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

Yea I get a lot of that PQ. I take your point about nerve endings, and of course the "enjoyment" aspect must come as part of the act. I thought though the focus of power and control, or to use better phrasing perhaps, the ability to use a womens body as an act of entitlement was the motivating factor. Do you think that the motivation can be separated from the nerve endings, or is it all one and the same?

As Barry White said Drakon "Don't go changing, just to please me I love you just the way you are"

prom, I think that's an interesting point - I don't feel informed enough to comment. The one thing I do think is (and this is horrible and sad) - people who get off on inflicting pain probably get off on this sort of thing.

I do also (sorry!) want to reiterate that these sorts of rapes are relatively rare, in the UK at least, and I think we get a skewed picture when we focus on them. I hope it's not insensitive to say that. I cannot begin to imagine how awful they are. But my impression is that we have a much bigger problem.

Btw, SP made a brilliant (I thought) point on another thread about how we should define rapists, which was simply: until the moment someone rapes, he is not a rapist.

I think that's important. People don't necessarily always have this tendency latent within them - they do this, actively. And as soon as they do it, there is a victim who needs help.

special - well, yes. It does make just as much sense.

And if one in four children were murdered, it might be very important to make that point, don't you think?!

saying 'all men are potential rapists' makes as much sense as saying 'all people are potential child killers'.

we are all physically equipped to kill a child. That doesn't mean we are all going to do it.

neither is a good start to reasoned argument.

nero - misandry doesn't exist, and real feminists aren't put off by such silliness, so there's no need to worry.

Misandrists shouldn't be justified in thinking that all men are horrible. They should be challenged. I think a lot of misandrists these days hide under the umbrella of feminism, which in turn, puts real feminists away from feminism

I keep reading things like this on the internet. I just never come across it in real life. It seems to be something trotted out in argument that is vanishingly rare in actuality. The women most disparaging of men that I meet (not many) are conservative women who reject feminism and don't identify as feminists.

I'm so sorry, I'm triple posting which is terrible, but ...

why do you think homosexuals don't rape, leith?

I'm gobsmacked by that. How can you possibly criticize class analysis and then say that?

Misandrists shouldn't be justified in thinking that all men are horrible. They should be challenged.

I think a lot of misandrists these days hide under the umbrella of feminism, which in turn, puts real feminists away from feminism.

Btw, I think I covered your other post with the word 'functioning', didn't I?

'The sweeping general statement of one "class" fits all'

No one has made that statement, leith.

Class based analysis is almost the opposite of saying 'we think one class fits all'. It's about saying, given that there are differences on an individual level and we get nowhere when we try to look at each individual in term, how's about looking at broad classes?

I find it helpful. If you don't, fair enough, but let's get straight what we're talking about.

Sorry, I disappeared (it's almost as if I have a life).

Thanks for kind comments all - I find this fascinating too, thanks very much autumn. And annie for starting the thread.

Will go catch up properly now!

It is not "picking holes" if it is an attempt to engage with a broad description of a problem that actually misses the target, my reference to the Social Model of disability is akin to this, as despite starting off appealing almost unversialy appealing as a class based explanation of how others (In this case normies as we like to say) oppress us. Then a few "holes" were picked and lo and behold a new critical investigation of what the social model was had to be undertaken as the "holes" were just to damn large to ignore.

However I would also like you to carry on with your pleasure/penise discussion PQ. As the received wisdom that rape is about power is pretty much established, if your suggesting something more complex is going on I would like to see what you have to say.

How good of you to let me know that vesuvia, now about my neighbour?

Leithlurker wrote - "Would you like to explain how someone with erectille dysfunction can use their own penise to rape someone."

Dysfunction includes not being able to maintain an erection after penetration.

Would you like to explain how someone with erectille dysfunction can use their own penise to rape someone venus, or perhaps tell me how my neighbour a quadriplegic with no body control, verbal skills, ability to sit upright unaided could carry out rape?

My point is simple you can argue a blanket case but when an indisputable exception is found it makes the case look flawed and less likely to be accepted.

All class based analysis needs to be examined, so if were talking about income class what are the things that define that? If we see examples of those with high incomes who act differently like sending children to the local comp instead of private school, how do we explain that? What are the barriers to other people becoming that class? If all penise owners are automatically enrolled in the class what about those who change gender do they become part of the class or conversely do they drop out of the class if they have the penis removed?

I see why a general class is useful as a political statement, it's nice and simple, allows easy (I do not mean dumb down, just conceptually) identification and discussion. In some ways it resembles the social model of disability, however the social model is also been crituqued and others suggested as a recognition that no one political classification will appeal or apply to everyone it intends to speak for

Also I apologise if the start of my first post was a little aggressive.

Leithlurker wrote - "Nore does it help that some penise endowed humans are never likel;y to rape, those born with congenital disabilities that prevent sexual function. Those that choose to live in all male communities, those that have had illness or treatment of illness that renders them impotent. Homosexuals, all these would be included in the general classification. Clearly they would howl with rage at being included"

Living in all male communities or being homosexual or having disabilities or having penis erectile dysfunction does not exclude such men from being potential rapists, per se. Some men from all these groups have raped people.

Is all class-based analysis bad then, or just feminism?

Class-based study doesn't make for good scientific analysis to be honest. The more variables and co-variances between these variables the more the class-based methodology is weakened. Simple analytical principles really.

Is all class-based analysis bad then, or just feminism?

The sweeping general statement of one "class" fits all is pointless and misleading simply becouse when exceptions are found in your general classification it reduces the general theory to a point where it losses credibility.

So the theory that having a penis is enough to include an individual in the class that rapes tells us what about that class? That they all have dicks. It does not explain why the vast majority of those penises are never used in rape.

Nore does it help that some penise endowed humans are never likel;y to rape, those born with congenital disabilities that prevent sexual function. Those that choose to live in all male communities, those that have had illness or treatment of illness that renders them impotent. Homosexuals, all these would be included in the general classification. Clearly they would howl with rage at being included, in much the same way as women would and do at the suggestion that because they have breasts they are not a good mother if they do not breast feed.