I'm Building A Rape Tunnel
...THE RAPE TUNNEL has come under fire from Columbus-based feminist groups not to mention local law enforcement officials. The artist plans to place himself in a room, the only entrance or exit being a 22 ft long plywood tunnel constructed by Whitehurst [the artist] himself. Then he says that for the duration of the gallery's opening he will rape anyone who travels through the tunnel into that room.Why is he doing it? For effect:
Why rape?
Because as an artistic gesture, it's one of the most impactful I can think of... It dawned on me that if the work [we local artists] created had never existed, the world would be no different than if it had. None of it mattered to anyone outside of our small and insignificant circle of peers. I wanted something that would have more impact.
...I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision.
...I'll try my very best to sexually assault him or her. The tunnel is constructed in such a way that it gets smaller the closer you get to the project room. The bigger you are, the more difficult it is to comfortably crawl out. And trust me, I have a lot of secrets up my sleeve to ensure that I can overpower anyone that comes through the tunnel.
We can have a discussion on whether this guy is a narcissist, a douchebag, a genius, or an idiot.
We can have a whole discussion on what should be the role of art; whether aesthetics exist independent of our consciousness or only because of its interaction with it; what constitutes art. We can discuss whether Warhol was an innovator by giving the artist the godlike power to decide what things are; since I'm an artist therefore this is art, and it can only be discussed as art-- you would no sooner describe War And Peace as "savory with a hint of paprika--" and in this way, The Rape Tunnel must be judged and described only as art and not as a legal or ethical matter;
or, whether Warhol was a hack who learned the wrong lessons from Marcel "is everyone here a moron?" Duchamp, in which case the Rape Tunnel, its artist, and anyone who goes to see it should be rounded up and sent to the spice mines.
So you can have those discussions: here, here, here, or here. I'm, however, going to discuss something else.
II. One Third Of Respondents Took It Personally
I don't remember where I read this statistic, but it seemed intuitively obvious: 9/10 participants find gang rape pleasurable.
The Rape Tunnel is a hoax; the "art" isn't the tunnel but the story about the (nonexistent) tunnel. The impact is in the (plentiful) discussion about it. Bravo. Score one for trolling.
But if the purpose of the art is the reaction, then the reaction is, in one third of the comments, hate:
- Someone should turn this into the Self Defense Tunnel and shoot this asshole in the fucking face
- I suspect (hope) someone will go in there with a lead pipe and crack his head open as he makes his move.
- Someone please, for the sake of art and humanity, burn this down with him in it.
- You have concealed carry there, right? Mr. Whitehurst, meet my friend Mr. Glock. Problem solved.
- I'll be sure to pack my gloc-9 before checking out this exhibit.
- Probably not real, but if it is we should get someone like Mike Tyson who is tough, mean and has an attitude to go down the tunnel. After Mike beats his ass and bites his ears off, he'll BE art.
- I will be there and i'm big and black
- EYEM COMIN WII SEA WHO GOES MID evil You clownie Girl (by "Always Were Black")
References to raping him were not unexpected:
- It would be quite interesting if someone with HIV decided to take a small trip through the tunnel.
- Are there any large, strong, gay men willing to stop by and just pound this guy a new asshole in his little tunnel? Ya know, for the sake of ART? What a douche. Art fag.
- if Dick Whitehurst is looking for impact, why not send a large convicted male rapist with a long history of brutally abusing cellmates in there with him. i can't imagine a more appropriate happy ending...
- I think that someone with AIDS should stroll down that tunnel and give that loser HIV baby! and then when he's done raping you, say... "I have AIDS, and now you do too! Put that in your pipe and smoke it dirtbag!"
- I just hope someone with AIDS goes in with a bloody diseased anus, gets raped and then asks him how he loves his new AIDS
- he said he'd do anything that comes in-- why don't we send in like random attacking animals like cobras, badgers, porcupines
- two words: Chuck Norris
I'm specifically interested in the third or so people who expressed these sentiments. Why so much hostility? First, you don't have to go in. More importantly, why is this level of anger not directed at actual rapists? Years ago I lived near 180 and Broadway in NYC. That's a Rape Tunnel. If you go there there will be a guy waiting to rape you, sometimes they change shifts but there's always someone on duty. And they're hiring. Go there, get raped. EOM.
But no one is taking the A train north to kill that guy. In fact, you've basically accepted his existence, you've ceded that entire neighborhood to him. You don't like him, of course, but you don't hate him, you just put him out of your mind, you put that entire area out of your mind. Meanwhile, this artist, an ordinary man, who is only raping volunteers, who has not actually raped anyone-- that guy needs AIDS.
"But this guy is a douchebag/evil/narcissistic/idiotic--" And the guy on Broadway isn't? He's raping because he doesn't have healthcare?
"But he's trying to pretend rape is art!" So the crime of impersonating art is worse than actual rape?
etc.
All arguments about rape fail. You don't hate him because he's a rapist, you hate him because he isn't a rapist, he doesn't seem to know he isn't a rapist, and is going to rape anyway.
III. I Just Made You Hate 9 Gang Rapists
Cyril Connolly said, "Hate is the consequence of fear; we fear something before we hate it." He's wrong.
There are no special insights available about the nature of anger; but the nature of rage is well described. If you're willing to agree that the above sentiments are rage-- the irrational, out of proportion blinding hate that anyone else observing it thinks is pretty nutty-- then there's plenty to learn from it.
First, the rage comes because this guy is weaker than us. When we feel safe, when we're not afraid (of him), we're free to explode in rage. (That's why there's road rage and not elevator rage.)
In every horror movie I have ever watched, no one, neither characters nor audience, hated the killer. They're too afraid to hate. In fact, sometimes they side with the killer-- think of an audience of teen boys laughing at the funny/horrifying way the victim was butchered. (And, in reverse: only when they start to hate, when they feel the rage, do they become powerful enough to kill the killer.)
Fear assumes limitless possibilities: the thing you fear has infinite power, infinite resources, infinite resolve, unknown identity. Hate comes when you know them. Cyril Connolly did not say, "if it bleeds, we can kill it." But he should have.
IV. All rage is the result of a narcissistic injury.
I have no evidence, but I'll wager that none of the quoted commentors own guns, are black, or have ever raped anyone. I'll speculate but not wager they've never been in a tunnel before, either.
All rage comes from a narcissistic injury. So the question, "why are these guys so angry?" should be reframed: "what is it about the artist/the scenario that is a threat to their identity?" They're emphatically not afraid of being raped because they don't have to go to the Tunnel. They are only responding to the artist's words. That's the threat.
