Policing Our Desires: Are Rape Fantasies Acceptable?

I know I'm late weighing in on this, but as Alyssa so aptly stated, rape is not sex.

i stumbled on this pretty much accidentally while wikipedia-browsing.. but some of the stuff here was quite amusing..

"First of all, if anyone ever confessed that they fantasized about raping me, I suspect that I would be afraid and want to stay far away from them."

You know what? Chances are, if you are somewhat good-looking/curvy, most of the men you've known for a longer time have had a rape fantasy about you at some point. Few will admit it even to fellow men, and very, very few will ever admit it to a woman, but it's a reality. It's male nature and in our genes :) You can suppress it all to some extent with education/social pressure/fear of persecution, but in the one place that nobody can look into - our minds - we still enjoy being Neanderthal level every now and then. Which basically means taking females forcefully and treating them as objects.

You can see this illustrated pretty well on examples where there is less responsibility - for instance wartime periods where a certain army occupies a foreign country. Even although those soldiers may be all nice and civil at home, there've been lots of rape occurrences in such phases - simply because the inhibitors are much weaker.

Now, while this might make you all afraid and want to stay away from most men... as i've said, fantasy is fantasy and reality is reality. In reality, nowadays, in a peaceful country, it's not Stone Age and there are lots and lots of effective inhibitors (mainly, jail, social pressure, or even more simply the feeling of guilt) which make it pretty much a no-go for everyone but the most ruthless (e.g. serial rapists) or powerful (e.g. Israeli president Moshe Katsav etc) to rape people.

So, for me, since i have a good idea of what's in guys' heads :) rape fantasies (male) are quite old... it's when people start to get obsessed with the stuff that it gets questionable.

"Hence the title is a question - does anyone have the right to police others' desires and determine which are acceptable and which are not? It was certainly not a declarative statement that desires and fantasies should be policed."

I hope it's clear that I didn't mean you were saying it was. I was saying that even asking that question worries me. I'm deeply concerned that, for many feminists, that actually still is a live question. I was answering the posed question with "No, policing desire is never okay. It changes nothing and only creates shame and resentment in women, who are already far too often shamed for their sexual desires."

"Clearly, it is very hard to be open about desires that may be considered deviant or wrong, and by talking about it, we can take away stigma and generate more understanding about who we are as people."

Yes. Thank you.

In response to a few comments, I wrote this post because when I read an article about a woman who acted out her rape fantasy, I was distressed by it. At the same time, my own initial judgmental reaction to a common fantasy bothered me. I hoped by the end of the piece, I made it clear that I felt that no one has the right to determine which fantasies are acceptable and which are not, and I also wanted to hear how other people felt about the topic. Personally, I am still feeling muddled about the language used in the piece, and how we talk about and describe our "dark" fantasies. Hence the title is a question - does anyone have the right to police others' desires and determine which are acceptable and which are not? It was certainly not a declarative statement that desires and fantasies should be policed.

And thanks to urbangypsy, the author of the article that got me thinking about this, for sharing her thoughts and to everyone else who spoke out. We need more discussions about these types of difficult and sensitive topics. Clearly, it is very hard to be open about desires that may be considered deviant or wrong, and by talking about it, we can take away stigma and generate more understanding about who we are as people. Or at least that is my hope.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

YUP! That's the point, this is definitely NOT rape. And shouldn't be called rape.

i also agree that most of the BDSM folks i know are incredibly careful and considerate with each other. I've often thought that they could write the guide book for consensual sex, what means and how to do it safely. my husband and I have learned a lot about sexual communication from our "alt kink" friends. And a few other neat tricks too. :)

As for your sex toy comment. That's just ridiculous. A ban on sex toys? How can that even be enforced? "I'm sorry mam, we have reason to believe you're going to spank someone with that spatula." Good lord. That makes me irate. I mean never mind that it isn't anyones business what people do in their bedroom, but how can you enforce that law? The grocery store is full of pervertable items.

That would be funny if it weren't so totally WRONG.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

To attempt to suggest it is simply because someone gives voice to this desire for their partner to be forceful, and obliging that request is not rape so long as the clear go ahead signal is given, which I suspect is the case.

