"Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I've been amazed at the response that the blog I began last week on ”Being and Feeling Masculine” has created.

There is almost so much response though that new blogs could be created around many themes discussed, such as the discussion regarding a male “inner rapist” shadow that I believe reflects a personal shadow for some men, but not a collective shadow for all men. To state it as if all men have this and have to get in touch with it I believe is not only inaccurate but is to project one's own personal shadow onto all men in order to normalize it which then can lead to overacceptance and the trivialization of such a shadow.

Anyway, I've copied below my views on this that I posted on the masculinity blog and I'd love to see your responses. Feel free to let loose. So, hear are my thoughts:

Thank you for your words. I appreciate your insights and heart in these matters. These posting have proven insightful and have created safety for me to both discuss my own questions as well as participate in the exploration of other people's worlds regarding masculinity. 

I have to react to something though… I still don't think that the term “inner rapist” should be used as easily as it is in this blog or in any other teaching out there seeking to help men become more whole. This should be approached with more care, no matter how well it can be explained or justified.

Also, what if not all men have an inner rapist? The way it's discussed in this blog is to assume that unless men get in touch with it they won't be whole. Maybe we don't all have the same shadows. To assume that we men have the same “inner rapist” shadow I believe is to trivialize this and bring it to a place of acceptance, even normalizing such a shadow. I think that this can bring some men to acting out on this even more… after all, why fight something that I've been born with and all men have, right?

Further, why does it have to carry such extreme language. Maybe it's helpful for some men to change their behaviour. I would hope that it would shock them into seeing how seriously wrong it would be to let this rapist shadow overtake them. Well, if it's helpful to them then good for them, but to talk about this in the way it's being discussed in this blog I believe is dangerous because it trivializes what actual rape is and normalizes this so-called “inner rapist”.

As a society we don't have enough disgust for rape. I guess I just don't sense the disgust for the “inner rapist” in these discussions either, but rather a twisted fascination even a somewhat enjoyable acceptance (other than for those who also have challenged this as I am).

So, pppppplease don't anyone respond to this and try to justify the use of such terms. Why can't you just accept that maybe there is a shred of truth to what I'm saying without having to over-justify the use of such terms.

I would hope by hearing what I have to say that you would challenge such language use around you, especially any normalization or trivialization occurring. Rape is serious. It is a crime. It devastates lives.

If you have an “inner rapist” then get darn serious with it. Don't get fascinated with it or even play with it. If you talk about it with others then be careful how you approach it. If you're smiling as you talk about it or even think about it then wipe that smile off your face and challenge the part of you that likes the rapist. It causes harm and if you get too fascinated with it beware because it might just take over quicker than you think. Don't start entertaining rapist thoughts, such thoughts lead to biological conditioning and then given the right circumstances can lead to eventual actions no matter how enlightened you might think you are.

Anyway, this is not what I intended to discuss. I had intended to talk about something totally different and more uplifting. Well, I got to go but will be back to discuss other things I had on my heart. I guess I feel really strongly about this and had to get it out.

Thanks for considering this.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hi Michael,

I can sense you are feeling quite angry about this. 

When you say:

So, pppppplease don't anyone respond to this and try to justify the use of such terms. Why can't you just accept that maybe there is a shred of truth to what I'm saying without having to over-justify the use of such terms. 

I understand that you are saying: you dont want a discussion of what you have brought up here and you want people to stop using that term in the discussions in these threads.

Is that the right understanding?

Gitanjali

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hey Gitanjali,

Good point. Actually, I do want discussion.

When I initially wrote this post in the masculinity blog this is the way I worded it and I copied it here exactly as written prior. I should have worded it differently here though. At the time of my initial post I saw a lot of defensiveness and reactivity on the blog, so I guess I entered into this too by writing my post with the long “pppplease”. One shadow responding to another I guess. Thanks for calling me on this.

So it is not my intention to stop the dialogue. I really do want discussion. So, please have at it. Let's discuss!!!

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

OK Michael, so glad you changed your moniker to the beautiful name Michael instead of email.

I dont think i can ever understand the pain youve gone through.

  The easy way for me is to just not challenge you on this and say OK, lets not use it.  And maybe accompanying that is treating you a bit like your a delicate person that i need to be extra gentle with because you have suffered something so horrible.

i become careful, kind yes, but maybe hold back more than i want to….

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

holding back more than I need to I mean.

from what i understand about shadow work, it can be in part about confronting the things that have gone underground and there become very dark - the inner tyrant, orphan, dark mother, toothed vagina, killer. 

its about finding out what lies under those monstrous facades. 

there is in all of us an ability to ravish someone, to be forceful sexually but lovingly

I know lots of women long for that - and i'm thinking lots of men,

to express it and receive it,

but how do we get in touch with that kind of force within us?

for many of us it lies under the monster.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

  I think under some monsters there is just horrible, horrible, horrible crap, and the inner rapist is one of those monsters.   Getting in touch with an inner, psychopathic desire to harm and subjugate and humiliate a human being, 'the inner rapist': This is a depraved state where life has gone terribly wrong.  It is not holding pattern that is waiting to burst forth in a new and transformed state with strength and radiance and the possibility ravishing love! It is a terrible wound and it needs healing, if that is possible.  And as a wound, it should not be perpetrated, or allowed to flourish as if it is normal, nor should it be trivialized……it is not a wound that will 'make you stronger in the long run' when you come to terms with it……   The inner rapist can only come from a deep damaged place.  Adding energy to this place, or 'normalizing' it is not okay.  I just know this…..I've seen the bleeding, ripped vagina of a three year old,  the hugely swollen, bruised vulva of a pregnant woman, the stab wounds of a beautiful 17 year old woman who fought to get away…..I hear on the news about about the women's bodies that they pull out of the woods everyday ……

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Gitanjali,
Thank you for your concern, however, you don't need to treat me as someone who is so fragile that I can't hold my own. Please don't hold back on that account. I'm resilient and can handle whatever you have to say. I do appreciate your empathy that I feel in your message. Thank you for the care I sense in your words.

I guess I'm not saying that the term “inner rapist” shouldn't be used at all, but that if and when it is then it needs to be done with great care, not generalized for all peoples and that the person exploring this should look into their own personal history around power and sex to see how such a wounding appeared, then seek to heal it.

Jane,
I agree with you! The inner rapist comes from a damaged place. Thank you. Thank you for getting this!! I've seen and experienced the ravages of rape. I work daily with people who have been subjected to such tortures that even years or decades later still hold the trauma.

Keep your thoughts and feelings coming,
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Seems to me its part of the universe, Jane, not to mention that every undesireable thing had a mother.  For me, my self extends to everything, drops extension-limiting judgment and drama.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael,

I posted a response to/for you, and within it posed a question to you, here on the ”What does it mean to be and feel masculine” thread – don't know if you've spotted it or have had time to read it.

As regards the question contained in this thread's title, and as far as this pod's concerned at least, my answer would have to be a simple 'no'.

All best,

Lol

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Lol, I think you understand where I'm coming from with this.

Michael, I can appreciate that this is a sensitive topic for you, and that of course, it would bring up a lot of difficult feelings.  But I do think that you're misunderstand both my and Rich's intents regarding getting in touch with the inner rapist.

In no way, shape or form am I trying to trivialize the issue.  Rape is brutal and vicious and awful, and we should do what we can to prevent it.  That said, I am in agreement with RAM's philosophy that the way to work with destructive aspects of ourselves isn't to try to squelch them – it's to bring them into the light of day so that we can understand them, hear what they're trying to tell us about what's going on inside of us (our feelings/needs), and in doing so, become disidentified with them, so that we're relating to them rather than from them.  When I say “disidentified,” I don't mean that we would push down these parts of ourselves – rather, that we would stop repressing them and start looking at them (but not acting them out) so that they don't control us.  If we try to push them down, not only do we lose a vital source of information/connection to our deeper selves, but they generally tend to come back to bite us in the butt in very unpleasant ways.

So when I say we should be aware of our inner rapist, it is precisely so that we don't act from that inner rapist place.