The reason you do not fear this artist and the reason you hate him is because you about him. You know how he talks, thinks, that he's an artist, etc. You may make incorrect judgments based on this information (e.g all artists are wimps) but it is that you created a coherent picture of him that is relevant.
The man on 180/Broadway whom you don't know at all is "a rapist," he has a right to that identity and you're not messing with it.
This artist isn't a rapist, he has no right to self-identify. How is he allowed to give himself so much power? You can't do it, you couldn't grasp that kind of power, you couldn't be "a rapist," because you're not that kind of person.
But he wasn't either.
V. How To Rape Everyone At Once
There's a lesson here.
If you're running, say, a newspaper, and want the population to fear someone, you focus on identity and offer no other details not consistent with that identity; you fix the identity as primary. You don't describe him, you declare him.
To make people hate someone, start from fear but then attack the identity. Offer otherwise irrelevant information that puts them not in a negative light-- too obvious-- but in a contrasting light.
To everyone else not intent on destroying our civilization to sell copies, there's this advice:
When you find yourself hating someone (who did not directly hurt you) with blinding rage, know for certain that it is not the person you hate at all, but rather something about them that threatens your identity. Find that thing. This single piece of advice can turn your life around, I guarantee it.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
January 23, 2010 5:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://www.geversaircraft.com/wt/wt5x7.htm Third picture down
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 5:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
*second picture
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 6:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
-- Carl Jung
My girlfriends and I were talking about this concept last night . . . about how the people or their traits that we dislike can teach us something about ourselves. It's a funny coincidence that I saw the above quote on The Happiness Project blog (http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2010/01/everything-that-irritates-us-about-others.html)
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 7:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Or maybe some of us just really wanted to see Mr. Smarty Pants try to rape a porcupine.
Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 7:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This was a fantastic read, as usual. Thanks.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 8:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this really sucked sorry. how about an update of the "massacre of the unicorns" post by S. Nasser Ghaemi? or something related.
Score: -30 (30 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 8:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Baudrillard tried to discuss this phenomenon in Simulacra and Simulation. Thank you for explaining its psychological cause.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 8:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll say what I could have said to half your other posts: I don't know of any other person on Earth who would have had that insight. If you'll excuse me, I have to go rearrange my worldview now.
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 9:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
y said:
"this really sucked sorry. how about an update of the "massacre of the unicorns" post by S. Nasser Ghaemi? or something related."
I hate you.
Score: 12 (18 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What if I hate someone for their actions?
IE, a lazy roommate that never helps clean up around the house, leaves his dirty dishes/bottles/garbage all over the place, never cleans up after himself and expects everyone else to clean it up.
I don't feel as though my rage is due to "narcissistic injury"; I feel as though it's due to the person being a jerk. Or perhaps you would define this as being anger, instead of rage?
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 10:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
how does this apply to terrorists and pedophiles?
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 10:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone, you are great. I am just a frustrated malcontent. The post didn't suck entirely- the other commenters seemed to like it- I was just hoping for something else. For example, more about your thoughts on the practice of psychiatry.
I was diagnosed with "severe" ADD by a psychiatrist a month ago. I am 27. College graduate, with honors. never had trouble in school etc. I'm not sure I really believe in ADD/ADHD. What is your opinion on this disorder? What of the beliefs of Dr. Sydney Walker author of "Hyperactivity Hoax" etc.?
My doctor prescribed me ritalin and essentially I am just abusing it as I am very tired all the time and trying to establish myself at work. 90-100 mg/day. I tend to think I might simply have an underlying medical condition.
Psychiatry mystifies me. Wouldn't my doctor- who went to medical school- want to know more about my diet and daily routine, medical history, maybe run some tests to check for virus etc. before giving me diagnosis. ?
Score: -5 (13 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 11:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A pleasure to read, as always. Thank you, Alone, for writing.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 23, 2010 11:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Since you questioned whether narcissists are actually charming before, thought you'd be interested in this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have a comment and a question:
This was a very interesting article, I am glad I stumbled upon it...I will check back often for more great articles.
There really is a tunnel in New York where you KNOW rapists live? Everyone knows they live and 'work' there and they just get away with it? I don't know about other places in the US, but in Washington State, those rapists would be hunted to near extinction. If the police don't do anything about it, why don't the people? How are self-respecting males letting this happen in their city?!?! Sorry for the rant, but I truly don't get it...
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 3:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So, basically, when someone one finds themselves with strong negative emotions for no reason at all, the emotions are about YOU and not THEM. Right? That's pretty self evident. Although, I don't always bother to assess why I have strong negative emotions about people, but now you have made it obvious that I should.
I am thinking of all the people I have strong negative feelings about, and all of those people fall into one of two categories:
1) Have offended/insulted me in some way
2) Have offended/insulted others that I like
I generally don't feel intense angry rageful feelings about people who have not done something wrong -- either to me, someone or like, or in general ( e.g. the monstrous "austrian father" made me feel intense rageful anger).
I don't get road rage, but for a rare fleeting minute, and when I do get road rage, it is always because I feel frustrated and not because I am mad at anyone (although, there were a few times I felt road rage AT a person, it's usually because they did something extremely dangerous, e.g. slowing down to turn BEFORE turning on their turn signal when I was only 2 car length behind in a residential area.... or that one dude who was driving in reverse in the middle of TWO lanes on a dark highway w. poor visibility (??WTF??) and I nearly crashed into him... duhhh).
SO yea, I generally don't get ragefully angry at people for no reason, unless they do something shitty, offensive, dangerous to myself or others.
I think I'm immune to narcissistic rage. Or at least, I am a lot less narcissistic than others. I'm pretty autisticish and very unconcerned with status / rank so maybe that's it. Shrugs.
Maybe I'm not getting it, but, at least of myself, I don't find myself with narcissistic rage. I can't think of a single event... and the ones that come close (e.g. feeling enraged with my boss who is inept) are still not true narcissistic rage because there is a reason behind it (my boss hurts all the staff members by being so inept and making us do her work, and this is the reason I hate her).
I generally don't hate people unless they do something bad and hurt others.
I didn't find myself angry at the "rape tunnel" artist, either... at first I felt shocked, but in a very fascinated way ( I knew there was more to the story and he couldn't be serious). At no point did I feel angry because I knew he really wasn't going to rape anyone, because a brutal rapist generally doesn't go around advertising it, given our society/jail system and all. I knew that he must have been using the rape tunnel as a metaphor related to his relationship between himself, his art, and the world, e.g. basically he's recreating "rape me" by kurt cobain (k. cobain wrote the song "rape me" to describe the way he perceived the intrusive nature of fame and artistic freedom, to illustrate this point he sung the song on SNL "defying" the rules, in a most ironic demonstration). And, there is always the attention factor too (talk about rape, get attention).
My perspective of the 1/3 who felt angry... I think they are just angry people looking for an excuse to vent angry emotions. Teenage boys with too much testosterone and the like. People with low serotonin/celexa deficit. Etc. They vent the anger here because this artist is a safe target - not only is he a wimpy artist "provoking" people to anger... but he is a wimpy artist who can't even HEAR OR SEE them flapping off. This guy is a perfect target for people's anger, if people are angry. It's like a white guy walking around a black neighborhood with a sign that says "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE". A little wimpy artist is telling the world he's going to rape people? Any non-angry person is just going to laugh (because it is obvious that the threat is empty and it is just some stupid artistic expression)... but, that's going to insight the type of person looking to wail on an easy target due to an excess of anger.
I don't know if narcissism even applies, but I guess maybe it does.
Score: -3 (11 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 3:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just really want to know what the legal position is if someone goes in there and kills him. Could this be a way to legalize dueling? I WANT TO KNOW SO BAD AND NOW YOU TELL ME THIS IS ALL FAKE. :( :( :(
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 3:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
BTW, y, I'm pretty sure alone was being ironic.
He wrote a post about how strong negative emotions are always a sign of narcissistic injury... and then he tells you that he hates you. Get it?
Alone is a sophisticated enough guy to avoid spilling his guts in a personality disordered type way on the interwebz .
Silly :D
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 3:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And it would have to be fake, in the US, because no gallery's insurance would allow the liability. I feel dumb now. But not angry. Does that mean I am definitely not a narcissist? Because I worry about that.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 3:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
On a loosely related note, yesterday I found myself trying to mentally experience/understand what the mental state must be of a man who rapes someone. I concluded that I could never possibly understand it. I could not ever understand that level of psychopathic behavior, or the various components of it (anger enough to commit violence against an innocent person, impulsivity enough to completely disregard the future consequences, lack of empathy enough to disregard another person's pain and suffering directly under your control, etc etc etc).
I then understood in that moment of time that a rapist is probably the most psychopathic/antisocial of all common criminals (serial killers like dahmer still hold the prize, obviously, but those types of people are very rare freaks of nature, whereas rapists are common criminals). Rape is probably one of the most psychopathic crimes possible, as the only real motivation is sex, and that doesn't make enough sense to justify it. Other crimes involve very clear benefits/gains which make them more human e.g. armed robbery drug trading prostitution grand theft ... murder is usually rarely an intent and more a means... but rape doesn't make sense as a motivation, as sex can be obtained with equal effort as involved with rape, sans violence. Assuming, of course, the motivation for the rape was sex (which it often is), but this is not always true.
Anyway, yea. I just find it interesting I was thinking about the mental state of rapists and then you write this blog post.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 4:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice post. I felt fear towards psychiatry for many years, from my first treatment of torture from the medical professionals. Afterwards, if I was to have some "narcissistic injury", I'ld get angry wouldn't I? Then I would need-get some more helpful medical treatment of poisons and restraints from psychiatry. Beautiful trap you got there.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 5:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I once made acquaintances with someone, while playing WoW. We then met physically, along with others. In the span of three days, he slept a total of 6 hours or so. He'd play WII tennis from somewhere around 10-12 pm until 4 am, and then wake up around 6-7. He stayed religiously away from caffein in any form. I got tired just being in the same room, just watching him.
When we talked online next, I told him that I admired his energy. He then told me he had ADHD. His friend told me later that he wasn't normally this bad - he'd been nervous about meeting us.
There is no question in my mind that there is a real condition out there, which can be labelled ADHD. Does that label get abused? Undoubtedly.Should your doctor look at your life as a whole before sticking such a diagnosis to you? Of course he should. Is he going to? Well, what do you think?
Question is though, why can't you? The difference between you and a doctor is admittedly a lot of years of study, and a good deal of field experience, but you have unique insight that the doctor does not: You live with yourself 24/7. So, why not start with the basics that the doctor should have, before assuming that this was a condition best fixed with drugs: Are you sleeping right, are you eating properly, are you stuffing yourself with sugar and caffein? Some things in life are pretty simple to solve, but you do have to identify the problem first.
And that, by the way, goes for everyone, no matter if they title themselves MD or PhD or whatever. None of these matter, if no one is asking the right questions, if they are more interested in results than getting to the root. Those titles are just an indication, not hard evidence that the person on the other side of the table knows more about what is going on inside of you than you do. I mean, how do you even know that Alone is qualified to offer an opinion on ADHD? Because he titles his anonymous online blog "The Last Psychiatrist"?
What makes me even qualified to comment?
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 5:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
y - re: ADHD... this diagnosis is almost always bullshit. It started out as a way for narcissistic parents to manipulate their children into being something they aren't (not cut out for professional work).
"My kid doesn't like to read, fidgets a lot, can't concentrate, he'll never be a doctor/lawyer like I wanted him to be".
As a solution to the image-conscious parent's dilemma (having a soldier/cop/EMT personnel/entertainer for a child instead of a well studied professional), doctors began prescribing stimulant drugs to kids.
Now, EVERY kid can make their parents proud and be a doctor / lawyer... personality / choice is less of a "problem" now.
When adults realized that stimulants feel good and enhance energy/motivation/persistence/attention/performance in general, adults got on the ADHD bus too. ADDERALL FOR A'S
Many crappy adults with immature personalities readily bought into the ADHD excuse too (so, I am undisciplined, lazy, unthinking, scattered and messy because of a brain illness, neat!)
I'm not saying that ADHD never exists... all I'm saying is that it is hella overdiagnosed.
If you are doing well in school, be highly suspect of the label. Especially in this case, since doing well in school pretty much suggests you have an okay attention capacity. Right.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 7:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
An interesting post. My overall reaction to it at first was to take it at face value, from point to point, with the exception of never having bought into the premise of the rape-as-art installation. Because I know artists, starving artists, and have seen many manifestations of their powerless rage against "the man" or "the machine" or whatever they deem is making them miserable. The shock value ante is only ever upped by the richest and sponsored artists who have played the hipster set like a violin. So I read the first part waiting for the hoax.