I wanted to add a comment on the whole stay out of my bedroom tangent. I'm not familiar with Alabama law, so if anyone out there is, and can shed some light here, please do... we know the Supremes just let stand the ban on sex toys... and I'm wondering how that contrasts with things that are legal there. I have serious issue with that particular law, rofl.

Finally, those I know who are into bdsm have code words in place for safety, and are quite serious about that safety framework. How many partners give each other such consideration?

nelle ( http://www.nelle2nelle.org/ )

You are right, and I think we ALL agree that sexual freedom is of paramount importance to all of us. I don't want anyone in my bedroom either, believe me. And I really don't care what other people do in theirs as long as it is consensual. (Safe isn't really any of my business, though i hope it's safe too.)

It's really a linguistic issue, that, unfortunately ties into larger societal issues of how we accept, condone and even promote violence.

It's not a question of what we're doing in our bedrooms, it is how we frame it when it is discussed. We throw tacit approval of violence all over the place. Honestly, it's in our music, our videos, our TV and movies.... it's everywhere.

There is a general outcry at video games that promote hate crimes and violence by allowing kids to "innocently" beat the crap out of people on their TV screens. And I am just as bothered by that. Should it be allowed to exist? Sure, 1st amendment, free enterprise - all of that. BUT, as a society, we have to learn to look at how we package and present things and that, like it or not, these are the things that define the acceptability of both attitudes and actions in our society.

Conesnt is the cornersotne of sex. Without consent, it is rape. Period.

What happens in "rape fantasies" is consensual. It is sex. It is fine. It is free. It is good. It is not rape. People who have this fantasy should feel totally confident in living it out whenever and however they want. I cannot overstate that.

But as we look at it, and as we discuss it, i just wish that we could do it without calling it rape. It isn't rape. It's sex. And rape isn't sex, it's rape.

The example you cited, of the wife who wasn't in the mood and the husband who raped her is a perfect example of what happens when we forget that Consent is the cornerstone of sex. It is the one thing that MUST be present. And we cannot, as a society, afford to lose sight of that detail.

The rest of it is admittedly blurry. Do violent video games increase our tolerance of and propensity for violence? Many studies have shown that the do. Does a tenor of violence and hate in language promote increase our tolerance of and propensity for hate? Many studies have shown that it does.

By all means - have sex they way you want to, when you want to, with whom you want to. FOR SURE! But anything that helps us lose sight of consent, that scares me. Just don't call it rape, if it's sex. And don't call it sex, if it's rape.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

I see in your comment what I often see when this comes up -- "might just", "some men," etc. What I always wonder when I see this is: who are the mights, and who are the some? Are these people who are going to specifically be provoked by me and my use of terms, or are these people who are looking for something to legitimate their desire to do violent things to women? In the absence of, as I mentioned, clear evidence that suggests they are the first and not the second, I have a truly hard time believing that my words have that kind of profound power.

Also, I'm really troubled by the analogy you're making to the Jena case here. In this case, we're discussing whether people can label their own fantasies with certain words and do their own private role play in certain ways. You may be right that that matters, that there's symbolic violence in those words. I'm going to assume you are, though as I've said, I strongly disagree.

There's still a profound difference between that and Jena. In the Jena case, it's clear that what happened when those nooses were hung was not some white kids testing the boundaries of free speech and happening to fall on the wrong side of the line. Those nooses were NOT hung as a joke. They were hung as a direct response to a black student wanting access to "the white tree." In other words, he was getting "uppity" in the eyes of the white kids. They hung the nooses as an act of terror to put him back in his place.

Even if two people using the term "rape fantasy" in their private lives are being disrespectful and not recognizing symbolism, they're not doing it because of an intention to put survivors back into their places. They are not threatening survivors who speak up about their experiences or do activism or whatever with more rapes.

Even if your general point is right, the Jena analogy is a really poor one, unless you can argue that people calling fantasies by that name is an obvious, direct, and personal threat.

One chirping shoulder jockey plays to what Denise suggests in her post - does it enable, whilst the other gives the 'if it feels good, and is consensual, do it' pov.

