Sexual abuse in women's prison is rampant...also water is wet

[Vorpal]

The fact that rape was Premeditated supposedly meant it was nonsexual. Last time I checked spontaneity is not required for motives to be sexual. A basic knowledge of courting or long-term scamming for that matter, shows the claim to be quite lame.

[Vorpal]

That rape invariably included violence or threats of violence meant that violence must be the motive. Palmer refutes this by looking at violence as instrumental or excessive, ie more than needed to accomplish the apparent sexual goal. Excessive violence is only used in a minority of cases. In 87 % of cases verbal coercion was used. Another study showed that 78% of rapists sought cooperation. If committing violence is the goal, they are not very good at it.

[epronovost]

The fact that rape was Premeditated supposedly meant it was nonsexual.  Last time I checked spontaneity is not required for motives to be sexual.  A basic knowledge of courting or long-term scamming for that matter, shows the claim to be quite lame.

That's not an argument for any position.

[epronovost]

That rape invariably included violence or threats of violence meant that violence must be the motive. Palmer refutes this by looking at violence as instrumental or excessive, ie more than needed to accomplish the apparent sexual goal.  Excessive violence is only used in a minority of cases.  In 87 % of cases verbal coercion was used.  Another study showed that 78% of rapists sought cooperation.  If committing violence is the goal, they are not very good at it.

That's one of Palmer's greatest stupidity. Rape itself is physical violence. If committing violence is the goal, they succeed since rape is violent. It's not because they do not beat or murder their victims "needlessly" (a rather broad and vague term to employ) that violence hasn't been perpetrated. It would be like claiming that because I didn't beat the shit out of your unconscious corps and instead just punched you in the face once that I had no intention of inflicting violence against you or that I somehow failed at it. Even in a purely "rape is an act of dominance and power" lens, the fact that some rapes are not as violent as others is easily explainable. Someone can have a more tame desire for dominance and power than another. Some might even seek the thrill of actually coercing their victims with no or a minimal amount of violence as an expression of their particular skill and superiority. There is all sort of narcissistic urges after all. This is a none argument.

[epronovost]

Feminists and social scientists claimed that the definition of sexual desire included caring and tenderness, so rape is not sexual.

That's simply horseshit. The sociocultural definition of sexual desire is a longing for sexual activity for its own sake and not for any other purpose other than enjoyment, satisfaction, or the release of sexual tension. The only difference between this definition and that of a biological framework is that sexual desire is not an urge, but something that is conscious and can be controlled. 

Then again both these definitions have been found insufficient by philosophers and sexologist who now assert that sexual desire is actually composed of three sub elements: urge (purely biological), motivation (purely psycho-social) and wish (purely cultural).

Here Palmer is raising a strawman by mostly quote mining Susan Brownmiller. They got into a spat and into a radio debate over this. 

Their definition contradicts common and rational definitions. Palmer points out that the definition is unduly limiting.  One night stands, hook ups and friends with benefits all involve sex, do they not? And this is despite no pair bonding motive.  Plenty of people prefer rigorous sex over tenderness. It's still sex.

Friends with benefits do involve pair bonding that's why the word friends is there. The friendship part is important and is regularly renewed and sex actually plays a role in the renewal of that friendship. That's why "friends with benefits" is more often referred to as polyamory now days. Note that casual hook ups include caring and tenderness on many levels. Fuck most people who hook up hook up by complimenting each other (classic tenderness), offer themselves small gifts like drinks or food (again classic demonstration of care and tenderness) and banter before getting down to business. When they do get down to business sex is consenting, done cooperatively and can include play and compliments, even very traditional display of tenderness. Rough sex or even downright BDSM sex is filled with care and tenderness, it's just expressed very differently from the norm. If your partner likes to be insulted and choked during intercourse in a specific way, you doing it is showing care for their desires and tastes so that their pleasure is magnified. That's pretty sweet and the very definition of caring about someone else. You are doing it for them. That's why Safe, Sane and Consensual is basically the mantra of people practicing such activities as is the use of a variety of safety words. It's not because something lacks the traditional, socially and culturally acceptable or expected display of care, tenderness or pair bounding that it's not there. Care and tenderness are not behaviors, they are feelings.

Rape does lack pretty much all the emotion and feelings associated with sex all the while preserving it's body mechanic. Rape can thus fulfil the same urge as sex, but not the same motivation and wishes to take back the definition of sexual desire above. People who want to have sex or want to get laid don't rape; they have sex or simply masturbate. I don't think anybody, rapist included, perceive rape in the same way than sex and since most rapist have both, it stand to reason that they are not freely interchangeable which is what a "rape is motivated by sexual desire" would tell us.

Then again, that doesn't demonstrate at all that rape is motivated by sexual desire or by biological imperative which is the position of Palmer. Once again, you don't prove you are right by proving that other people are wrong (and kind of failing at it too).

[Vorpal]

That rape invariably included violence or threats of violence meant that violence must be the motive. Palmer refutes this by looking at violence as instrumental or excessive, ie more than needed to accomplish the apparent sexual goal.  Excessive violence is only used in a minority of cases.  In 87 % of cases verbal coercion was used.  Another study showed that 78% of rapists sought cooperation.  If committing violence is the goal, they are not very good at it.

That's one of Palmer's greatest stupidity. Rape itself is physical violence. If committing violence is the goal, they succeed since rape is violent. It's not because they do not beat or murder their victims "needlessly" (a rather broad and vague term to employ) that violence hasn't been perpetrated. It would be like claiming that because I didn't beat the shit out of your unconscious corps and instead just punched you in the face once that I had no intention of inflicting violence against you or that I somehow failed at it. Even in a purely "rape is an act of dominance and power" lens, the fact that some rapes are not as violent as others is easily explainable. Someone can have a more tame desire for dominance and power than another. Some might even seek the thrill of actually coercing their victims with no or a minimal amount of violence as an expression of their particular skill and superiority. There is all sort of narcissistic urges after all.

It makes clear Brownmillers stupidity. Rape is sexual violence. Just because it's violent does not magically cancel out that it is sexual. It can be both.

[Vorpal]

Feminists and social scientists claimed that the definition of sexual desire included caring and tenderness, so rape is not sexual.

That's simply horseshit. The sociocultural definition of sexual desire is a longing for sexual activity for its own sake and not for any other purpose other than enjoyment, satisfaction, or the release of sexual tension. The only difference between this definition and that of a biological framework is that sexual desire is not an urge, but something that is conscious and can be controlled. 

Then again both these definitions have been found insufficient by philosophers and sexologist who now assert that sexual desire is actually composed of three sub elements: urge (purely biological), motivation (purely psycho-social) and wish (purely cultural).

Here Palmer is raising a strawman by mostly quote mining Susan Brownmiller. They got into a spat and into a radio debate over this. 

Their definition contradicts common and rational definitions. Palmer points out that the definition is unduly limiting.  One night stands, hook ups and friends with benefits all involve sex, do they not? And this is despite no pair bonding motive.  Plenty of people prefer rigorous sex over tenderness. It's still sex.

Friends with benefits do involve pair bonding that's why the word friends is there. The friendship part is important and is regularly renewed. That's why "friends with benefits" is more often referred to as polyamory now days. Note that casual hook ups include caring and tenderness on many levels. Fuck most people who hook up hook up by complimenting each other, offer themselves small gifts like drinks or food and banter before getting down to business. When they do get down to business sex is consenting, done cooperatively and can include play and compliments, even tenderness. Rough sex or even downright BDSM sex is filled with care and tenderness, it's just expressed very differently from the norm. If your partner likes to insulted and choked during intercourse in a specific way, you doing it is showing care for their desires and taste so that their pleasure is magnified. That's pretty sweet. That's why Safe, Sane and Consensual is basically the mantra of people practicing such activities as is the use of a variety of safety words. It's not because something lacks the traditional or expected display of care, tenderness or pair bounding that it's not there.

Rape does lack pretty much all the emotion and feelings associated with sex all the while preserving it's body mechanic. Rape can thus fulfil the same urge as sex, but not the same motivation and wishes to take back the definition of sexual desire above. People who want to have sex or want to get laid don't rape. I don't think anybody, rapist included, perceive rape in the same way than sex and since most rapist have both, it stand to reason that they are not freely interchangeable which is what a "rape is motivated by sexual desire" would tell us.

Then again, that doesn't demonstrate at all that rape is motivated by sexual desire or by biological imperative which is the position of Palmer. Once again, you don't prove you are right by proving that other people are wrong (and kind of failing at it).

I notice that you are not refuting that tenderness is not an essential component of the definition of sex.  That is because it's not how ever much you think it is more pleasant.  

No one is making blanket statements except Brownmiller.   She could have said oftentimes power and control is a strong a motive as sexual interest in the case of rape, and she would have been right, but she didn't.

Palmer acknowledges that rape is not uniform and is multidetermined.

[epronovost]

That's one of Palmer's greatest stupidity. Rape itself is physical violence. If committing violence is the goal, they succeed since rape is violent. It's not because they do not beat or murder their victims "needlessly" (a rather broad and vague term to employ) that violence hasn't been perpetrated. It would be like claiming that because I didn't beat the shit out of your unconscious corps and instead just punched you in the face once that I had no intention of inflicting violence against you or that I somehow failed at it. Even in a purely "rape is an act of dominance and power" lens, the fact that some rapes are not as violent as others is easily explainable. Someone can have a more tame desire for dominance and power than another. Some might even seek the thrill of actually coercing their victims with no or a minimal amount of violence as an expression of their particular skill and superiority. There is all sort of narcissistic urges after all.

