Do you want to know a secret?
I’ll tell you one: rape is one of, if not the most, “raped” terms on earth.
It’s meaning and usage are so far distorted that there isn’t a starting focal point to zoom in on – it was pillaged and plundered of meaning upon inception.
Why should you care? It’s just a stupid word right? … Right? …
Wrong.
To the contrary, the heavily lubricated ease of use it has in our diction, and subsequently, in most judicial systems found around the world – including those found in the American States – is a fountainhead of problems for young men and women alike.
Rape, as a term, in it’s current widespread use,
- Obliterates the lives and liberties of young men (among other demographics)
- Vilifies sex
- Places the most severe shame upon women possible
The first is an attack on the natural rights of man – every man.
The second is an attack on morality, nature, and reality.
The third is an attack on the self – the mind – and the independence of thought in every man and woman of integrity left in the world.
Even when these offenses are taken into consideration, why should we care?
Two words: moral cowardice.
From The Virtue of Selfishness
~
The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you men?”
To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”
But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.
It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal”, which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.
The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interests (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).
…
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’;s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion or moral value – and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustices, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics.
~
All of the above, in regards to selfishness, applies to rape.
To perfectly spell this out …
- Selfish > rational self interest > human nature/life > good
- Rape > ravage > human nature/sex > good
Of course, that’s a reflection of absolute reality – where rape is detached from evil and criminal activity – and seen for what it is, the most accurate form of sex between rational adults possible — an exact expression of the act as it was meant to be expressed.
Take special note that rational self interest and ravage are not terms associated with evil today. While not common in our language – at least from my corner of the globe – using them would not be totally bizarre. In fact, they are perfectly interchangeable to the rational individual with their more exact brethren.
Instead today, we live with this nonsense.
- Selfish > asshole > irrational brute > evil
- Rape > unjust initiation of force > irrational brute > crime > evil
Indeed, “criminal” can even be attached to selfish while remaining accurate. Try producing your own wealth by your own merit and keeping all of it, for example. In most countries, you will eventually have a gun in your face forcing you to pay it or …
- Flee the country
- Go to jail
- Fight for your life
Free country you say? Hope you’re willing to back that up with more than words someday, because the above sounds like the mindless logic and morality of a lynch mob “voting” to hang you the minute you don’t do as they want – like a slave disobeying his master.
~
The popular use of rape makes it abundantly easy to reverse one of the greatest principles of a free society – that man is innocent until proven guilty.
It has the same exact effect as calling someone a “witch” just a few hundred years ago – it even produces similar results, many times regardless of whether or not a crime was committed.
- Outcast
- Jail
- Castration
Yeah, you read that right boys. In some parts of the world, if you happen to be wrongly convicted by a brainwashed judge and jury, you can be castrated.
You know, when your nuts are chopped off.
Resist and die.
Oh your one of the guys who didn’t actually do anything?
Woops …
Hey if he floats he’s a witch right?
~
To put it plainly, judge and jury are so heavily biased the minute “rape” is mentioned, because it has mutated into a smear word, perfectly depicted by this cartoon.
You would never see this say "sexual assaultist"
The term has an unfortunate, instantaneous negative effect on whoever it’s used against. Let’s make it loud and clear: once you are labeled a “rapist”, you are fucked in today’s world – whether or not you actually did anything has zero bearing on the short term impact, and very little on the long term.
You evil witch doctor you.
~
It should be noted, there is very little consequence to making a false rape accusation in most (all?) parts of the world, relative to the consequences of being wrongly convicted of sexual assault. And even for the minor consequences that exist, the chance of them being enacted are slim to none.
Meanwhile if a false rape accusation is made, and a man or woman is wrongly found guilty, the consequences are dire, as noted previously.
Which brings us back to the fact that “rape” has become a smear word. It’s thrown around very casually.
“Yeah I raped that test/exam/job interview”
Other words that suffer this fate include “love” and “food” – both terms plundered and generalized to such an extent that they cease to have meaning in the conventional sense.
Anything passes as food today. And hey, let’s love anyone and everyone.
Why have standards? We’re all just as meaningless as the next person.
~
Sex is the most selfish act possible by a human being. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, just try thinking of a selfless act of sex.
What the hell does that even entail?