And really, the latter wins. About anything can enable abhorrent conduct and blowing past boundaries. That's what brings us the traditional 'she asked for it!' comments that I - we - all despise. We have a right to indulge in what interests us, from provocative clothing to sexual activity, free of fear of some moron thinking they have license to join in.

What we do with another consenting adult is really our business, stay out of my bedroom, thank you. I'm not into bdsm activity, and would have a hard time relating to enjoyment of dishing it out, but others do. Some have a hard time relating to me walking through gender walls as well, but I did. It's not so much understanding the enjoyment, it's appreciating and respecting the right to go there, without slamming the choice from some lofty moral ground.

And what we do, who we choose to to do it with, does not mean anyone else now should feel they can engage in similar activity when they want, where they want, with whom they want. There should be no real blurring of lines, at least not to any sane adult. In the absence of clear shared desire to go there and clear consent, boundaries are to be respected.

A young woman posted elsewhere this week on how she told her (female) partner she was not interested in sex that night. Her partner was drunk, ignored her, pulled off her clothes and ignored her repeated requests to stop. Her question to us: was this assault? Yeah, it was. I just don't see how the lines between play and not going there are really blurred. Surely we all know which is which at any given moment in time?

nelle ( http://www.nelle2nelle.org/ )

I don't see where I said language is meaningless here. I said that I think that, when we're trying to determine what words to use, we should be careful not to confuse slurs with words for actions.

For example, if someone calls me a cripple (I'm choosing that word because I have in fact been called this, where I don't have experience with other slurs that have been mentioned so far), the person has not simply used a loaded word to describe me -- she has insulted me and knows it (or should, at least). If she refers to me that way to her friends, she hasn't insulted me directly but she has still spoken about me in a derogatory way.

A word for me, for a class I belong to (people with disabilities) is not the same as a word for an action. A cripple is a word FOR A DISABLED PERSON that has been used to demean all of us. "Rape" is a verb for an action. We can talk about who that action is done to -- and of course, as feminists, we should. Early and often. But to say that the word "rape" is like the word "cripple" is wrong. One is a word used to demean; the other is a word for an action performed to demean.

"which would be better looked at as a conversation and not from an adversarial position"

I wasn't being adversarial. I didn't think that what I said would hit a nerve. I thought I was discussing whether and why I chose to call my fantasies what I did. I was not, and still am not, saying anyone else should call them anything. I was saying that, for me, the fantasies are violent and dark, and prettying them up seems profoundly insulting, as if I think I have to be inaccurate to protect people too vulnerable to hear what I'm thinking about but yet feel compelled to mention it anyway.

I have PTSD. I don't want to be protected. I don't want people to stop using words because poor me is damaged, unless they're people I know who I've specifically told my triggers to. My triggers are not the responsibility of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world's coddling does not save me any flashbacks.

I thought we were having a discussion about a word and whether to use it. I had no idea it was personal beyond someone saying "that name kinda squicks me" and me responding "well, people calling what are fantasies about non-consent 'ravishment' squicks me."

"You can't really say, "I didn't mean anything by it." because if that were true, you wouldn't need the word in the first place. the word does mean something that's why you use it."

Precisely, which is why people camouflaging it under "ravishment" bothers me. When someone is saying she wants her top to hold a knife to her throat and laugh off "No", she's not only fantasizing about intense submission. She's fantasizing about a terrifying experience. Using cutesy words for that is, to my mind, inaccurate.

I think we can THEN ask "should she act that out?" or even "is it healthy for her to think about that often?" but I don't think we're right to say "that fantasy is about ravishment." We might say "That fantasy doesn't indicate a desire for real rape", and in that case we'd be completely right. We might also say "That fantasy actually reveals a much milder interest in erotic submission, and what she'd actually like is slightly forceful sex, where the actual acting out of the fantasy would be traumatic."

In that case we'd also be right. But the fantasy itself? Giving it a name is doing violence to survivors? I don't think so. I've had plenty of fantasies centering around things I survived, and while maybe they mean I'd like something milder to work stuff out, that doesn't mean the content of the fantasy wasn't mild.