It makes clear Brownmillers stupidity. Rape is sexual violence. Just because it's violent does not magically cancel out that it is sexual. It can be both.

If it's both, it's not sexual. Orange is both yellow and red, but neither of them. The argument of Brownmiller is that sexual violence is mainly motivated by desire of power and dominance not that sexual violence doesn't involve sexual acts like penetration, ejaculation, etc. She doesn't deny that rapists enjoy the act of raping in a sexual way, just that it's not why they are raping people. According to her, they rape to feel powerful, express their dominance, humiliate, avenge themselves, because they believe they have earned it in some way, etc. That they have sexual pleasure in the process is just the cherry on top.

[epronovost]

I notice that you are not refuting that tenderness is not an essential component of the definition of sex.

I thought I did by showing that tenderness, being an emotion and very vaguely defined can be expressed in very different ways from compliments, to making sure someone enjoys their experience, offering small gifts, making jokes to making efforts to please someone else even if what pleases them is getting electrocuted (yeah some people are kinkier than others). All these things can be understood as tenderness. I don't think you can have consenting sexual intercourse without displaying a minimal amount of tenderness since consent requires you to care about someone's wellbeing, desires and opinions all of which are part of tenderness. Tenderness is not a part of consenting sexual acts only if you restrict its definition to the most stereotypical depiction of it. In other words, if you are prone to strawman.

[Vorpal]

Strong arm robbery is violent, but the violence does not cancel out the robbery. Why is it any different in the case of rape?

[Vorpal]

I notice that you are not refuting that tenderness is not an essential component of the definition of sex.

I thought I did by showing that tenderness, being an emotion and very vaguely defined can be expressed in very different ways from compliments, to making sure someone enjoys their experience, offering small gifts, making jokes to making efforts to please someone else even if what pleases them is getting electrocuted (yeah some people are kinkier than others).

 I would suggest that it simply reflects civility vs tortious or criminal conduct, not basic definitions.

[Vorpal]

Orgasm is the entre in the majority of instances.

[Vorpal]

Do you have a link to the radio recording by chance?

[Vorpal]

Be careful with semantics and fear of fallacies. You are about to make the case that a bloody BDSM experience that requires an emergency room visit is sex and a verbally coerced sex act with no injury isn't. Parsimony would tell us your ideological stance is creating convolution instead of clarity. Words are simply not used this way in other arenas. The intentions of the people involved matter, but they do not cancel out the nature of the act.

FYI: I have heard many accounts of rape where tenderness and casual conversation is used within an overarching threat. Very weird. But, it is rape none the less. And, it has no loading on whether the motivation was sexual. It was either way.

[epronovost]

I have heard many accounts of rape where tenderness  and casual conversation is used within an overarching threat. Very weird. But, it is rape none the less. And, it has no loading on whether the motivation was sexual. It was either way.

That's the difference between tenderness and the affect of tenderness. Tenderness is a feeling. a consideration you have for someone else not a behavior. Rapists can copy behavior linked to tenderness, but they do not have this feeling for their victim, at least not while they were raping them at the very least (a rapist who assaulted a lover or their own child might be actually tender toward their victim at other points and in other circumstances for example).

[epronovost]

Strong arm robbery is violent, but the violence does not cancel out the robbery.  Why is it any different in the case of rape?

Because these two things are not analogous.

[epronovost]

Be careful with semantics and fear of fallacies.  You are about to make the case that a bloody BDSM experience that requires an emergency room visit is sex and a verbally coerced sex act with no injury isn't.

A boxer getting to the ER after being knocked out in a professional match or during training hasn't been assaulted, you getting slapped in the street by a dude over who would get the last cereal box is. The result of an event doesn't inform us on the nature of the event.

PS: in BDSM (and law) you cannot consent to bodily injuries. That's the Sane in Safe, Sane and Consensual mantra though accident happens. You might hurt someone by accident, but in such case you are liable. That's why you must be very prudent and careful in these types of relationship. It requires a lot of trust.  

Parsimony would tell us your ideological stance is creating convolution instead of clarity.  Words are simply not used this way in other arenas. The intentions of the people involved matter, but they do not cancel out the nature of the act.

I don't see what's confusing in considering sexual acts made with consent as acts of sexual desires motivated by care and tenderness; consent already implies a minimal level of care and tenderness. That some sexual acts are more caring and tender than others is not really an issue.