Nothing, it’s a contradiction and doesn’t exist in reality.
Sex is also necessarily – or mechanically as someone here on TDL put it recently – violent. This is why when mommy and daddy are sending a letter to the stork, it looks like “mommy and daddy are wrestling”.
Of course it looks that way – it’s about half a step different as far as body parts and movement are concerned.
Make a few adjustments here, a few changes there, and presto your makin babies.
Which sets us up for one of my latter points, which I will begin with two examples – one video, one written (the second reaffirming the first).
A: The Rape Scene of Howard Roark and Dominique Francon, as depicted in the official movie, overseen by Rand herself.
B: Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged
“She felt a rhythm without sound or movement, a sense of beating tension, as if the wheels of the John Galt Line were still speeding on. Slowly, in answer and in resistance to an unspoken summons, she turned and looked at him.
The look she saw on his face her know for the first time that she had known this would be the end of the journey. That look was not as men are taught to represent it, it was not a matter of loose muscles, hanging lips, and mindless hunger. The lines of his face were pulled tight, giving it a peculiar purity, a sharp precision of form, making it clean and young. His mouth was taut, the lips faintly drawn inward, stressing the outline of its shape. Only his eyes were blurred, their lower lids swollen and raised, their glance intent with that which resembled hatred and pain.
The shock became numbness spreading throughout her body – she felt a tight pressure in her throat and her stomach – she was conscious of nothing but a silent convulsion that made her unable to breathe. But what she felt, without words for it, was: Yes, Hank, yes – now – because it is part of the same battle, in some way that I can’t name … because it is our being, against theirs … our great capacity, for which they torture us, the capacity of happiness … Now, like this, without words or questions … because we want it …
It was like an act of hatred, like the cutting blow of a lash encircling her body: she felt his arms around her, she felt her legs pulled forward against him and her chest bent back under the pressure of his, his mouth on hers.
Her hand moved from his shoulders to his waist to his legs, releasing the unconfessed desire of her every meeting with him. When she tore her mouth away from him, she was laughing soundlessly, in triumph, as if saying: Hank Rearden – the austere, unapproachable Hank Rearden of the monkilike office, the business conferences, the harsh bargains – do you remember them now? – I’m thinking of it, for the pleasure of knowing that I’ve brought you to this. He was not smiling, his face was tight, it was the face of an enemy, her jerked her head and caught her mouth again, as if he were inflicting a wound.
She felt him trembling and she thought that this was the kind of cry she had wanted to tear from him – this surrender through the shreds of his tortured resistance. Yet she knew, at the same time, that the triumph was his, that her laughter was her tribute to him, that her defiance was submission, that the purpose of all of her violent strength was only to make his victory the greater – he was holding her body against his, as if stressing his wish to let her know that that she was now only a tool for the satisfaction of his desire – and his victory, she knew, was her wish to let him reduce her to that. Whatever I am, she thought, whatever pride of person I may hold, the pride of my courage, of my work, of my mind and my freedom – that is what I offer you for the pleasure of your body, that is what I want you to use in your service – and that you want it to serve you is the greatest reward I can have.
There were lights burning in the two rooms behind them. He took her wrist and threw her inside his room, , making the gesture tell her that he needed no sign of consent or resistance. He locked the door, watching her face. Standing straight, holding his glance, she extended her arm to the lamp on the table and turned out the light. He approached. He turned the light on again, with a single, contemptuous jerk of his wrist. She saw him smile for the first time, a slow, mocking, sensual smile that stressed the purpose of his action.
…
He stood looking down at her naked body, he leaned over, she heard his voice – it was more a statement of contemptuous triumph than a question: “You want it?” Her answer was more a gasp than a word, her eyes closed, her mouth open: “Yes.”
~
Examples now given, I will make my point by quoting myself from my previous and initial post on rape, “Rape”
“It’s proper usage should be to depict sex in it’s proper form, as an act of violent force, expressing the uncompromising strength of a man’s convictions, the depth of his own pride, and the admiration he possess for the woman he is sexually attracted to – in particular, her absolute standards of judgment for the men who she interacts with.
It is something to be revered – not privately ashamed of, and trampled on by the barrel of a gun.”
Restated, the vague meaning of “rape”, as it stands today, after being subtracted and detached from it’s criminal counter part of sexual assault, is much closer to the absolute reality of human nature than we’ve been led to believe.
