysis and that we're talking about men as a class. I don't see how anyone can carry out class analysis without talking about men as a class, so there is IMO little point in trying to change the wording.

'Most men don't rape but some do' does not mean the same as 'men as a class rape', does it? That's the point. The first statement implies there is something that we can distinguish, that sets apart men who rape from men who don't. IMO that demonizes people. All that distinguishes a rapist from anyone else, is the fact he has raped someone. There is no need to make any other more specific statement and it's quite insulting to do so.

"It's like when people get upset about 'all men are potential rapists'. All it means is, under UK law, rape is unconsensual penetration. All men who have penises could do it. It's the lowest common denominator that defines people who could commit rape. "

Yes, but it's open to interpretation and is thus inflammatory.

Equally

All women have the potential to leave a good husband for a rich man then take the children to a remote part of the uk such that the husband can't easily get access

Obviously the sensualism of the statement outweighs all likelihood of occurence. This is clearly wrong!