Rosalind Innes #fundie

Rosalind Innes #fundie physicalfeministresources.tumblr.com

Crucial to the ideological notion of ‘rape’ is the concept of consent. Rape is sexual act of a man against a woman - it is conceived by the bourgeois legal apparatus to be an act of heterosexual intercourse without the consent of the woman—Its criminal nature centers on this question of consent. Thus the law, based on the ideological construct of equality and thus 'free choice’ makes a sharp distinction between heterosexual intercourse which is freely consensual and that which isn’t, the latter legally constituting rape.

It would seem to be obvious at this point that one effect of the ideological function of 'rape’ is to obscure sexual relations between men and women. To make a qualitative distinction between rape and consensual heterosexuality on the basis of such a profoundly ideological concept as bourgeois equality, is not only to indulge in political naivete but to avoid an analysis of sexuality as a whole. It is to avoid what is essential to an understanding of rape - a scientific analysis of the way in which capitalism organizes sexuality.

—Rosalind Innes, Rape Ideology and the Maintenance of Women’s Oppression, June 1977

15 comments

old comment by Nemo

1. Realities of defining characteristic

If one examines subcapitalist discourse, one is faced with a choice: either
reject structural nationalism or conclude that narrativity is used to
marginalize the Other, but only if art is interchangeable with narrativity. In
a sense, Debord uses the term textual theory’ to denote a neocapitalist
totality. Baudrillard promotes the use of dialectic appropriation to read and
analyse class.

The characteristic theme of de Selby’s[1] model of
structural nationalism is the role of the reader as writer. But Hanfkopf[2] holds that we have to choose between subtextual
dedeconstructivism and the cultural paradigm of context. The primary theme of
the works of Fellini is a self-falsifying reality.

“Culture is used in the service of capitalism,” says Bataille. In a sense,
the subject is interpolated into a textual theory that includes truth as a
whole. The characteristic theme of Pickett’s[3] analysis of
prepatriarchialist narrative is the bridge between sexual identity and society.

If one examines textual theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept
subcapitalist discourse or conclude that class has intrinsic meaning. However,
a number of appropriations concerning textual theory may be revealed. The
subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist discourse that includes culture
as a reality.

“Sexual identity is fundamentally meaningless,” says Sartre; however,
according to Tilton[4] , it is not so much sexual identity
that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the stasis, and subsequent
failure, of sexual identity. Thus, Bataille’s critique of Lyotardist narrative
implies that truth may be used to reinforce hierarchy. The primary theme of the
works of Gibson is the absurdity of capitalist culture.

It could be said that any number of theories concerning the role of the
artist as participant exist. In Pattern Recognition, Gibson affirms
textual theory; in Idoru, however, he examines subtextual nationalism.

But subcapitalist discourse states that the Constitution is dead. Debord
suggests the use of structural nationalism to deconstruct class divisions.

In a sense, the premise of the capitalist paradigm of consensus suggests
that reality serves to exploit minorities, given that structural nationalism is
valid. The creation/destruction distinction prevalent in Gibson’s
Neuromancer emerges again in Virtual Light, although in a more
neomodern sense.

However, if capitalist discourse holds, we have to choose between textual
theory and pretextual deconstructive theory. Sontag’s model of subcapitalist
discourse holds that discourse comes from the masses.

It could be said that a number of narratives concerning textual theory may
be discovered. Batailleist `powerful communication’ states that truth may be
used to entrench outmoded perceptions of sexual identity, but only if art is
distinct from reality; if that is not the case, society, surprisingly, has
objective value.

Therefore, the main theme of Geoffrey’s[5] essay on
structural nationalism is not narrative, but prenarrative. Sontag promotes the
use of subcapitalist discourse to read sexual identity.

In a sense, Long[6] holds that we have to choose between
structural discourse and Debordist image. Several theories concerning the
difference between language and society exist.

So, does my post make more or less sense than Rosalind Innes? Because mine came from the Postmodern Essay Generator.

old comment by Jamaican Castle

I think it's fair to say that in general usage, rape is normally considered to encompass all unwanted sexual contact - regardless of the sexes of the respective individuals or the type of intercourse. As is typical of the common law, the statutory definition of rape may only include a small portion of that but that hardly means other non-consensual sex isn't covered under some felony or other. (This isn't unusual; look at the definitions of assault and battery in different jurisdictions if you really want a headache.)

Honestly I find it hard to grapple with this post because I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the phrase "bourgeois equality". Surely the existence of the bourgeois is itself indicative of some kind of inequality, which the Revolution is intended to squelch? (Whether or not the Revolution has ever actually done so notwithstanding.) Unless Rosalind is suggesting a sort of totalitarian state where there is no concept of individual rights or standing, only those privileges given by the state or Party. Which... she could be doing, I suppose, although it's a wonder why anyone would want to live there.