Humbert is a paedophile. He abuses Lolita.

[Karen]

Why are you so rude?

[Shaynuh]

Fatin wrote: "I don't understand HOW anybody cannot see that he does rape Lolita. Yes, she's attracted to him, yes she makes moves on him. She's a twelve year old! In the beginning of the book, she's compared hi..."

Completely agree. it is also known that victims of sexual abuse will often initiate sex because it gives them more control then just waiting for an attack that may be more violent and unpredictable if her attacker were to initiate. People always blame girls for their sexual abuse. If this were a boy the comments would be completely different. Misogyny at work.

[Gary]

Shaynuh wrote: "If this were a boy the comments would be completely different. Misogyny at work."

That's an interesting comment. It would definitely be a very different book on a range of levels. There's a whole consciousness of rape culture at work that Nabokov was directly addressing and which many people don't seem to have grasped. Of course, that vocabulary (the term "rape culture" I mean) didn't exist at the time Nabokov was writing, so he had to invent his own. Arguably, that's one of the purposes of the book.

[Mickey]

Shaynuh wrote: "People always blame girls for their sexual abuse. If this were a boy the comments would be completely different. Misogyny at work. "

Boys are also blamed for sexual abuse. Look at a real-life case like Shawn Hornbeck's. He was kidnapped when he was eleven years old, and police stumbled across his whereabouts when they were investigating another kidnapping. There were people who publicly said that he didn't want to be found. He had to cope with bullying when he was returned to his family. It's simple ignorance of how children cope with abuse. There's no major difference based on the sex of the victim, unless it's the still somewhat taboo subject (among some teenagers anyway) of homosexuality.

[Mickey]

This is why most people will reject Solnit's piece. Sexual abuse is not perpetrated on one gender by another gender. Putting people in such rigid categories based on gender is not an accurate depiction of reality. It's irresponsible on many levels. It implies that women are victims and men are victimizers. It's unnecessarily divisive and seeks to foster a sense of outrage that might be appealing but is not based on reality. Boys that have been kidnapped and sexually abused (like Lolita was) are not treated better. The problem is in the public perception of how people act when they are being abused. To claim misogyny is to muddy up the waters.

[Anne]

I would say misogyny does play a role in this book. It certainly does in the movie depictions, yuk. If the victim had been a boy, it would have been just as awful and just as based on power over the victim. The sexual domination pathos would still be expressed. I do agree that misanthropy and narcissism are rampant in the book toward both genders. Lack of respect for the victim includes lack of respect for their gender and their basic humanity. Anger at rape culture includes anger at the abuse of boys. KiteRunner for example.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "Lack of respect for the victim includes lack of respect for their gender..."

How exactly does this work? Does it apply if the abuser and the abused are of the same gender?

I'm not a big fan of the concept of "rape culture". Comments like Shaynuh's saying that boys do not suffer like girls from sexual abuse and kidnapping are not corrected by this term. Its purpose seems to be furthering a false narrative about abuse: who perpetrates it and who endures it. It sets up a false view that pits one gender against another instead of actually dealing with the problem regardless of gender. The intended result of making rape an abstraction by pairing it with the word culture is to create a new set of victims and stoke more petty hatreds. Abuse victims are not helped by the term. It's a cynical co-opting of a group of people that should be allowed to speak for themselves.

I recently listened to the audiobook by Elizabeth Smart called My Story, where she recounts her ordeal of being kidnapped for nine months when she was fourteen. The first page of reviews for the book are mostly negative, talking about things like how she didn't have the right response to the first rape (she felt used and broken), and blaming her Mormon faith for putting such emphasis on sexual purity. The fact that Smart breaks ranks with such practices by not going to therapy afterwards (people actually saying that she's repressing it because she hasn't gone) or denying that there was any Stockholm Syndrome seems to incense some reviewers. One reviewer (and maybe more than one) talked of her "white privilege". The most prevalent misunderstanding in many of these cases (Smart's and Shawn Hornbeck's and also Lolita's) is the condemnation stemming from why none of these children ran or revealed themselves even when they easily could have. The level of understanding for common realities in these cases is really low. It is also very rigid. I've not heard people who are championing the word "rape culture" pushing for greater understanding and less judgement of victims.

[Michael]

You have given one star, Anne, to what many consider one of the finest novels of the 20th century. And why? Because the protagonist is a misogynist who lacks respect for his victim?