I read the rest of the article as a given discussion of the hoax. Like any good Psych 101 scenario that exposes presuppositions.
My lingering doubt at the end, the niggling aggravation that exposes my issues, is that after the first paragraph being a hoax to draw out, I suspected the rest of your post to be a hoax to draw in. . . to reel in more responses for yet a third or fourth or more layers of occult desire to just fuck with people. I trusted no further observations, tacit conclusions or statistics.
So. Shall I ascribe the sort of disingenuous agenda of such an idea to the author of this post? Or should I worry that my mind can conceive of such a fertile psychiatric playground?
:o)
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 8:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"When you find yourself hating someone (who did not directly hurt you)" So those of you who mentioned road rage - people driving CAN endanger your life - the rage may be disproportionate to the injury, and certainly hating a roommate who likes living in a pigsty is justified.
And I dont think rape is "about" sex (if you just wanted sex, you could pay for it or pick up someone in a bar near closing time) its about power and humiliating someone. Its interesting that we view rape as being worse than assault and battery.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 10:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone's response (to y):
I hope you understood I was joking (as pointed out by Anonymous 3:12 (which sounds too perfectly like I am quoting scripture))--
but since you asked for a Massacre of The Unicorns II...stay tuned.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 11:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Another great read... I'm looking forward to your next post!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 11:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone,
How do we construct the identity we want to have? Its strikes me that just acting "as if" would be inline with narcissistic behavior.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 12:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"First, the rage comes because this guy is weaker than us. When we feel safe, when we're not afraid (of him), we're free to explode in rage. (That's why there's road rage and not elevator rage.)"
Just because someone is weaker doesn't mean they cannot cause fear. Is it not more accurate to say that when we are afraid, but not feeling too intimidated, then we feel free to *express* our hatred? Both ends of fight-or-flight start with fear.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"How do we construct the identity we want to have? Its strikes me that just acting "as if" would be inline with narcissistic behavior."
Though directed at Alone, I'd like to spew my opinion on this.
Blunt answer: You don't. If you cannot accept that, feel free to wallow in delusion.
Our identity comes for our actions, what we think and do, intentional or not, in its entirety. We are all rather flawed and thus can never truly be who we want to be, unless we have very low standards maybe. Of course we have choices to make, and those choices effect who we are. We can, through our actions, strive to better reflect an identity we find ideal, but that is the limit.
We cannot simply choose an identity, as it consists of more than our conscious choices. Also, all of us tell lies to ourselves, narcissist or not. Thus we cannot even know for sure what we are working with when we try to work on ourselves.
If that sounds too difficult, remember that convenience is not a prerequisite for truth. People often like to react to such with "But, then how do you expect (blah blah)?", to which my response is "Sucks, don't it?". Reality doesn't care if it can be dealt with or not, it simply is.
We can only do our best in the situations life gives us. Our identity will indirectly grow from what we do, and we can never know for sure what that identity is. I might have spewed wisdom here or nonsense, and I will never be able to know for sure which or what combination of the two. Yet it reflects and effects my identity regardless.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rape is about Power not sex.
Consider it in this light and I think you'll understand it better.
Every candle lights the dark.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Rape is about Power not sex"
I never got this. Of course it's at least ALSO about sex. Otherwise why not just tie the person to a chair and beat the shit out of him/her?
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, I understood. And it was very funny. Looking forward to massacre of unicorns part 2.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 1:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Excellent post, I think you were really on that one.
I wondered as I read it though how does it *fundamentally* change the entire construct when someone voluntarily enters the tunnel knowing full well the scenario. Is it still rape?
What if they sought out the experience as a fetish? That's not rape but stylized sex play and how does that change or violate the artist's conceptualization of the art?
Is it still in sympathy or has it violated the original premise? Would this act, sufficiently aggressive, overpower the art and the artist and, arguably therefore, be a rape of the artist himself?
Also I question "All" rage is narcissistic injury? What about rage based on societal moral bedrock such as infanticide practiced by a single individual? Arguably you can say that rage is based on the injury to oneself as a member of that society but isn't there any room for rage to be originally based from the core, self preservation, of a species? I don't doubt rage has been mostly about narcissism for a long time. But, as it is much more than extreme anger, isn't rage about being faced with extreme, insurmountable mortal peril? Rage is all that is left at that point and why not throw the dice and see how irrational you can get?
In any case, great post. Thanks for raising the bar in the blogosphere.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 2:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Either way it's about complete domination. One leans more toward physical domination and the other more toward emotional domination. Consider any abusive relationship and you'll see hallmarks of this basis.
But it's those that have a core, bedrock belief that they are intrinsically weak or powerless that practice domination over others. I believe there is also an understanding that the physical act reinforces the behavior by providing the thrill of the domination and then the impetus to do it again because they really are weak or powerless.
I hesitate to get too specific on this, Alone will have much better info on this than I. But once I understood this I was able to talk to friends about this basic foundation who then were able to recognize danger signs. Hence the candle reference.
Most were simply in danger, as far as I knew. But one friend did avoid being the victim of rape and abuse that was suffered by the next girlfriend her ex hooked up with (he eventually spent 8 months in lockup for it).
How do you stop this? 8 months didn't do it, I can assure you that. So, understanding the basis of it lights a candle against the darkness, potential victims see the problem before they are total victims, hopefully.
Of course, with widespread understanding, if you were the person practicing domination would you still pursue it as aggressively knowing that every act exposed your core feelings of inadequacy, weakness and powerlessness?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 4:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is such a thing as a taboo, and the social consequences of violating a taboo. Artists have a certain degree of freedom to violate taboos and be provocative, and part of the social contract is that they use that power wisely, to enrich the world. This guy is hiding behind the role of "artist," without fulfilling his social obligations. He gets to make light of things which people take seriously, and then retreat to the shield of "It's art." It doesn't take a lot of deep analysis to understand that breaking those social contracts pisses people off. It's also why people get madder at a priest who molests a kid than at any other random guy who molests a kid. It's a violation of a social form of trust.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
January 24, 2010 9:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sfon,
Thanks for the reply. However a continuing word that Alone haunts almost every post with is "choose". So it seems that he is implying we do in fact choose our identities.
Now while you seem to be focusing on ideal identities my thoughts were more in line with non-ideals. For example lets say a person wants to be a painter. Then they would paint. The ideal would be being a great painter. But being a painter does not mean that the person would have to be the ideal, greater, painter. Even if they are not a great painter, they would still possess the, very real, identity of being a painter simply from painting.