“Ravage” is close, but rape I think, is exact.
It is the proper term, and it has been wrongfully demonized. The consequences are abound. Julian Assange is the current crucified, faux villain for these consequences.
~
Every time I post about rape, people are curious about what the applied outcomes are.
Well for starters, you could probably write a book about this and still not come close to doing the subject justice. IOW, don’t expect wonders from me, as I am still coming to understand this extremely unpopular idea.
My reason and experience do tell me a few things though.
(A) The conventional, telly-tubby, soccer mom version of sex – stemming from a totally disillusioned and confused culture — is absolutely wrong.
Wherever this view is exactly stemming from — perhaps everywhere and nowhere at all at the same time — is the same source that attempts to undermine man, and especially, it’s greatest heroes – the founding fathers of the American States as a prime example.
The process is a typical “praise mediocrity”, and simultaneously shit allover the hero – which in essence, makes no man worthy of admiration from another. Pretty neat little trick if you want to install ideas into a populace diametrically opposed to those it was founded upon and are chained to by law.
The summation of this negative “culture” can be said in one word: feminism.
(B) As the status quo stands, if a man and a woman freely enter into a private room and engage in sex, and then one person decides they do not want to perform a particular activity (or let’s say, wants to stop mid way through, for whatever reason), yet are forced to continue anyway by the other person – it is considered a criminal act by the judicial system, punishable by jail, chopping your nuts off, etc.
Minus the nut chopping, this at first seems proper, but is it?
Let’s look at the facts: assuming this was a two person party, it is impossible to know what was consented to and what was not after the initial consent of intentionally isolating yourself with only one other individual.
In other words, it’s a never ending song and dance of “he said she said”.
Yet, man is innocent till proven guilty in a free society.
If all the evidence that exists in a given case is “he said she said”, how the hell can you prove an individual’s guilt!?
You can’t. It’s fucking insane.
So, barbaric as it might sound, I think consent ends the minute a woman purposefully and willingly isolates herself with a man she is attracted to.
If an individual makes a bad judgment call, he/she better be carrying a taser – because that person’s life is their own responsibility – not government’s in the process of randomly guessing who is right and who is wrong in a life ending game of “he said she said”, with no just conclusion possible based solely on those accounts.
To add insult to injury, I think Ayn Rand depicted perfectly, on both accounts, the actions and thoughts of a mentally healthy woman – a woman of self esteem.
This, like the chipping away at the founder fathers, is another crime of feminism – that submitting to the right man – a man worthy of woman’s submission* — is not only something not to be in pursuit of, but is something to be ashamed of.
The founding fathers should not only not be looked up to, but were evil slave holders who we should be at best, regretfully accepting of, and at worst, ashamed of.
*If you examine the basic premise being accepted here, you’ll find that feminism dictates that no men exist worth submitting to – that all men are depraved, irrational brutes, devoid of reason, logic, and all that is good.
…
As one woman said recently on my Facebook account, I am on a “jihad against feminism”.
Indeed, as a “worshiper” of man and all that is right, I am in quite the holy intellectual war against such a hideous blob of nothing that seeks to undermine the rights of man – every man – through the gun of government.
~
In Summary
Brutal as it sounds, I am convinced rape is the ideal and proper term for sex. Ravage comes close – close enough I think, to be the bridge between it’s current demonization (starting with it’s very inclusion into our language so far as I am aware), and it’s redemption.
The counter argument of course is going to be that sex can be “anything”. This however, is simply not true. This is the equivalent of saying that morality can be “anything” – that morality is gray, that no right and wrong exists.
That some one thing can be evil and good, all at the same time.
That there is no standard of judgment in the world by which we can gauge our actions to be right.
Or put simply,
- Eating cardboard dipped in sauce doesn’t make it food.
- Telling someone you love them when you don’t doesn’t make it love.
– Anthony Dream Johnson
You still have A LOT to learn bro. Rape is wrong. Rape is NOT sex. Sex is not selfish, as it’s about pleasing your partner. This posts basically screams “I have hardly any experience w/ sexual intercourse.” I STRONGLY disagree w/ what you’ve written.