"But even though you may consider yourself a minority, you are part of a larger society, and it seems that it is in everyone's interest to respect each other"

Of course it is. But how am I disrespecting anyone if I say that, for example, the violent revenge fantasies I have that include doing to rapists what they have done to others are fantasies about raping them? Why should I instead say "I have revenge fantasies," when any further description of the content of the fantasies is going to include the forced sexual acts anyway?

First, I think that your comments are largely directed at Suzanne, not me. I did not write the original Blogher post. But I applaud her for writing it because she posed a question that was hard to ask and is hard for many people to think about. She acknowledged that something was confusing her, troubling her, and she didn't know why. So she asked. She even said that she was troubled by her "judgmental" response and asked for help sorting through it. It is that kind if dialog that creates progress.

Your "argument," (which would be better looked at as a conversation and not from an adversarial position) about language is troubling to me. If, indeed, language is meaningless, then you would not be so upset at the proposition that you might call it something else. It is not meaningless, and we all know that.

The reason that people call them rape fantasies is because they are turned on by the aggression, the submission, the violence (mock in this case,) etc.... that is hallmark of real rape. And, again, there is nothing wrong with that. But even in the case of the fantasy, the word RAPE is used to describe all of those acts. Everyone knows what you mean. Everyone knows what rape is.

Another analogy might be the hanging of nooses from the trees in Gena. We have since heard people say, "I didn't mean anything b it," or "it's not like we were REALLY gonna hang them," but it doesn't change the fact that the symbol of a noose is violent and insulting and disrespectful. The act is not the point. The insinuation is.

And the word RAPE is just such a symbol. The acts that are being discussed as consensual sex acts are not the problem, at all. Personally, i like to be forcefully dominated sometimes. Just like I like to be gentle sometimes. It's all good. But calling it RAPE is akin to hanging a noose. You can't really say, "I didn't mean anything by it." because if that were true, you wouldn't need the word in the first place. the word does mean something that's why you use it.

Did anyone get hung by the nooses in Gena? No. Did those nooses add to an air of racism in Gena? Yes. Did they increase racial tensions in an already divided community? Yes. Does it say that a portion of the community is okay with the racism and injustice? Yes. Does it say to many people who have had to face brutality and racism in the real world, "what are you so upset about, it's only a symbol?" Yes. Did anyone really get hung? No. But is that really what matters? No.

Does anyone really get raped in rape fantasies? No. But does it make a game out of something that has destroyed many lives? Yes. Does it say that a portion of the community is just fine with rape in the world? Yes. And does it say, to many people who survived rape, "what are you so upset about, it's just a rape?" Yes.

Rape is not about sex. It is about violence and disrespect. Consensual sex is not. The two should not be confused.

To restate, I think this is fine behavior. I spend a lot of time and energy supporting the sex positive community, and I always will (my way of understanding my gay father, my relationship to sex after rape etc.....) Issues of sexual freedom are deeply important to me.

But so are issues of sexual safety. And as a rape survivor, having that word associated with consensual sex in any way is deeply troubling. That's all. And the word does matter, if it didn't, you wouldn't be defending the right to use it.

But as for the title of Suzanne's post, she's asking a question. And if anyone on the "fringe" of anything wants to be understood and accepted, then engaging in productive dialog when asked is the way to achieve that. If that doesn't matter, then leave it. But even though you may consider yourself a minority, you are part of a larger society, and it seems that it is in everyone's interest to respect each other and look at the unintended consequences of your linguistic choices.

No one wants to police you.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

Then why call your post "Policing Desire: Are Rape Fantasies Acceptable?" That title suggests to me that you're asking the question, and that it remains alive as a question by the time your post is done. If that's not so, I've misread.

And no, it isn't rape. But I don't see much here to address what I was actually saying, which is: okay, so I start calling my fantasies something else. How does that prevent rape? To me, THAT's the relevant question. How does what we do or say make the world safer?

I used to care terribly about language, about reification of concepts. Now I care about what I see in the world. If what I see in the world is tied to a concept, then it matters -- if a handful of sadomasochists calling their fantasies a particular name creates rape, can be shown to cause it or to cause people to care less when it happens or to make people confused about what rape is, then they should not do it. But if that's hardly relevant, and I truly don't think it is, or that can't be shown, and I don't think it can, I don't see why it's important that people not use a term.

