CLAIM: ‘Intimate Assault Is a Crime of Violence, Not Lust’ — True or False?

In the news reporting of the recent spate of regime-encouraged Hamas pogroms, rape is commonly described as solely a crime of violent aggression (of a piece with murder, looting, etc.), and not due to lust.

This is not just about tainting Hamas, it’s the feminist idea of encouraging female irresponsibility and promiscuity.

(I hope this discussion doesn’t appear insensitive.)

I don’t pretend to know the truth (could it be both aggression and lust? A third option?) but note well: the origin of this counter-intuitive claim is the fevered neo-marxists (*) who call themselves “feminists” (to learn more, input: “crime of lust” “crime of violence” in a search engine). So why should we give this notion any credit (the Genetic Non-Fallacy)?

Also, here are some counter-arguments:

1. Why are females at greater risk than males (except in prison, I think)?
2. If attraction has nothing to do with it, why the added risk of “date rape” (debatable)?
3. Why are females aged 16-19 at disproportionate risk?
4. Don’t Chazal imply the opposite regarding Dinah bas Yaakov (and other places)?
5. If it’s purely about violence, how come we never even encounter the ukimta of “נתקשה לאשתו”? Violence and intimacy appear to simply be two distinct bodily functions among many, alternately taking over (in non-violent intimacy the “control” (והוא ימשל בך) can be mere metaphor).
6. Here’s one study claiming that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% (for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year). Why would that be?
7. If you hate someone, would the hatred increase or decrease after beating them up? Decrease (if anything). Then why did Amnon hate Tamar so much davka after the assault? And see commentaries.
8. Lastly, a weaker, but perhaps still valid question: If the attacker’s intentions are solely violent, why would there ever appear a “יצר אלבשה” effect in the victim? Wouldn’t pure violence “kill the mood”?

Note: I can’t do effective research due to the subject matter.

(*) “Marxist” as in the notion it’s all “systemic”, you have no individual agency, and your puny disagreement with the comrades based on immediate introspection or the Five Senses is invalid, unscientific, and counter-revolutionary because you are helplessly conditioned by “Society” into dangerous falsehoods (we have elsewhere highlighted the fatal contradiction of knowledge in that idea).