What's more, as I expressed in my post in the male/masculine thread, I am not viewing rape as only a sexual act.  I see it as a part of a broader “underlying dynamic of dominating and/or violating someone while totally objectifying them – essentially pillaging them.”  And I do think we all have this potentiality (again, I'm not necessarily talking about sex here) within us, and although its expressions are usually not as extreme as sexual rape, they are very destructive nonetheless.

I think that Rich, you and I are all on the same team, but I think you very understandably have a lot of sensitivity around this issue, and it may be hard for you to hear what we're trying to say.  It feels as if it might be scary for you to even entertain the idea of rape in any way, and you're contracting around the subject.  Please understand that we are trying to support you and the idea of growing in such a way that none of us would ever feel compelled to act out from a place of our inner rapist (and once again, I don't necessarily mean this sexually).

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Tely,

Thank you for your words. I do realize that I may have come across as being harsh on Rich or others. That is not my intent. I love their input and see their vulnerability in the discussions. Sorry if I've judged you too harshly. I don't know the RAM philosophy and appreciate how you've explained it.

I appreciate what you say in:

And I do think we all have this potentiality (again, I'm not necessarily talking about sex here) within us, and although its expressions are usually not as extreme as sexual rape, they are very destructive nonetheless.

I agree that we all have a shadow of extreme power that seeks to dominate others and that it doesn't necessarily come out for all of us as the shadow of the “inner rapist”. It can come out with the CEO who seeks to dominate a company, society or politics. It can come out with the teacher who misuses that power to dominate and control the students stiffling all self-expression. It can come out with the therapist that seeks to be the expert with clients and doesn't tolerate being questioned. It can come out with someone who is so self-controlling upon themselves and even self-abusive.

Talk again soon, gotta go
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Just a few quick points, as I've added something to the other thread (how many are there now?!  :  )

I am not saying we should “add” energy to dark impulses but instead free energy from them.

In the other thread I have asked questions about wishing harm to other people because I feel everyone has done that and so hope to experientially give a window into that part of us.

When one practices Tonglen (the Buddhist practice of breathing in and keeping others' pain and sending them healing) we first start with those we love, then those we like, then those we feel indifferent about. It's tough, because we don't want pain and sickness but it's do-able. Then we are asked to breathe in the sickness and pain of those who we don't like, those we have been harmed by. It's not so easy because we feel “Fuck that: They can have the pain, I want them to suffer. They deserve it. Not me.”  This is the “root” that some people have mentioned around this area and this is the very reason I started to talk about this.

Tely talks about this “root” as violation and objectification. This impulse can be seen within a spectrum of exploitation.

I agree with Gitanjali about wanting ravishment and have shared my experience about that in the other thread (masculine).

I am feeling slightly as if I am being characterized by some as “abnormal” and I appreciate that Tely and Gitanjali are allowing the base aspects of humanity to reside in me (and us all) and for me (and us all) to look at them without subtly making me a messed up man, in need of lots of deep therapy. (which I am engaging in to the best of my ability and have posted an intimate thread on that here

Rich

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Rich, speaking for myself, I see nothing abnormal about what you've expressed.  I see courage, vulnerability, compassion and insight/wisdom.  That “abnormal/messed up” characterization of you may be coming from your inner critic.  Or … dare I say it … your inner self-rapist.  ;-)  Anyway, thanks for how you've shown up here.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Rich: I am not saying we should “add” energy to dark impulses but instead free energy from them.

I appreciate your perspective, Rich.  IME, life has an irreducible polarity of energies in its makeup.  Call those energies good/bad, light/dark, loving/violent—the polarity exists and cannot be solved, dimished, undone, etc.  An atom is, among other things, a proton and an electron: polarity at our base.

In my world, anything that exists is part of me, expresses something in my makeup, is an actualization there what is potential here, etc.  Power and force are two difficult energies to integrate and to evolve.  IME, they cannot be integrated by being nice to them, by turning them into light, etc., because the universe loves, needs and is also the dark.  My method is to thus be these things, to take them inside me as me and mine, to explore how I feel about them and how I feel respecting how others feel about them.  Dark energies themselves want evolution, attention, integration.  And weren't we all as children afraid of the dark?  Now there's an interesting bias.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I appreciate your understanding and perspective, Tely.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Rich said:

I am feeling slightly as if I am being characterized by some as “abnormal” and I appreciate that Tely and Gitanjali are allowing the base aspects of humanity to reside in me (and us all) and for me (and us all) to look at them without subtly making me a messed up man, in need of lots of deep therapy. (which I am engaging in to the best of my ability and have posted an intimate thread on that here

I am pretty sure too, that some would characterize you as abnormal.  as you do this deep work. Like me and I'm sure others, you are facing the fears of those who will not tread where you go.  And no, Rich…you are allowing these base aspects to breathe in you, not me not Tely.  I am just looking at you with wonder and excitement.  What will your alchemy let emerge?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hey Rich,

I've embraced the fact that I'm abnormal and I agree with Gitanjali that by doing this very work we are in essence not in the “norm”. We all have pathologies… hey just look at the DSM IV and you'll find about 900 pages of every psychiatric mental disorder we've discovered so far. Take your pick!! We all have some of them and I know I have my fair share. This IS what makes us human, maybe even normal… the very fact that we are abnormal makes us normal.

Normal is far too over rated in my books. I like the idea of coloring outside the lines, not living according to norms. Working with our shadows too is outside the norm. So what if one of our shadows is a bit weird, strange or downright evil.

I do think though that there is a danger in trying to project a personal shadow we may have (like the “inner rapist”) upon the rest of mankind just because of the need to feel that one is a part of the norm.

I think that Freud did this with his own lusts of wanting to have sex with his mother and kill his father so that he could then marry her. He surmised that this must be true for all men and developed an elaborate theory behind this called the Oedipal complex. I believe that he perhaps did this (subconsciously?) in order to feel that it was now more acceptable for him to live with this personal shadow of his “mother rapist” because it made him more normal since in his views all men have this. Interesting theory though, especially because it would seem that Freud twisted the original story to fit his theory.

Teresa M. claims Freud's Oedipal Complex doesn't apply to Oedipus by stating: I agree that the Oedipal complex does not exist… He married a complete stranger, not the woman who raised him. Again Freud's theory would only have worked if he had married the mother who had raised him. One can read what one wants into anything if one tries hard enough to find it there, especially if one has to justify the acceptance of ones own shadow by projecting it upon the rest of mankind.

So what if not everyone has every shadow we may have! Does everyone have to have a certain shadow just so I can feel okay about myself? No! Why can't we just accept that we all have weirdness and abnormalities and pathologies? Some of these might be collective and common to all humanity, some of these might be quite prevalent in society so we may tend to project it upon everyone else to feel better about ourselves since they may have an “evil” appearing side to them and some of these are very unique to our experience.

Well enough said. You're a great group of people. Rich, I feel that I'm growing closer to you each time we blog along with the rest of the gang. Thank you for making this an interesting first time experience. Thank you for being real.

Love your normally-abnormal pathology-ridden complex friend,
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hello Marigpa,

Sorry for not responding sooner to your question. It somehow got lost in all the other dialogues I've been following.

You asked me in the masculinity blog this question that I want to answer here:

Do you think/feel that it is equally inappropriate for Robert, or anyone else for that matter, to talk in terms implying everyone has an inner racist, on the same grounds as you so clearly do with regard to someone saying they think we all have an inner rapist?

I don't think that I'm saying that it's inappropriate to ask anyone anything, but I don't think that it should be implied that we all have the same shadows. Where is the proof for this? In philosophies?? What do you base this on? Until now I've only heard unconvincing philosphical treaties here in these blogs about the so-called “inner rapist”.

I guess I have a stronger scientific leaning that doesn't allow me to accept it's existence as fact just because someone with authority has stated it as so or because some of you have experienced benefit from the concept. If you are going to assert something as being common to all humanity then I would expect you to be able to back it up with some form of proof. I'm alright with a philosphical argument, but until now I just haven't seen one here that presents a convincing argument.

My thoughts are these: Maybe we don't all have an inner racist or an inner rapist or an inner anything… maybe there are aspects that are common to us all, maybe some are more common than not and maybe some are more personal. That's all I'm really trying to get at. It's the over generalization that I find “off”. If you're going to state something as fact then back it up with proof! This is one important aspect of how I see integrity.

Sure, we're all humans and share that common humanity, but we also have our own unique stories, histories, legacies that also form our inner selves. All of these can contribute to the existence and formation of shadows within.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

So women sometimes want to play with “the inner rapist” in men, or at least that has been my experience… Even though I say all of this, I'm still not sure about the term “inner rapist”. As far as I know it comes from Deida, and IMO Deida does some great work but naming things or creating a theoretical framework are not his strong points. 
I believe that it can be very valuable for us all, men and women alike, to get in touch with the part of us that perseveres, that won't take no for an answer… But shall we really call that “inner rapist”? Word have connotations, not only denotations, and that I believe is the core of Michael's criticism.

Hey Pelle,

I appreciate your stories and discussion. What I see from your experiences is more of what Arthur called “horndog” in the masculinity blog and not an “inner rapist”.

With a rapist there is no ability to “play” with it as that woman was doing with you. The very fact that she has power to engage with you in sexual playfulness shows that there is no real rapist, that she can say no to you shows that she has power too even though she may be playfully resisting.

If this were about truly trying to draw out the “inner rapist” in you then she would be trying to get you to have total domination over her, including the treat of life unless sex were given, and often using a weapon such as a knife to her throat or a gun to her head to maintain power and then have sex. .. and not just for role playing… but for real!! Oh, and if the woman start sto enjoy the sex then the rapist would make sure she got no enjoyment and might cut her, threaten her and maybe kill her when he's done. The rapist has no desire to see her enjoy herself. His desire is to see her in terror, that is his turn on!

Is this what women are really wanting from men?!? Pelle, do you see that this is what this woman wanted from you. I'd really love to hear from you women on this. To want to tear the clothes off a woman and have sex with her does not indicate an “inner rapist”!!!

Pelle, I think that you'd agree with me on much of what I'm saying here from what I read on your post. You seem very balanced in your views. It's unfortunate that Deida doesn't have more terms for such a thing and seems to oversimply this matter. Perhaps even seeing the sexual impulses from different degrees of intensity would be helpful. Maybe we should come up with different terms for the varying degrees ourselves for this.

Anyone out there have other ideas? I'd also love to hear what you all think about Pelle's stories. Is this the “inner rapist” trying to be drawn out or something else?

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I would distinguish this dynamic that Pelle described more as an “inner ravisher” than an “inner rapist.”  Both involve domination, but with ravishing, there's ultimately some sense of play, an attunement to the ravishee's feelings/desires (even if they're expressed in a complicated dance where “no” means “yes”) and a tacit understanding of safety and choice, whereas with rape, it is a truly violent, dehumanizing, hateful exploitation that's bathed in fear.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I continue to be with you on this Michael.  I have been searching around in my memory for some incident when I wanted to sadistically dominate another.  I remember a dream I had shortly after I had separated from my children's father.  It concerned a woman who was my good friend, and before I had moved out of the house from my ex-partner, she took up a romantic relationship with him.  I felt betrayed and filled with a burning rage and humiliation.  So in the dream, I was a large and ultimately powerful beautiful raging woman, and I met her with the intention of battling with her,  with no doubt in my mind that I could take her down and destroy her, but I instantly knew that regardless of whatever rage I enacted upon her, however I might hurt or even kill her,  I would still be filled with this rage and humiliation. There was nothing in the pursuit of her comeuppance that would assuage my overwhelming pain.   The only option I had was to do my own work, and this was even though I did not know how to do it very well at the time, and even though I was burning with a toxic 'how could you?' 's sense of injustice and betrayal.  It took me several years to become socially functional from that experience, to really be able to see the gift I was given to look at my own shadow…..and I could beam over to the feminine shadow thread to continue to write about that gift…. 

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I appreciate your post, Jane, and resonate with almost everything you say, including what you say about intimacy.  And interesting dream, by the way.

Your last line stops me.  My response is: you're not a man.

Being not a man you might not understand fully.  Perhaps letting a certain tentativeness arise along that line, words like “snivelling,” which perhaps relate to that woman in your dream, might be found a little too forceful … in the wrong direction, or something.

Rape has much to do with—IMO essentially concerns—force, and force is here to stay.  The universe wants it.  We as men are given a certain task, not given to women, to integrate force in ways women perhaps never will.  This work has been carved out particularly for us.  I'm sure we'll tell you how it all works out for us.

And FWIW, moving attention from the content of what is being explored here, toward the form, I see a move to being intimate with something that appeared for Rich, and has appeared for others.  The deeper line is intimacy, IMO the essential movement of this thread.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

… there are A LOT of women longing for A LOT more sexual intimacy than we have… Jane

Hello Jane,
I truly appreciate your insight into this and the direction you've taken this discussion from the “inner rapist” to sexual intimacy. I believe that the heart of a mature evolved man is also for sexual intimacy and is perhaps an even deeper shadow that he has disconnected himself so, maybe even moreso than from than this “inner rapist” shadow.

From the other input I've read this is also what the men here are working into their lives too. I would love to hear from you men who are moving more in this direction what this is like for you to engage sexual initimacy while “taking charge of your charge” as Robert says.

Hello Tom,
I agree that to use the word “snivelling” is perhaps to not fully understand the work that you and others are doing with the “inner rapist” concept. I respect the work you are doing even if it's not the same journey I'm on. I do take issue with you though on what you say here in your last post:

Rape has much to do with-IMO essentially concerns-force, and force is here to stay.  The universe wants it.  We as men are given a certain task, not given to women, to integrate force in ways women perhaps never will.  This work has been carved out particularly for us.  I'm sure we'll tell you how it all works out for us.

Wow!! Do you actually believe that the universe wants rape as an extention of this male force???… that we as men are given this task? Maybe I'm not reading this well but you begin your statement with rape so I can only understand that this is the first and main theme of your statement.

If this is true then you and I are clearly not on the same page and I wonder if you really understand what rape is. This is what I'm saying about trivializing rape, making it something that is less severe than it is and I think it's about time that you really consider the depth of what you are saying and also I do take very serious offense to you projecting this upon all men as if you speak for every man alive when you keep referring to “us” or “we as men”. You are not the voice for all men so please begin speaking for yourself and for a certain portion of the population of men that you most relate with. Not all men are you. You really have some big assumptions about this. Further, wanting to be forceful with a woman does not necessarily equate to wanting to rape her. All men might have forcefulness but not all men want to give themselves over to rape.

Here is what I said to Pelle about how I define rape and I'd love to hear from you and others if we are on the same page with this definition:

If this were about truly trying to draw out the “inner rapist” in you (Pelle) then she would be trying to get you to have total domination over her, including the treat of life unless sex were given, and often using a weapon such as a knife to her throat or a gun to her head to maintain power and then have sex. .. and not just for role playing… but for real!! Oh, and if the woman starts to enjoy the sex then the rapist would make sure she got no enjoyment and might cut her, threaten her and maybe kill her when he's done. The rapist has no desire to see her enjoy herself. His desire is to see her in terror, that is his turn on!… To want to tear the clothes off a woman and have sex with her does not indicate an “inner rapist”!!!

Keep the discussions going. Love hearing from you all. Everyone welcome!!

Love,
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael, it's good to see and hear your process!

Take a trip with me, so far as we can, into a particular zone of feeling.  I am a woman who was raped by a man.

The earth gave rise to this somehow.  Should I reject the earth?

Men gave rise to this somehow.  Should I reject men?

I, woman, gave rise to men somehow.  Should I reject myself?

I, mother, now grow a life inside me.  Should I reject my baby and my love for her?

What am I made of anyway?  Am I somehow entirely, irrevocably separate from anything at all?

