[Silencer]

Interesting. Is violent sex as traumatic as rape to someone who wants it? Doubt it, as there are many people in the world who actively seek out such forms of intercourse. The question is whether it is still rape or not - prior knowledge is not the question, but rather desire.

Yes, they may not know what they are getting into, in which case it could turn into the equivalent of rape, from a psychological point of view, and that would be hugely traumatic in all the 'usual' ways. If they actually enjoy sex-that-is-as-violent-as-rape, then no, it would not be as traumatic, as far as I can see - that may be wrong, or not, but the problem perhaps is arising between looking at as actual rape, and looking at it as incredibly violent, consensual sex. I think, Gem and Jusen, you need to step away from what you're currently imagining it as, and look at it from a different perspective...

Also, this:

 Jusentantaka, on 24 February 2010 - 01:08 AM, said:

Nothing so fun as a bunch of men talking about what rape would be like. Its just so cute.

Is a rather sad point to make. Empathy is a powerful thing - just because it will never happen (perhaps - ever heard of men getting raped by another man? Some psychologists think it's worse than 'normal' rape) to a man, doesn't mean they cannot imagine the trauma it would cause. Technically, a woman who has never experienced rape cannot comprehend that hurt any better than a man can - they just have more fear of it as it's statistically more likely to happen to them...

[Cold Iron]

I'm not trying to be intentionally reactionary here and I'm seeing a lot of tension in the responses. If this continues I'll cease posting in the thread.

Darkwatch, you are right, I have no formal training in psychology. I'm not suggesting that anybody walk down this tunnel or in any other way intentionally or otherwise get themselves raped. I'm not saying that doing something that could be interpreted to be inviting rape such as wearing provocative clothing is in any way analogous to this, hence my prefacing paragraph to the post. I'm simply saying that walking in this tunnel, knowing rape is going to be at least attempted and potentially committed upon you would lessen the severity and duration of the associated mental - not physical, gem, so your torture comparison does not stand up - anguish. You are not left with a potentially lifelong sense of confusion about what caused and how you can avoid further such events. The cause was walking down the tunnel. To avoid further events you must simply avoid walking in this tunnel.

Of course the sense of being fully overpowered would still cause distress in it's own right, but I've yet to see how it can be denied that this is clearly not going to be equivalent to an unanticipated rape.

I'm not sure that this is really where I wanted this discussion to go, I'd be happier to discuss the implications on decision making and causality and subsequently on the justice system. So to deflect, to what extent does everyone believe we are in control of our own actions and what is out of your direct control? Do we consciously decide to do everything we do? Or are we nothing more than philosophical zombies?

[Gem Windcaster]

 Silencer, on 24 February 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Interesting. Is violent sex as traumatic as rape to someone who wants it? Doubt it, as there are many people in the world who actively seek out such forms of intercourse. The question is whether it is still rape or not - prior knowledge is not the question, but rather desire.

Yes, they may not know what they are getting into, in which case it could turn into the equivalent of rape, from a psychological point of view, and that would be hugely traumatic in all the 'usual' ways. If they actually enjoy sex-that-is-as-violent-as-rape, then no, it would not be as traumatic, as far as I can see - that may be wrong, or not, but the problem perhaps is arising between looking at as actual rape, and looking at it as incredibly violent, consensual sex. I think, Gem and Jusen, you need to step away from what you're currently imagining it as, and look at it from a different perspective...

Also, this:

 Jusentantaka, on 24 February 2010 - 01:08 AM, said:

Nothing so fun as a bunch of men talking about what rape would be like. Its just so cute.

Is a rather sad point to make. Empathy is a powerful thing - just because it will never happen (perhaps - ever heard of men getting raped by another man? Some psychologists think it's worse than 'normal' rape) to a man, doesn't mean they cannot imagine the trauma it would cause. Technically, a woman who has never experienced rape cannot comprehend that hurt any better than a man can - they just have more fear of it as it's statistically more likely to happen to them...

I agree somewhat with the second paragraph there, men can be just as abused as women, although we have different bodies and so it will always be different to some degree for a woman.

However talking about sex in this context is ridiculous - if it's sex it is per definition not rape. Also the whole sex and violence comparison is pretty dubious when talking about rape - as rape is pure violence and has nothing to do with desire.

I also don't like your assumption that my imagination is wrong or that I don't have the right perspective or some other crap. If I'd let myself, I'd get incredibly upset that sex is even mentioned in the same context at rape - they are fundamentally different things.

Rape is about taking away choice and dignity on a physical and psychological level, and rough sex is not even close to being similar and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.


Edit: And I still think that someone that uses words like 'unanticipated rape' haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 24 February 2010 - 05:46 AM

[Silencer]

My point is, Gem, that you're thinking of it as rape when the person willingly goes in there, you're looking at it from a biased perspective. They don't have the choice taken away from them at all - they chose to go in there, knowing that a guy is going to jump them, and physically and sexually abuse them. Now, the fact that they can't choose to stop once they're inside the box makes it rape - if they want it to. Otherwise they want to be in there, they want to be getting physically and sexually abused, so how is it rape?

That's where my question about your perspective comes into play. You personally would not want to be in there, correct? You are then working from that perspective, rather than taking into account the possibility that a person in there, wants to be in there. This is, in fact, where the entire discussion arose: if there is a disclaimer on the entrance about what is going to happen, and you then enter, you are choosing, in essence, to have intercourse with the guy inside - which is not rape, hence the entire idea is flawed (and sick, but that's been well covered in the thread already), therefore, coming from the perspective that it is voluntary, where is the trauma? I even said in my first post that if they get in there and find out exactly what is happening to them and so on, then yes, they get the whole traumatic experience and permanent, severe psychological and possibly physical scarring.

*shrug*

[caladanbrood]

 Jusentantaka, on 24 February 2010 - 01:08 AM, said:

Nothing so fun as a bunch of men talking about what rape would be like. Its just so cute.

Right, because it's impossible for a man to be raped... What a bizarre attitude.

[dktorode]

Well...looks like the artist got what he wanted...

[Tapper]

Gotta agree 100% with Gem and that's the last thing I'll say in this thread, I think.

[Sinisdar Toste]

first and last thing to say hereabouts. silencer makes some interesting points that aren't really incompatible with a belief that rape is a crime. really the whole thing is a thought experiment, just dressed up as artwork. personally i dont really think it has any artistic merit. but as an abstract experiment with reason? well enough. rape is a serious social issue, the more people talk about it and feel comfortable talking about it, the better chance their is that they can start talking about the things that cause it and how to more effectively deal with it. in the judicial sense. so there is some merit in the idea itself. that it was advertised as something that was actually going to happen, was a shock campaign to raise a fuss. get some tongues wagging and start this exact kind of dialogue thats happening right here.

[Cougar]

Gem, I'd love to know why you think you should be allowed to call someone a names for having the temerity to express and opinion that you don't like, there was nothing inflamatory in CI's post and you know better. This goes for everyone, if you are too unbalanced by anger to respond with civility then don't. A bit of bickering? - sure, it's good for the soul; straight name calling - no.

Mod hat off:

Jusen': I'm with Broody, that is a very strange response and shows you in a very poor light. Even if we were talking about exclusively the rape of women, why should men not be able to discuss it, since in the vast majority of the cases it'll be perptrated by men. It's actually interesting to see how many people default to male on female sexual violence when the word rape is brought up. I wouldn't want to try to quantify the trauma anyone would experience, in any combination of genders, I'm sure it suffices to say it's all bad.

Personally I also find Gem's responses strange and I think it's primarily a linguistic problem (I'd stress not because of Gem's understanding of Engrish) perhaps semantics would be a better word. The idea that Silencer is advancing is a kind of consensual sexual violence. if you were to take bondage, S&M or even something less extreme like tying your partner up for a bit of domination, it would be common for the person who takes to role of the victim to beg for cessation and fight or use the word 'no' repeatedly, instead you sub in a 'no/stop' code word like 'red' which means the person can experience domination, within a safe environment, a lot of people find this very arousing. This would bear all the hallmarks of rape, can be quite violent and I'm sure would sometimes include having one's dick electrocuted, should you fancy it. That said if you are going to call it Rape, then it's rape no matter what. If it's consensual, no matter how violent or sick you might think it is, it's not rape.

