Yesterday there was an interesting and powerful piece from Amanda Hess at the Sexist on the difference between a "rape" fantasy and an actual rape.
" A typical rape fetishist isn't into rape fantasies because she likes being raped (by definition, that's impossible). She isn't even into rape fantasies because she simply likes being dominated, abused, silenced, and blamed. She's into rape fantasies because they offer a chance to flip the script of domination, abuse, and silencing. Rape fantasies turn a normally horrific encounter into a sexual experience that the fantasy "victim" can control and orchestrate herself. She's into rape fantasies because they allow her to convert her fears and weaknesses into sexual power. "
This piece stands out to me a lot, because (and this might be a bit TMI at this point, but) I have had these sorts of fantasies. I have had the fantasies of being submissive, being tied up, and yes, being raped. But I have never mentioned these to any of my partners, nor have I actually wanted to try to live them out. The real, honest-to-god threat of rape is always right there in my mind, so sharing these fantasies felt way too dangerous for me. As it is, the one boyfriend I confessed my fetish of bondage to, was also the same boyfriend who later hit me and tried to strangle me. I've not shared that one again.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Making sense of rape fantasies.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16184
That's interesting I was actually coming to this site to write about the same thing. I know many women have rape fantasies and it's not something that I've ever felt ashamed of because I know the actual act of rape is one of the worst things a person can do. I was discussing this with a couple male friends of mine and they were asking me how it's possible for a woman to have these fantasies when they find the real act so abhorrent. Although I know there IS a difference it was difficult for me to explain it to them. What is a good explanation I could give them for this? And thanks to the OP for posting about this subject.
I think I would explain it by saying that calling it a "rape fantasy" isn't really accurate. It's about consenting to (an imagined) act where another person has the "power". And it is a giving of power (from fantasist to imagined rapist) and not a taking of power. So control over the power dynamic lies entirely with the person having the fantasy.
The idea you are getting at was kinda covered in a deviously named post a while back...
http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/roller-coaster-rides.html
Lots of good comments.
This post was really helpful too, thanks for directing me too it!
Thanks for that link. Having just finished reading all the comments from that post I'm now even more confused. :) Just kidding, thanks a lot. That was extremely helpful.
This is a good post. What would you guys think of men (or women, but obviously mostly men) who fantasize about being the attacker/dominant in a rape/BDSM situation? I'm not saying I have these fantasies (I don't), but is that wrong?
I had a lover who had that exact fantasy, but he didn't even bring it up until I mentioned mine (as the submissive in the fantasy). He didn't bring it up, so I don't know exactly what the best way to do that would be. Honestly, I think I might be a little freaked out if a lover mentioned to me that that was his fantasy unless it was months and months after we'd started having sex and he'd already proven himself to respect safewords, etc.
I would say the best way to present it is to present it as what it is - a fantasy. People have many different kinds of fantasies and a person who is into rape fantasies no more supports rape than someone who is into slave/master dealios. Also, stress the safety and how the submissive is really the person with the control.
Since we're on the subject - what are the best feminist ways of communicating these fantasies to partners? Better yet, what do these fantasies say about women and men? The latter is important because of the gender construct and power involved in these fantasies.
And, lastly, is it possible for someone who fights sexism and sexual violence, to mutually and, with consent, get off on these fantasies without compromising their feminism?
I've discussed this issue a few times in my life, but it seems, even within the feminist community, sexuality becomes guarded, and even within academia, very difficult to approach.
A side story that might get to why some feminist may not want to get to deep into it...
I recently picked up Richard Dawkins An Ancestors Tale, a great read about evolution that goes back into time and sees were humans and other other species of animal split of from common ancestor (concestor was the word he used), all the way back until our line splits from bacteria.
The book is filled with a lot of great info. And some of it is how genes affect behavior...
Beavers build dams with no training. Cuckoo chicks know how to, at birth, eject the host birds eggs out of the nest. You can breed animals to be aggressive or docile. The behavior is in the genes, the DNA.
And when you take those implications and apply them to people, a lot of them will get pissed off. They like the idea of free will, rationality, all that jazz.
It has been observed that on the whole, women are more sexually submissive, and men are more dominant when it comes to fantasies...
The implications that that is not a social creation freaks many feminist the heck out, because they dive into social causation of equality... Which is a natural pull, because those causation appear to be more manageable.
It would take a whole book to hash out the implications and address the arguments for and against... and if that book is out there people are going to run into paradigm issues were the just disregard what does not fit their world view, or makes them uncomfortable.
