While reading MacKinnon’s article, I came across something that really bothered me. On page 647 Mackinnon states, “What is the violation about rape, what if we ask, what is the nonviolation of intercourse? To tell what is wrong with rape, explain what is right about sex.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Everything is wrong about rape; you are taking someone else’s body without consent and performing any kind of sexual act on that person man or women that they do not want. If someone doesn’t want you to do something to them, (i.e. rape) you are in violation of that person’s personal space and their body. Also rape is not a onetime deal for the victim. The victim has to live with what happened to them for the rest of their lives, and most of the time that victim has mental trauma that they have to come over. It has been proven that after someone has been acquaintance raped, they usually go on and have sex with their perpetrator to get their dominance back over that person. Also, the rape can have an effect on their future sexual life with a partner.
What is right about sex? What is not right about sex? Other than moral obligations to a higher power, I argue that nothing is wrong with CONSENTUAL sex. Sex is not rape. Rape is more than just intercourse. It is any unwanted touching or feeling of someone without their consent to partake in the same practice.
This is the problem, we live in a culture which is sexually supportive, towards women. Of course women are trying to become equals, its questions like MacKinnon that still are holding women at a lower level in society. Maybe we should not victim blame but have the violator take responsibility for their actions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Jim, I saw your question after class so I wanted to offer the beginning of a response.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in class, MacKinnon is making a broader critique of society that asserts that many consensual sexual interactions violate women's sexual autonomy when one considers input from social norms and expectations for properly feminine behavior. Consequently, when she asks for an explanation of the nonviolation of intercourse, she is thinking of the gender roles that accompany the presumption of heterosexual intercourse.
Here's an example: for a long time and still in some states, anything that did not involve penile penetration of the vagina was legally defined as sodomy and sodomy was defined as a crime. Such laws basically enforce heterosexuality through their definition of lawful intercourse. MacKinnon just wants supporters of that account of intercourse to explain how that definition doesn't violate many people's sexual autonomy.
It is interesting to note that in your response, you don't really offer an answer to that question. Part of MacKinnon's point is that our normal assumptions that there could be nothing problematic about intercourse make it difficult to criticize assumptions about gender roles that disadvantage women in political and personal relationships.