"sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs." Ok, what does this really mean? How can sexuality ever satiate anything other than desire? Unless there is trauma to take its place?

kloo2yoo · 2011-02-19T17:30:20+00:00

well, the study was about rape, so there's your trauma.

also, notably, it's from 1977, so sexual and racial politics were very different then.

The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs.

That seems to me to be pretty self-explanatory: ACCORDING TO THE STUDY:

the interviewed rapists said they were primarily motivated to express anger or power through rape.
the interviewed rapists said they were less motivated by just being horny.

2011-02-19T15:45:59+00:00

I think it is simply redefining sexuality to refer to that part of sexuality that is free from any hint of power or anger.

I would like to see this same distinction applied to regular consensual sex. I think you would find that a lot of consensual sex is often motivated by power, anger, and a host of other emotions.

mean0dean0 · 2011-02-19T23:47:25+00:00

Why do we always ask the rapists about sexual desire and the normal men about rape? Something tells me this is backwards thinking...

Comments