P.S. Sex should NOT be violent. It should be LOVING, and passionate. NOT violent. If you truly believe sex is an act of violence, then I worry for you.
#concussionproducingfacepalm
I don’t UNDERSTAND the point you’re trying to make in this post. Your writings changed SO much, I’m sure many others don’t understand either.
Rearden still asks for consent!
You also have to think about and consider Rearden’s own psychology in that scene, however. Immediately following it he confesses that he think’s what he has done is dirty and vile.
jaYOST7. Thrusting a piece of yourself into another person, no matter how gently, is damned violent. And in pleasing another person, is that not also for your own pleasure? Making somebody who you care about feel good IS in your self interest, and by the definition presented above, acting in your self interest (your rational self interest) is “selfish.” You have to alter or suspend your current definitions in order to understand what he’s saying. There are violent things that are also loving, eg spanking.
Not saying I agree with everything Anthony has said – I think there’s still a lot of thought to be done here and don’t claim to have done that thinking yet myself – but he makes an interesting argument. My question is if “rape” is the “proper” term for sex, where does that leave rape? Rape exists, if not in the absurd proportions feminists claim.
We should skype about this Anthony, I’d be interested in that conversation.
Not quite.
“More a statement than a question”
Regarding your last question, I am trying to separate “rape” from “sexual assault” — a crime.
Rape is at this point a slang term thrown around like shit and sticks like mud. Sexual assault has no such attribute (see cartoon).
…
Maybe this will help.
Rape>rape by engraved invitation>ravage>sex>good
Effeminate metro sexual male + mentally unhealthy female>telly tubby sex> not in alignment with nature>bad
“And in pleasing another person, is that not also for your own pleasure? Making somebody who you care about feel good IS in your self interest, and by the definition presented above, acting in your self interest (your rational self interest) is “selfish.””
Jeff, if you are not yet able to understand that an unselfish act is a moral contradiction then hopefully this comment helps.
If your sole purpose of sex is to pleasure another then that makes you just a slave to them. What do you do, pull out before you bust your load? Make sure you feel no enjoyment whatsoever whilst somehow managing to pleasure them at the same time? I don’t think you can honestly confess that pleasuring a woman who you love is an unselfish act which you gain absolutely no pleasure from yourself.
I love having sex with the woman I love, and it brings me all the more happiness to know that she loves it also.
“Regarding your last question, I am trying to separate “rape” from “sexual assault” — a crime.”]]
Anthony’s point here if I may add is an epistemological one as well as moral. Morality stems from a basic rational premise and therefore is grounded initially in epistemology i.e. the pursuit of knowledge.
Anthony is presenting that ‘rape’ is essentially no longer a concept in the logical sense. It interpreted so loosely and bandied about in such a manner that it has lost all meaning. It is an anti-concept in its current use. Anthony is reaffirming a logical definition for the term rape as a concept.
“Abstractions are ideas that correspond to an unlimited number of things at once. When you say or think “horse,” for example, your mind focuses on an idea—a concept— that refers to all the horses that ever have been or will be. Concepts allow us to consider the past and the future, things that are, things that might be, and even things that can’t be. Using concepts together, we can formulate general principles, like the laws of nature, that apply to many situations.
The ability to grasp reality in the form of abstract concepts and principles is the essence of reason as a human capacity. But thinking abstractly is often a difficult process and each person must undertake it for himself in the solitude of his own mind. Because abstract thinking is not automatic, people can easily make mistakes and end up believing in false ideas. The only way to ensure the objectivity of one’s thinking is to use a deliberate logical method.
“Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification,” wrote Ayn Rand. Because there are no contradictions in reality, two ideas that contradict each other cannot both be true; and any idea that contradicts the facts we can observe through our senses is necessarily false. Logic gives us standards we can use to easily judge whether an argument makes sense. ”
That is a general description of objectivist epistemology from The Atlas Society. Hopefully that highlights what I gather as the main purpose of Anthony’s post as it pertains to the term ‘rape.’
Hi,
I found your blog while I was learning about paleo nutrition and HIT exercise.
I don’t agree with many thing you write (I don’t agree with Objectivism basically) but you are still an interesting read.
I’m not sure to have understood this post.
English is not my fist language.
You say:
“if a man and a woman freely enter into a private room and engage in sex, and then one person decides they do not want to perform a particular activity (or let’s say, wants to stop mid way through, for whatever reason), yet are forced to continue anyway by the other person – it is considered a criminal act by the judicial system.”
Are you saying forcing a woman to do something against her will (even if she initially was attracted to the man and wanted to have sex with him) is not a crime?
Or that it will be very difficult to prove it?
Because these are two very different statements.
Neither. I am saying, among other things, that a specific crime is impossible to prove given only those accounts, in that given circumstance. Man is innocent to proven guilty in a free society.
Hence, the accused — man or woman — will always be innocent in such a case.
I agree with part of your thesis: no crime will be committed when your your prison mates tear your ass in two regularly during the 5 years you’ll hopefully do after you actually try to live by your principles.
You completely misunderstood the post. Please re-read it until you get it, or stick your head in a blender.
I’m curious as to where you have derived your epistemology.
I fully agree with the addressed concept of ordered liberty and how its gone too far a la burden of proof, but I am unfamiliar with any historical meaningful correlation between the meaning of ravage and rape.
Rap initially was used as an administrative region and somewhere around the 1400′s arose first to mean to take something by force, and then on to the “common” understanding of forced sexual intercourse. I also find it quite interesting that there was no historical record of it begin used for a female forcing a male into sexual intercourse. I am unaware of any support that further your dilution hypothesis have no means by which to trace the origins further back than the oxford epistemological records.
What’s really being discussed here is “tests”. Plain old tests in the PUA definition of the term.
How much should a woman test a man in order to have sex with him? A little? A lot? Should she test him verbally or physically or both?
Dream believes the world to be “black and white” thus, for sex to be considered “real sex” the woman should test the man, period. (for the shades of gray crowd this means the woman should test the man a 100%) This brings us to the understanding of “real sex” as the point where the woman is (completely) overwhelmed/dominated physically, emotionally, etc. (raped).
In this definition of sex, what Dream refers to as “soccer mom sex” meaning consensual, agreed upon, friends with benefits type sex does not qualify as sex due to the lack of a part of sex that exists in reality: tests. By testing is how women ‘come to’ (as opposed to ‘decide to’) mate with a specific individual, if this piece of the mating process is lacking, sex can’t be called “real sex” for it’s not the same process as sex that occurs in reality. (note how this is true for both uses of the word “real” used here)
If you don’t agree with the definition of sex=rape as the absolute test, then the question becomes: ‘How much’ should a woman test a man?
In my past sexual encounters the tests end at a point where a tacit agreement of “ok, its time to have sex now” is non-verbally reached. What sets this point in a woman’s mind? Is it her own self-worth? if it is, then a woman of (100%) self-esteem would indeed reach this point only when completely overwhelmed.
I think this:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/
and the comments, shed a bunch of light on the topic being discussed here. One commenter describes her sexual experiences:
“The experience of feeling at the very least vaguely put upon during PIV is so universal, that one comes to think this is what copulation just feels like. Even at its best, there’s always something wrong, a feeling of giving in, of giving up, that taints what could be simple joyful physicality. ”
Regardless of the obvious gender issues this woman has:
What makes this sensation of ‘giving up’ arise? Was she dominated too much, or too little? Is she feeling sexually assaulted, or rather not-ravaged? Or is the ambiguity of ‘soccer mom sex’ intrinsically the cause?
I’ve always had a probabilistic view of the universe, the way I see it, a girl will date you (increasing your probability of reproduction) as long as you attract her past the threshold of her self-perceived value (reflected upon her from her environment/past). As your perceived attractiveness diminishes her satisfaction diminishes, reducing your probabilities of reproduction (if we believe up-suck theory), later the frequency of sexual encounters with you diminishes and the frequency of her sexual encounters with others increases, ultimately ending in her total cease of intercourse with you as the aforementioned threshold is again reached. This view is amicable to the fact that sex is PART of the mating (testing) process, not the end of it.
However, in this case, how would we address the ‘giving in’ issue? Is this a trait that more feminine women don’t have at all? Or will this always be an issue as long as sex is had between people of varying “value” as opposed to absolute self-esteem, where rape or nothing at all would be the only options?
I’m slowly converting to objectivism by reading your blog Dream, it’s super weird, but after all, Master Yoda himself said “Do, or do not, there is no try”