What's important about what happens?  That it doesn't happen again?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I am considering the 'sniveling' word…the judgement behind it….thinking of a jailed man I was once called to see in jail, a school teacher who had raped several boys, over a period of time, 'nice' rapes really, as rapes go…. never mind that they were 11 and twelve years old, there were games and food and movies…… He 'sniveled' as he sat there, and I gave him kleenex, he was pathetic and I felt sad for him and his patheticness, and his life.  I brought him oranges the next time and he told me about the public washroom scene as an ostracized teenager, and his loneliness and his homeliness and his woundedness.  What a weave, we have in this world!  Some years later, i attended to the family of one of the boys he had assaulted, that was when the young man had blown his head off with a shotgun….. 

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hey Tom,

I've read over your last post and find it interesting, but I wonder why you're not responding to my questions for you in a more direct manner.

I realize that you have the right to respond as you want and I appreciate the creative, artistic and philosophical side you have. Still, I think that we're talking about pretty deep stuff serious enough to merit clearer answers and debate such as when I ask you:

Do you actually believe that the universe wants rape as an extention of this male force???… that we as men are given this task?

Also, do you hold to the same definition as I do about rape such as what I wrote to Pele:

If this were about truly trying to draw out the “inner rapist” in you (Pelle) then she would be trying to get you to have total domination over her, including the treat of life unless sex were given, and often using a weapon such as a knife to her throat or a gun to her head to maintain power and then have sex. .. and not just for role playing… but for real!! Oh, and if the woman starts to enjoy the sex then the rapist would make sure she got no enjoyment and might cut her, threaten her and maybe kill her when he's done. The rapist has no desire to see her enjoy herself. His desire is to see her in terror, that is his turn on!… To want to tear the clothes off a woman and have sex with her does not indicate an “inner rapist”!!!

Hope to hear from you soon. Other takes on this are welcome!!
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hi Michael, there be no trivialization in my questions above.  They highlight one place where the rubber meets the road on this matter.  A decision to reject is not a small matter.

To answer your first question: yes, the universe wants everything that happened, including anyone's not wanting it to have happened.  It wants death.  It wants murder.  It wants love.  It wants AIDS.  It wants charity.  It wants my parents.  It wants everything it has ever ever been.  Any act or event that occurs is the universe in that place.  Do I live, and am I of, an entirely separate universe?

My questions are questions of subtle implication.  Albert Einstein thought there was something subtly wrong with Newtonian physics, with its separate matter-pieces and all those forces governing them in their bump and grind existence—something subtly wrong with all that.  Then it occurred to him: everything is related to everything else; everything exists in and as a field in an unbroken wholeness where no sharp division can be sustained.  Look what understanding arose from such a small subtle feeling as he had.  Not to mention that what previously was—Newtonian physics—became but a subset of a larger, broader-ranging and more widely explanatory theory.  Modern cosmology derives from Einstein.

You'll have to make your peace with what lines you care to draw and how, to say this is in, that is out.  Back to the woman who was raped.  Should the child reject herself, her mother and her father for what happened?  Why ask questions of subtle implication?  What role has the feelings they entail anyhow?

As to defining rape, that's a very difficult task for which generalities have limited appeal.  Here are some of my thoughts.  Speaking biologically, rape overrides (forces) female consent and overrides her say and voice in what manner of being will come through her into the next generation.  Rape also very possibly forces on her a difficult decision of aborting her own child, or raising it without help of a primary other, possibly forcing poverty and diminished psychological and physical health for mother and child.  Speaking psychologically, rape destroys the beauty avaible to a couple in conceiving a child together, it violates core elements of the subtlest realms of love, mutuality and sharing.

What motivates a man to rape must indeed be something difficult, and undoubtedly finds understanding only with a studied, comprehensive perception and appreciation of that man's circumstances.  Outside contexts of war, probably many men who rape were extremely abused some way or another.  But answer this, does the motivation to rape, even if triggered mainly in extreme circumstances, arrive in this universe from some other universe?  How do you explain the pattern?  It must arise out of the way matter works.

I suspect for some men who rape there be a form of female being-envy that renders them feeling secondary at a deep level.  Camille Paglia speaks about this; I've experienced my version of it, and I agree with her.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Morning Michael,

I appreciate how you nurture the discussion - even when issues get close to the bone for you…

I wanted to give my response to a question you asked Tom about whether the universe wants rape.  I went back to what he said and I found that the disctinction for me is:

he is saying:  Force is here to stay.  Not rape.  We maybe can evolve to a point where wanting to rape people is a desire that we as a species lets go.

But the raw material of that action of rape - force - that stays.

We can may be then use force in much more playful ways, in an intimate setting - ravishment as some have already said here.

I appreciate force in a masculine person.  I love that there is difference between masculine touch and feminine touch. when i feel a masculine touch  i sense something different. in this touch that is beautifully strange to me. .i like that it is strange to me…a kind of  energy running through that intrigues me and makes me want to explore it more….a restrained force…

May the force be with you.
Gitanjali

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

That's it, Gitanjali.  What is the higher, more evolved expression of force?  Be intimate with force.  Go into it.  Feel it.  Where does it arise?  Why does it arise?  Where have I denied its validity and importance?  Einstein found one different expression of force (compared to Newtonian force physics).  He called it “universal relatedness,” if I might translate a bit.  What higher expression of force will we as men find and decide?  What values are at stake?  What of our history need we give thanks for for mens' protecting women from force?  Many men died force against force.  We are here because many men died as such.  What is this swirl of force in its history and presence and movement upward?

Rape is, among so many other things, and IMO, an offshoot of force dynamics, and a warning sign for men to attend their own gender, which IMO must be accomplished with an attitude much subtler than that which rape exhibits, otherwise it's force meets force in that round the circle again way.  Thus: change without rejecting, re-form without shaming, understand without abdicating responsibility, care for everyone, don't assume I know, and don't think I categorically wouldn't do the same if pushed in such a manner.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hello Pelle,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your vulnerability in sharing your own personal stories here. You enrich this dialogue.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hello Tom, Gitanjali, Rich,

Since creating this blog I've been sitting with the idea that maybe you are right about the “inner rapist” being more prevalent than I think it is in men. I'm not buying into this right now as I still believe that the extremes of the universal “forces” Tom talks about can be experienced differently for us and not just with an “inner rapist” shadow.

Still, what is making me think that maybe you are right is that our societies don't seem to view the act of rape with as much disgust as IMO it should. I believe that if it did then we'd have much tougher laws for this and not just give some rapists the minor sentences that they can get. Also, there might even be more activistics advocating and being heard on the subject… plus as a society we might be more open about talking about the devastating effects it has without the shame or unease that comes when the topic is brought up in everyday conversation.

How is it that someone who embezzles money from a corporation or someone who cheats the government out of taxes gets a tougher prison sentence than a lot of rapists? Does this strike any of you as odd, as much as it strikes me?

Maybe we have a “collective rapist shadow” that doesn't want to severely punish such overt rape acts because we as a collective don't want to condemn the very thing that resides within the collective shadow.

Maybe as a collective we hold such shame because rape, especially that of children, is still so prevalent in our society that we prefer to turn a blind eye to it. The median age for sexual abuse is 9 years old and more than 20% of all children are sexually abused before the age of 8. See stats

Maybe because so many men hold such passions inside them they are unwilling to truly condemn their fellow rapist brothers' actions and prefer to offer them grace with a slap on the wrist for giving into the very passions that they too embody but are either holding under wraps, are currently engaging in in secret or have engaged in prior. If 20% of all children have been sexually abused before the age of 8, then what is the percentage of adults in our population who have done this?

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hey Michael,

Interestingly I was wanting to say something very similar when you mentioned this shadow not being very prevalent but I chose instead to try and provide breathing room and space.

When we noticed the desire to abuse power in many different ways (was it teachers, CEOs and more I can't remember) I want to say “all that needs adding to the mix is a trace of sexuality and there “it” is.

Given the way so so many people relate to their sexuality, as a way of stress relief and energy discharge, and how the feeling of abusing power is often stressful (think of the person shouting at the other person), it is possible for me to feel and imagine that sexuality would be triggered.

