A theory on the "rape is about control" propaganda

[Amber]

Ah, before I write this, let me say I may be apt to use vulgar/obsense language.  It's intent is to get my point across.

One thing feminists love to propagandize is that rape is about control not sex.  In other words, that a man rapes a woman not for the orgasmic pleasure of it, but because he has a fundamental desire to control and hurt that woman (some feminists will go so far as to say men do it because they are jealous of women or some other nonsense).

I've yet to see what research they did to prove this.  Most people believe it's true - because their teacher told them it's true - whose teacher told them it's true - whose step sister who is a raging feminist told them it's true - and on and on.

Here is my theory on 1)  Why they spread this lie and 2)  Why it remains popular.  The latter explains the former.

First of all, I think it has psychological appeal to women.  Here is the reason.

Most if not all women need sex to be about something more than just sex (when done right, it is).  I'm not here to debate that though.  I'm just making note of the fact that women want sex to be about more than just a dick in a vagina.

This applies to all sex.  So when it comes to rape - if a woman is raped, and the sole reason she gets raped is for nothing but a man who wants to stick his penis in her vagina - any vagina, it wouldn't have mattered to him - not only is this woman being raped, she is being reduced to the level of nothingness, worse than a prostitute, nothing but a warm cunt for him.

But if he is raping her because he wants to "control" her - an element of that "more" comes in.  There is something distinct to *her* that he wants.  

Now here is why feminists keep this lie alive.

First of all, their lie has massive popular appeal not because of fact but because of the psychological appeal the lie has to women.

But the reason they have a vested interest in keeping this lie popular is this lie makes rape seem *less evil*.

Let me put it this way:  if a woman knows she is being raped for nothing other than she is a pussy for a man to stick his dick in, she'll run like hell from it.  She will be damn sure to never be raped (do whatever she can to stop it), and she also will not glorify it AT ALL after the fact.  It will leave a feeling of pure and utter disgust in the pit of her stomach.

Ah, but if it's about "control" it's a whole other ball game.  All of a sudden it's a matter of .... "Women are so great, that men have this uncontrollable urge to control us..."  ... she becomes a victim because of her virtues, in a sick twisted way.

Feminists do this to take the sting out of rape, and in fact, glorify it.  

If there is one thing about femininsts:  they do NOT want to end rape.  If you ever watch a feminist, when studies find there is MORE rape in society, they actually get HAPPY.  

So in fact this lie about rape being about control, it, in a way, not only does not make women run like hell from the thought of being raped, it actually makes them want to be raped.  Rape becomes a massive power source this way.  A rape victim can get up on her soapbox and never actually feel humiliated about the whole incident but rather will feel completely empowered.  

It's all a part of setting up a rape culture.

[Galt]

<<If there is one thing about femininsts: they do NOT want to end rape. If you ever watch a feminist, when studies find there is MORE rape in society, they actually get HAPPY. >>

A reason for that, though, is that feminists want to make their cause appear as dire as possible.  It's like a cancer organization that may inflate statistics about cancer to get more donations or recognition (without actually wanting to have more cancer in the world).  That's a pretty common tactic among organizations with causes.

[Galt]

I think that a more straightforward reason for feminists wanting to portray rape as a control issue rather than a sex issue is that it blends in so perfectly with their patriarchal domination theory.  The bad men are always controlling the innocent/virtuous victim-women kinda-thing.  

So rape is depicted as a further control element (conspiracy among men to oppress women) instead of an individual man wanting sex and using force to get it.

[Daymar]

It's amazing how much baseless conjecture is out there. That's how people usually operate though. Passing down knowledge from generation to generation is a survival tactic that humans have developed. So when someone is told something by someone who's wisdom they respect they usually will just believe them without thinking about it or asking them for evidence. It worked in the tribal times but it really screws things up in large civilizations like there are these days.

[D]

It also creates group think.  As in 'we are stronger in numbers'.  Women don't feel as though they can go toe to toe with a man but when feminists constantly tell women rape is around every corner and that the reason is about power....

So what does it signal?  I would guess that it would signal to women that they need to unify in order to combat this evil.  

Sex is pleasurable.  Is it possible that we could equate rape to sex to pleasure?  Being raped might be pleasureable?  Even in their mistake of creating a rape culture, they as amber has said might have possibly made rape a sexual fetish.  And it is about power, it has always been about power for women moreso then men.  Men might want sex just for 'relief' of a bodily function.  That certainly degrades a woman down to a blowup doll like feature.  

Like they say prostitution is the world's first profession, than obviously women have seen sex as a power source.  Men see it more as a necessity on a day to day basis.  

Women want that special trip, she gives one hell of a blowjob, women want a new car, than maybe an all weekend fuck session is in order.  Perhaps she wants to move in and offers her body as a lucrative trade to getting a boyfriend and new digs.   Hopefully this blunt talk won't make you believe that I believe all women are like this.  But clearly it's an issue to comment on.    Just as the issue of men who just use women for sex and lie to them to get it and leave the women cold and broken hearted.  