And the third paragraph... I hear your indignance, but I don't follow you: what's the "game?" Clearly you're saying it's not the thought, as you're vehement that you're not for policing desire. Ostensibly it would be what people are acting out, but is this what I would be acting out/what Tess did act out, or what we would/did act out if a certain word is applied to it? I can't parse that paragraph at all. What are you saying is unacceptable? Is it the word that creates the mockery inherent in the "game" or is it the erotic role-playing in the first place regardless of its name?

How many times have men suggested, implied or down right insisted that women asked for it, wanted it and enjoyed it during a rape - often. After a rape, during a trial - almost every single time.

It is quite possible that by calling sexual fantasies "rape fantasies" that you are legitimizing rape in the minds of some men and that might just get a woman raped - or killed.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High ( http://fasttimes.clubmom.com ) & Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net )

No one, at least no one on this blog so far, has suggested that anyone's desires need to be policed or altered or anything else. i know that I, very specifically, said that I think people need to be able to live out, live within and generally live comfortably and openly with their diverse sexual desires. I cannot state that more emphatically, nor defend that principle any more ardently than I do.

If that mean being tied up and beaten, (and I have a lot of friends for whom that is precisely what it means) then great. Go for it.

But it isn't rape. And yes, calling it rape legitimizes rape in the same way that calling someone a nigger legitimizes the racist undertones of that word. Language is, after all, a more powerful weapon and a more powerful form of repression than almost anything else.

There is nothing wrong with the fantasies or behaviors described i the article, or in your posting. All of them are very much a part of the world in which many of closest friends thrive. And i think it's great.

But to make a "game" out of something that is a heinous violent crime, that's just not okay. That is disrespectful of those of us who have had to survive it.

And Freud has nothing to do with it.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

I also want to say that the idea of policing desire really worries me in general. Desire is not the sort of thing that we can change, and it's not the sort of thing that affects other people. If I have a fantasy like these about you, you don't know it unless I or someone else tells you about it. Even if it would bother you, that's not a reason to say anything about my mind. What matters is what I do. Or how these fantasies fit into my self-conception. If I use them as some justification for believing I am better than others or deserve their submission or ought to be allowed to actually rape, that matters. If thoughts happen in my head, that doesn't.

So the whole notion of "policing desire" -- well, I've known people who think we can, and I've known people who think we half-can. I never found that any of it worked even partially, and to me it causes a lot of grief to try.

Also, I think it can be a very handy smokescreen for not doing real activism. If we're busy trying to figure out who still has the oppressive fantasies, we don't have time to worry about the real problems in the world, and it's not our fault that we didn't write letters, articles, essays, because we're busy getting bogged down debating sexual desire and ostracizing (seen it) people with the wrong sexual desires.

I blogged about this over at one of the blogs I contribute to, here:

http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rape-fanta...

I see these discussions float through various blogospheres periodically and I always wonder where the people like me are. There's this unspoken assumption that if a woman fantasizes about rape (and I'll get to why I do use that word in a minute) she must be fantasizing about being ravished, and as someone who has always had fantasies from the other side it often confuses me to hear feminists not challenging this idea that women fantasizing about force is always women fantasizing about being forced. I wonder why exactly feminists are running to Freud. :) I assure you that I'm neither the only female top in the world nor the only one in the world with these fantasies.

(ETA: I didn't see your mention of Women On Top at first, but I do want to say that I'm not quite comfortable with a debate about whether my fantasies are "progress." I'm not a computer, complete with an upgraded system. I'm a person, with sexual desires and fantasies. The contents of my head are neither progress for humanity nor devolution. I'm just me.)

I'm not for a different name for the fantasy, because I don't think that giving things toned-down names does anything. If I had conclusive evidence that my calling my fantasies "wanting to ravish mock-protesting men" in scrupulous attempts to avoid the big R-word would actually mean that less people (male, female, whatever) get raped, I'd do it. But I have no such evidence, and I don't think such evidence will ever exist. I think trying to change how we speak is an understandable but misguided project.