[Vorpal]

A guy at a bar meets an 18 year old virgin and says let's have orgasms together via intercourse. It won't be sex because we won't see each other again and I like it rough and get down to business. You will still be a virgin. This is logical in the world of Brownmiller.

Consent defines the difference between legal and illegal sex.

Tenderness is not part of the definition of sex.

Denying intimate behavior is sex even though it can result in pregnancy is bizarre.

People can say stop at anytime. Those people who continue despite withdrawn consent let their desire for orgasm overwhelm their willingness to be civil. Do they not? To say they did not do it because of sexual desires is nonsensical. It's still rape. And it is most assuredly still sex.

[Vorpal]

So, any exchange through a glory hole is not out of sexual desires. It's not motivated by sexual desires because you can't pair bond with a person you can not see. There is no peripheral tenderness. It should not even count as infidelity according to epronovost.

[epronovost]

Tenderness is not part of the definition of sex.

No indeed, but it is part of the definition of sexual desire which is not the same as the definiton of sex. Sex and sexual desire are two different things. As mentionned before, nobody denies that rape involves sexual acts or that rape has a sexual dimension to it. The argument of Brownmiller is that sex is motivated by power and domination not the want for sexual coitus. That you don't choose to rape someone because you have desire for sex since sex and rape are very different. Masturbation is another sexual practice that doesn't fullfil the same desires than sexual intercourse.

Tenderness, as demonstrated before, is part of all consenting sexual intercourse. The only way it is not is if you basically define rape as sexual intercourse which is a position you can hold, but at that point you might as well add masturbation as a form of sexual intercourse. It would be absolutely correct to class them all as sexual acts, but intercourse is something else. It implies more than one person cooperating together in a common activity which rape is not since one participant doesn't want to cooperate with the other in a major way.

Those people who continue despite withdrawn consent let their desire for orgasm overwhelm their willingness to be civil.

That's just a bald assertion and I could easily say that this attitude is motivated by a desire to dominate and for power. These people see the desires and consent of others as secondary to their own; their victim owe them their pleasure and they will take it because they deserve it and should have it. These are motivations of domination and power and this is why they choose to rape instead of getting an orgasm via masturbation for example. If desire for sexual pleasure and an orgasm was an objective, why would a person in a situation where consent in withdrawn during an intercourse not stop and finish himself off by hand? If sexual pleasure was the only or main urge behind their action, masturbation perfectly fullfils it yet they choose to harm people knowingly.

[Vorpal]

Sexual desire does not have to include a wish to be caring and tender. Why do people masturbate? Watch pornography. You would say it is not out of sexual desire?
I would say it is pure sexual desire.

[Dānu]

Why do people masturbate?  

[Vorpal]

A feminist who tries to base definitions with a solely female point of reference is as unwise as a male researcher who over focusses on the male experience. There is a gender correlated trend whereby women merge sexual attraction and affection. Men separate the two. It's a robust trend but surely not monolithic. I lean toward the merging a bit more than many males.

I confronted a professor in grad school about this very issue. He said the women have a harder time separating sex and love. I said it could be better said that males have a harder time integrating sex and love. He accepted my point.

[epronovost]

Sexual desire does not have to include a wish to be caring and tender.  Why do people masturbate?  Watch pornography. You would say it is not out of sexual desire?
I would say it is pure sexual desire.

To fullfil a sexual urge. Masturbation and sexual intercourse are not interchangeable either. People who have sexual intercourse regularly also masturbate because it fullfil their desires. Also self-care, in a situation where it can hurt no one, is also a form of caring. As for pornography, it does fullfil the same urge than masturbation and is most often a support to masturbation. Rare are the people who consume pornography purely to look at it like other forms of entertainment.

[Vorpal]

Those people who continue despite withdrawn consent let their desire for orgasm overwhelm their willingness to be civil.

That's just a bald assertion and I could easily say that this attitude is motivated by a desire to dominate and for power. These people see the desires and consent of others as secondary to their own; their victim owe them their pleasure and they will take it because they deserve it and should have it. These are motivations of domination and power and this is why they choose to rape instead of getting an orgasm via masturbation for example. If desire for sexual pleasure and an orgasm was an objective, why would a person in a situation where consent in withdrawn during an intercourse not stop and finish himself off by hand? If sexual pleasure was the only or main urge behind their action, masturbation perfectly fullfils it yet they choose to harm people knowingly.

Again we don't need to contort the definition of sexual desire. It is completely unnecessary.  Sexual desire, the desire to climax when you are on the way should be thwarted when consent is withdrawn or it becomes rape. There is no need to completely take the act out of the realm of sexual desire. That is patently absurd. Consent is the key. Not motivation to dominate. In that moment the desire to reach orgasm becomes too central. It is lack of thought to the other, not more thought about how much more fun it will be to dominate.