It happens more so in war, where the law is not always able to provide near immediate effort, and often times the act is committed in a continued succession where the attackers feel the need to act, not in the name of self motivation, but for their side. Thus, acts in war are not completely different then acts in civil society. The distinction behind the two is that where society there is more than most times a single attacker; in war there are multiple attackers. The distinction continues, the individual does so for personal gain, where the war attackers do so for their sides gain. In both cases the idea behind rape is the same, to subjugate the victim while emphasizing the power and dominance of the attacker. It is outlawed an prohibited in war, but like society it does …show more content…
conquered relationship with the victim. In war, a masculine perception of man is demanded. Instances, such as the Soviet and Nazi army in WWII or the Vietnamese War with the Americans the image is satisfied, at least to a degree. Men who commit rape do so for various reasons but, ultimately the reasons remain the same; as Brownmiller shows in war, where the environment and the act are more extreme the reason does not change. Men feel frustration towards the enemy, frustration and fear in being in a unknown land surrounded by unknown people, who speak an unknown language, and fear of the thought that every day could be your last. So it is most often that these men cooperate in the act of rape so as to take back their perception of masculinity while, with the mentality of fighting for just causes, are conquering the enemy. Rape in war as in civil society is the same, according to Brownmiller; rape is an action that installs fear in the victims as a means to inject power and idealized superiority in the