Thread: Rape

Originally Posted by PatrickT

That's not "education". Join the church and buy into the dogma. There is no single motive for rape.

There has been a lot of discussion which came, I think, from 1960s feminist theory about rape being about oppression. Those who actually have had to deal with it probably differ with that assertion. Yes, I have seen instances of rape where oppression has been a motivator but the context was always sexual and not political or patriarchal or whatever the theorists argue. I've seen simple (well "simple" as in the presentation of evidence) date-rape cases where some horny bastard couldn't leave it in his pants and forced his companion to have sex with him. I've seen some gang rape cases where the offenders just wanted sex, the dumb bastards wouldn't be able to pronounce "oppression" let alone understand it. I've seen cases where sex and power and a desire for vengeance were all present. I've seen the pursuit of a serial rapist whose consistent MO was to identify single females living in multiple dwellings and it was a challenge for him to get into the premises, rape the woman and get out without being apprehended (he was eventually arrested and convicted) and he extracted perverse pleasure from every aspect of the enterprise, from the planning and fantasising during planning, to carrying out the offence and getting away. There was a lot more than sex and/or oppression in that one.

There is no single motivator.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

If there is no problem with a gay guard searching a prisoner then there should be no problem with a man searching a woman. Same thing.

No it isn't the same thing. Besides you've totally misunderstood what is happening.

Firstly, a prisoner, no matter how big a dirtbag, should be treated fairly. Part of that means that they should not be searched - unless exigent circumstances exist - by a member of the opposite sex. This is not to disallow the searcher to get their jollies, it is to stop humiliation of the prisoner.

Secondly, people who are selected for this type of work should, I repeat, should, have been subjected to entry testing which eliminated sickos (let's dispense with technical terms) who get their rocks off by bigging themselves up by using authority on other people. Searching someone should be a purposeful action and should be carried out properly in order to achieve its aim. Someone copping a feel might miss a knife-edged weapon or drugs stashed somewhere on the person. If someone gets hot and sweaty at the thought of searching someone else then they should either leave it as an off-duty activity or find another job.

Thirdly, most mature adults find that they can control their sexual impulses to channel them into situations where sexual expression is socially acceptable. This applies both to heterosexual and homosexual people. I have no doubt that there are heterosexuals and homosexuals who can't control their sexual impulses. They would be wise not to get a job which exposed their weakness in self-control.

My question here is...are you really trying to make the argument that male guard should be able to pat down female inmates?

Secondly...if your scared you're gonna get raped by a gay soldier while enlisted...you don't have the balls to be in the armed forces to begin with.

Originally Posted by Diuretic

No it isn't the same thing. Besides you've totally misunderstood what is happening.

Firstly, a prisoner, no matter how big a dirtbag, should be treated fairly. Part of that means that they should not be searched - unless exigent circumstances exist - by a member of the opposite sex. This is not to disallow the searcher to get their jollies, it is to stop humiliation of the prisoner.

You need to re-read the op. They said, I repeat, THEY SAID, it was to prevent sexual assaults by guards. So how does it stop sexual assaults by guards if the guard is gay? Thats the same thing as a man searching a woman for their purposes.

To help prevent sexual assaults by guards, pat-downs will be conducted by people of the same sex as those they are searching.

I know this is slightly off your point but if that's the only reason for same-sex searches then frankly I'm surprised.

Okay to your point. I think that you're arguing that a heterosexual guard may be inclined to sexually assault a female inmate if he is permitted to pat-down search her. Do I have that right?

And if I do have it right, then it seems to me to follow that a homosexual guard should not be permitted to pat-down search a male inmate because the homosexual guard may be inclined to sexually assault a male inmate.

If I still have this right then it seems that homosexual guards should be employed to deal with female inmates because there is a minimal chance of sexual assault by the male homosexual guards.

Homosexual female guards should be employed to deal with male inmates for the same reason.

That resolves it then. All prison guards should be homosexual. This will minimise the chances of sexual assault by prison guards.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Something stuck out sharply in a story I just read.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4487634.story
How does this stop gay rape?
This is an argument to not allow gay's to be Prison Guards. And if they can't be prison guards why is it ok for them to be in the military?
Because a guy being searched by a gay will not help prevent rape at all!

Much less showering with him.

There is a high chance you can be raped by a man in the army if you are a woman. So by your logic we better throw out all the men, eh?

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

Rape is about control/violence... not sexual attraction. Get educated.

With that condescending attitude, Id like to see your scholarly sources, because I dont think so. There may often be some domination element present, but rape is also very much about sexual attraction. That is just common sense.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

With that condescending attitude, Id like to see your scholarly sources, because I dont think so. There may often be some domination element present, but rape is also very much about sexual attraction. That is just common sense.

That is old and common knowledge.

Rape is about VIOLENCE; why don't you read up on it yourself?

Rape is a violent act, and most commonly committed by a male upon a female. However, some cases of rape have been reported in which a woman has raped a man. Rape also may occur between members of the same sex. This is more prevalent in situations where access to the opposite sex is restricted (such as prisons, military settings, and single-sex schools).

Rape is an act of violence expressed through sex, but is not primarily about sex.

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

That is old and common knowledge.

Rape is about VIOLENCE; why don't you read up on it yourself?

As stated in your source, rape may be not primarily about sex (tough that is doubtful, and in "soft" science as sociology there are conflicting opinions and exceptions). But it is also about sex. Otherwise there would be no rape, just non-sexual violence. So my point still stands.

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

As stated in your source, rape may be not primarily about sex (tough that is doubtful, and in "soft" science as sociology there are conflicting opinions and exceptions). But it is also about sex. Otherwise there would be no rape, just non-sexual violence. So my point still stands.

You are incorrect. The article reads:

Rape is an act of violence expressed through sex, but is not primarily about sex.

Hey, I'm not making this stuff up.