Especially when, well, some of the fantasies I have are, as I mention in my post, fantasies of violent revenge on rapists. To say that my mind is wandering into the Dantean but then avoid saying that sometimes I get off on the idea of raping rapists would be, well, truly odd. Those fantasies are not just about ravishment, they're about all sorts of dark things like violence and revenge. That's not cute, and it's not cutifiable, really, either.

Again, if never mentioning these fantasies to anyone, or calling them by nicer names, actually spared anyone violence, I'd do that. In a heartbeat. Real rape is devastating, and if it were so easy to stop as all that we'd soon live in a wonderfully just world. But the world doesn't work like that.

The link is in the second paragraph of the original post, but if that doesn't work for some reason, I'll find another way to get it out there. Let me know.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

EXACTLY! Power play in sex is great, and takes a lot of forms. Some of it "works" for me, and some of it doesn't. What makes me happy is a world in which people are free to express themselves sexually in a way that is safe and consensual - whether it's BDSM, poly, pony, PVC or whatever else!!!!!

ALL of the BDSM "kinks" that i am close to do it with more honor, respect and generosity than most other people. They see sex - and the fantasy play that is part of it - as something sacred. And to find the safe places in which to express that is something that is not taken lightly. At all. From safe words to safe toys, expressing a kink that most of the world doesnt' undersand takes devotion, and I applaud it.

I agree, trusting a lover so completely that you can let go of ANYTHING - fear, expectation, judgement, control - is, to me, the pinnacle of why we dare to connect with people. Because when the connection is strong, we can be who we truly are, and that is a rare opportunity to access your own power (even if it manifests as seeming powerless for a while.)

I wish read the original article - if you can link to it, please do, if not, i'd love it if you'd email it to me (alyssa@justcausemag.com.)

I also wish, however, that we could give it a different name. It is ultimate submission, it is total surrender, and it can be rough and all that stuff. But it isn't rape. And it shouldn't be called rape.

Rape isn't fun. Sex is. Rape isn't consensual. Sex is. What your lover does to you sounds absolutely wonderful. Rape doesn't. And as a rape survivor, who enjoys sex, the world needs to understand the difference between violence and rough sex. It's not okay to confuse the two, as that can really perpetuate the problems.

Thank you, also, for your article that sparked such a conversation, and for your gracious reply, and for being part of the dialogs. I hope it's only the beginning.

(I look forward to a day when people can embrace their sexuality fully and freely without fear of condemnation. Conversations like this make me think it's actually possible.)
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

and I really appreciate reading all your very thoughtful and thought provoking comments.

I do believe that rape, real rape which is never consensual, is an awful crime that takes something precious from its victims. No, I do not ever, ever wish this for myself or anyone else. But the fantasy of being taken and dominated is very, very potent for me.

The fact that I have a safe word, a word that when uttered means STOP, no questions asked, is one way in which this sort of power exchange differs from rape. I agree with Alyssa Rose, it's mostly an issue of terminology.

What Victor likes is taking me by force, and while I resist, I very much want that struggle. Perhaps it something atavistic in my case, not having much of a religious background of any sort, I never felt that sex was bad/dirty/wrong and that I needed to be overpowered to enjoy it. I do know for a lot of women, the use of consensual force, with a lover, absolves them of this residual guilt allowing them to truly feel free.

In the BDSM community, the acronym SSC, Safe, Sane & Consensual, is fairly standard, though I do know others who practice something called RACK, Risk Aware Consensual Kink. The RACK practitioners that I have spoken with do not use safe words which are very essential to me knowing that I am safe and will not be harmed.

Suzanne, I really appreciate that while the issues raised in my article disturbed you, you have gone out of your way to try and understand it rather than flat out condemn it. I wish more people could be as open as you are.

You could not have hit that more squarely on the head. In the case of rape, sex is a tool used to deliver violence. it is the fist, gun, knife, whatever, but all it is is the tool.

i always find it interesting that when someone gets punched in the eye, it is not an "eye crime." or kicked in the butt it's not a "butt crime." but when a woman is raped it is a sex crime. In each case, it is, simply, a violent crime.