The interesting thing about the idea of the tunnel is that you can't give consent to be 'Raped' being very specific about rape, in the example above you are giving consent to sexual violence, but not rape, because you can say stop, whilst you can create the illusion of being forced or enslaved or whatever, you are still in control, if it goes a way you don't want, you can still call a halt to proceedings. I think essentially it comes down to one thing: from a legal perspective, even a human perspective you can willingly consent to anything, but you can not give up your power to consent for an indefinite period (while of sound mind, you obviously can have it taken from you). So walking into the tunnel does not remove your right to change your mind, it can't, so once it starts so long as you are onboard with what the 'rapist' is doing he's just having rough sex with you, when you say I don't want this to go any further an he doesn't stop, then it's rape and nothing you have done prior to that can change it.

Also I don't quite agree with Gem, rape is far too complex to reduce to mere violence without desire, there are lots of motivations. It seems reasonable to characterise rape as many things violence, power, desire, punishment many things, but it's hard to be definitive about it as rapists are hardly especially lucid or forthcoming with information about their motives.

[dktorode]

 Cougar, on 24 February 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

Gem, I'd love to know why you think you should be allowed to call someone a names for having the temerity to express and opinion that you don't like, there was nothing inflamatory in CI's post and you know better. This goes for everyone, if you are too unbalanced by anger to respond with civility then don't. A bit of bickering? - sure, it's good for the soul; straight name calling - no.

She is just channeling her mafia-fu

[Gothos]

Right... I guess I'll hop in as well. A few points.

1. If the guy states he's gonna do this up front, and you have to crawl a long ass tunnel to get there, this can't even be rape. A person would have to go through a lot of trouble to get in that situation, in which case, really, there's consent. Which just makes it a non-rape. If anything, the guy presents a logical fallacy.
I mean, when you see a fence and a sign saying "anyone seen past this fence will be shot until dead" and still go in just for the hell of it, and you get shot, it's like you shot yourself.
The only situation I could see anyone with a working brain entering that tunnel is to kick the living hell out of that "artist". Otherwise, well boo-effing-hoo, it's the same category as suing McD for not marking fresh coffee as "hot".

2. Jusen, you really dropped the ball suggesting men don't get raped. I personally know one that was, a few steps away from his apartament. Took him over five years to not run away and hide even from family.
That kind of rape, along with most prison rapes, has very little to do with animal sexual instincts and everything to do about purposed humilliation, show of dominance and utter lack of respect for human dignity. Note that I'm not saying these elements aren't present in "usual" rape.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 24 February 2010 - 11:51 AM

[Cougar]

The thing is about point 1 of your argument Gothos whilst it's well reasoned is that you still can not surrender consent indefinitely, so unless he was to detail exactly what sexual acts he was going to carry out in infinitely small detail, you couldn't agree to it cos what are you defining as rape, is his idea of rape the same as yours?

[Gothos]

I'd say that the general idea is pretty clear. As a parallel, let's take getting hit by a car: it doesn't matter if it hits you from the front, back or side, it doesn't matter if it's a truck, a sedan or a hybrid, it doesn't matter if it's a Ford, a Bentley or an Audi - you still got hit by a car and that's what's the, pretty much, only important thing about it (not counting the "who did it" part, but that's sometimes a secondary problem to the victim - perhaps another analogy. Let's add that I mean intentional vehicular manslaughter, not an accident).
Same with rape. A rape is a display of "power" over another person (being? do animals count as rape victims?) in a sexual context. It doesn't even have to be overly brutal - overwhelming strength or chemicals can eliminate any struggling - and it can be done by either gender. Natural or artificial tools can be used. There's a lot of variables, but the basics are the same regardless. At least it's how I see it (I'd rather never be involved in one personally, on either side of the... uhm, let's leave it at that).

