Aibu to think rape is not merely about power and sometimes is just about sex?

[CheeseBubbles]

I see it said a lot and I'm not convinced. If rape is solely about power there's no point teaching men about consent is there? If anything they might use the knowledge to better abuse their victims. Isn't it possible that for some men they simply want sex and don't actually give a shit one way or another what the victim is thinking. On the relationship board you'll see men who try it on nicely at first and then move on to coercion which makes me think again that this is just sex for them because they'd happily get it the easy way if possible. I don't know if it really makes a difference but I worry that if we assign this one motivation to it we draw a line that doesn't really need to be there and maybe make men who used garden variety coercion or a really drunk woman to think they didn't actually rape, because for them it wasn't a power trip.

Excellent post rock
It's sad actually, that so many women want to absolve their rapists. Get angry! Who cares if their intention was to get sex or to demonstrate power over their victims? The end result is still the same.

Your opinion is entirely subjective, rock, so please stop claiming it is objective and erasing the experiences of others.

Honestly, it's really disappointing that discussing the differing motivations behind men committing sexual assault gets one labelled a harmful rape apologist, and told not to say such things.

Understanding why people do the things they do could be useful in preventing others from doing those things, I would have thought. That's not rape apology.

"It's sad actually, that so many women want to absolve their rapists."

Is someone on this thread suggesting absolution?

I'm very confused by this thread. It seems that a fairly insignificant detail is somehow of paramount importance.

The 'rape is about power, not sex' analysis has been very useful for women and a Godsend of a lightbulb moment in terms of them understanding why and how they have been raped.

The motivation for some men might well be sex. But I fail to understand how an analysis of their motivation helps women, or helps prevent rape, when the only tool required for rape is power.

Rape wouldn't exist without power.

Sex would.

Understanding why people do the things they do could be useful in preventing others from doing those things, I would have thought.
Yes except those prevention tips too often come to women. See this recent example: www.vice.com/en_us/article/ev4e8a/cosby-juror-says-accusers-bare-midriff-implied-consent-vgtrn
When there are indications men are actually listening to prevention tips I might agree.

"It seems that a fairly insignificant detail is somehow of paramount importance."

I've explained how the "rape is always about power" attitude harmed me. It wasn't an insignificant detail to me. It mattered in how I framed my experiences.

Why is it so wrong to acknowledge that the motivation behind rape can be physical sexual satisfaction, as well as power? Who does that hurt?

"Yes except those prevention tips too often come to women."

Which isn't what's being discussed here. Women can't prevent rape, but society can prevent rape via better sex education, and education around consent, and teaching boys respect for women as human beings.
That won't prevent rapists' whose motivation is power from raping, as they're generally sociopaths. But it will prevent those men who may rape because they feel entitled to sexual satisfaction.

The title says sometimes rape is just about sex. Implying no involvement of power at all in some rapes. I think most people are pointing out that's bollocks.
There is no harm in admitting the motivation is sexual satisfaction as well as power. The harm is not acknowledging that without the power differential it would not be possible for men to commit rape. The power differential is there in all rapes, that's why rape is about power not sex.

Why is it so wrong to acknowledge that the motivation behind rape can be physical sexual satisfaction, as well as power? Who does that hurt?

I think most people can acknowledge that. I'm just not sure what to do with it?

I don't want to pry, but how does it help you exactly to know that?

I don't think that's what it's implying at all. I read it as implying that sometimes the rapist rapes purely for sexual pleasure, and the power is merely what enables the rape, it's not what the rape is about.

Obviously one needs power to force someone into a non-consenting sex act of any sort. But that doesn't mean that the act is neceasarily about power - it is merely facilitated by power. What it is about is sexual satisfaction.

I'm not sure why this is a controversial position to have. Sure, it may seem minor to many people, I understand that. But to me it wasn't, as it was vital in me realising some of my past assaults really were rape, despite not being "about power."

"I think most people can acknowledge that."

According to the responses on this thread, it seems that they can't, as I've been called a rape apologist, eager to absolve rapists, and more, for bringing it up.

Scrumplestiltskin

So a man who sulks and complains about blue balls, so you have sex with him? That's rape.

This is a typical example of the 'grey area' so beloved by rape apologists (i'm not suggesting you are).

Still rape. He still couldn't do it without the power to enforce his will over yours.

