I have a question about attitudes to lesbianism

[TheRealMBJ]

Prompted by skim reading the very interesting separatist thread, it just occurred to me that lesbianism is still very much demonised in society. The media and individuals who are very supportive of gay-rights seem to sneer at lesbians. I don't quite get it.

Surely if it is accepted that homosexuality is normal it should be the same for men and women?

No, nor do they take "maturity" into account for anything else in the world. So it shouldn't be for this.

Stripey, an extension of this idea would be to think of rape. Men raping men is not always done by a gay man. It is often hedoresexual men who do it. The theory being that it is a predatory act, not a sexual gratification. Perhaps it is done to gain the pride of robbing another man of his status as a man? This also applies to the raping of women as well. For example, why is it that the "mouthy" ones are often the ones to be made victims? Done to put them int the place rather than to take any errotic pleasure from it. And it applies to children as well, but I don't really want to go into that.

I think male-male rape is seen much more clearly for the abuse of power, fear, control and submission that rape really is. It's only male-female rape that sex gets dragged into and confuses the whole issue.

Rightly or wrong, I always thought of there being 2 kinds of male>female rape. One is for power - it is a predatory act done to hurt and put someone in their place. Everyone is clear on this type. The other one is where someone "takes advantage", and it is done to take sex whether she wants it or not. It's the "pushed into it" sort of thing but isn't violent. Whether this exists or not, this is the one where a some disagree that it is rape or just "taking advantage", which is the same thing. This one doesn't happen with Male>male, does it?

TheAtomicBum: The thing is, the sort of 'taking advantage' rape you describe is actually still rape and still about power. Because it's not ordinary, decent men who are fucking women too drunk to consent, or ignoring women's objections and clear reluctance to engage in sex. Men who fuck women who do not want the man to fuck them are rapists and they are doing this deliberately. They are setting up situations in which the woman is semi-conscious, confused, scared or can't get away without making a fuss. These men hate women, they have a view of sex that it's a kind of competition or battle - it's something men 'get from' women and something that women trade, so when they fuck a reluctant or unconscious woman they are 'winning'.

Yes, you are probably right. I didn't say it wasn't rape, I just alwauys thought it was done for a different reason. I suppose, when you think about it, it is the same. As I said, whether it is right or not, they are seen differently by many. I guess it's a little difficult to understand when you don't wish to "take" sex as if it is some sort of service.

No, I wouldn't. For me, there's enjoyment in giving someone else enjoyment, IYSWIM?

Anyway, is there a difference between not caring (or convincing themselves that the girl really does want it?) and deliverately hurting? Can they not realised like they claim? I mean, I thought it was just complete selfishness.

Going back a bit - def connection of homophobia with misogyny. And it's another eg, like rape, of misplaced focus on victim instead of perp. Men's dislike of idea of gay sex is because they don't want to be treated like a woman and penetrated. Hence all the homophobic 'backs to the wall', don't pick up the soap in the prison showers' bullshit. Also the popular use of 'fucked', 'shafted', 'screwed' as synonyms for ruined. Like on student demos, pics of Sam Cam with 'She's not the only one getting fucked by Cameron'. Very offensive & reactionary imo.

It is a bit of an odd double usage, isn't it?

It's not a modern idea, either. It's first usage like that was back in the Roman Empire, when it was found it a diary to mean financially ruined.

Interestingly, back in ancient Rome, it was quite commonplace and acceptable to engage in homosexual acts (there were even customs - where the one socially higher up was always the giver - which probably just proves your point). Although there have been one or two pieces of evidence that woman did to, it was never documented and was mostly ignored. In some cultures, the attitude was normally to turn a blind eye to lesbian affairs as long as they still married, raised children and performed their "wifely dutires".

I don't understand the distinction between two kinds of rape, one where the perpetrator wants to do harm and the other where he 'just' doesn't care. Don't most kinds of harm - certainly this one - cause a visceral reaction of disgust? If you imagine accidentally slicing someone's thumb open because your knife slipped, accidentally leaving a needle on the floor that your child stands on - the fact you didn't mean to do it doesn't make you less likely to regret the pain caused or react badly to the blood.

You can't cause that sort of accidental pain and react to it less than if it were deliberate - any normal person will feel horrified and stop immediately. Surely it's the same with rape: how could you possibly feel sexy about hurting someone?

This is why I think rape is really not about sex - not to any healthy person.

Yes, I think I'll agree with you. And perhaps part of the battle is in educating people that there is no distinction. The distinction is made by common society to excuse "coersion" as a method of wooing. It's a something I'll be imparting upon my DS when he's old enough to understand. I just wanted to know what you all thought of the concept.

Interestingly, picture this scene in court (hyperthetical, obviously). A man is on trial for raping another man. He admits it, but his defence is that he went round to his mates house, where he was given a beer and noticed that his friends was walking around wearing only a pair of shorts as it was a hot summers day. His clothes clearly showed that he was "asking for it" and the fact that he was invited into the man's house and given an alcoholic drink was implied consent. The frightening things is how laughable the idea is.

Really good analogy tab. Shows how ludicrous Our society is.

It hardly helps when the justice secretary stands up and blatantly voices an opinion that there are different 'types' of rape

I've wondered about this. America has degrees of rape, same as degrees of murder. You have coercion with no violence. Then there is violence involved, and then there is when a person is unable to have given consent (eg, drug induced, under age, mentally ill, etc). I've wondered whether it is a good idea or not. For one thing, it de-values some crimes. But that may be good for some victims, in the sense that I've heard some who were coerced feel violated but feel like it shouldn't be the same crime as someone who was violently attacked, and so the would feel better going forward and claiming 3rd degree, not 2nd or 1st. Would it mean higher reporting and conviction rates? America does have a much higher reporting rate than we do.

The thing with that is that it's not an analogy. It's exactley the same as some stories I've heard, just a different victim. And in those stories the victim was wearing more clothes.