I also feel, as you say, that so much sexual abuse is swept right under the carpet. Instead of acknowledging th reality of child abuse we go crazy over stories about Michael Jackson, with this feeling of “witch hunt.”

Why?  Because people don't want to admit within themselves what is going on and therefore have very real and direct compassion in their heart for the person doing harm. That compassion comes from a direct appreciation of thier pain and confusion. This does not mean at the same time they can't say “what you did was very wrong.”

What an unexpected journey we are taking! I hope our sense of community will be strengthed through this process.

warmly

Rich

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I'm not sure if it was Robert or someone else that made the statement that a mans greatest fear is being laughed at and a woman's greatest fear is being raped and killed. 

If this is true, which it seems to be in my experience, I believe it is entirely possible that women would want to “play with” these sorts of edgy fantasies.  When you are steeped in a culture that has wide spread sexual based violence against women and children, that reality affects the psyche deeply.  Creating a context for safe exploration of the deeper feelings that abide in men and women around this subject seems a worthwhile undertaking.

I am glad we are able to talk openly in this forum about things that make us uncomfortable.  I value exploration.

~leela

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

The way biological evolution has played itself out, a male sex with a propensity for using force has crystallized into being. Similarly, cultural evolution has encouraged men to use force in order to create roads, railways, mines, houses, armies, etc etc.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Pelle

This is brilliant. Thank you.

 You have captured exactly what I've been meaning to say but have not been able to put into such a clear form. I feel warmed and strenghtened by your words, and am on the edge of tears of gratitude and a deep sense of affiliation.

And I also feel a sense of deep relief that, after all the deep digging that needs to go on as in these wonderful discussions here,  clearer (to me) perspectives can be put out forcefully and lovingly for the world to see and to decide upon.

Gratefully

James

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Pelle,

Thank you for your thoughts. Keep them coming. You bring a depth to the discussion and open it up to broader themes.

By raising all boys in a loving way, and teaching them to channel force in a healthy way (rather than shame or repress this aspect in boys), I believe that we can lower the incidence of rape significantly.

I would love to hear from the community on more of what you bring up here, on how teaching and raising boys can enable them to channel their force in healthy ways and prevent other destructive actions such as rape.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

What an unexpected journey we are taking! I hope our sense of community will be strengthed through this process… Rich

Hey Rich,

Glad to hear from you. Yes, I believe that our sense of community is being strengthened and I appreciate that you and others show up fully here. I was missing your interaction over the past few days.

This has been an interesting journey. This is the first time that I've as openly engaged in discussion on the theme of rape (outside of the psychotherapy I provide to victims of rape), so for me it's been a big step and has triggered all sorts of things in me. One of which is wanting to get out in society and have a very strong voice to advocate for the abused, to instruct on the damages of abuse and to provoke constructive debate on the topic in order to change the way we deal with rape, especially with children, in society.

I so resonate with you when you say

Instead of acknowledging th reality of child abuse we go crazy over stories about Michael Jackson, with this feeling of “witch hunt.”

When this story came out and people seemed so shocked that such a thing could ever happen I felt like screaming “But it is happening!! Right on the block where you live. This is not an isolated event. Wake up peoples!!”

So, I'd love to further our discussions because perhaps it's not the “inner rapist” concept that is a danger to trivializing rape (although I'm still not clear on this but am not sure if it requires further debate, at least for myself), but rather that we as a society don't discuss rape much at all except as something sensational and exceptional.

So what do you all think?? I'd like to throw some things out to you as a community to get more of your perspectives on the subject of rape in general and how society deals with it.

1. Why is rape not discussed as a natural conversation, the same as we now discuss drunk driving (when before this subject was taboo) and what can we do help make it more natural (and is it possible)?

2. Do you discuss rape openly with people and how is this received?

3. What can we do to change societal views on rape?

4. What can be done to educate society on the lifelong damages rape does to children?
 
5. What is our personal and collective responsiblity to the prevalence of rape in a society?

6. What questions do you have on this?

Love,
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Pelle, I agree entirely with what you say.  Allow me to add that the male propensity for using force must IMO be viewed as a survival necessity.  Around 10,000-5,000 B.C., population expanded in certain river delta areas to a degree that land-availability became the main avoidable threat to survival.  This threat was of course addressed by force and violence … if just for the reason that, even though I may want to live peaceably, if my neighbour doesn't, I'm toast.  At that time in history, and in Mesopotamia where I studied the matter, towns suddenly evidence the appearance of walls—within 200 years, bam!  Every city suddenly had walls! 

The walls were of course erected because human warring had emerged on the scene.  Interestingly, within some centuries of the appearance of walls, the dominant symbol system changed from earthly mother goddess (ie, a grain fertility focus and might I say scientific interest) to the warrior god of the sky (defence focus and scientific interest).  The locus of survival had shifted from learning, on the threat of death for inadequate learning, how to till the land and manipulate grain growing, to gaining and protecting sufficient lands to feed a burgeoning population.

These early dynamics, where humans learning to farm created growing populations, incorporated earlier-formed human functions, including the functions of food-getting and defence.  Those earlier formed functions were of course laid down over hundreds of millions of years (back to the beginning of life, really).  As Wilber is fond of saying, nature is a menu: it lives by consuming itself, and in the world of consumption, it's me versus you.  Humans eventually emerged as animals filling a generalized omnivore niche.  As those animals, we inherited earlier instincts to use force to gather food and defend—those intincts being necessary and part of life. 

In the human era, those instincts were divided, over time, disproportionately between men and women.  Because we were omnivores, our digestive tract became such that we literally needed meat to survive (try living without essential amino acids, “essential” meaning it has to be consumed, cannot be self-generated).  So we needed meat, and the question became, who is going to go get the meat?  Given the nature of human reproduction—women birthing babies who themselves are born utterly helpless—the only viable answer was that men will get the meat.

Thus did we become hunter gatherers, where men performed dangerous functions of meat getting and defence.

Notice that for long stretches of our history—essentially all time before the last 15,000 years thereabouts—human population growth was very close to nil.  This fact shows how important various allocation decisions were: get it wrong, ie, do anything that causes reproduction rates to decline, and extinction is the result.  Nature grinds *very* finely.

Men thus became, in the two or so million year hunter gatherer period, that part of the human population to which necessary violent functions were allocated.  Men thus developed the sweat glands, the muscle density, the hormonal base and brain functions to perform their necessary tasks. 

And such did life then carry on.  Four men would go hunting, three would come back.  If an animal raided the human community, a man would die and two others would be injured.

Generation after generation after generation.  Before the era of agriculture, violence was predominantly other animals versus us: hundreds and hundreds of millions of years of that.

Men dying performing their necessary violent functions very likely is the reason why men are taller than women on average.  A given community (10-40 humans) would start with equal men and women at birth.  Over time, there would be more women than men.  Women, of course, carried the task of reproducing, so what's a woman to do who has lost her man?  She simply becomes pregnant from another man.

Hence, in human communities was established a dynamic where, because one man would on average have sex with more than one woman, men began to compete against other men for access to these extra females.  That competition itself became an extra factor (probably the most important) causing men to be taller than women.

And thus did we arrive at the modern era!  Men are violent and they sleep around more!  Here's what I find astonishing, though not without understanding for sure: the modern airwaves are crammed with messages sent almost entirely by women castigating men for being violent and “sexual pigs.”  Oh my goodness what a lack of understanding can exist between people!  What a hardness in that attitude!  We are the products of evolution.  Evolution has its own rules—we are those rules.  Try going without eating for a while and see what happens.  Eating is a violent act (“oh, but I just sip wheat grass juice”).

I would also like to go on record, and to speak for at least some men, to say men don't like violence.  No animal does.  Animals avoid violence at all costs, and use it only where necessary.  You see this in the manner in which animals create social heirarchies: much of their sparring (much of it done by males) is a form of harsh play that stops just before someone really gets hurt.  A heirarchy is established at that point.

