Rape in a permissive society

Indeed, a culture of bars, discos, alcohol, strip shows, etc. in the city of Mari'in Bishin certainly creates an environment prone to disaster in the context of sexual offenses.
But to claim that a society in which free sex exists (any secular society in the world) should not be shocked by an act of rape is like telling fans of boxing and other aggressive fighting competitions (MMA, UFC) that they should not be so shocked by a violent lynching incident that someone went through??

Indeed true. I would tell them the same thing. A violent society should not be shocked by violence. And if it is shocked, it should reexamine the atmosphere it creates in relation to violence. An analogy is absolutely correct.
Again, I am not claiming that in a permissive society this is legitimate. I am claiming that the excessive shock is inconsistent. That is all

This is another one of the few times I completely disagree with you.☺

There is a big difference between a ring fight and violence.
In a ring fight, both fighters enter it by choice, in a violent event the attacked party does not choose to enter it.
In a ring fight there is supervision by judges and doctors, the environment is relatively safe and either side can surrender and stop the fight. The judge can stop the fight if he sees that it has no sporting value.

From what I know, most people who engage in combat sports are not particularly violent people.

David,
I don't believe that people of refined character would go and compete in ring fights. While the event is safe for legal reasons, I don't believe that those people who choose to engage in it are refined people. Although I don't have empirical data on this, this explanation seems quite logical to me.
It's a bit like saying that it's possible for powerful people to go to ballet dancing, it's possible but I don't think it's very likely.

I personally am shocked by the mere sight of this gladiator show…

David
There is also a huge distance between consensual sex and rape, so the claim that a society in which there is free, consensual sex should not be so shocked by a rape case is very problematic in my opinion.

Father, I don't think you understood the argument.
The argument is that what makes rape a special and exceptional disaster (much more than someone, let's say, pushing you in line, which is also a case of violence and physical coercion for everything. Or even beyond a forced kiss), is the cultural meaning we attribute to sexual relations in general.
Since sexual relations are something special and almost sacred (sacred in a borrowed sense, of course. Not in a religious sense, but in terms of importance and value), therefore the harm and coercion in them is considered an exceptional disaster.
On the other hand, if sexual relations are generally treated as something that is not a “big deal”, it follows that rape is not much more than pushing you in line (in terms of coercion, which is equal in this. Here and here you have abolished the physical autonomy of the other person).
The fact that some people treat sex as casually as any other banal act, and yet treat rape as a greater disaster than any other physical coercion, is somewhat paradoxical.
(This is a contradiction that most people live with and embrace. And the question of whether it has an effect on the rate of rape is a question for an empirical test, which is not so easy to perform. It is likely that it does.)

In my opinion, a society in which bullfighting is accepted as a form of entertainment is a violent society, even if you are right that the bullfighters themselves are Hannah of Babylon (and I highly doubt it).

Roni
I really don't agree with your analysis.
Your words are really delusional (after forgiveness)…..The banality of sexual relations in a permissive society does not determine or affect at all the tragic shock of a rape case, but the very coercion!!! Even a girl who sleeps with two men on average a week out of choice and absolute desire will go through a very difficult disaster and tragedy if someone rapes her against her will, just like a Catholic nun would go through…..
A person who hates eating fish will vomit them if they are forced into his mouth, even if he is generally a glutton who loves to eat very much….
The things that Dr. Mickey wrote here (with all due respect to him) are so alarming, I would recommend that he think about them again…

Father, I don't understand why it's so hard to understand such a simple and clear argument as I've argued and explained several times already. If (consensual) sex in our society is as accessible as eating a popsicle, then it's no wonder that the violent and instinctual fringes of society force it on women. The rapist doesn't see his act as shocking violence, even if the woman does perceive it that way. I didn't say that in a permissive society it's less painful for the woman, but that there's a greater chance that it will happen.
By the way, the fact that this constitutes such a serious injury in itself means that society's attitude towards sex is problematic, because it's probably not eating a popsicle, even though they try to present it that way.
I hope I've dispelled even a little of your deep anxiety about my delusional remarks.

Father,
What you wrote actually reinforces my words.
You wrote:
“A person who hates eating fish will vomit them if they are forced into his mouth, even if he is generally a glutton who loves to eat very much”.
Let's continue with your example, will such a person who forces a fish into your mouth be eternally disgraced? Will there be many people who think that they would wish him dead because of what he did?
The answer is – No.
Why not? Because although what he did is absolute coercion (no less than rape), it is less serious in our eyes than rape. Because eating is banal, while sexual intercourse is not banal in our eyes.
Matriarchal society lives in contradiction, on the one hand a banal attitude, and on the other hand a strict attitude (and not only the degree of coercion causes aggravation. Pushing in line is also coercion. But a deep perception of sexual intercourse as something that should not be banal).

Dr. Michi, it is clear that you do not understand.
Therefore, I will try one more time (last time)... The degree of shock from a forced act of rape has nothing to do with sexual promiscuity at all! These two views are completely different! There is an element of coercion versus lack of coercion here that distances the cases by light years and does not allow for the connection you have made between the degree of shock and the degree of permissiveness.
What is the difference between consensual sex and rape? The common side of them is the penetration of a man into a woman, but what about penetration into a woman with her complete desire to penetrate her by force and coercion??!!
Your approach is indeed shocking, a combination of the analytical coolness of a man of exact sciences with a (somewhat) ultra-Orthodox approach to sexual offenses...

I admit my guilt. I can't understand unfounded arguments, even if they are repeated over and over again, especially when I have already explained the mistake.

Dr. Michi,
I have no difficulty understanding the logical arguments that led you to the above theory, nor in understanding the cultural significance and its importance for understanding your claims. My claim is that the basis of your theory is incorrect, namely the claims that sex is not an issue in general in a permissive society or that money is not an issue in general in a communist society are not true in themselves, and therefore all the logical arguments that were based on the truth of these claims cannot be correct. Money is an issue in a communist society as well, but the manner in which it is distributed is different. The different attitude does not make the issue of money irrelevant, only the social meaning is different; sex is certainly an issue in a permissive society as well, and the permissive attitude toward a particular form of its expression does not mean that it is not an issue in itself. If sex were not an issue in general, then all the logical arguments derived from this claim would be plausible.

I can only repeat for the umpteenth time what I argued. In a permissive society, the attitude towards sex is not the same as in a conservative society. My argument does not concern the question of how much it harms a woman when it is done through rape, but rather the expectations of society from potential offenders. A society that treats sex in a permissive manner needs to understand that people are not expected to make a big deal out of it (even if they don't like it), and therefore it is only to be expected that violent marginals will allow themselves to do it even through rape. The outcry against the matter indeed, in my opinion, reflects the perception that sex is not a trivial matter, but those who are shouting are not willing to understand that if this is indeed the case, they must be honest and change the social attitude that they themselves encourage towards sex.
Take saying "yes" as an example. Don't be surprised that in a permissive society, saying "yes" is much less unequivocal than what is required in a non-permissive society. In a conservative society, as long as they haven't said “yes” it's “no”. In a permissive society, as long as they haven't said “no” it's “yes”. The outcry is trying to change this, but there's an inherent problem here because the depth perceptions in this society convey something else.
There's no point in repeating over and over again how offensive this is, because that's not the topic of the discussion. I don't understand what's unclear in what I'm repeating and explaining. The same argument is being repeated over and over again and I've already answered it several times.

But rape is a violent attack on a person. Even in a country that suffers from wars with a high percentage of soldiers, a violent attack on a person on the street will still cause shock.
Rape should not be any different from any other violent attack such as robbery or murder.
Just because sex is permitted does not mean that one cannot be shocked by sexual assault, just as if killing is sometimes necessary does not mean that one cannot be shocked by murder.

The claim that if something is consensual and not an issue, then it should not be an issue if the same thing is done to a person without their consent, and especially against their opinion and opposition to it, is extremely puzzling.

For example, if I consider piercing and/or tattoos to be a routine thing that should not be an issue, when it is done to someone who agrees to have it done to them of course, does that mean that I should not consider performing a piercing and/or tattoo on a person who does not consent to it as a routine thing as well and not make an issue of it? Really? Because with all due respect, this is what stems from the misconception about not making an issue of consensual sex and the age of consent in a permissive society.

In short, the question of consent has substantial weight in the question of whether the act will be considered a routine and legitimate matter or whether it will be made an issue. Weight should be given to the question of whether performing the act on a person who does not consent to it violates his right to his body, his dignity, his integrity, etc., and what the severity of this violation is.

Who said it wasn't? What I argued in the above column is that while it is an inappropriate act, the traumatic depth attached to it should depend on social norms. If marital relations are an accepted norm in society, then forcing marital relations cannot be considered as traumatic and bad as in a society where these acts would not be done.

Who said no? You said no in your claims. How and why? With things like,

“… And even more than that, I argued that someone who presents the act as something banal cannot later cry out as if it were the destruction of the world. It is no different from any violence …”

“… And again, I am not claiming that in a permissive society this is legitimate. I am claiming that the excessive shock is inconsistent. That is all …”

And other things like that. According to your words, it appears that as long as the act is consensual, then doing the act without consent should not lead to greater shock than doing the other act without consent, without considering the fact that although two consensual acts can be legitimate, doing one without consent can be much more serious than doing the other without consent. Why? Because actions can have a different impact on the level of violation of a person's right to their body, violation of their dignity, etc. Thus, according to your claim, giving a piercing or tattoo to a person without consent should not be a more serious matter than punching another person in the face. Fortunately, you make it clear that you do not accept this, but that is the outcome of your words.

So no, even in a permissive society, where consensual sex at the age of consent is legitimate and is not made an issue of, does not lead to the conclusion that rape is no different from any other act of violence, should not lead to greater shock than other acts, etc.

Either I lost you or you lost me. You repeat every answer and put a question mark at the end. Read again and you will see that everything has been answered. There is no point in continuing this.

It may seem that right-wing permissiveness will not spill over into moral permissiveness, but the risk is great that a person who puts himself and his pleasures at the center – ‘will not stop at red’ even when his pleasures involve harming and humiliating others.
A person's ability to set limits for himself – makes it easier for him to deal with his impulses.

With the blessing of ‘Good Blocking’, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”

Sorry, I read it again … twice … but contrary to your claim, not everything was answered. But I definitely agree with you, if you are not willing to address your quoted statements that lead to the conclusion that you claim that you do not claim, then there is absolutely no reason to continue.

Good signature.

Everyone now “agrees” to put something into their children's bodies that two years ago they wouldn't have dared.
They were forced to “agree” using brainwashing methods.

This is rape in every sense of the word.