[Cougar]

Gothos, it's not really like being hit by a car, it's more like consenting to be in an RTA and then wanting to pull out when you find it's a truck rather than a car. You can't consent to surrender your liberty like that, it just doesn't make sense. If you go willingly it's not rape, but if you decide you want to stop, like cos he's too rough, he can't say you consented to the whole thing, it isn't a carte blanche for him to do what her likes to you, it isn't a contract. It becomes Rape at the point where he is doing something you don't want him to, simple as that.

It would be like saying that once you had penetrated a woman you were then allowed to do anything you want to her, tie her up, sodmosie her or anything you liked because by agreeing to sex, she had consented entirely to your definition of sex for the entire course of the event.

[Gothos]

What could be surprising about it? It's rape, not hugs and kisses, who'd expect anything else?
Of course saying you want to stop won't work, it wouldn't be even an attempt at rape if the idea of stopping when it gets rough made it into the "deal". It's not a contract, but there's a clear statement" this is going to be rape, it's not going to be fun, you'll be humilliated and destroyed. I don't know about other people, but to me that's just shouting "turn the hell around and do something less moronic than entering the rapetube (do I see a future website name here? got to register the domain name). Like trying to wrestle a grizzly bear, this will get out of hand, and beyond the expectations of the "victim" (or agressor, since the guy won't be chasing anyone down, he'll be sitting peacefully in his room until someone comes in out of their own free will).

Consent for rape is, in itself, something of a logical fallacy (I really like that word today don't I?), but keeping the usual level of logic down a bit to accept people going into the rapetube, going in there logically implies you agree to anything the guy manages to do to you, like it or don't - it's not an offer for rough sex, it's a statement of a rape attempt.

So here, we come to your second paragraph. The only common thing between rape and sex is the use of specific body parts and, at least on one side, arousal. You can't extend doing anything you imagine is ok during sex, since sex involves the interest of both (or more) sides.

In other words, the consent when going into the rapetube is that you're ok with someone sending your intent, expectations and dignity down the drain, flushing down the common sense you dumped there just a moment earlier. It's not essentially consent for anything that goes during the "encounter", it's consent to surrender your individuality, humanity and any right to control the situation. Going in there, it's like stating "I hate myself, and I want you to destroy my very being." Ridiculous.


PS. In hindsight, this post doesn't appear to have as much sense as I thought it would. Meh. Still, I'm going to leave it up in case it actually makes some.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 24 February 2010 - 03:11 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

I apologize for the name calling, although you should know I was holding back, but it was unnecessary to write those words down.

@ Cougar, there's nothing complex about rape - it's an act of extreme violence towards another being. And I still don't understand why people bring up rough sex - do you honestly think that people that like bondage or other rough sex won't feel just as violated if they were to be raped? Seriously? You don't see the difference in the situation? In one instance there's a controlled environment of your choosing with a person you trust, in the other instance some random person is torturing you.

Sure there are people that like torture, but they are usually called psychopaths.

Off to play mafia now.

[Cougar]

As you say consenting rape is a complete contradiction in terms.

Thus my point would be it is impossible to give express consent for something like rape, it stops being rape as soon as you do, if you consent, you want it to happen, it isn't rape there isn't anything that is an essential part of rape, it's just forced sexual assault, at the point where you want it to happen by any definition at all it's sex.

It isn't possible to be willingly raped, all you are talking about at the point where someone is purposefully going into the rapetube hoping to have some kind of rough/violoent sex. It is a fact that you can not surrender your right to revoke consent should the type of activity in the rape tube turn out to be something you do not want to happen. The person who enters the rapetube wants something similar to the character of rape as they imagine it, but it still isn't actual rape, it may seem like a rape, it may bear many similar physical characteristics to some rapes, but it isn't.

While both parties are happy with what's going on it's just sex. It might be fucking odd sex, but it's sex all the same.

[Gothos]

Thus... we have the RL equivalent of "This sentence is false."

I see what you did there, sir artist.

[Cougar]

Gem you holding back has nothing to do with anything, you need to not post if you can't bring yourself to remain civil.

