Support This Website! Shop Here!

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Right To Rape

Now that SCOTUS has lifted the chains from the homosexual community and given them a rightful place of honor and love in society, we need to look at other marginalized groups. Consider rapists, for example.

Mary Koss’ much-discussed 1987 study of rape prevalence is famous mostly for its finding that 1 in 8 college women have been victims of rape at some point in their lives. What’s not as well known is that the same study also surveyed thousands of college men, asking them about if they had ever forced a woman to have sex against her will. About 4.5% reported that they had. That's over six million men.

And that's just MEN. Women commit rape all the time. For example, consider all the female teachers who rape their underage male students. And that's just a subset of female rapists - there are many others out there that go completely unreported.

That means there are at least twice as many rapists in the country as there are homosexuals - you are TWICE as likely to know a rapist as you are to know a homosexual.

If you take every doctor and nurse in the United States; and you added them to every librarian, every cashier, every cop, every postal clerk, and every bank teller in the whole country; you still wouldn’t have as many people as rapists in the United States.

Think of that a second – think of how often, in your daily life, you’ve seen cops and cashiers and all those other folks. Odds are, you’ve run into rapists more often than that. They are all around you. Fine, upstanding citizens whose only "crime" is that they just love differently than you.

But rapists are forced into a closet. Just because they love differently than others do, no one shows them any compassion. There are rapists out there right now who are productive members of society, raising wonderful children, participating in community events. You may be working right next to one and you don't even know it.

It's time to stop the hate.

So, here's a concrete way you can overcome your bigotry. Ask yourself some simple questions. Have you shown compassion towards rape? Have you shown rapists enough love so that they feel safe? Can rapists "come out" near you without feeling judged or attacked? Do you have a "safe" sign near your office, so rapists know that they can come into the safe space you provide when others say hurtful things about rape? Do you have a Rape Pride bumper sticker on your car?

Are we kind to the rapists in our life?
Do they feel safe around us?
If not, how can we change so that they do?

It's time to make the nation safe for rapists. They should have the right to marry whoever they want, have sex with whoever they want, express their love in the best way that they know. Let's stop all the useless prosecutions. All it does is drive rape underground, where rapists can't get the special medical care and social benefits that they need to maintain themselves from day to day.

As Fr. James Martin (SJ), editor of America Magazine, said, "God wants more. God wants us to love. And not a twisted, crabbed, narrow tolerance, which often comes in the guise of condemnations, instructions and admonitions that try to masquerade as love, but actual love. Love means: getting to know rapists, both men and women, spending time with them, listening to them, being challenged by them, hoping the best for them, and wanting them to be a part of your lives, every bit as much as straight friends are part of your lives. Love first. Everything else later. In fact, everything else is meaningless without love."

So, above all, let's stop the judgements.
Judgement is wrong.
Give rapists space, let them express themselves.
Love is the best answer.


Ann said...

Well, as Alveda King recently said,"Love and sex are two different things." So, if all of this was only about love, then there would be no problem. But, when any person or court tries to tell me that homosexual "marriage" or rape, or pedophilia or any other deviant behavior is just another lifestyle that is normal, I have to defer to St. Peter and the Apostles who told the Jewish Sanhedrin, "We must obey God and not man." So, when God tells me that homosexual behavior, rape, pedophilia or any thing of that same nature is OK, then I will accept it. Until then, I will resist will every fiber of my being and die a martyr if necessary.

pel said...

A homosexual sexual relation is generally considered to be consensual, while rape, by definition, is not.

The comparison is not compelling and the argument doesn't seem very persuasive.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

What relevance does consensuality have to this discussion?

Slavery can be and often was consensual, yet even if both parties consent, party A cannot enslave party B, nor can either party sue the other for failure to enslave - the contract is illegal. Despite the appearance of consent, the parties are not actually ABLE to consent.

Homosexual "marriage" is likewise an illegal contract. Just as with slavery, the parties really don't have the right to consent to the contract.

So, in the end, we see that you're just a bigot.

pel said...

Easy, there. I know caustic hyperbole is your style, but I'm just probing your argument. No need to start in with the ad hominems. I don't believe I have ever endorsed homosexual marriage.

I anticipate engaging fence-sitters and middle-of-the-roaders in conversation about the new nationwide toleration of so-called gay marriage. It is easy to make the argument from morality, but it sometimes needs some explanation. So I usually start with, "Marriage is about children. The state must endorse and support only the best arrangements for marriage. Gay people cannot have children, and children have a right to a mother and a father."

I thought you were making another argument that might be compelling. However, it appears to be just another variation of "homosexual behavior is wrong, and therefore so is homosexual marriage."

I mean, this is a Catholic blog. We knew that already. The comparison to rape still seems foolish, because consent is still a major differing factor between the two. Your response is, "Yes, but consensus is irrelevant because both actions are immoral."

That may be, but in the circles where I may be arguing or persuading, the morality of homosexual behavior is ambiguous, and so consent would become an elevated sticking point in the use of your comparison.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Look, people make a false god of consent. The implicit, unquestioned assumption that must be brought into the light is the idea that consent is always good and/or necessary.

That's part of the reason so many people refuse to argue against homosexuality: "If you want to do it, then I guess it's ok. Your consent takes away any possible argument I may make. Your consent makes your decision divinely correct."

It's the equivalent of the "natural" argument: "Well, if animals do it, then I guess it's ok."

Both assume that "nature/consent is always good".
But that assumption is insane.

Arsenic is completely natural (it's an element on the periodic table), but it isn't good for you. Monkeys tear each other apart and eat each other, but that doesn't make cannibalism acceptable. Just because we consent to something, that doesn't make it acceptable, or good, or something that thereby becomes impossible to question.

You have to tear down that false god, Consent.
Come up with examples that show Consent is often quite damaging and deadly. That's what I'm trying to do here: show that consent is not a "get out of jail free" card.

pel said...

I can see the outlines of that argument a little better.

Lifetime indebtedness (a.k.a. slavery), prostitution (for the most part), illicit drug trade, and sale of internal organs are currently outlawed, regardless of how much consent is on both sides of those contracts.

And conversely, some transactions are legally coerced regardless of the lack of consent of one of the parties. Taxation comes to mind immediately, and I'm sure there are countless others.

So, I can better see the consent being something of a red herring. That does help to defuse it as an element of rebuttal and get us back to straight morality.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as much of a comfort. Adultery, fornication, and pornography have been long progressing through various levels of toleration and acceptance, so it's hard to see "well, homosexual behavior is immoral because natural law, obviously" winning out.

It's hard not to be fatalistic when stuff like this happens. It was one thing to hear the US Supreme Court decide 5-4 in favor of homosexual marriage. It was quite another to have a Julius Caesar moment seeing various Facebook friend profile pics light up in rainbows, as well as professional companies and organizations applauding the decision, only to be topped off with even catholic organization response starting off with apologies for being judgemental and harsh.