Must you like and approve of a novel's protagonist to enjoy great literature? Then you are missing out on some great works. Here are just a few of the less-than-admirable protagonists from brilliant works of fiction:

Don Quixote in The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha
Dorian Gray in The Picture of Dorian Gray
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment
Florentino Ariza in Love in the Time of Cholera
Iago in Othello
Ignatious Reilly in A Confederacy of Dunces
Meursault in The Stranger

As Claire Fallon puts it:

"We don’t have to explain why Humbert Humbert isn’t likable, do we? He is, after all, a sexual predator, and a remorseless one at that. Nabokov’s Lolita qualifies as a genuine masterpiece in large part because he makes the narrator, Humbert, simultaneously vile and fascinating. Even as we’re repulsed by his devious machinations and depraved crimes, his flowery self-justifications and perverse romanticization of his “love” for Lolita intrigue us. It’s hard to tear yourself away from a peek inside the mind of such a brilliantly loathsome man."

[Gary]

Anne wrote: "If the victim had been a boy, it would have been just as awful and just as based on power over the victim. The sexual domination pathos would still be expressed."

It's interesting that Nabokov also invented the word "faunlet" to describe what are, apparently, the qualities of the male version of a nymphet. Humbert uses it to describe himself in his retelling of his youth and then later to describe the appearance of the "two strange and beautiful children" in chapter 3. The qualities of the "faunlet" are not the focus of his narrative, of course, but that term didn't take hold of the public's imagination at all. At least, I've never heard it anywhere outside of Lolita.

It does seem clear that the sexual authority/power relationship would have been more proscribed had it been an adult male and 12-year-old male as Nabokov's subject. See, for instance, all the hullabaloo around the use of the term "love that shall not speak its name" around authors like Oscar Wilde.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "It does seem clear that the sexual authority/power relationship would have been more proscribed had it been an adult male and 12-year-old male as Nabokov's subject."

How exactly would the sexual authority/power relationship have been different if Lolita were a boy? (Looking back on a previous conversation we've had about Jane Austen where you insisted that it was "obvious" that Jane Austen wrote stories to further social change without giving any evidence except your own rather arrogant assertions, I would ask that you don't bother answering if you can't come up with something better this time.)
How would this change have created a different- and presumably less traumatic- experience for him?

[Karen]

Michael wrote;
"We don’t have to explain why Humbert Humbert isn’t likable, do we? He is, after all, a sexual predator, and a remorseless one at that. Nabokov’s Lolita qualifies as a genuine masterpiece in large part because he makes the narrator, Humbert, simultaneously vile and fascinating."

But HH was remorseful at times. That, for me, was one reason why Lolita remains fascinating- the conflicting feelings I have for him, and how Nabokov expertly portrays this in the novel.

[Michael]

That's right, Karen. He is a far more complex character than Fallon describes, and he elicits complex feelings in readers.

This may sound condescending, but I think this may help explain why Humbert--who is a fictional character after all--evokes such extreme feelings in readers who just want to view him as an evil predator.

[Anne]

I am not an expert on any of these topics. I'm responding from an art appreciation standpoint.
Michael I absolutely do not have to like the actions of the protagonist to love the book. Tons of protagonists are rapists. (could be another thread). I loved crime and punishment for example.

Mickey I agree that newly coined terms can get bandied about and lose impact. However imo the exposure of the acceptance of rape culture is indeed an effort to move the blame from victim to perpetrator. Rape culture is evidenced for example by the normalization of low punishment for that college rapist athlete and the ho hum reaction to the govt. official genital grabbing and telling victims to dress differently rather than perps to stop. Rape as a metaphor for any kind of ruination is institutionalized expression of low regard and domination of someone male or female.

I don't think Nabakov is a bad person, I just don't like this book. I think he is hero worshiped and his prose is smarmy.

But I admire all your opinions and appreciate the food for thought.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "Rape as a metaphor for any kind of ruination is institutionalized expression of low regard and domination of someone male or female."

Rape isn't a metaphor, though. It's a crime, and it's been a crime for millennia. The term "rape culture" seeks to legitimize a fantasy of systemic victimhood that does nothing for victims of rape and has nothing to do with helping victims of rape. It is about condemning the culture at large, and doing this helps no one.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "That's right, Karen. He is a far more complex character than Fallon describes, and he elicits complex feelings in readers.

This may sound condescending, but I think this may help explain why Humb..."

I don't find your statement condescending. And you are right I think, the first time I read Lolita I was repulsed and could not understand why people were enthralled by the novel, but something drew me back to it. Maybe it was reading other Nabokov books and essays. Isn't it interesting that we had these conversations almost exactly a year ago. Happy New Year, though it just makes me feel old.

[Michael]

Happy New Year, Karen! I'm off to hear my favorite Cambridge band. Would love to reconnect and catch up.

[Gary]

Anne wrote: "I think he is hero worshiped and his prose is smarmy."

Yeah, but... in a bad way? ;-)

I wouldn't disagree with you on any particular point. When it comes to a lot of the assessment of Lolita and Nabokov, weirdly, I don't think he would himself disagree either. That is, terms like "rape culture" didn't exist when he penned Lolita but I don't think he'd disagree with either the concept or its role in analyzing the macro-culture (if you will) in which it exists. Further, from the interviews and prose from him that I've read, I don't think Nabokov was ever very comfortable with the way he was lauded by certain elements in literature and the culture at large. He was a pretty even tempered guy, but he never seems quite as uncomfortable as when he's listening to some person or another tell him about his work.

None of which is to say that your subjective experience of the novel has to be positive. I honestly don't think it's meant to be pleasurable in the same sense that people read, say, Romance novels, detective fiction or something else that is a distraction. Personally, I find certain sections of Lolita abjectly painful to read. (Chapter 32, for instance, takes me a long time to get through.)

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "That is, terms like "rape culture" didn't exist when he penned Lolita but I don't think he'd disagree with either the concept or its role in analyzing the macro-culture (if you will) in which it exists."

If "rape culture" existed, why would Nabokov show Humbert as being so cagey about his sexual relationship with Lolita? "Rape culture" states that rape is permitted and even encouraged. All Humbert's machinations and manipulations would simply be unnecessary wasted effort if the relationship was not expected to meet with disapproval and censure within the culture. The book is so explicit on this point. The idea that Humbert would be permitted by his society or even encouraged in his relationship is really insupportable.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Happy New Year, Karen! I'm off to hear my favorite Cambridge band. Would love to reconnect and catch up."

Yes! Cambridge band- punk rock?

[Mickey]

Here is the definition of "rape culture" that Solnit gives in her essay, "#YesAllWomen: Feminists Rewrite the Story":

Rape culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards
women’s rights and safety. Rape culture affects every woman. Most women and girls limit their behavior because of the existence of rape. Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That’s how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don’t rape, and many women are never victims of rape.

This is taking the problem of rape-which is an actual occurrence for many people-and creating a false narrative about it where it is not rape victims who are the focus (boys and girls, men and women), but a fable of all women being victimized in a way that men aren't. It is the story of women as a group being victimized because they are women, and this is simply not true. The co-opting of rape into this false narrative makes a mockery of a real problem, and this does not help the public at large learn to deal with rape victims any better.

[Anne]

Mickey I see what you are saying sort of but the term rape culture is not referring to a particular instance of rape. I see the term rape culture as the macro and a single rape is the micro. Rape culture is the macro abstraction of how sexual power is used in our society and how institutions tacitly allow sexual violence by valuing the perpetrators more than the victims. One particular rape is the microcosm of one person's victimization. In my opinion, the exposure of rape culture does help victims by invalidating excuses like "boys will be boys" or "its part of the culture" and thereby invalidating the institutional acceptance of sexual violence.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: "Mickey I see what you are saying sort of but the term rape culture is not referring to a particular instance of rape. I see the term rape culture as the macro and a single rape is the micro."

That's a lot of the problem with it. "Rape culture" has little resemblance to rape as it happens in real life. You see from Solnit's definition that it excludes men as victims and includes all women as victims.

Does "rape culture" further understanding for victims of rape? How could it? It's willfully adding to the stereotypes and using it for its own ends. This is damaging to rape victims. It's a cynical use of their experience to further a worldview that is flawed. It leads to women saying things like Shaynuh did about boys who are rape victims having it easier. A simple Google search would set this straight. Perpetuating myths about who are the abusers and who are the abused does not help victims at all.

Do you agree with Solnit's definition of "rape culture"?

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"This is taking the problem of rape-which is an actual occurrence for many people-and creating a false narrative about it where it is not rape victims who are the focus (boys and girls, men and women), but a fable of all women being victimized in a way that men aren't."

Well said and absolutely spot on. And also this statement by Solnit which you quoted in your post above "Most women and girls live in fear of rape" is simply false and not helpful for the real problem. And this is why I have no interest in feminist writings.

[Mickey]

Karen wrote: "And this is why I have no interest in feminist writings."

Yeah. This is why only around 20% of American women will identify themselves as feminists. All the double talk and abstraction is just smoke and mirrors. It's just a con.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote: "Karen wrote: "And this is why I have no interest in feminist writings."

Yeah. This is why only around 20% of American women will identify themselves as feminists. All the double talk and abstracti..."

It was very different in the 70's during my mother's feminist enlightenment. Slowly after that a sort of fundamentalism took over; freedom of different or opposing ideas is frowned upon and politicalization of everything is now the norm.

[Janet]

Oh my goodness, really can't believe that some of the people on here are still debating this subject after talking about it for several years!!!
Seems to me like an unhealthy interest in the subject of this little book.
Might be a good idea to move on and read something else.

[Karen]

Janet wrote: "Oh my goodness, really can't believe that some of the people on here are still debating this subject after talking about it for several years!!!
Seems to me like an unhealthy interest in the subje..."

.Janet, if you don't like the discussion ignore it. I was having a conversation with Mickey, who had some thoughtful opinions

[Janet]

Karen wrote: "Janet wrote: "Oh my goodness, really can't believe that some of the people on here are still debating this subject after talking about it for several years!!!
Seems to me like an unhealthy interes..."

OK will do. Just wonder about people that enjoy discussing acts of a paedophile for years!!!! what ever turns you on. The book is a little novel that Vladimir Nabokov held as nothing special . It is a "kings clothes" is it not..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldpj_...

However I do agree that Nabokov writes his descriptions beautifully in this book.
Just my reaction, i will ignore all you people enjoying the long paedophile discussion from now on..

[Petergiaquinta]

What a great clip! Thank you.

Nabokov is so funny, and it's even funnier to watch the grave Professor Trilling trying to mediate that conversation.

But you are wrong to say that the author held this book as nothing special. That's absolutely not true. Did you hear what Trilling told the interviewer? He said you can't trust what a creative writer says about his work and you are under no obligation to believe what he says about it.

And is it my imagination or does Nabokov have a smirk on his face at that very moment?

[Janet]

OK broken my promise, to ignore comments, because I loved your answer Peter.
I think that Vladimir would have an even bigger smirk on his face had he known that by 2017 a few people had been discussing, Humbert Humbert and paedophile behaviour since 2014.
Vladimir was breaking through walls and mudding the waters, so he could sit back and watch the backlash.
I just can not comprehend that the same people that were on here several years ago discussing "is Humbert a paedophile" are still in here discussing "is Humbert a paedophile" .
The only reason that I know they are still on here is because of the notifications that go into my inbox from when I joined in the discussion (a long time ago).
Enjoy the discussion , I am now off.

Part 2 of the interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-wcB...

[Michael]

Please stop your condescending bullshit, Janet. As you know, there have been no posts on this thread for a year. No one has spent "three and a half years of their lives" on this discussion, so you are coming across as a fool. The discussion, which people occasionally come back to, has been wide-ranging concerning a novel that is anything but small.

[Karen]

Michael wrote: "Please stop your condescending bullshit, Janet. As you know, there have been no posts on this thread for a year. No one has spent "three and a half years of their lives" on this discussion, so you ..."

Thank you Michael, I don't understand why Janet is so bothered by this, or what prompted her chiming in. Mickey was posting some thoughtful comments on feminism and rape culture, I responded, and that was all. Certainly talking about a great writer and his most talked about novel should not be the least bit unusual!
And how was your Cambridge band?

[Karen]

Peter wrote;
"And is it my imagination or does Nabokov have a smirk on his face at that very moment?"

A very delightful smirk!!

[Karen]

Janet wrote;
"I just can not comprehend the people that were on here several years ago talking about paedophile behaviour and are still in here talking about paedophile behaviour."

So with that logic, paedophile behavior should not be talked about? We should just ignore it? Should we sweep it under the rug? Why does it bother you so much?

[Janet]

I suppose if you enjoy it, do what you enjoy.
It is not the subject, (that should be discussed), it is the amount of time that some people have been 'discussing it'.
But then, people that are obsessed by football seem to spend all of their time discussing football.
The reason I spoke was because, as I have already said, I get notifications via email of activity in the discussions that I have taken part in over the years and this discussion stands out as one that has had the same people going over the same discussion for years.
No worries, I just thought it strange.

[Esdaile]

Quite correct. I grew up in the 1970's and can say that beyond the shadow of a doubt intolerance is on the rise and intelligence on the decline, (and the two trends accompany one another I think) everywhere and across the political spectrum.

[Petergiaquinta]

Ah, the Nazi apologist is weighing in here now, bemoaning our lost intelligence and civility...

[Karen]

Esdaile wrote: "Quite correct. I grew up in the 1970's and can say that beyond the shadow of a doubt intolerance is on the rise and intelligence on the decline, (and the two trends accompany one another I think) e..."

Are you responding to my comment on the previous page regarding feminism in the 70's? Then I agree with you about intolerance. Intolerance of differing views, critical thinking.

[Mickey]

Anyone who is following this discussion who has run out of things to say relating to the topic can always stop following the discussion. The way Goodreads is set up, after a year of seeing new threads about a book, you stop getting them in your feed. The only way you are following this discussion after that one year after adding the book is if you've clicked on the "Follow this discussion" tab, which is located after the new messages on the right hand side. You can always click edit and stop following. Problem solved and kvetching silenced! Thanks, Goodreads! Perhaps now we can resume talks on the topic and stop with these cryptic, clumsy attempts at stopping people having a discussion because you don't want to be notified of it.

Having said that, I think it would great if we could get some new blood in here, but that's not something (unlike getting notifications) that we can control.

ETA: I should probably say how much I dislike this feature Goodreads put in. I can guess why they did it: People were complaining about constantly seeing certain books they had read years ago in their feed (not in notifications). If the book had very active discussions, that book would always be near the top of their feed. I was a regular for a time on the Twilight threads, and every so often someone would burst into the discussion irate at having to see that book that they had read years ago always in their feed. So Goodreads instituted a one year rule which means a book will not be in your feed a year after you mark it as read. This means that you will be unaware of any new thread or a rejuvenation of an old thread if you had not clicked on "Follow this discussion". I don't like that. I read a lot of nonfiction, so the discussions are usually few and far between. I don't like the idea of being unaware of a discussion because it's been a year, but Goodreads is trying to appease the people who want to complain rather than ignore. Of course, I wasn't involved in the decision process, but this is my understanding of why this was put in place. Anyone aware of more of the particulars is free to speak.

[Mickey]

A fairly recent memoir that talks about child molestation is former childhood actor Corey Feldman's autobiography Coreyography. In there, he claims that both he and his best friend (and fellow childhood actor, Corey Haim) were abused during the time they were in the spotlight. It was very sad to read about them trying to cope or even make sense of what was happening to them. There's been an increased awareness of child exploitation in Hollywood with some recent convictions of people who have worked with child actors for decades.

How does Feldman's story fit into this construct of "rape culture"? He's a male, so, at least according to Solnit, he does not walk around afraid or affected by the threat of rape. When he told the police who his molester was, they did not follow through. (Feldman was brought in for questioning about his relationship with Michael Jackson. He told officers that Jackson had never molested him, but that someone else had and he named names.) These scenarios do not follow the template that "rape culture" suggests happens. There's no misogyny present to explain the crime or the lack of response. There is no "rape culture" as it's been defined by Solnit here, and I still haven't heard how a boy's experience is less damaging than a girl's.

[Karen]

Mickey wrote;
"There is no "rape culture" as it's been defined by Solnit here, and I still haven't heard how a boy's experience is less damaging than a girl's."
And you won't hear it because it's not less damaging than a girl's. No one can offer you an explanation with any proof at all on how it is less damaging.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote: " I see the term rape culture as the macro and a single rape is the micro. Rape culture is the macro abstraction of how sexual power is used in our society and how institutions tacitly allow sexual violence by valuing the perpetrators more than the victims. One particular rape is the microcosm of one person's victimization."

I've looked up the relationship in different disciplines between the words "macro" and "micro". In no discipline have I found a "macro" which, instead of widening the view, narrows it down to include only those of a certain persuasion (in this case, gender) and then goes on to try to make a case for that characteristic being the deciding factor and reason for the situation. It's illogical. The use of the term "rape culture" as a macro view without consideration for those (of all genders) who are raped is unconscionable. It's using the term 'rape' for its visceral effect only. It is doing what it accuses others of doing: using rape victims for their own ends with no regard to empowering them or giving them a voice.

Feminism's siren call has always been about feeding the resentments that are, unfortunately, a part of life for everyone. Feeling unheard (as Solnit did when she had to repeat herself about being the author of the book another was recommending to her), discounted, and threatened happens to everyone. Feminists create this story where women are uniquely vulnerable to these things, but this is untrue. Most women see through this assertion and reject the label outright. The ones who are vulnerable to being sucked into this mindset are the real victims. There was a feminist on here a while back who discussed how her father was a violent, John Bircher alcoholic. Having grown up with that example and then coming across a school of thought that confirms for her that this is the underlying norm of her culture must have felt like a revelation. Now she can spend her remaining decades left on earth "fighting the patriarchy" instead of recognizing what a messed up situation she grew up in and finding her way out of that default mindset. Of course, this is not the only example on here of why people would ascribe to such a set of beliefs. There are people who unquestioningly ascribe to whatever the professors at their universities tell them because they want to be seen as intelligent. Some are attracted to the feeling of righteousness. None of these factors have anything to do with the reasonableness of the position, which explains why this attribute (reasonableness) is absent from a lot of the tenets of the faith.

[Karen]

Mickey have you ever thought about writing essays yourself and having them published? There is a need for reason and logic out there concerning these issues, and your posts on this topic have been thoughtful and well reasoned.

[Somerandom]

Mickey wrote: "Anne wrote: "Mickey I see what you are saying sort of but the term rape culture is not referring to a particular instance of rape. I see the term rape culture as the macro and a single rape is the ..."

This exactly! This is exactly why I have trouble identifying as a Feminist, as a woman and as someone with........experiences shall we say.
Rape Culture, as used in the vernacular sense by feminists at large, seems to want to frighten me away from men. They are the wild beasts who cannot be civilized enough to tame their animalistic instincts. Certainly, there are rapists out there like that who are men. But when a boy is raped by an older hot teacher, how does society react?
"Oh, you're a man now, lad."
"You lucky little bastard. Wish I had a teacher like that at school."

The child is therefore taught that he has made a sexual conquest, that he should be proud of what happened. This warps the child's view on consensual relationships, on what sex is and what is a healthy relationship.
A man gets raped in our society and receives little to no help. They are embarrassed if the perp was a man because that makes him "gay" or "weak." In that sense I can see how homophobia in society would contribute to such feelings in men.
And if the perp was a woman the victim is just as embarrassed. Because as a man it's he who is supposed to be sexually aggressive and dominant.
Male adult victims of rape are often seen as unmanly and shamed by society's expectations of masculinity. Conversely, young boys who are raped are seen as very masculine and lauded for it (unless they were raped by a man or another boy/girl.)
Societal expectations of femininity and masculinity contribute this problem in a myriad of very different ways.
Yes females are often pressured into sexual roles that make them uncomfortable and it is dismissed as just boys being boys. But conversely since they are seen as the more delicate sex, more support is offered to them by society.
We need to work together as a society to address the many short comings of our cultural ideas, not just blame patriarchy for oppressing women.
If rape culture was defined as society seemingly accepting some forms of sexual violence against people (this being dependent on many various factors, not just gender) then I could get behind the term. But like you said, the definition as it stands now does nothing to help. It erases male victims, it paints women as defenseless damsels and men as predators prowling the streets.

[Karen]

Some random wrote;
"It erases male victims, it paints women as defenseless damsels and men as predators prowling the streets."

You're right, portraying women as victims in this way I would think goes against feminism, and erasing the male victims is a weird sort of man hating thing. When I was in college in my late thirties I had a social work professor and some female classmates who actually believed that all men were perpetrators. When I objected I was shot down. I would hate to be in college now, it's even worse. Raising a son nowadays is difficult and scary- they can be accused at any time regardless of innocence.

[Gary]

Somerandom wrote: "But like you said, the definition as it stands now does nothing to help. It erases male victims, it paints women as defenseless damsels and men as predators prowling the streets."

Honestly, I don't think it really does that. Rather, it seems to me that the concept of rape culture includes the issues you raise, and in doing so it includes their relatively frequency. Generally speaking, the kinds of sexual assaults you mention absolutely do happen, but they are somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% the cases. (That is, males are the victim of about 1 in 6 sex crimes, and women perpetrate about 1 in 12 sex crimes.) It depends on the country, time and place of study, of course, but the stats fall within a pretty narrow variation. The majority of the sex crimes that are committed are male perpetrators who have female targets. And not by a small margin. Males perpetrate sex crimes 90-5% of the time. Males are the victims of sex crimes about 12-16% of the time. Again, there are standard variations based on time, place, sample size, etc.

So, given that reality, it's sensible that the kinds of crimes that occur more often get the lion's share of the attention. Again, other cases should get due attention, and specific situations should be treated on a case-by-case basis, but there's an odd implication being made by those who present the argument that not all cases of sexual assaults are men targeting women. That is, they make that statement and then... what? What's the conclusion? What's the point? They're point seems to be to dismiss the whole situation. The logic is, "Well, not all cases are like that... so let's either equate all cases despite their relative frequency or even dismiss the majority in favor of focusing on the minority."

This is a generalized rhetorical tactic these days. So, for instance, a civil rights group starts up in response to police shooting of unarmed black men, calls itself "Black Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" is the response. Well, if "All Lives Matter" shouldn't that prioritize the frequency of life-taking? And the fact that the life takers in the cases that sparked the original movement have a specific public role/duty is a factor that can't reasonably be ignored.... But that's the result of the diffusion of the issue.

A call for perfected equality in the face of an equality imbalance is, in effect, an attempt to enforce the status quo through paralysis. When a disempowered group points out the inequality and the group in power first demands that a much less statistically likely aspect of the issue be address along with it, that is an attempt to stay progress by suggesting that attention be diverted from the proximate problem to the less proximate one, and maybe even that less proximate one must be addressed first.

If someone is serious about including male victims in the concept of rape culture then they can just do that. Realistically, the people in that community are not going to object to someone standing up and raising awareness about the breadth of the issue, because the issue is—despite the characterization given here—about a broad, cultural situation. (Edit: Hence the term "rape culture" itself.) However, I think you'll find that that's not the tactic that's being employed. Rather, they suggest that the lack of total and instant success means total and irretrievable failure. All social progress must be complete, perfect, instant and universal or it is discounted as idealistic dreamers too short-sighted to realize the limitations of their vision.

This is not, BTW, a tactic employed exclusively by one political side or the other. These days, of course, you'll hear it coming from folks like the so-called Alt-Right with alarming frequency, but cherry-picking information is a long-time socio-political tactic. Nowadays it seems to have trickled into every possible situation.

Of course, it ignores that progress is an incremental process, but ignoring that reality is part of the purpose of the counter-argument. It is, in effect, a dodge meant to distract people from the subject at hand. And very often it works. I'd like to think that's because people don't recognize the logical errors with which they are presented, but it might not be that rational. It's probably just a matter of people being easily distracted.

[Mickey]

Well, Somerandom, it seems you will be getting two pieces of advice that are directly opposed to each other. Gary is in effect saying that you must generalize more (by thinking of rape as a tool men use to subjugate women which is how Solnit has defined "rape culture"), and I would suggest you generalize less. My contention with your post is that you define a rape victim's experience based on the victim's gender and the gender of the assailant (boys who are raped by men feel this, boys who are raped by women feel this). This is a very "macro" way of thinking about it that puts an actual person's experiences into a box based on factors like gender, which is falling into the same sort of trap as someone who actually believes in "rape culture".

Think of it this way: Suppose you are telling someone the story of any experiences you might have had, and they keep interrupting you to tell you that because of your age, gender, and race, you felt x. y, and z. Is this person really receptive to hearing of your experiences? People and what happens to them and how it feels to them have to be understood on a case by case basis and to generalize about that discourages openness. In short, they should be asked and listened to.

You can see a lot of these misunderstandings in cases of child abductions. One big misunderstanding is that if a child has an opportunity to end the abuse by running away or telling someone and the child does not do this, that this implies consent. The first time I was in a discussion about Lolita, another poster asked me why she did not leave the hotel the next day. There are also real-life scenarios of people questioning why abducted children like Shawn Hornbeck and Elizabeth Smart did not tell people. I have never seen this brought up by those interested in pushing the term "rape culture", because their aim is not to help victims or raise awareness of people's general ignorance of child abuse.

Gary's assertion that rejecting "rape culture" is "ignoring reality" is not a logical position. The exclusion of male victims and the inclusion of all females as victims does not help rape victims or the general public understand more about rape as it exists. There's no reason why the problem of rape has to be dealt with on a piecemeal gender-by-gender basis. The only reason why it's being suggested is because they want to cynically use the issue to create a narrative of men as predators and women as victims.

[Mickey]

Gary wrote: "If someone is serious about including male victims in the concept of rape culture then they can just do that. Realistically, the people in that community is going to object to someone standing up and raising awareness about the breadth of the issue, because the issue is—despite the characterization given here—about a broad, cultural issue. However, I think you'll find that that's not the tactic that's being employed. Rather, they suggest that the lack of total and instant success means total and irretrievable failure. All social progress must be complete, perfect, instant and universal or it is discounted as idealistic dreamers too short-sighted to realize the limitations of their vision."

Solnit's definition of rape culture:

Rape culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards
women’s rights and safety. Rape culture affects every woman. Most women and girls limit their behavior because of the existence of rape. Most women and girls live in fear of rape. Men, in general, do not. That’s how rape functions as a powerful means by which the whole female population is held in a subordinate position to the whole male population, even though many men don’t rape, and many women are never victims of rape.

directly states that men do not live in fear of rape and that rape is, in fact, a means to hold females down in relation to males. It is expressly women's bodies and their safety that is threatened. I don't see how you can include male victims so easily into this pattern. I don't see how you can include women abusers into this pattern, either.

Accepting the idea of a "rape culture" is not necessary to work on the problem of rape. It could be itself termed a distraction. It is a false narrative of what rape is, and with its equivocations, it does nothing to further understanding.

I would not term people who knowingly push the false narrative of "rape culture" as idealistic dreamers. It's not to help society progress further that they depict culture as a threatening place with shadowy forces bent on keeping women down. On the contrary, it's a paranoid and self-serving fantasy for people who, for whatever reason, are vulnerable to that particular mindset.

[Anne]

Sorry I have to fix the typos since the entry was from my phone:
I do need to get out of this conversation after so long I'll just say I always agree with Gary and like the way Mickey phrases things even if I don't agree with them. Rape is a spoil of war, until recently raping your spouse was legal. How is that not a cultural thing? Boys are not immune. Look at the dancing boys of Afghanistan, heartbreaking. Calling it rape culture is imo not being paranoid but rather it's naming it and taking control of it and holding the people who perpetrate accountable. It's a powerful thing. Lastly, imo being a feminist is just being an ally of women, why wouldn't I and all of us be that? I'm also an ally of men and people of color and lgbtq people and police and crime victims and refugees and everybody who wants to live in peace and be treated equally and doesn't consider themselves superior to others.

[Mickey]

Anne wrote:"Lastly, imo being a feminist is just being an ally of women, why wouldn't I and all of us be that?"

How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of women do not identify themselves as feminist if being a feminist is "just being an ally to women"? It seems that such an organization would be truly popular, yet it is undeniably not. Not looking beyond the slogans and catchphrases of an movement is very naive and antithetical to the responsibilities of a good citizen. Feminism, using Solnit's definition of "rape culture" which does exclude men as victims, is setting up a fantasy of false righteousness, where they battle the forces of darkness to liberate women. This is all over Solnit's prose.


Anne wrote: "Calling it rape culture is imo not being paranoid but rather it's naming it and taking control of it and holding the people who perpetrate accountable. It's a powerful thing."

Perhaps you should consider if it should be up to a group of people who may or may not have much experience with rape to be the ones "naming it, taking control of it, and holding people who perpetrate it responsible". Isn't that the prerogative of the rape survivors? Shouldn't that rest in their hands and not some group who decides to co-opt the issue (and cut out those people who don't fit their narrow views of it)? Feminists are using rape to paint a false picture of the culture at large. That is not empowering to victims at all, and it's not meant to be. A large group of people who aren't used to thinking critically (and so, fall for the slogans) or those (like Gary) who have chosen to live in a fantasy of virtuous right-thinking vs. rape apologists are a part of the problem.

We do not live in a "rape culture". The culture at large is not patting Humbert Humbert on the back for his actions. Hornbeck and Smart's abusers are in jail. In fact, Hornbeck's abuser was stabbed with an ice pick by another inmate who said he was motivated by outrage at his crimes. Even in jail, rapists are one of the most reviled subset among other criminals. How can these things exist in a "rape culture" that encourages men to rape and seeks to excuse them? These are not isolated incidents. If you claim that there's a systemic bias in favor of the perpetrator, then the system being the same one, we should see a consistent bias towards them. While there are cases of people who get light sentences for rape and many who are never brought to justice, this is because of people and individual circumstances, not the culture at large. The culture I live in (America) condemns rape.

What I do think would be helpful (but I will venture to guess that feminists will not be the group to supply this) would be to work on discussing those cases not at the extreme end of the spectrum which are easily identifiable (such as cases like Lolita's of child abduction by a stranger or a relative stranger) and horrific and discuss more everyday occurrences. Most cases would fall in a grayer area, and it's difficult for people (children especially) to understand the more subtle forms. But feminists, having such huge credibility problems, would not be effective advocates even if they were interested (which I doubt) in combating that.