Which taps into a whole different and equally important subject of how people use sex for everything other than what it is. Hard topic, one we should probably take on in some context. Sex as a tool (or weapon) is very different than sex as sharing and expression.

But thanks for your thanks, and for this topic..... good stuff. And yes, it is when we talk about things that we are able to learn and grow. It's an honor to be able to share, and hopefull add to a greater understanding. Thanks for starting this!
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

OK, I know it's somewhat lame to jump on and say "great post," but seriously Suzanne, Great Post. And great followup comment from Alyssa.

This is going to give me something to think about all day, dark as that is. I agree with Alyssa that it's a terminology issue. "Rape" by it's very definition is non-consensual and can only be nonconsensual.

I don't like when it the term "rape" is used to describe anything that's actually consensual, because I think it's dangerous to muddy the waters like that.

Liz Rizzo ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

Thank you so much for sharing your story and your thoughts on this topic. The idea that rape is about violent sex is something that I struggle with, and I think that is why the article I read bothered me so much. On one hand, I feel like if rape were not at all about sex but just violence, then why not just cut/shoot/hit/whatever someone. But after I read your thoughts, I started to consider the idea that sex is the tool used to deliver the violence, if that makes sense. Either way, I agree that voluntary rough sex and power play need to be distinguished from rape because they are not the same thing.

Again, thanks for sharing your story and your feelings. I think you are very brave to be so honest, and I hope that other women will feel safe enough to add to this conversation.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Thanks for diving into such a landmine filled field of fear and fantasy.

Personally, I think it's a terminology problem. It isn't rape if it's consensual, period. And I think that if we could just eliminate that word, and look at it as the power play that it is, it wouldn't be so bothersome.

As a rape survivor (of a particularly violent rape) and someone who really loves sex, it's a mine field that i often find myself in. But what is very clear to me is that rape is a crime of violence and is not consensual. Whether it is a man or a woman being raped by a man or a woman, the person being raped DOES NOT WANT IT.

"Rape fantasies" (and again, i LOATHE that term) are about power play, and that is one of the most common elements of sexual fantasies and sexual play. That said, the extremetiy of power play varies greatly. Silk scarves tying hands behind your back or to a bed post - that's power play. handcuffed to a chain-link fence is powe play. Even being "thrown" against a wall or hastily hoisted onto the bathroom sink, all of that is about surrendering to the moment, to your lover. Most of us like to relinquish power to some exgtent to our lovers. Some people go to extremes.... Some of us always like to be the ones who have the power, who are in charge, who are dominating our lovers. (In BDSM nomencalture, the roles are "top" and "bottom." A domintarix is a "top," her partenr is the "bottom." BDSM is all based on power play, and a huge portion of the population consider themselves BDSM practitioners.)

Although it may look strange to people who dont' engage in intense power play, it's really all variations of the same thing, and perfectly normal.

Certainly, as a society we won't evolve into a society based on acceptance until we can allow (maybe even embrace) people's full spectrum of sexual behavior. Like you, I believe that people can do whatever they want, as long as it is safe and consensual.

However, we also will not evolve into a society based on acceptance until we can separate violence from sex. As i said, I surveved a very violent rape. Sometimes I think I was lucky that there was a gun invovled, because it made it really easy for me to see that this was a VIOLENT crime, not a SEX crime. There is no sex in rape. There is just violence, that's all, nothing else. I'm on a campaign to stop calling rape a sex crime, it is misleading, and puts the responsibility on both parties. Whereas a violent crime is just about the perpetrator.

And the same is true of Rape fantasies. There is no rape. It is consensual sex and should not be called rape. Calling it rape, among other things, legitimizes a horrific violent crime as being a sex act.

That said, relinquishing power, even aggressively, to a lover can be a lot of fun. I have never had any desire to relive my rape - far from it. But I have had fabulous sex in furied frenzies that was very aggressive, and even involved having my mouth covered so that no one would hear. And when I'm bored, my mind often wanders to those places, because they were beautiful (and very fun) moments in which i trusted my lover completely, and new i was totally safe.

But it's not rape. And rape is not about sex.

Thanks for opening this dialogue. It's extremely important.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )