Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Parsing the Weird Pseudo-Science of "Forcible Rape"

It's occurred to me that some people on hearing or seeing Todd Akins' recent "apology' (and his added comment that he "can't see what all the fuss is about" ) may not appreciate the pseudo-science behind the  GOP extremists' parsing of language to discriminate "forcible rape" from "non-forcible" rape. Again, in presenting this, I have to thank Rachel Maddow for providing the background in her in depth analysis last night. To be frank, I never ever realized such a hodge podge of outdated malarkey and balderdash even existed as regards human female sexuality.

I already knew, in terms of male sexuality, that many of the original Fathers in the Catholic Church had violently railed against masturbation as a form of "genocide" and "murder" based on the "homunculus" theory. This held that each sperm was really a homunculus (miniaturized man) so had to be protected - extended the same rights - as the "big man" in whom it lived. Of course, this horse pocky (or at least the justification for opposing jerking off based on it) ceased after the microscope was invented and sperm could be seen as tiny cells - none of which appeared like tiny humans!

The "forcible rape" definition applied to women appears to have emerged, based on Rachel Maddow's analysis, over time and been confabulated more by half-assed politicos looking for excuses to ban or outlaw abortion, than  having any genuine medical support. At root, the theory - or better idiotic speculation - is based on the nature of female hormonal secretions (which real ones, frankly, I doubt either James Leon Holmes or Clayton Williams would recognize if they had to).

Anyway, according to this misbegotten pseudo-scientific claptrap, a woman who is "forcibly raped" - in other words attested to by having bruises all about her body and face and likely ending up in an ER because of trying to  fight off the rapist(s), will secrete hormones that effectively kill or neutralize any sperm. (Some of these a-holes assert the secretions become highly "acidic" so eliminate the invading hostile sperm this way, preventing pregnancy.)

Hence, in such a "legitimate rape" there is little if any likelihood of pregnancy.

On the other hand, according to Holmes, Clayton and other yahoos,  there are "other secretions" which will be generated but have no effect on such hostile sperm, because the secretions were enabled as part of the female experiencing pleasure during the rape. Also, the other best evidence is that the raped females displayed no major head or body traumas indicating a ferocious fighting off or at least attempt. Hence, according to their "logic", it follows that in some manner, shape or form the women really "wanted it". After all, as one was quoted: "Lookit all them rape fantasies such women have!"

Hence, these women, were non-forcibly raped because deep down they really wanted it and enjoyed it, based on their lack of the proper secretions ....oh ...and an absence of physical signs of ferocious resistance, i.e. facial, head contusions and body lacerations.

THIS is part and parcel of the sort of distinction originally made by both Akins AND Paul Ryan in their House Bill H.R. 3, which (2011) language was later moderated, but for which the more rigid draconian demands of being "wanded" (by an ultrasound device) later surfaced in H.R. 3805.

The more you know.....or maybe, most of us don't want to....but I think it's important to grasp the underlying codswallop behind what these idiots believe, and why they're determined to get their anti-female choice laws passed. And hope most Americans, especially women, don't have a clue.

Foootnote: The local rag in its editorial today('Rape is rape' says Obama - but Society must parse and qualify it', p. A15) claims: "The FBI parses one form of rape: Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting (UCR) program, is 'the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will'".   The Rag (Gazette) then goes on to claim this is distinguished from "statutory rape" - in the same UCR - which they (the Gazette) also claim the FBI defines as "non-forcible sex" . The editorial also claims: "the vast majority of rapes that result in pregnancies are statutory rapes."  Leave it to the local yahoos to muddy the waters again! If indeed, the FBI UCR makes such a distinction they need to re-do their literature more carefully, because this plays directly into the hands, paws of the Akins of the world. If any blog readers wish to submit their opinions to the local rag, you can email them at: opinion@gazette.com

Be aware they prefer letters of "200 words or less". Have a go, as they refuse to publish anything of mine anymore. (I wonder why!)

No comments: