Indeed, a culture of bars, discos, alcohol, strip shows, and similar nasty things definitely creates an environment ripe for trouble in the context of sex offenses…
But to claim that a society in which free sex exists (any secular society in the world) shouldn’t be horrified by an act of rape—
that’s like telling fans of boxing and other aggressive fighting competitions (MMA, UFC) that they shouldn’t be so shocked by a violent lynching someone went through??

Indeed, נכון. I would say the same thing to them. A violent society should not be shocked by violence. And if it is shocked, then it should reexamine the atmosphere it creates regarding violence. A completely valid analogy.
And again, I’m not claiming that in a permissive society this is legitimate. I’m claiming that the exaggerated shock is inconsistent. That’s all.

This is one of the few times I don’t agree with you at all….☺

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

From my acquaintance, most people involved in combat sports are not especially violent people.

David,
I don’t believe that people with a refined character would go compete in ring fights. True, the event is safe for legal reasons, but I don’t believe that the people who choose to engage in this are gentle people. I don’t have empirical data on this, but that reasoning seems pretty logical to me.
It’s a bit like saying that forceful people might go into ballet dancing. It’s possible, but it doesn’t seem especially likely to me.

Personally, I’m horrified just by seeing this gladiator spectacle…

David,
There is also an enormous distance between consensual sex and rape…… and therefore the claim that a society with free consensual sex shouldn’t be so shocked by a case of rape seems very problematic to me.

Avi, it seems to me that you didn’t understand the claim.
The claim is that what makes rape a special and exceptional disaster (far beyond someone, say, shoving you in line, which is also a case of violence and bodily coercion in every sense, or even beyond a forced kiss) is the cultural meaning that 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 the religious sense, but in terms of importance and value), therefore violating and coercing in that realm is considered an exceptional disaster.
By contrast, if one generally relates to sexual relations as something that is not a big deal, then it follows that rape too is not much beyond being shoved in line (in terms of coercion, they are equal after all. Here too and there too you have canceled another person’s bodily autonomy).
The fact that some people treat sexual relations lightly, like any other banal activity, and yet treat rape as a greater disaster than any other bodily coercion is, to some degree, contradictory.
(This is a contradiction that most people live with and contain. And the question whether it affects the rate of rape cases is an empirical question, one that is not so easy to test. Presumably it does.)

In my estimation, a society in which cage fights are accepted as a form of entertainment is a violent society, even if you’re right that the fighters themselves are delicate souls from Babylonian tractate Hannah (and I very much doubt it).

Roni,
I really do not agree with your analysis.
What you’re saying is really bizarre, if you’ll forgive me….. The banality of sexual relations in a permissive society does not determine or affect at all the tragic shock of a case of rape, but rather the coercion itself!!! Even a woman who sleeps with two men a week on average out of complete choice and willingness will go through a terrible disaster and tragedy if someone rapes her against her will, just like a Catholic nun would…..
A person who hates eating fish will throw up if they force it into his mouth, even if in general he is a glutton who loves to eat….
The things Dr. Michi wrote here (with all my respect for him) are bizarre to the point of being alarming; I would recommend he rethink them…

Avi, I don’t understand why it is so hard to understand a claim as simple and clear as the one I made and explained several times already. If sexual relations (consensual ones) in our society are as accessible as eating a popsicle, then it is no wonder that on the violent and instinct-driven margins of society they are forced on women. The rapist does not see his act as shocking violence, even if the woman does perceive it that way. I did not say that in a permissive society it hurts the woman less, but that there is a greater chance that it will happen.
By the way, the very fact that this constitutes such a devastating injury in itself says that society’s attitude toward sex is problematic, because apparently it is not like eating a popsicle, despite attempts to present it that way.
I hope I have dispelled, even slightly, your deep anxiety over my bizarre remarks.

Avi,
What you wrote actually strengthens my point.
You wrote:
“A person who hates eating fish will throw up if they force it into his mouth, even if in general he is a glutton who loves to eat.”
Let’s continue with your example: would a person who forces a fish into your mouth be condemned forever? Would many people think they wished death upon him because of what he did?
The answer is no.
Why not? Because although what he did is complete coercion (no less than rape), the act is less severe in our eyes than rape. Because eating is banal, whereas sexual relations are not banal in our eyes.
Permissive society lives with a contradiction: on the one hand a banal attitude, and on the other a severe attitude. And it is not only the coercion element that causes the severity—shoving in line is also coercion—but rather a deep perception of sex as something that is supposed to be non-banal.

Dr. Michi, it is very clear that you do not understand.
So I’ll try one more time (the last time)… The degree of shock at a coercive act of rape has absolutely nothing to do with sexual freedom! These are two completely different aspects! There is here an element of coercion versus lack of coercion that places the cases light-years apart and does not allow the connection you created between the degree of shock and the degree of permissiveness.
What is there in common between consensual sex and rape? The common denominator is a man penetrating a woman, but what does penetration of a woman with her full consent have to do with penetration by force and coercion??!!
Your approach really is shocking—a combination of the analytic coldness of a precise-sciences person with a somewhat Haredi approach to sex offenses….

I confess my guilt. I can’t manage to understand baseless arguments, even when they are repeated again and again, especially when I have already explained the mistake.

Dr. Michi,
I do not have difficulty understanding the logical arguments that led you to the above theory, nor in understanding the cultural significance and its importance for grasping your claims. My argument is that the basis of your theory is incorrect, namely, the claims that sex is generally not a matter of significance in a permissive society, or that money is generally not a matter of significance in a communist society, are not correct in themselves, and therefore all the logical arguments built on the truth of those claims cannot be correct either. Money is a matter of significance even in a communist society; only the way it is distributed is different. The different attitude does not make interest in money irrelevant; only the social meaning is different. Sex is definitely a matter of significance even in a permissive society, and the permissive attitude toward one particular form of its expression does not mean that it is not in itself a matter of significance. If sex were generally not a matter of significance, then all the logical arguments derived from that claim would indeed be reasonable.

I can only repeat for the umpteenth time what I claimed. In a permissive society, the attitude toward sex is not like it is in a conservative society. My claim does not concern the question of how much it hurts a woman when this is done by rape, but rather society’s expectations of potential offenders. A society that treats sex permissively should understand that one can expect people not to make much of it (even if it does not like that), and therefore it is only to be expected that the violent margins will allow themselves to do it even by rape. The cries over the matter do indeed, in my view too, reflect the perception that sex is not some trivial thing, but those crying out are not willing to understand that if that is indeed the case, they should be honest and change the social attitude toward sex that they themselves encourage.
Take, for example, saying “yes.” You should not be surprised that in a permissive society saying “yes” is far 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 is an inherent problem here because the deeper social assumptions in that society convey something else.
There is no point in repeating again and again how much this hurts, because that is not the subject of the discussion. I don’t understand what is unclear in what I keep explaining. The same argument is being repeated here again and again, and I have already answered it several times.

But rape is a violent assault on a person. Even a country that suffers from wars and has a high percentage of soldiers would still be shocked by a violent assault on a person in the street.
Rape should not be different from any other violent assault such as robbery or murder.
The fact that sex is permitted does not mean one cannot be horrified by sexual assault, just as the fact that killing is sometimes necessary does not mean one cannot be horrified by murder.

The claim that if something is acceptable under consent and people do not make a big deal of it, then one should also not make a big deal if the very same thing is done to a person without his consent, and especially against his will and resistance, is extremely puzzling.

For example, if I regard piercings and/or tattoos as routine things not to make a big deal of, when this is done to someone who agrees to it of course, does that mean I should also regard doing a piercing and/or tattoo on someone who does not agree to it as routine and not make a big deal of it? Really? Because with all due respect, that is what follows from the claim about not making a big deal out of consensual sex at the age of consent in permissive society.

In short, the question of consent carries essential weight in deciding whether the act is considered routine and legitimate or whether a big deal should be made of it. The weight should be given to the question whether performing the act on a person who does not consent violates his bodily rights, his dignity, his bodily integrity, etc., and how severe that violation is.

Who said otherwise? What I argued in that column was that although it is indeed an improper act, the depth of the trauma attached to it should depend on social norms. If intimate relations are an accepted norm in society, then forcing intimate relations cannot be considered as traumatic and evil as in a society where such acts are out of bounds.

Who said otherwise? You did, in your arguments. How and why? With statements such as,

“… and more than that, I claimed that someone who presents the act as something banal cannot then cry out afterward as though it were the destruction of the world. This is no different from any kind of violence …”

“… And again, I’m not claiming that in a permissive society this is legitimate. I’m claiming that the exaggerated shock is inconsistent. That’s all …”

And other things in that style. From your words it follows that as long as the act when consensual is no big deal, then doing the act without consent should not lead to greater shock than doing any other act without consent, without taking into account that although two acts done with consent can both be legitimate, doing one without consent may be far more severe than doing the other without consent. Why? Because acts can have different effects on the level of violation of a person’s rights over his body, violation of his dignity, etc. So according to your claim, doing a piercing or tattoo on a person without consent should not be a more serious matter than punching another person in the face. Fortunately, you clarify that you do not accept that, but that is the practical implication of your words.

So no—even in a permissive society, where consensual sex at the age of consent is legitimate and people don’t make a big deal of it, that does not lead to the conclusion that rape is no different from any other act of violence, or that it should not lead to greater shock than other acts, etc.

Either I lost you or you lost me. In every reply you repeat yourself and put a question mark at the end. Read again and you’ll see that everything was answered. There’s no point continuing this.

At first glance, there could be a situation in which sexual permissiveness would not slide 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 another.
A person’s ability to place limits on himself makes it easier for him to cope with his urges.

With blessings for a good sealing [in the Book of Life],, Ami’oz Yaron Shenitzla”r

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 own statements that were quoted and that lead to a conclusion you claim you are not claiming, then there is indeed no reason to continue.

May you be sealed for a good year.

Everyone is now “agreeing” to insert into their children’s bodies something that two years ago they wouldn’t have dared.
They were raped into “agreeing” through the use of brainwashing methods.

This is rape in every sense.