 Gem Windcaster, on 24 February 2010 - 03:37 PM, said:

@ Cougar, there's nothing complex about rape - it's an act of extreme violence towards another being. And I still don't understand why people bring up rough sex - do you honestly think that people that like bondage or other rough sex won't feel just as violated if they were to be raped? Seriously? You don't see the difference in the situation? In one instance there's a controlled environment of your choosing with a person you trust, in the other instance some random person is torturing you.

Of course rape is complex, there are many motivations for the crime we call rape, in some cases it can merely be a mistake made by two people not in control of their faculties at the more extreme end of the spectrum it is an act of pure violence. Motivation can be arousal through an asymetry of power, it can merely be lust itself, rapists may be deranged, they may be perfectly rational by any other measurable standards.

Of course rape is an act of violence, no argument there, but to reduce it to that and only that makes it into a diametrically opposed binary of consensual sex and fails to appreciate the nuances of motivation and circumstance, which might help in the understanding of, prevention of or methods to deal with rape (both in victims and rapists).

The violation element has nothing to do with the level of actual physical violence and the reason I amongst others including you raised rough sex, S&M bondage or torture etc was presumably to demonstrate that consent is the central issue not the form of the act itself. Should you care to reconsider my post from this morning you'll see that after a discussion of violent sex I clearly state:

"If it's consensual, no matter how violent or sick you might think it is, it's not rape."

It is very apparent that everybody in this thread understands the difference between rough sex and rape, only you Gem are continuing to level insults about people's lack of understanding. What I am talking about is the idea that the person entering the tunnel is actually seeking an experience of what they consider to be pseudo-rape, not rape. Which would mean they did feel there was a sexual element to rape.

Take tourture for example, since you equated the two in your original post. Torture in it's purest form is designed merely to inflict pain and has no sexual element to it (unless by happy coincidence the torturers job also happens to be his hobby), however the individuals who partake in S&M, bondage etc are taking part in a consensual fantasy based on torture because at some base level they find some element of torture (or rather their own concept of torture) arousing. Do they actually want to be really tortured? of course not. It's exactly the same with our hypothetical chap who goes into the rape tunnel, he knows he will be subject to a bout of rough sex, which he equates with rape, it isn't rape, it's probably just bad sex, but the important thing is that his concept of rape arouses him for whatever reason. The whole reason this is arousing is because it blurs the lines of consent and violence.

Quote

Sure there are people that like torture, but they are usually called psychopaths.

They are called sadists and there is no reason to believe they are all psychopaths by any reasonable definition of the word.

[Cold Iron]

We live is a society still relatively new to the concept of absolute freedom and human rights and still far from their practical achievement. We still go through possession rituals associated with marriage like rings and dowries and asking parents permission etc. As late as 40 years ago in this country not only were indigenous children still being removed from their parents in order to supplant their culture, but white orphans and foster children were still being sent here from Britain to boost the white population and virtually work as slave labour. We buy products we know are counterfeit and likely to come from sweat shops. We have immigration and border policies that prevent the access of refugees to fundamental human rights. We claim human rights, stability and democracy is the reason for wars in the middle east while millions die in Darfur, Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Nigeria, Columbia, Peru, West Papua, Philippines, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka.

The industrial revolution and wealth we have in the west today as a result of it would not have been possible without agricultural slavery in the Americas, India and Africa continuing right up to the 1940s. Still today it has been estimated that the number of slaves in the world at the end of 2009 was 29.2 million. (source) Many of these are sex slaves, and many of those are children.

The outrage generated by the media in response to individual cases of human rights abuse is not only hypocritical and ignorant, but is only effective when the issue is brought into personal proximity, with the potential that it could happen to you. Most rapes are committed not by strangers but people who know the victim. Many rapes are committed by people who are not fully aware that the victim is not consenting. Discussions like this help to formulate valid and informed opinions and, when the power to vote in or out policy makers is ultimately down to you, are definitely important. This is exactly what art is for. I disagree with all those calling the artist an attention whore, hoax it may be but if I were a gallery owner, I'd allow it, even encourage it. I'd expect at the end of the tunnel there would be a scene that furthers the thought provoking theme.