Some women even fantacize that men want her so bad that they can't even control themselves because their desire for *her* is so high they have to ravage her.  This is also about power.  

If I and all men are rapists as feminists claim, than I can honestly say I have never raped a woman because I wanted to control them or oppress them.  I rape women because I want to share a joyeous moment with them, satisfy my urges, see them laugh, love them.  Control has never been an issue or a thought for me.  They are free to come and go as they please.  I'm not really sure though what it is that men are wanting to control of the woman they rape in regards to feminist speak.  

Now that we have no idea of what a genuine rape is anymore, let's look at 'date rape'.  No doubt a horny frat boy would want to rape because of reputation, relief and perhaps lust.  A maniac who wears a ski mask can hardly be doing it for reputation, so we are really left with lust, obsession, and perhaps a mental dissorder.  No doubt biological urges are prevelent.  If women have a biological clock, doesn't it stand to reason that a man has a biological clock?  

This is probably the reason for the invention of marriage.  To reduce the randomness of sex, and provide for the children.  Also, what really makes rape so bad for women anyways?  The only reason would be that it is because she shoulders the burden of carrying the offspring.  Otherwise no one seems to care when a woman rapes or forces a man into sex.  

No doubt the pundents will be out claiming Im advocating for rape.

[Daymar]

I think I know where they're coming from when they say rape is about control. When I was growing up I always wondered in the back of mind why rape was considered such a bad thing. It's basically sex with a different name. The only difference is that when a women is raped she doesn't have any CONTROL over whether or not to have sex with the man. That's why feminists like Dworkin think men do it for control. If the men take away the women's control over the situation then they think the men must be doing it so they can be in control. Basically I think women don't like rape because when they're raped they're not in control of whether they have sex or not, and the feminists equated that same thinking to men.

I can sort of see how someone like Dworkin can get sex twisted like that. I'm guessing she probobly didn't enjoy being a prostitute but she 'had' to be one so that means she didn't have control over whether or not guys could have sex with her. Over time she gradually saw all sex as domination or rape by men.

If those feminists came to the conclusion about rape being about control because of the way that women think about controlling sex then that pretty much proves rape by men isn't about control because they're wrong about men's intentions regarding sex.

[Bilbo]

If there is one thing about femininsts:  they do NOT want to end rape.  If you ever watch a feminist, when studies find there is MORE rape in society, they actually get HAPPY.

I don't believe it!  We agree on something.  Feminists love rape.  They like their rape stats as large as possible.  They love to speculate on and exaggerate the numbers.  For anyone who has spent any time at ms., being a rape victim grants one instant cred.  The more traumatic, the better.  The goal of feminists has long been to widen the net on criminalizing men's behavior.  The hypocrisy in this is clearly displayed in cases where drunk woman and men engage in consentual sex, only to have the man later charged with rape, because the woman was too drunk to consent, they argue.  The drunk man's consent is never considered.  It's totally Victorian.  Women are to be granted complete equality in education and the workplace, but feminists aren't about to allow equality in the courts.  Actually, they're not really seeking true equality in school or work, but that's an argument for another time.   Of course, the reason behind thisfavoritism toward women is anything but men's unswerving desire to hurt women, but, rather, to protect them, even if it requires them to treat men unfairly.  If you look at the ever-widening criteria for what constitutes "rape" to a feminist, and, increasingly to the courts, you will quickly happen upon scenarios of which women are certainly capable- i.e. coercion through emotional/psychological means- but you'll be waiting a long time before you ever see a court sentence a woman for that.

[D]

As soon as the laws are solidified they will start charging women.  They divide and conquer us by turning us against eachother.  Women blame men for all the ills of the world.  The justice system is mum on the whole thing so they can expand their laws and create more business for themselves.  Then, when it's solid, they can turn the laws agianst women who helped them impliment them.

Hopefully I'm clear on this.

[Bilbo]

I would be extremely surprised if that were to happen.  Granted, the courts have begun to treat men more fairly in divorce law, but that's a little different.  People don't view a man's right to see his children through a different lens than the one with which they view rape.  I mean men are making a little headway with DV, but the widely held view in society is that women are not capable of initiating violence and/or hurting men, unless feminists are arguing for women in combat.  One can certainly see the difference in the way society views women who seduce young boys.  Most men would react with a "Lucky boy!", and probably harbor no ill feelings toward the rapist.  Men who sleep with minors are, quite rightly, reviled.  So, I think 2 problems exist.  First a man is going to have a hell of a time stepping forward with a rape claim.  Most men, and women, would suggest that he should feel lucky to have had sex at all.  Secondly, men are held to a higher standard of accountability in this realm.  If the man had sex, his consent is always assumed.

[D]

I dissagree on a number of issues.  

In regards to DV, I of course believe this is a communist invention designed to rip apart the family.  Lawyers happily monopolized on it along with politicians.  

However as the industry expands it will be looking for more customers.  Right now the odds of a man calling for dv is about 9 to 1.  Things are changing, I am seeing women facing more and more charges of assault.  You can bet that the newspapers will be revealing this more and more as time goes on to create an overall veiw that women and men are often in domestic violence situations.  

My guess is that by suppressing the amount of violence perpatrated agianst men and over reporting the amount of violence against women was what helped the industry establish itself and allowed government into our homes unconstitutionally.  It was never about women but they made it out that way so they could gain grounds.  Look at the laws, none of them really gave women power, and if they did it was only temporary power.

Same thing happened with children's services.  They were successful at ridding the father from his 'rights' as a parent.  Now they are after mommy.  They have divided and conquered us by turning women against men in a propaganda war that convinced women to sacrifice men's rights in the belief they were protecting themselves from men.  However it was a ruse and the real threat was the government and socialist agencies of all sorts.  Women now are losing their rights, as parents, as the accused etc....  It won't take long to impliment the laws, the key is to manufacture the concept first then swoop in to save the day.  

Most concerns about rape always revolve around possible offspring produced from the encounter.  Since men could just walk away from it who would care?  Not so easy these days with child support such an issue.  But you may have a point about people not motivated to worry about a man being raped by a woman, but, since crime is big money I think we may see some issues in the near future.  And women are already being arrested for violent assaults up every year since the 90's.  Feminists may make some excuses for them, but they really don't get the same support for do they?

I mean, feminists come up with all kinds of ideas, but you will see a common theme among the ones that really get a media boast.  Any of their ideas that benifits certain industrial outlets.  Which is why feminists are really just conditioned masses rather than real activists.  

Look at breast cancer.  This is big money that goes into that research and many people benifit from it.  But when it's an issue that does not make money, and counters such agendas it does not get picked up well by the markets and hits brick walls constantly.  

I fear the men's movement will fall into the same pattern in many areas.  Especially socialized health.

[Daymar]

Where would the supporters be if men and women are all viewed as incapable of raising the kids though?

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Where would the supporters be if men and women are all viewed as incapable of raising the kids though?

First of all, wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said, "It takes a village (etc.)".
This claim resonates profoundly with Aldous Huxley's vision in Brave New World.

"Nothing," she assured him, "could be less like a commune than an MAC. An MAC isn't run by the government, it's run by its members. And we're not militaristic. We're not interested in turning out good party members; we're interested in turning out good human beings. We don't inculcate dogmas. And finally we don't take the children away from their parents; on the contrary, we give the children additional parents and the parents additional children. [...]"

Second, I believe, and as feminism shows, the supporters would be feminists, and 'those' unlucky enough to be caught up in the fuzzy empowerment of women's inailenable rights (read privileges not extended to other humans) - both male and female.

[D]

Where would the supporters be if men and women are all viewed as incapable of raising the kids though?

That's my point, isn't it.  If I came out with stats that said all domestic violence was equal do you think it would garner the same response?  No, I would have people telling me to get the government out of their fucking business.

So instead I make it seem like women are fighting for their lives everywhere so I can at least gain one half the population to my side and turn them agianst the other.  

After a while the laws are established and the truth about women and violence comes out but now it's easier for me to go after them all.  In fact even women will support it, and many do if you read some columns written by women such as dear abby etc...  They claim it's rare, but it does happen, and since it does those women should be held just as accountable as men.  Blah blah blah, a few years later they just keep moving it along.  Soon they will be saying women are just as violent as men and need stiff pentalities.  It will be harder to turn the clock back to get the government out of our lives than it will be to hold women to the same standard.

As Julia and Winston discuss the events of their lives in room 101, they each ratted eachother out and the party turned them against eachother.

This is what's going on in Canada full tilt.  And it really doesn't matter if your liberal or conservative.  Nobody is fighting children's services or bogus dv laws.

[D]

Where would the supporters be if men and women are all viewed as incapable of raising the kids though?

There is a tremendous amount of money that goes into such agencies.  I believe each foster child garners a federal net of over 3000 a month.  Expanding this is quite proffitable.  They have lots of money and lots of power and lots of legal experience to pull it off.  

It always comes down to money.

[Bilbo]

Where would the supporters be if men and women are all viewed as incapable of raising the kids though?

There is a tremendous amount of money that goes into such agencies.  I believe each foster child garners a federal net of over 3000 a month.  Expanding this is quite proffitable.  They have lots of money and lots of power and lots of legal experience to pull it off.  

It always comes down to money.

I do agree with you there.  Child "advocacy" has become a huge business.  And it has hurt many more children than it has helped.