In evidence that men don't like violence is the declining violence rate in society.  From what I've gleaned, the best evidence shows a clear trend down in violence.  See Stephen Pinker's video here.  The data to which Pinker points rings intuitively: childhood evidences more (though less deadly) violence than adulthood (anyone with kids knows this, so does the criminal code).  Human development is toward greater social order, that order being a measure of development, stability, peace, cohesion.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Tom

Thank you so much for bringing the evolutionary context to this dicussion in such a clear way.

 I think it's vital to understanding Rich's original use of the word inner rapist on his original post in another thread. He tied it in to the evolutionary development of our brains, i.e. he associated the inner rapist with the most primitive part of our brain stem, and if we're coming from that place we don't even see the other person as a sentient being.

He also pointed out that we still have that part of our brains with us at all times. Thankfully of course our brain has developed more complex attributes, so that as we grow and develop we are not coming from that primitive place in our interactions with others, and instead are developing other qualities like empathy and compassion.


James

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the urge for sex decrease as intellect increases?  I can remember something about this is psychology 101 specifically where smarter men tended to have wives with smaller breasts – I don't mean to offend anyone by all means but this has to do with the brain.

I don't know all of the correct terminology but lets just compare the modern brain with the caveman's brain. In the Caveman brain I'm sure that violence was a necessity and the need to reproduce was probably much higher due to varous elements such as a much shorter lifespan. 

Most violent men or even rapist would probably suffer from not utilizing all of there brains.  I believe any man could probably get more in touch with this part of his brain through killing massive amounts of braincells either through drugs or not using the brain. 

Any thoughts?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Thank you Nightphoenix for your comments… It's truly appreciated.

I found myself compelled to join this discussion group just so I could comment of this particular post… and I'm wondering with a few exception's here if anyone understands RAPE is not an act of sexual expression… RAPE is an act of violence!  To remotely compare ones supposed “inner rapist” sexual desires to that of rape is more than offensive to those who have experience rape first hand or witnessed the aftermath of this act of violence with someone they loved or cared about.

Sorry If I'm coming off a bit strong here… but my impression is that society is becoming so desensitized by this act of violence they find a way to justify this horrific personal invasion as the norm. 

If you want to go out and have capricious sex… by all means do it and then don't worry if someone sits in judgment of your actions or thinks you're a whore…  If you participate in “sexual games” with your partner who says “no, ok, no, oh I guess”… then call it what it is… “sexual play”… but NOT your “inner rapist”

My personal opinion is this.  If you do have an “inner rapist” existing in your thoughts and the dark corners of your soul do us all a favor and hook yourself up to a Thorazine drip and lock yourself up in a padded cell. 

When you have been the victim or held a child in your arms who has been traumatized by this VIOLENT act… then maybe some of you will see the difference in “fantasy”  and just plain twisted!

My intention is not of offend anyone…I just needed to speak my truth!
Blessings,
Kris

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Personally I think it all boils down to how much love and respect we have within us,  if we have a high degree of love and respect  for another it tempers our desires so that any sexual act is mutually desired and loving and not forced or manipulative in any way
This is not just a male thing,Where there is an imbalance of libido women with a high libido also have two choices, love and respect the others feelings or be selfish and manipulative to satisfy their own desires. Taking what is not willingly given inevitably causes pain and distress and has a price. It is certainly not the option love would choose. .

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Beautifully said Zepher… I can wrap my head around love and mutual respect for one another.  And your right it's not a gender issue and applys to women as well. 

I'm with Zepher… I choose love!

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Nightphoenix wrote:
Most violent men or even rapist would probably suffer from not utilizing all of there brains. 

Kris wrote:
To remotely compare ones supposed “inner rapist” sexual desires to that of rape is more than offensive to those who have experience rape first hand or witnessed the aftermath of this act of violence with someone they loved or cared about.

Nightphoenix and Kris,

Welcome to this blog. Please keep your thoughts coming. I'd like to see more of your ideas developed here because I don't even think we have scratched the surface on this issue.

You've helped to renew my own interest in this blog as I was losing some steam and feeling a bit alone in my arguments, but am all fired up again. Thank you for your words… although I have to say that I am more merciful than you Kris regarding those working with their so-called “inner rapist” because at least they are willing to work on it, but I appreciate the rage you feel for the violence of rape and the concern you may also feel (I know I do) that those who have this “inner rapist” may one day act out on it and violate another human being. I know the ravages of rape and don't think that many in this discussion truly grasp it from an experiencial perspective and so can't understand deep within their being what I've been trying to communicate here, nor how offensive it is to trivialize the word “rape”.

Nightphoenix you mention the differences of the brain between a criminal one, like that of a rapist, and a non-criminal one. Science is indeed proving this more and more. There are massive differences.

So all this talk of “inner rapist” would IMO relate to those who perhaps have a brain developed differently than others. Again, not everyone has a so-called “inner rapist”. In my view, those who are asserting this are trying to over generalize perhaps to not feel guilt for the way their mind and impulses operate. IMO their mind is their own and I wish that they would just own it without trying to project it upon everyone else. OUR BRAINS ARE DIFFERENT AND SO ARE OUR THOUGHTS AND IMPULSES TOWARD POTENTIAL VIOLENCE!!

Consider these quotes:

1st quote:
“Mounting research indicates that deficiencies in the frontal or pre-frontal regions of the brain often correlate with various forms of violence and impulsivity that can lead to criminal acts.”
See: Criminal Brain for full article

2nd quote (this is a long one that was difficult to shorten):
“In order to understand why people act in antisocial ways, one needs to pinpoint which area of the brain controls social behavior. The prefrontal cortex has been thought to have something to do with control of social behavior ever since Phineas Gage's famous accident in 1848. Phineas Gage was a construction foreman who as a result of demolition accident had a tamping rod go into his cheek, through the front part of his brain and out through the top of his head again. He remained conscious through all of this and retained his intelligence and memory. However, the damage to his prefrontal cortex caused Gage's personality to change. He became impulsive, selfish and aggressive, which greatly contrasted the gentle, level-headed personality he possessed before the accident.”
See: Is There a Criminal Brain? for Gage's full well documented story

“The characteristics that Gage exhibited after his accident closely resemble some of the symptoms involved with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Some of the symptoms included in the DSM-VI are apathy towards others, a disregard for rights of others, a sense of entitlement, unremorseful, unconscienceable, blameful to others, manipulative, and affectively cold….    

The prefrontal cortex of men who have antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) has 11% less gray matter… These results provide a lot of evidence that the brains of those with antisocial personality are different from normal brains. … The right frontal orbital cortex is involved with fear conditioning, which is the nonconscious process of making an association between socially unacceptable behavior and punishment. Fear conditioning is thought to be important in forming the conscience. However, since individuals with ASPD seem to lack fear, their emotions often seem blunted. Rain describes it by saying, “While some people have biological systems that make it easy, others have biological systems that make it hard. If you're an individual whose right orbital cortex is not functioning well, you're biologically disadvantaged in developing a conscience.”
See: Is There a Criminal Brain? for full article

Happy reading and pondering.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hi Michael,

Pick any behaviour you've never acted: rape, murder, perhaps even assault (though you probably assaulted many persons as a child), drug addiction, alcoholism, thoughts of killing someone.  Can you tell me categorically that in any and all conceivable circumstances whatever you're 100% sure you would never do such behaviour?  If the answer is “no, I'm not 100% sure” you've found your inner rapist, and a link to a difficult side to humanity.

Saying the concept “inner rapist” is philosophical therefore not really real doesn't let anyone off the hook.  For “philosophical” matters, one is left supposing, surely, but how many people were surprised in life for having done something they didn't think they ever would?  I personally see value in stretching oneself through this kind of supposition.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hi Kris

Welcome to the group, and thank you for your contribution to this
thread.  Whilst I understand the depth of your feelings on this (and I do, as a woman who experienced rape in my teens) please be aware that whilst some participants are expressing and exploring ideas that you appear to find difficult to see their perspective, I sense that they are genuinely exploring an edge (and indeed I have worked with some of them directly to 'know' this). The moderators and indeed Robert and Diane wish  this forum to be a place of safe exploration (within the limits of on-line communication) of different perspectives so please be aware of that fine line between exploring your own experiences and negating those of others.