In my opinion rape is always about power on some level. Not only is it always an exertion of power on the part of the attacker - their power to carry out the attack - but I think having that power is sakes motivation. In cases where at first the attacker was seeking sexual satisfaction, they weren't prepared to give it to themselves or wait until their partner also wanted it, they were happy to show contempt for her and use their power to get it - reminding her of this power, that he holds it and in my opinion that'd be a significant part of the motivation to go ahead with the attack. Sexual satisfaction is then gained by the attacker through rape, not a consensual sexual encounter, so has been gained through exerting his power and getting off on the ability to dehumanise and demean someone into an object for his sexual gratification.

Rape is never about sex because rape is not sex.

"So a man who sulks and complains about blue balls, so you have sex with him? That's rape.

This is a typical example of the 'grey area' so beloved by rape apologists (i'm not suggesting you are).

Still rape. He still couldn't do it without the power to enforce his will over yours."

I'm not disputing that, Datun. I never have. So I'm not sure of your point.

My point has only ever been that it's not always about power. And framing it as such made me feel unwilling to recognise some of my experiences as rape. So I found the black and white "it's always about power" framing to be harmful.

I would also add though that any man having sex with a women where he knows the only reason he is, is because he has used a certain amount of power (blue balls, sulking) will certainly not be put off by that knowledge. I would think it actually does enhance the experience.

sometimes the rapist rapes purely for sexual pleasure

If it was purely for sexual pleasure, he would then attempt to find a willing sexual partner of if within a relationship wait for a time when the partner was also seeking sexual pleasure. To have it in you to go on to rape shows in my opinion holding this power is part of the thrill for the attacker.

"and in my opinion that'd be a significant part of the motivation to go ahead with the attack. Sexual satisfaction is then gained by the attacker through rape, not a consensual sexual encounter, so has been gained through exerting his power and getting off on the ability to dehumanise and demean someone into an object for his sexual gratification."

This is however not always the case. Your opinion conflicts with my experiences as a victim.

"rape is not sex"

Rape is literally non-consensual sex.

"If it was purely for sexual pleasure, he would then attempt to find a willing sexual partner of if within a relationship wait for a time when the partner was also seeking sexual pleasure. To have it in you to go on to rape shows in my opinion holding this power is part of the thrill for the attacker."

You'd be wrong, NoLove. It shows entitlement and disregard for their partner's autonomy, it does not show that power is part of the thrill.

This is however not always the case. Your opinion conflicts with my experiences as a victim.

How is that? What nolove is saying is from the perspective of the rapist. I'm not sure I would believe a rap7st claiming it wasn't about power

Your opinion conflicts with my experiences as a victim.

I don't want to dismiss your experiences. I'm talking generally not about a specific case but I believe power is inherent in all rape, both in the holding that power and in the carrying it out. The attacker has used that power to carry it out and knows they have.

Rape is not sex.

I think power is part of the attack as otherwise the attacker in those settings would wait for a situation they could have sex rather than show that contempt for their partner.

Are you thinking of the 1950s type housewife who lies back and think of England every Saturday night, mentally doing her shopping list while her husband pumps away?

The problem with that neither of them thinks it's rape. When her having sex she doesn't really want is rape. But both she and he are conditioned into thinking it isn't.

We have progressed since then. Women are now told they don't have to do that! Men need to know that too.

They didn't claim that, Quentin. I knew it. My boyfriend of two years when I was a teenager did it not because he "got off on power," but because he thought being my boyfriend meant he was entitled to sex when he desired it. There was no thrill of power for him. He simply truly believed that one half of a couple should be available for sex whenever the other half felt the urge.

It took me a long time to name it rape and him a rapist, because I thought at the time that rape was "about power not sex" and what he did didn't fit that narrative, therefore couldn't be rape.

Let me ask you: how is it harmful to say that sometimes power is not the objective or motivation, but merely the facilitator of, rape?

"Rape is not sex."

You sound like a transactivist saying "trans women are women," over and over again with utterly no evidence or reasoning behind the mantra, NoLove

but because he thought being my boyfriend meant he was entitled to sex when he desired it.

That's the power! Right there.

"Are you thinking of the 1950s type housewife who lies back and think of England every Saturday night, mentally doing her shopping list while her husband pumps away?"

No, more the 2000s teenager who thinks her boyfriend is entitled to anal sex, whether she likes it or not. Attitudes haven't changed that much since the 1950s ime, Datun.