Interesting stuff - I've got to pick it up. I feel the urge of arguing that certain evolutionary behaviors are not the same as sexual aggression and gender roles, but I'll hold on until I pick up the book.
Hope you're well.
... The behavior is in the genes, the DNA. And when you take those implications and apply them to people, a lot of them will get pissed off. They like the idea of free will, rationality, all that jazz.
Well, we are rational beings with free will. I believe you are making the mistake of over-generalizing because while the blueprint for behaviors is in our DNA, it still doesn't predict how a specific individual with different life experiences and perspectives and knowledge will behave.
So while we can take certain implications and apply them to populations as a whole, we do a disservice applying them to individuals who should be judged by their own actions, abilities and hopes and dreams. That's sort of the idea of equality, no?
Furthermore just because a behavior is encoded in our DNA, doesn't mean that it won't express with a certain level of flexibility depending on our environment.
Here is the thing.... try and slapping a number or ratio on free will/determinism or rationality/irrationality.
As a thought experiment, say out of 100% of the stuff we do... 40% is free will, 30% is biological determinism (instinct) and 30% is social determinism.
Lets say you take a 'typical' person then give them a traumatic brain injury or a TBI... the ratios are going to change. And maybe there is a natural variation in people anyway.
You could do the same with rationality and irrationality. And you could look at other animals.
So look at the cuckoo. Just born, with no training or socialization, it knows to kick the other eggs or chicks out of the host nest. 100% instinct.
Then look at dogs... if you have ever trained a dog you can know when it is thinking of going outside of its training... when it does not want to stay, or when it is about to jump on the sofa and it looks at you.
So animals have different ratios of instinct and rationality. And you can socialize them too!
I think people get tricked into thinking that free will, biological determinism, social determinism and rationality are dichotomous, yes or no, variables.
To bring it back to Dawkin's An Ancestors Tale and other biology... there is natural selection, artificial selection, and sexual selection.
And sometimes we sexually select traits in others that just happen to be in vogue. So there we have the biological and the social re-enforcing one another.
And that does not even look at the research behind sexual selection and pheromones. You might think you are attracted to someone because of x,y, and z... but you might be are missing out that the controlling variable is complementary immune systems... which you determine without even knowing it through their pheromones.
And you are right, we should not make the mistake of overgeneralizing. Lets say there is an asshole gene, and it is in 50% of Americans. That means that you cannot tell if some American is an asshole just by looking at them. You would be wrong 1/2 the time.
And of course, there are still going to be those people that are assholes because of society. Or society can have such a distaste for assholes that they adjust their behavior and try and pass for nice people.
All this stuff can be applied to sexuality. Someone could be 'born' submissive, use the rationality/free will aspect of their essence and say 'I don't want to act sexually submissively'.
And maybe over time they could change themselves from being submissive to dominant, or they just suppress what makes them happy.
Back to the ratios. We still don't know were the ratio between free will and determinism lies. Some of us pick numbers that make us feel good.
Well, if we are speaking of a sort of vanilla fantasy, i.e., absent the bondage and other fantastical elements, I think there are a lot of plausible concepts that really have very little to do with an actual rape.
For me though, the appeal of the fantasy is that it's a demonstration from my partner that he has the strength to overpower me. Plus, I'm turned on by the fantasy of the guy doing a little extra work--i.e, that I'm difficult to get at. It's also a turn on that I'm with someone stronger than I am, who will submit to my request at any time. At least 1 book I've read on sexual behavior describes "tussles" between some male and female animals during mating as demonstration of his strength (thus presumably strong sperm).
That's pretty much the furthest from rape as you can get in the same way people who enjoy sparring do not actually wish to have some random person come up and clobber them out of the blue.
I'm noticing lately that a lot of concepts regarding sex and sexuality and even dating seem to be disturbingly male-centric--that is, we use sort of the worst assumptions taken from a traditionally, stereotypically masculine lens and ascribe the behavior for everyone.
I am increasingly wary of the sort of warrior/rapist and virgin/whore lens that seems to infiltrate many of the sexual fantasies that have become "mainstreamized" recently (I think the gang bang concept is another fantasy that could use a revision through an alternate viewpoint as well).
As for me, I think that light bondage between two consenting partners is fine. I've never wanted that for myself, personally, but I can understand the appeal, at least.
If we were all honest with our fantasies, I doubt there'd be any taboos left, especially sexual taboos. The idea of control and dominance versus acquiescence and submission is, I think, a pretty primal impulse, but the key is to not take it to an extreme. Fear factors in as well. I could tell a multitude of stories in which this dynamic factors into bedroom behavior, but I think the point has been made.