tw: rape, rape psychology
"(And for any woman who has been raped, you KNOW what lamentation actually means.) "

There is so much wrong with that sentence that my brain attempted to reboot, broke again, and entered safe mode. Subsequent paragraph is written clinically to keep from losing my mind.

I'm sure my abusers got off regardless of whether or not I fought, cried, etc. (To make a very dark joke: "I know because I was there.") Playing dead, dissociating, and all but ignoring them once the attack began conserved energy for subsequent fleeing (not to mention saved my psyche), but their enjoyment was rooted in the fact that they were gratified by non-consensual sex. As Evil Liberal Science (and the Reddit rape confessions) have shown, rapists are incapable of achieving satisfactory orgasm via consensual sex.

Looking at Groth's typology: there's one variant of rapists that is not excited by, and is in fact confused by, a violent response from the victim. (Anecdata: I know of one in my area.) Sadistic rapists are the most organized and advanced, and, yes, they fit Ringo's argument. They are, however, not the majority of the offender pool, which is noted constantly in the literature.

Gjhvghufghjhjfg my brain just... I don't know why I'm trying to correct this. As for his '50s comment: I should introduce him to my relatives. They were all instructed to cover up or deny abuse as kids, even after witnessing it, because that was, actually, how it worked in the '50s. Which is why, as adults, they needed to know if I was "rape-raped or just date-raped" and made no mention of the fact that I was coming home bruised.

NORMS, HOW DO THEY WORK.

This reminds me of a response I saw to the latest PA Dickwolves dust up: "One in three college women are sexually assaulted, so you can't say rape has life-long consequences. Otherwise, you're telling a huge population that they'll never get better! That's sexist!"

Maybe Ringo wrote that comment. I wouldn't be surprised.