Your post and Alone's seem to imply that identities arise from actions. So if I paint, then I am a painter. So to be a painter, then I must paint. The choice of the action creates the identity.
I guess the solution to being non-narcissistic follows from the choice of the action. For instance a narcissist who would want to be seen as a painter would buy the pallets, brushes, and paint. They would maybe even buy paintings and try to pass those off as their own.
But the person who is a painter would paint. Although they may like people seeing them as a painter that would be a secondary gain. The investment of time and resources goes into the actual painting. The narcissist spends that time and resources into being seen as a painter.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 12:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone is a sophisticated enough guy to avoid spilling his guts in a personality disordered type way on the interwebz .
Except here.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 1:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Rape is about Power not sex"
I did time with a few rapists, and for most it is just about sex. They were looking to get into some chicks pants, got really drunk, and in the end just got too into it to really give a shit what level of consent she was prepared to give.
For the serial rapists, they mentioned "the sickness". they like it better when they say no. they just do. a lot of chicks i've been with like to be tied up, dominated, etc. They come harder, pure and simple. I think its the same with the serial rapists. They find just taking what they want without any regard, via the use of, yes, power, to result in what is for them incredibly hot sex resulting in a mindblowing orgasm.
dunno what any of this means psychologically, but thought i'd impart what i've learnt about the rapists perspective.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 3:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hi, this is the same anon who wrote the "understanding the mind of the rapist" comment...
I'm fairly certain that the notion "rape is about power not sex" is a myth perpetrated by psychologists and/or feminists (the former who seek to describe undesirable behavior as being an issue of thoughts rather than biology, the latter who try to minimize any innate sex difference between men and women, thus both have motivations for redefining rape as an act of sex into an act of power/control exclusively).
Now this sounds like something a quack would say, but, hear me out first.
In nature, rape occurs *often*. Male animals rape female animals all the time, and in animals, the exclusive goal of this forced sex is one purpose: sex.
Background.
Organisms who reproduce sexually are usually pigeon holed into one of two strategies. The first strategy is to have as many offspring as possible with as many partners as possible. This is the strategy adopted by the male, who has cheap sperm -- to him, the "cost" of reproduction is very low, and the "investment" required is only that which is necessary to gain access to a receptive female (either by competition with other males, or by force/rape).
Due to the benefit of having lots of sperm, the male adopts a "r selection" reproductive strategy (many offspring, little investment). This is the logic behind male's large size (for beating up other males), aggressive/competitive nature, high sex drive with little interest in long term commitment (relative to females).
In contrast to the stereotypical male reproductive strategy (emphasis on being strong, competative, oversexed, and having sex with anything remotely fertile willingly or not), in contrast is the female strategy - to be choosy and to only reproduce with the most fit males, and to partner with the males who are the best providers (not necessarily the same person, FYI).
This is because females are limited to reproduction only, say, 3 days every month, and it takes a huge amount of time and resources for her to actually produce a child (and then to raise it). Because females are burdened with actually raising/caring for the few children she will have, females did *not* evolve the strength, competitive/aggressive nature or the high/discriminant sex drive of the male.
In species which reproduce sexually where the "male" actually rears offspring and the "female" merely spits out some genes contained in her eggs, it is interesting to note that sexually dimorphic traits are reversed (meaning, the females behave like "males" and the males behave like "females", in that females are larger/aggressive/sexed).
To return to rape in nature... yes, many animals, rape is rather common. Ducks. For some species of ducks, rape is such a problem that female ducks have evolved elaborate genitalia (in an attempt to confound impregnation by an unwanted/unfit male)... in response, male ducks have evolved equally elaborate penises. Truth.
As a rule of thumb, if it happens in nature, it's probably 1) biological and 2) the underlying motivation/cause isn't much different than it is for humans, contrary to what psychologists/theorists might say.
If male animals rape female animals because it works to pass on their genes, so that the tendency to rape (behavioral trait) becomes progressively stronger, odds are that this is a similar reason why sociopathic, low intelligence criminally inclined males rape women.
If rape weren't about sex at all, then it would be true that you would see rape occurring to, say, 40 year old men, 60 year old women, etc, with the same frequency that you see it happening to women in their late teens-20s. Sure, once in awhile a 40 year old man is raped, and an old woman is raped, but when you hear of a "rape", MOST of the time the perpetrator is a man, and the victim is a young woman.
And, if rape weren't related to a basic biological drive of males, rapists would be women more often... but, this almost never happens, and it is very rare for a woman to molest or rape anyone.
Now.
Given all of this, it seems highly unlikely that "rape is about power and control, not sex". Wouldn't you agree?
Also note that power and control are not mutually exclusive with sex, more often than not there is a dominant partner even in normal/consensual sex.
So, even if it is true that rape is about power and control (it certainly is), this does not in anyway disprove that rape is also (and primarily) about sex.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 8:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh well. The evolutionary psychology rebuke is the one I like the least. I think maybe the truth is somewhere in between.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 10:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It doesn't make sense to say it's all about the power. In our society today sex doesn't imply much of anything (unless the woman gets pregnant). It's not even likely to end in the "possession" of the woman through dating or marriage. You have sex, you've had sex, and unless a pregnancy results and the baby isn't aborted, that may well be the end of the domination. Doing just about anything else is more likely to result in power. Be in charge of a large group of people, join a gang, deal drugs (you'll pretty much "own" any woman who depends on you for drugs), be an investment banker. All of that nets you power in American society. Sex nets you a good time and a possibility of a baby if everything goes to plan.
So explain to me how this makes sense as a power grab. It's about sex and gene spread, and possibly the thrill of the chase, but there isn't much power to be had by rape. Only while physically raping her does the rapist have control, and even then, he'll never be able to brag to his cohorts for fear of massive jailtime.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 12:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Does the male duck have a choice?
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 1:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Whether or not the male duck has a choice is irrelevant. The relevant point is to illustrate male animals are programmed to rape, and the various traits which promote such a drive are likely present in the human male rapist (to some). The human with a complex mind may have a choice, but the fact of the matter is rape IS about sex.
Saying rape is about power/control (not sex) is like saying pissing in the street is about wanting to offend socialized humanity. Sometimes, it's actually just about wanting to urinate, and like, not caring about the social rules which say it's wrong to urinate in public.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 5:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not only is the appeal to evolutionary psychology to argue that rape is about sex is incorrect but so are the assertion about female sexuality in apes (we're apes, not ducks, so it makes more sense to look at the diversity of sexual practices amongst other apes). Our closest cousins are chimps and bonobos - they have quite radically different sexual cultures. This points to there being a very strong cultural aspect to sex. Additionally, female apes engage in a lot of sexual selection. Sure the dominant male chimp may get privileges but it's very common for female chimps to sneak around and have sex with less dominant males. Ape and human sexuality is a lot more complex than is being suggested by this erroneous dog fuck dog idea of evolution (just as Darwin's survival of the fittest doesn't mean dog eat dog).
I've most often seen the "rape is about sex" argument from men who have been raped themselves or who fantasize about rape (or have crossed that line already and are justifying their actions to themselves and others with "she wanted it"). Sure some people enjoy bondage, D&S or S&M, and these games are usually about sex AND power (and pushing physical limits and the blurring of pain and pleasure). They're also very much about trust and consensual. There's a big difference between sharing power in a consensual S&M game and an unwanted stranger violently attacking you and sticking things brutally in your orifices while threatening to kill you.
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
anonymous - "It's not even likely to end in the "possession" of the woman through dating or marriage."
That's just dumb, the sexual act is the act of "possession" - of dominating and owning someone. Once sexual domination has been achieved so has the act of possession. It's why jealous/insecure partners think their mate is trying to have sex with other people even when they're not and uses sex to affirm that they possess their mate (this includes marital rape). Women do this just as much as men do (maybe not so much the marital rape but abusive and even less violently insecure women do force their partners to "prove" they love them by having sex with them).
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 6:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll readily admit that my "hatred" of Sarah Palin probably said just as much about me as about her (irritated that my homely self is barely scraping by and trying against all odds to get back into school while her hot ass is comfortable flaunting her ignorance around like a fashionable piece of jewlery) but I have a hard time imagining that every case of "hatred" stems from narcissistic injury. I know a few women who have been raped and they would be *mightily* pissed off by this Whitehusrt fella's lighterhearted attitude towards the subject. Although I'm sure that just means that they're a bunch of idiots who aren't sophisticated enough to grasp the PoMo irony of the piece. What, painting an incestuous Nativity scene out of one's own feces isn't considered high art anymore? This Whitehust is the new scene?? Le sigh.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 8:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just out of curiosity, is it evidence of narcisissm if I just think this artist is an attention-seeking jerk?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 8:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
anon 10:44,
Even in our society sex is power, if you know what you're doing. 70% of women don't have a vaginal orgasms during intercourse, 30% have never had a clitoral orgasm, many have never had either (sorry guys, they fake a lot). Now imagine if you're with a woman who's been in 10 relationships (with sex, duh) over the course of her life but never had any orgasm...and you give her one...or two...or every time. Oh, you don't know what happens?
But I cede my point because this will never happen during a rape. However, I still believe sex is extremely powerful when performed properly (as mentioned above).
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 8:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Where is this wife you speak of that commits marital rape? It sounds like the yeti to me (ROFLCOPTER)
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 9:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
anonymous - She's be the same one who beats her husband and demeans him when he can't sexually perform on command - she possibly molests her sons as well - women can be violent assholes too. Are you the guy who thinks he understands rape because you hung around with rapists in prison and believes their claims about why they rape? Seems like you're acting out some of your own issues with women, sex and violence/power here in a rather infantile way if you are. Regardless, your total lack of insight and knowledge about sex and sexuality is pretty obvious (as is your overcompensation).
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 10:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Those male ducks gotta learn some Game.
Meanwhile, more seriously, we could have a civil war based on different interpretations of the adverb in the parenthetical of the last paragraph. We're already split 50:50. And, I'll add, I'm with the the ragers who rage at the people who spout that nonsense about doing your own thing and not hurting anyone and consenting adults. And I get even more enraged when someone tries to give me the I'm rubber and your glue level argument of mirroring that back to me and blaming me for having an emotional connection with, and an opinion on, what goes on around me.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 10:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope this is some sort of meta-ironic joke based on the subject of the post... because otherwise there's a barrage of ad hominems directed at a guy whose only crime (here, at least) seems to be asserting a fairly defensible position (that there exists at least one rapist who was mainly motivated by sexual pleasure) based upon primary evidence from actual rapists.
It's useful to look at all relationships, sexual or otherwise, from the perspective of power dynamics. But that's necessarily an incomplete picture, because it excludes the possibility that people can do really terrible things without reference to their supposed victim, that is to say, a person might rape not in spite of or because of the victim's opposition, but without even allowing that resistance into the equation. On the other side of the spectrum, sex can be more than domination; sometimes it's just a fun way to pass the time, sometimes it is (and I apologize for being corny) about love.
I know I can't make you agree with me, but I at least invite you to consider the possibility.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 11:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm building a directly-affects-you tunnel, with three doors at the end. One is labeled, "If it doesn't directly affect me, so that's cool! Party on Wayne!" Another is labeled, "Dude, everything counts, and everybody should do things the one right and true way; or else!" The third is labeled, "This is a difficult question, and I'd like to talk about it more and take things on a case by case basis."
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 25, 2010 11:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The rapist wife comment was meant as a joke. Men who are married always bitch about not getting laid enough. Of course they exist, this is my fault.
As for everything else...who ever said I acted out these "power struggles" out with women? Just because I have the knowledge of how to do something doesn't mean I use it for manipulative purposes. Not everyone who uses sex to enhance a (loving) relationship is power-crazed. Why not just want to give someone you love pleasure they never felt before? My former comment was a reference to an earlier post about how "sex isn't powerful anymore." Like I said, it can be, if you know what you're doing. But don't assume I condone the abuse of that.
Read before you attack. I'm sorry I threatened your identity.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 12:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
basil valentine - "I hope this is some sort of meta-ironic joke based on the subject of the post... because otherwise there's a barrage of ad hominems directed at a guy whose only crime (here, at least) seems to be asserting a fairly defensible position (that there exists at least one rapist who was mainly motivated by sexual pleasure) based upon primary evidence from actual rapists."
What "primary evidence"? That's my point, there's no evidence being offered by the one or many anonymouses (who don't even have the cajones to take a screen name and even virtually own or identify with their assertions, something that you do have the cajones to do). The "defensible position" you're claiming hasn't been defended, it's merely an anecdote (which may or may not be true) and wishful thinking trying to pass itself off as science or evolutionary theory – that's it. No actual defense of the position or evidence to support it. If you consider an observation about the obvious to be an ad hominem attack, feel free to take it personally and get your knickers in a twist.