Please have a look at the Robert Augustus Masters Group Mission Statement, if you haven't already, and enjoy!  :)

This group is for people with an interest in the work of Robert Augustus Masters.  If you are not already familiar with his work and would like to know more, please have a look at the material in the Robert's Writings board, and in particular check out these two threads:

Robert Augustus Masters Interview: What Is Integral?

and An Integral Approach to Healing.

Julie
(in moderator mode)

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

As the cultivator of the Robert Augustus Masters group, I would like to strongly emphasize a few points.  New members, please refer to the Robert Augustus Masters Group Mission Statement; if the terms of that statement apply to you, you are welcome to participate (anyone is, of course, welcome to read the posts here).  I will quote the Mission Statement in full at the end of this message.

A couple of things to take particular note of:

• We are using Robert Augustus Masters' work as a central focus  and we are cultivating a virtual gathering place for people who have done  work with Robert and Diane Masters and/or who are interested in their work/writings, and who are committed to doing ongoing deep authentic work on themselves. 

• You are expected to treat your fellow forum participants with politeness and respect

• An Integral Approach to Healing
• Robert Augustus Masters Interview: What Is Integral?
• Facing the Dragon: Ending Our Suffering by Entering Our Pain
• Everything Serves Our Awakening
• Taking Care of Our Opposition

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Kris: My personal opinion is this.  If you do have an “inner rapist” existing in your thoughts and the dark corners of your soul do us all a favor and hook yourself up to a Thorazine drip and lock yourself up in a padded cell.

~

Hi Kris

I understand the strong feelings this subject arouses but please remain sensitive to the deep, vulnerable sharing on the part of men and women on this thread and elsewhere in the forum.

Please note in the Robert Augustus Masters Group Mission Statement that “you are expected to treat your fellow forum participants with politeness and respect.”  Suggesting that someone lock themselves in a padded room and hook themselves to a thorazine drip is neither polite nor respectful. 

One of the central themes of Robert's work is exploring honestly whatever dark shadows may exist for particular individuals.  Obviously this does not involve acting out and harming others – in fact, one of the reasons we do this work is so that we do not unconsciously harm others but rather consciously heal and integrate all elements of our beings.

namaste,
Arthur

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Hi, Kris!  I found myself really resonating with these comments you made:

RAPE is not an act of sexual expression… RAPE is an act of violence!  To remotely compare ones supposed “inner rapist” sexual desires to that of rape is more than offensive

If you want to go out and have capricious sex… by all means do it and then don't worry if someone sits in judgment of your actions or thinks you're a whore…  If you participate in “sexual games” with your partner who says “no, ok, no, oh I guess”… then call it what it is… “sexual play”… but NOT your “inner rapist”

My personal opinion is this.  If you do have an “inner rapist” existing in your thoughts and the dark corners of your soul do us all a favor and hook yourself up to a Thorazine drip and lock yourself up in a padded cell.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I hope this isn't seen as a negation because it is offered in the spirit of honesty:

“correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the urge for sex decrease as intellect increases?”

GOD I hope not!  There is a limit I will be truly happy to exceed!

As I look over this discussion, I see the word shadow being used to cover both the ego's shadow and the soul's shadow.  Now, if you are inclined to believe that there is no soul, this would be our dark shadow and golden shadow.  I see the distinction here important in the discussion of the notion that we all have an “inner rapist”.  If we are considering our ego self, and do not ourselves in this life we are living have the ego dysfunction that would cause the need to harm, exploit and dominate, it would be difficult indeed to consider this notion.

But if we are considering golden shadow, or that shadow that holds our highest potential - this shadow also holds our connection with all others and all life.  This shadow does hold for us, therefore, all aspects of life, including those discussed.  It is golden because, in embracing our golden aspect, the value judgments and duality fall away.  So Tom can so gracefully explain to us that yes, we are this expression of love for self, the earth and life.

I like Rudolph Steiner's take on shadow being the Guardians of the Threshold - there are two.  You cannot cross the threshold until you know that you  can illuminate darkness yourself.  The first Guardian, contains all of our fears in aspects of good and evil.  These fears prohibit our crossing the Threshold until we reconcile all good and evil within and see them interwoven into whole being.  The unseen becomes seen.

The second guardian is a sublime, luminous beauty impossible to describe.  It holds our highest potential, and our low self image and our percieved limits keep us from embracing this Guradian and crossing the Threshold. To embrace the second Guardian we must realize that invisible forces within our selves create our character and that our world is of sense is a seed ground for the higher world.  Here, everyone is redeemed and all are connected.  We cannot cross the threshold in separation.

Once we can cross the threshold, divine protection envelops us.  Evil that was once part of our experience will no longer enter our experience.  Because we have integrated evil and no longer hold it in separation, the greater is joined to the lesser and proceeds from us in love for all.

This is the process as Steiner sees it.

Over the eons, this story has been told and retold in different language.  We all gravitate to the story that validates our process in the moment and this is perfect.

In this wonderful discussion, I can see that everything that has been said is true to the person saying.  We each bring a viewpoint that allows a bigger picture.  What a wonderful design.

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Molly

this is really beautiful to me.  i love the idea of illuminating the darkness - the radiant dark! rather than “eliminating” the darkness. I love this idea of guardians at the gate.  Gatekeepers.   These sorts of things are the things I want to explore in fiction! (If i recall correctly you write too?) “the shadow that holds our highest potential”.  I understand this lure and I am also drawn to exploring the dark because it feels like part of “coming home”. 

Tom, I have been appreciating deeply your expression - in this conversation where it is even more difficult to say it - of how we are all connected. This book I am reading by Micheal Brown (the Presence Process) also speaks this message.  Brown notes that when we are present, in the moment, breathing and conscious of our breath - we can do no harm to another person - we feel too connected. In the same way as we can do no harm, i suspect we can not reject the person. We stand breathing, listening to our heart beat and it know without a doubt, it mirrors the heart of one in front of us and of the universe.

Gitanjali

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

I've relocated this thread to the Doing the Work board, since it's not about asking Robert a question (it was originally in the ASK ROBERT board).

cheers,
Arthur

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Arthur wrote:
I've relocated this thread to the Doing the Work board, since it's not about asking Robert a question (it was originally in the ASK ROBERT board).

Hello Arthur,

First, let me thank you and Julie for reminding everyone of the context of these discussions and the respect we want to exemplify to each other. Although we may have impassioned discussions let's all keep our responses, as best we can, with a compassionate view of one another. We are all doing our work here even if we might not agree on some things. Still, I'd hate to see things become to nicey nice because then we'd lose the edge of being real and seeking to go into deeper truths.

Arthur, I read that you took this thread out of the “Ask Robert” and have it listed under “Doing the Work”. I would still appreciate hearing from Robert on this though as I believe it to be a very worthy topic of understanding for us all as we do our work. I don't know how he views this and don't recall him ever using the term “inner rapist” in my work with him, whether individual or in group.

I am concerned that this “shadow” is being coined by some as being something that all men have (ie: since the cavemen days) and perhaps need to connect with if they are to become men who can truly tap into becoming men who live and exemplify true intimacy, passion and wholeness (ie: and thereby get a handle on their caveman impulses). I think that there are other ways to do this and I also believe that not all men, nor their minds, are the same… and hence not all of their shadows, nor the intensities of their inner urges are the same either. Not all men have the same extremes of sexual energies or imaginations as those that have been expressed here.

So, does the integral movement assume that all men are the same in this, even to the same degrees and extremes? Can things be so simplist so as to discount human uniqueness even in matters of sexuality and the extreme expressions of rape, whether the manifestation is inward or outward?

My initial question to Robert is simply:

With the “inner rapist” concept being used in integral healing circles, is there a danger of trivializating rape?

I hope Robert would be willing to reply to this question and to the other two I voiced above. I deeply respect him and would appreciate it if he could take the time to respond. I am not aware of his views on this matter and I value this input. Perhaps this could help clarify some of the debate for us all.

Arthur, thank you for considering my request.

Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael: Arthur, I read that you took this thread out of the “Ask Robert” and have it listed under “Doing the Work”. I would still appreciate hearing from Robert on this though as I believe it to be a very worthy topic of understanding for us all as we do our work.

~

Sorry, Michael, it wasn't immediately clear to me that you were intending to get Robert's input on this issue.  Thank you for formulating the question to Robert in a more direct way; your question and Robert's answer are posted in the thread Do All Men Have an “Inner Rapist”? in the “Ask Robert” board.

namaste,
Arthur

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

That's my take on it too, Pelle, thanks for saying that so clearly.

Domination, boundary violation and destruction through a sexual act surely has a particular way of damaging our psyche?  It is important that it happens through a sexual act.

Gitanjali

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael: First, let me thank you and Julie for reminding everyone of the context of these discussions and the respect we want to exemplify to each other. Although we may have impassioned discussions let's all keep our responses, as best we can, with a compassionate view of one another. We are all doing our work here even if we might not agree on some things. Still, I'd hate to see things become to nicey nice because then we'd lose the edge of being real and seeking to go into deeper truths.

Michael like you and many others, nicey nice isnt of much interest to me.  I long for very authentic sharing, the kind where people can really go profoundly deep and still feel accepted and held.  I dont feel that that degree of realness is mostly achievable online - for me, its too narrow a filter for self-expression and reception. At least I think it would have to be an online-offline connection. Still we do what we can :) 

What I am liking about the discussion in this last week or so is that it is going into some deeper and darker places and doing so in a constructive and respectful way. 

What often happens when any of us speak to others with some disrespect is that people shrink away or attack.  Attack usually leads to break down and when shrink away happens it can lead to nicey nice.  So in fact, respect gives us the foundation for staying more deeply engaged and less nicey nice. 

When you, Kris, posted I did feel attacked, and that others were attacked personally.  Behind that post, I also recognised passion and a speaking of your truth, that interested me and drew me. 

And when you responded to Kris, Michael, I sensed in you that wonderful ability you have to welcome all comers in your embrace.  I also sensed you not acknowledging the attack and I did not feel safe, I continued to feel wary.  When Juliee and Arthur then stepped in, I felt a relax again.

Even though this is a tiny incident in the scheme of things, I wanted to let you especially know how I felt at that time.  It feels important to convey that to you, Michael, for some reason.

Gitanjali

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Tom said to Michael,
Pick any behaviour you've never acted: rape, murder, perhaps even assault (though you probably assaulted many persons as a child), drug addiction, alcoholism, thoughts of killing someone.  Can you tell me categorically that in any and all conceivable circumstances whatever you're 100% sure you would never do such behaviour?  If the answer is “no, I'm not 100% sure” you've found your inner rapist, and a link to a difficult side to humanity.

Dear Tom,

I don't appreciate your above assumption of “you probably assaulted may persons as a child”. You don't know me. Again, you seem to assume generalization of violent behavior for others and I just don't understand why you do so. IMO you sound very angry and reactive.

Tom, I hope that you can hear my heart on these things. My tone here is one of kindness with a desire to dig deeper into matters that I believe are extremely important for us all as we seek to grow individually and collectively as well as inspire each other, but also in the moral obligation we have toward the rest of society as we develop language around this work.

In your last post, I think you are confusing several things in your attempt to convince me of all men having an “inner rapist” and of our need to embrace this concept in our personal work.

Drug addiction and alcoholism are forms of self-abuse that do not involve raping someone else, so I don't see either as being valid in your argument to defend the “inner rapist” construct. Such addictions, while they are harmful to oneself, reflect a less damaging path than the one who acts out with rape. Someone may have an alcohol or drug addiction but not necessarily rapist tendencies so to equate the two IMO is not relevant to this discussion.

On the other hand, rape and killing thoughts or actions are directed toward another. Now, there are those acts or thoughts that occur due to something horrible that the other person may have perpetrated against them, such as acts of self-defense in the event of an attack or even murder. Then, there are those acts or thoughts that are experienced toward those who have done no direct harm, such as in indiscriminant murder or rape. A clear distinction between these two must be drawn. 
 

For example, for someone to act out in self-defense seeking to protect themselves or loved ones does not convince me that this person would also have hence an “inner rapist” as you might suggest. The act of protecting even in the use of violence is not the same as other forms of violence such as indiscriminant murder or rape. Such protecting is an act of love toward themselves and their loved ones with a strong will to fulfill their place as provider.  Rape thoughts or acts have none of this.

For someone to think about harming someone, hitting them or even murder, because of something done to them whether real or perceived again does not convince me that they would also have an “inner rapist”, such as what you suggest.

Further, lashing out by hitting or by murdering denote two very different degrees of violence. While hitting someone and murder may be of a similar initial anger impulse they are not exactly the same. You can want to hit someone but still love them intensely, wanting to hit them just to get their attention because you are passionate about the relationship and want more intimacy, wanting to be truly heard (please note that I am in no way advocating any form of physical violence here). Just because someone wants to hit another person does not automatically assume that they also want to murder them too or that they also must then have an “inner rapist”.
Then there are the murders that are perpetrated without any sense of injustice experienced in the relationship between murderer and victim. These are done by those who are sociopaths with no sense of conscience or human dignity. Here there is extreme violence, but they may not have an “inner rapist” either. IMO one does not automatically assume the other. “A” does not automatically equal “B”. However, it could be rightfully argued that one with such murderous tendencies would be more capable of rape behaviors or rape fantasizes than one without.

Rape involves dehumanization. It is total domination through sexual force and goes to a much darker degree, not comparable with other harm responses. It takes the initial response of violence to a much more damaging and IMO evil place.

Murder, assault, drug addiction, alcoholism or thoughts of killing someone do not involve the same level of dehumanization. None of these aforementioned thoughts or behaviors indicate that they would also automatically have an “inner rapist”.

Now, I could perhaps believe that someone who has an impulse of hitting another may indeed have thoughts of murder that flash through their mind indicating some form of an “inner murderer” shadow. This argument would make more sense to me as they all involve the act of lashing out in some violent form or another. However, rape is another matter all together. Rape is not just lashing out… it is dehumanizing, humiliating, sexualizing, objectifying, penetrating another, getting sexually aroused through violence.  So for you to compare these is IMO to not fully understand what rape involves.

Tom you said: Saying the concept “inner rapist” is philosophical therefore not really real doesn't let anyone off the hook. 

I never said that the “inner rapist” concept was not real. It must be very real for those who experience it and I hope that they do their work around it. Indeed, I respect those who are doing such work. However, just because we may all have some form of anger response does not mean we all have an “inner rapist” shadow and need to do work on this too. We all have integration to work on and much of this holds unique aspects. We are attempting in this group to work with the difficult sides of humanity that are within ourselves, but let's not project our own personal work upon everyone else.

Warmly,
Michael

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael, did you ever hit anyone as a child?

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

Michael, this is really powerful.  Your distinctions about the differences between rape and more survival-oriented violence really hit the mark!

Although I still resonate with the idea that we all have an inner rapist inasmuch as we all have everything inside of us, I think different people have different relationships to that part of themselves, and as long as it's not being acted out destructively, I figure each person needs to look at it or not look at it or work it out however they need to in order to grow optimally.

Thanks so much for your presence during this thread!

Re: "Inner Rapist" concept: Is there a danger of trivialization?

My understanding of shadow is that it is those parts of ourselves which have been stuffed behind a screen in our minds because it was too dangerous to admit to - and whether those aspects are deemed 'bad' or 'good in our society/family/school/workplace/relationship etc. will vary from place to place and time to time, creating a constant dance of shadow formation and revelation.And these aspects will include the darker and brighter aspects of humanity (i.e. where I grew up it was 'bad' to be clever or achieve anything).

Therefore the form that anyone's shadow takes will vary to the same degree that anyone's upbringing, experiences and indeed genetics vary. I personally don't feel it is helpful to have a 'one size fits all' approach to shadow work, that we *must*  all explore our 'inner rapist'. More helpful is to allow the space for each of us to explore our own particular shadow(s) in a none shaming way.

Julie