Certainly rapists enjoy raping, the question is whether the enjoyment is sexual in nature and driven by sexual desire or if sex is just the form a desire for violence takes because the anger/fear/hatred is directed towards a particular symbol/object (it's not like rapists see their victims as individuals). Just like internet trolls enjoy trolling, and the artist in question basically used rape to do a culture troll. The great irony of Rape Tunnel, whether it's intentional or not, is that the artist managed to incite a whole bunch of people to threaten him with being raped for threatening to rape anyone who entered his tunnel. They're so offended and enraged by his essentially harmless threat - it's an imitation of a threat really - that they then get enraged and genuinely threaten the object of their fear and loathing with rape (well, as genuine as any internet threat is...it's all performance until someone actually acts).
I have no desire to rape or threaten the one or many anonymouses - as if I even could over the internet - I'm just pointing out how the one/many anonymouses (that clearly are trying to masquerade as lions) appear in the desire to recast rape as a natural expression of sexual desire and just spreading genes when it's actually a distortion where violence replaces sex and has no connection to trying to spread genes. Ape sex isn't duck sex, no matter how loudly you quack or a human ape wants to pretend his (or her) desire to hurt others is natural. Believe what you want about me - my identity - real or virtual – isn't contingent upon your regard (or that of anonymouses on the internet). I'd hope that the same is equally true for you.
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 1:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Rape Tunnel is actually pretty clever provocation on a number of levels. Not only did it incite people who are angry and offended by the mere mention of rape to threaten to rape or kill, or rape and kill, the artists - it also got him a lot of attention and incited conversation about rape. The whole rape tunnel and protection of space - the artist only threatened to do his best to rape people that entered his constructed space - has a resonance of it's own. And, well, there's the whole entering the tunnel to violate the artist's space thing. He could just be an attention seeking idiot but whether he is or not his work has incited some interesting reactions.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 3:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But I cede my point because [a woman achieving orgasm] will never happen during a rape. However, I still believe sex is extremely powerful when performed properly (as mentioned above).
Life would be just a little simpler if you could prove what you said was true. As much as I'd like to believe that a female orgasm can only result from good intentions on the part of her partner, I find your assertion that orgasm is impossible for a woman being raped to be so romantically idealistic it just couldn't be true.
This has to have been studied at some point. You'd think a woman who achieved orgasm during rape would have an additional psychological burden (especially confusion and guilt). It seems worth studying. If it hasn't, it surely has to do with PC issues.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 10:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
BTW my comment was in response to anonymous, Jan 25 8:34PM.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 11:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oooops,
I meant to reference "Last" not "Alone" in my comment here, unfortunately I think there is a poster with the tag "Alone" often on these discussions. But I was momentarily and confusedly referencing someone from another blog I had just read that is about 17th century furniture reproductions. Any irony there? Mmmm, no, unfortunately not.
KWL
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"But I cede my point because [a woman achieving orgasm] will never happen during a rape."
Untrue. Women and sometimes even men reach some kind of orgasm during rape. And this really fucks up their heads. It's obviously something they have no control of -- that's why incest victims have deeply ingrained issues when they are abused as kids: they get scarred for life, and even more so if they derive some pleasure from the abuse.
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
January 26, 2010 1:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"So explain to me how this makes sense as a power grab. It's about sex and gene spread, and possibly the thrill of the chase, but there isn't much power to be had by rape."
I firmly believe the "gene spread" theory is going to do more damage to our society than all the stupid shit said by scientists in the 20th century.
Sex is about gene spreading AND power play AND pleasure AND social mores. Picking only one of these and discarding the other three is mere wishful thinking. And one of the reasons I come to this blog is to find the wishful thinking in science being brilliantly debunked.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
January 27, 2010 12:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yea, the sexual stimulation can work even during rape. While it is true some may not become aroused, this is not always true. And, as has been previously mentioned, that creates a lot of confusion/feelings of disgust and guilt.
Someone invented a myth/lie that orgasm for men is 100% physical and for women it is 100% mental. This is also related to the myth/lie that women are bisexual but men can only be hetero or homosexual (that does not make sense, does it?)
anon 1/26 1:07pm - I don't think anyone believes "gene spread" motivates behavior. No one is conscious of pro-genetic replication behavior. Power, pleasure, and social mores are motivated by gene spread. Everything we like (having food, friends, winning, sex) and everything we don't like (starvation, being a social outcast, losing a competition, not having a partner/sex) is so because the things we "like" promoted gene spread and the things we "don't like" hurt gene spread. Our brain, feelings, thoughts, and motivation to modulate those feelings and thoughts are all a product of genetic selection.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 27, 2010 7:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow, there sure are a lot of gullible people in teh world.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 5, 2010 7:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It is a paradox. If the tunnel is advertised as such anyone who enters cannot be raped by definition. The only problem would be ensuring that the advertising message is unambigous and stated in enough languages that there would be no pratical difficulty in accurate labeling. One could posit that there would problems under Quinian radical translation. To wit: there may be no way to unambiguously idenfify that nature of the tunnel. Given this the thing starts to appear more interesting...
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 22, 2010 3:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"I am what you want me to be; I am just a reflection of yourself." Charles Manson [paraphrased]
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 31, 2010 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How about explaining the rage as the rage at a bigger narcissist than ourselves? Who feels entitled enough to pull a "prank" (to us) like this and get away with it? We hate his guts. The rapist in NYC is habituated and is not presumably getting an ego kick out of his rapes.
Whereas the tunnel-artist (ahem) is not only saying that he will do something forbidden that is off-limits to us-blokes, but is getting publicity through it by calling it art?
The hate-mail also may be a knee-jerk reaction to someone who is free and rich enough to pull such a thing off. Frequently modern artists are considered social leeches who get paid for buffoonery by robber barons of wall st.
What happens when a narcissist meets a bigger narcissist? Maybe something like this.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 8, 2010 6:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hmmm... my real dispute with this project, and what I find funny about those who "critique" its perceived middle or lowbrow critics is not many of them have really been involved in a violent confrontation. (This is why I always felt Tarantino should be tortured and mutilated, or at least drafted to fight in a war, but that's another story) The cowardly part of the hoaxster and the Uptown rapist is that he attacks only those who he knows are weaker physically. (He's not even marginally mediocre intellectually btw) If he's so interested in participating in violence there are many primitive thugs to confront and fight in NYC, several sure to be encountered just walking on every block. He could even try to rape them if that's his inclination. Also he could also just try to fight any of the MMA, Thai Boxing and Krav Maga people I train with if it interests him. My personal performance art piece would be beating the shit out of Wall St. assholes and leaving them to be raped by those so inclined. How has my narcissism been threatened by this neo-Freudian terrorist? Ooh hooo hooo my castration fear will be alleviated by mugging him and whatever gallery owner made money from this twaddle. I will meet them in public by the way.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
January 11, 2011 7:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was listening to Pens' burning, fuzzed-out, 27-minute onslaught, Hey Friend, What You Doing? I was shouting with sudden shock and pain.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2012 2:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How come that nobody falls in the most obvious point? There's nothing to do in the project with rape. Rape is involuntary. If the artist told you the consequences of entering the tunel and you anyway enter without being in anyway forced to do it, it's not a rape tunel at all: it's a SM tunel.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
February 23, 2013 7:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I really like it when you end in that kind of note, that helps on dealing with these issues. Reading this blog has helped me a lot in understanding and dealing with my projecting issues (among others). Thank you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 22, 2013 4:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you cannot understand it because you are, in some ways, fabricating a much greater evil than exists.
MANY rapes are spur-of-the-moment and only barely happen.
He's with the girl. They're kissing and touching. He goes a little too far, she sort of rejects him, he keeps going further; she protests but does not punch him in the face and run. She just ASKS him not to, but becomes more urgent as he gets further until finally she's HAVING SEX AGAINST HER WILL but to him it barely even seems like he's raping her, because she's not fighting back that much, really.
Rape-in-a-dark-alley might seem more like a really brutal PRANK rather than a wicked sin, because he doesn't actually DO anything except have sex, then she can go about her way.
Raping someone you know is usually about (I suppose) power, rage, frustration, revenge. Surely there were moments in your life where you imagined murdering or hurting someone in some way because you were so infuriated.
Really, though; to me, beating someone's face to a bloody pulp makes me much more squeamish than rape itself. Oh, sure, being raped is emotionally and mentally injurious, but that's not something easily grasped; especially by someone who is so focused on what HE wants, upon the action and result, the powerful lust or the anger, or rage, the need for revenge or sex or power or whatever.
The problem is that it is not a NEW or DIFFERENT mindset, it is actually a lack of thinking.
When a person kills his family, he lives with it not by having a new emotion that allows him to cope, but by not caring.
"But HOW can he not care?"
That's the wrong question, because it implies he is doing something, that something is ADDED to make him not care.
Maybe he just doesn't have the "care" emotion.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 14, 2013 5:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello, Neat post. There is a problem with your site in web explorer, could check this?K IE still is the marketplace chief and a big part of other folks will pass over your great writing because of this problem.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2013 2:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
1st thing I wondered about, after reading about the reactions to this 'art piece':
Precisely NONE of the people offended by this hypothetical 'rape tunnel' either noticed, or remembered the part describing the 'bottleneck'.
That is, it was 'designed' specifically [as a Rape FUNNEL, if you will,] so that anyone with the intent to visit harm upon the 'artist' inside, will be unable to [counter]attack until/unless the 'artist' specifically permits it.
To jump ahead a bit, what needs to be missing in the mind of the type of person who cannot resist both becoming offended, and subsequently voicing that offense?
(Is it metacognition? Or something like it?)
Seems like the only reason for this 'work of art' to exist, is to prove/reveal the existence of people gullible/dumb enough to be offended by it?
Guess the only thing left to wonder, is if anyone actually ventured into the Rape Funnel?
That would be more stupid than stupid.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 8, 2014 6:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this is the great, very well-written blog of a hot single mother and rape victim: http://itisnotmyshametobear.blogspot.com. she's currently struggling to keep her house and her kids fed.
she is a voice for victims of domestic violence.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
April 8, 2014 8:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Familiarize yourself with TLP's content before you post links like that:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/01/penelope_trunk_abuser.html
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
April 10, 2014 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
how does this apply to terrorists and pedophiles?
You can hate CNN and infantilised women if you please, but it would probably be safer for you, individually, if you just let them manufacture terror and pedophilia without getting involved.
And by your question, I know that's important to you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 10, 2014 5:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Also I question "All" rage is narcissistic injury? What about rage based on societal moral bedrock such as infanticide practiced by a single individual? Arguably you can say that rage is based on the injury to oneself as a member of that society but isn't there any room for rage to be originally based from the core, self preservation, of a species?
Do you think a blinding emotional response would be conducive to the preservation of the species? When someone kills a child, burning with hatred, rage and fury won't bring the child back. It will be why the next child dies. There is no warrant for revenge (emotional degradation). No need for justice (revenge, by another name). No call for tit-for-tat reprisals, punishment or deterrence because no one who kills a child can profit from their actions.
By defintion, Crimes of Passion are motivated by corrupted emotion / degradation / confusion / madness, the product of early childhood abuse. If it's not in their best interests, why are they killing in the first place? How could they be in their right mind?
I'm not saying they should be ignored, clearly they will need to be assessed for suitability for rehabilitation and if they cannot be made to see that there is no gain in killing their best interests, they will need to be assisted to the next phase of their existence. But that would be a humane act, conducted not with outrage, fury, anger or piety...but with apology, regret, sadness, acceptance of shared blame.
When one hurts the collective, they hurt themselves. Everyone pays the price and everyone is responsible for being made to pay (twice). It's ironic that in a world of imposition and limited liability and avoidance of blame, we manage to pin all of the blame for the actions of the Insane on the perpetrators rather than on the Society that makes humans incapable of acting in their own best interests.
Children are not born insane. And no child dreams of growing up to be a killer, rapist, paedophile or priest one day. Every Society deserves exactly what they have inflicted upon themselves.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 10, 2014 5:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But it's those that have a core, bedrock belief that they are intrinsically weak or powerless that practice domination over others.
Ever met any women who felt intrinsically strong and powerful? And by "women", I think of the mothers they're going to be.
How do you stop this?
Wind back the tape. Who reduced the perpetrator to feeling weak and powerless?
Of course, with widespread understanding, if you were the person practicing domination would you still pursue it as aggressively knowing that every act exposed your core feelings of inadequacy, weakness and powerlessness?
With widespread understanding, why would you practice domination? Why would you even have those core feelings? Why would you need to defeat yourself or conceal your doing so?
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
April 10, 2014 11:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny,
I fear that should you continue with pineal exercises you will soon disband the discourse 'round here.
The progress is apparent.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Comments