What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?

[theprestige]

If the mouth says no, trust it!!!! If only the eyes say yes, you have gone deaf on the topic. The words you hear are the ones that count.

What are you talking about?

 

[Delvo]

Charlie Rose has said he thought he was acting on mutual attractions. I wonder how often that's the real answer: not wanting to impose one's self on somebody else, but thinking that's not what one is actually doing.

Something that some of you might not realize about the life of a long-term single man (whether it's the same for married ones, I don't know but I expect not): we are constantly getting bombarded with absolutely terrible advice from our female friends, telling us to think of pretty much anything & everything that any (other) woman or girl ever does in our presence as clear obvious unmistakable flirting.

 

[dann]

This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.

Rose issued a statement reading: "I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken."
Wikipedia

 

[xjx388]

This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.

Why do you find it hard to believe when there are so many examples of it happening? This is just the way people are.
We can’t be the bad guys in our own story.

 

[dann]

Why do you find it hard to believe when there are so many examples of it happening?

What I find hard to believe is that they don't even suspect that their victims accept their behavior, not because these guys are charming or irresistible, but because of the power they have to destroy the lives of their victims. It would be like going to a prostitute, which is something that most men don't do in the first place, and not suspect that she is probably not having sex with you because she's into you.

This is just the way people are.

Nothing is "just the way people are."

We can’t be the bad guys in our own story.

A few of them seem to accept as a fact that, yes, they have been bad guys.

 

[dann]

... we are constantly getting bombarded with absolutely terrible advice from our female friends, telling us to think of pretty much anything & everything that any (other) woman or girl ever does in our presence as clear obvious unmistakable flirting.

That is one of the problems with flirting: There is no such thing as "clear obvious unmistakable flirting." It is a contradiction in terms!

either to suggest (!) interest in a deeper relationship with the other person, or if done playfully, for amusement. In most cultures, it is socially disapproved for a person to make explicit (!) sexual advances in public, or in private to someone not romantically acquainted, but indirect (!) or suggestive (!) advances (i.e. flirting) may at times (!) be considered acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirting

Flirting is, per definition, ambiguous! it is a way of revealing the feelings you have for another person, without being completely open about them. You give little signs and hints that could be interpreted as interest, but on the other hand, they might also just be a joke, nothing serious. Depending on the reaction of the 'object of your desire,' you can back down and pretend that you were never really serious in the first place, or you may feel encouraged to make your intentions clearer.
This also explains the "terrible advice" from your female friends, who are trying to persuade you not to give up hope.

 

[xjx388]

What I find hard to believe is that they don't even suspect that their victims accept their behavior, not because these guys are charming or irresistible, but because of the power they have to destroy the lives of their victims. It would be like going to a prostitute, which is something that most men don't do in the first place, and not suspect that she is probably not having sex with you because she's into you.

Nothing is "just the way people are."

A few of them seem to accept as a fact that, yes, they have been bad guys.

Bad behavior towards others is not always a result of sociopathy or lack of empathy. Mostly, it isn't even self-assessed as bad behavior because we can rationalize/justify it. This is basic psychology and thus, is indeed "just the way people are."

Weinstein likely knew that what he was doing was wrong on some level. Indeed, his statement to the NYT says, "I came of age in the 60's and 70's . . . " when rules for behavior were different. That's a rationalization. People like that can still act badly and come up with a justification in his mind for that bad behavior: "This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"

Indeed, in another statement, he, "has a different recollection of the events." Right. His recollection is likely that they wanted him and he wasn't exploiting them. Rationalization/Justification.

If you want to "cognitively empathize," with sexual predators, all you have to do is look back on a time when you behaved badly but came up with a good reason why you should. It doesn't have to be anything really bad: "I know I shouldn't eat that donut because I'm diabetic; but, I'm going to because I deserve it after the hard day I had." Same thought process as a sexual predator but on a more twisted scale. Rationalization/Justification is about as close to an understanding of this behavior as you are going to get.

 

[dann]

Men behaving badly

Bad behavior towards others is not always a result of sociopathy or lack of empathy. Mostly, it isn't even self-assessed as bad behavior because we can rationalize/justify it. This is basic psychology and thus, is indeed "just the way people are."

No, it isn't. You make a couple of false analogies. You seem to think that because people in general "rationalize/justify" what they consider to be "bad behavior", we can't talk of "sociopathy or lack of empathy" in the case of Weinstein and his ilk because they rationalize and justify their "bad behavior", too.
You actually have some very good examples of sociopathic rationalization from Weinstein, but you refuse to see them as such, merely because they're also rationalizations!
'OK, so I raped somebody, and you took the name of the Lord in vain. We both came up with bad excuses for our behavior. That's just the way we people are.'
And then you try to prove your point with actual Wenstein quotations … I presume?!

Weinstein likely knew that what he was doing was wrong on some level. Indeed, his statement to the NYT says, "I came of age in the 60's and 70's . . . " when rules for behavior were different. That's a rationalization. People like that can still act badly and come up with a justification in his mind for that bad behavior: "This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"

Indeed, in another statement, he, "has a different recollection of the events." Right. His recollection is likely that they wanted him and he wasn't exploiting them. Rationalization/Justification.

Your argument is: Sociopathy is "bad behavior" and you and I sometimes exhibit bad behavior, so sociopathy is what everybody does, and consequently there is no such thing!

However, you yourself should have been able to see through your own rationalizations when you come up with the following example, another analogy - and a very unfortunate one when you consider that women abused by sexual predators are now analogous to food:

If you want to "cognitively empathize," with sexual predators, all you have to do is look back on a time when you behaved badly but came up with a good reason why you should. It doesn't have to be anything really bad: "I know I shouldn't eat that donut because I'm diabetic; but, I'm going to because I deserve it after the hard day I had." Same thought process as a sexual predator but on a more twisted scale. Rationalization/Justification is about as close to an understanding of this behavior as you are going to get.

And yet you may be on to something! Your ridiculous analogy can actually be used to gain an insight into the difference between sociopaths and empathic human beings: Sociopaths devour fellow human beings and worry only about how it might affect themselves adversely! The interests and feelings of the people they prey on worry them as little as the feelings of the donut enter into the considerations of the guy who ate it.
And once again the only similarity is that both the sexual predator and the diabetic rationalize, and so, in your way of thinking, they are both examples of "just the way people are."

Unless, you seriously recommend that diabetic donut eaters should be accused of "lack of empathy" with the donut …

 

[Delvo]

That is one of the problems with flirting: There is no such thing as "clear obvious unmistakable flirting." It is a contradiction in terms!..

...Flirting is, per definition, ambiguous!

...which has never stopped anybody from portraying it as such anyway and using that portrayal to tell men we're stupid.

This also explains the "terrible advice" from your female friends, who are trying to persuade you not to give up hope.

Their motivation and the explanation are beside the point. The point was the effects, or at least potential effects, if one of us were to actually buy it. The dispensers of this terrible advice are trying to create monsters.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Have you ever felt sexually attracted to someone who didn't want to have sex with you?

If so, you do know exactly what it's like wanting to have sex with an unwilling partner

 

[xjx388]

No, it isn't.

I think you are denying the reality of human nature here.

You make a couple of false analogies. You seem to think that because people in general "rationalize/justify" what they consider to be "bad behavior", we can't talk of "sociopathy or lack of empathy" in the case of Weinstein and his ilk because they rationalize and justify their "bad behavior", too.

I didn't say that we couldn't talk about it, only that you don't have to be a sociopath in order to engage in the same kinds of behavior that sociopaths do. I also didn't say that rationalization/justification rules out sociopathy. All I said was that when humans behave badly, they tend to rationalize/justify their actions.

You actually have some very good examples of sociopathic rationalization from Weinstein, but you refuse to see them as such, merely because they're also rationalizations!
'OK, so I raped somebody, and you took the name of the Lord in vain. We both came up with bad excuses for our behavior. That's just the way we people are.'
And then you try to prove your point with actual Wenstein quotations … I presume?!

Let me ask you: Are all rapists sociopaths? Are all sociopaths rapists? "No," is the correct answer to both questions.

Your argument is: Sociopathy is "bad behavior"

No it isn't. You are starting from false premises.

and you and I sometimes exhibit bad behavior, so sociopathy is what everybody does, and consequently there is no such thing!

And thus you have reached an erroneous conclusion.

Humans behave badly and come up with rationalizations/justifications to assuage anxiety and guilt. Again, this is basic psychology -the defense mechanism. Weinstein could be a sociopath -more properly, suffer from anti-social personality disorder- or he could just be a normal dude who got too carried away with his power. I am not attempting to diagnose anyone, just pointing out that bad behavior does not always stem from mental illness.

However, you yourself should have been able to see through your own rationalizations when you come up with the following example, another analogy - and a very unfortunate one when you consider that women abused by sexual predators are now analogous to food:

How are these women analogous to food? It couldn't be anything I said because I wasn't making an analogy. I was providing an example of a minor instance of a bad behavior most of us can relate to in order to illustrate the idea that we rationalize/justify bad behavior. If you understand that minor instance of rationalization, you can get a better idea of the thinking process behind rationalizing more egregious forms of bad behavior.

And yet you may be on to something! Your ridiculous analogy can actually be used to gain an insight into the difference between sociopaths and empathic human beings: Sociopaths devour fellow human beings and worry only about how it might affect themselves adversely! The interests and feelings of the people they prey on worry them as little as the feelings of the donut enter into the considerations of the guy who ate it.
And once again the only similarity is that both the sexual predator and the diabetic rationalize, and so, in your way of thinking, they are both examples of "just the way people are."

Unless, you seriously recommend that diabetic donut eaters should be accused of "lack of empathy" with the donut …

That was a very tortured response to an argument I never made.

 

[dann]

...which has never stopped anybody from portraying it as such anyway and using that portrayal to tell men we're stupid.

No, but in that case they're the ones who are stupid.

Their motivation and the explanation are beside the point.

Then I don't see why you carry on talking about their motivations:

The point was the effects, or at least potential effects, if one of us were to actually buy it. The dispensers of this terrible advice are trying to create monsters.

They aren't "trying to create monsters". They are trying to help somebody overcome (what they perceive to be) their inhibitions. But you are right about the potential monstrous effect that their advice would have "if one of us were to actually buy it."
But I don't see the relevance of that fact in this discussion: Weinstein, Cosby and Spacey aren't what you describe as "one of us".
Well-intended dispensers of advice don't recommend that you slip the girl a Mickey because she's probably just playing hard to get.

 

[dann]

Have you ever felt sexually attracted to someone who didn't want to have sex with you?

If so, you do know exactly what it's like wanting to have sex with an unwilling partner

No, I don't want to have sex with an unwilling partner, and I don’t know what it feels like.
The concept that you don’t seem to grasp is the difference between, on the one hand, wanting to have sex with someone who turns out not to want to have sex with you, and on the other hand, knowing that somebody doesn't want to have sex with you and still insist on having sex with that person or maybe even be turned on by the lack of consent.

 

[dann]

I think you are denying the reality of human nature here. I didn't say that we couldn't talk about it, only that you don't have to be a sociopath in order to engage in the same kinds of behavior that sociopaths do. I also didn't say that rationalization/justification rules out sociopathy. All I said was that when humans behave badly, they tend to rationalize/justify their actions.

If what you're saying is that sociopaths also, for instance, use language to communicate, then, yes, that's a kind of behavior that ordinary people use for the same purpose. If you are saying that ordinary people, i.e. people who aren't sociopaths, rape, then, no, you are wrong. Both sociopaths and ordinary people go to the bathroom, too. If you're saying that ordinary people rationalize what you describe as "bad behavior", then you are also right.
And that is what you're saying:

Let me ask you: Are all rapists sociopaths? Are all sociopaths rapists? "No," is the correct answer to both questions.

Not all sociopaths are rapists, but most rapists are probably sociopaths, in particular the repeat offenders. I can't rule out the guy in Delvo's example who is clueless and receiving bad advice from friends about the 'nature of women' (whatever), but he would still have to be rather unempathic if he insists on having sex with a woman who exhibits all of the obvious (to most people) signs of not consenting.

No it isn't. You are starting from false premises. And thus you have reached an erroneous conclusion.

That is what you were doing, and you're still doing it: You go from sociopathic behavior and find something that is analogous to this behavior in people with empathy, and then you generalize: Everybody comes up with bad excuses for bad behavior, so sociopaths are just like everybody else. Except that you choose to abstract from the kind of so-called bad behavior: The diabetics only hurt themselves when they eat too much sugar. They don't hurt anybody else.

Humans behave badly and come up with rationalizations/justifications to assuage anxiety and guilt. Again, this is basic psychology -the defense mechanism. Weinstein could be a sociopath -more properly, suffer from anti-social personality disorder- or he could just be a normal dude who got too carried away with his power. I am not attempting to diagnose anyone, just pointing out that bad behavior does not always stem from mental illness.

No, he couldn't. He's not a normal dude, and a normal dude doesn't get "too carried away with his power."

How are these women analogous to food? It couldn't be anything I said because I wasn't making an analogy. I was providing an example of a minor instance of a bad behavior most of us can relate to in order to illustrate the idea that we rationalize/justify bad behavior. If you understand that minor instance of rationalization, you can get a better idea of the thinking process behind rationalizing more egregious forms of bad behavior.

Yes, you weren't making an analogy, you were making an analogy. Why? Again in order to illustrate your favorite idea: rape is bad behavior, people who behave badly rationalize, so rationalizing isn't sociopathic since everybody does it, thus Weinstein is not (or at least not necessarily) a sociopath.
However, the problem with this line of thought is that nobody has claimed that Weinstein's crime is that he rationalizes. You're the only one who's obsessed with this idea. His apparent crime is that he sexually abuses women, which, by the way he seems to confess in the rationalizations that you provided us with.
The really weird thing about your diabetic is that he doesn't even behave badly! He doesn't hurt anybody but himself so he can't be accused of not being empathic!

That was a very tortured response to an argument I never made.

No, that was a very tortured response to an argument you're still making.

 

[calebprime]

Have you, sir, never rued your lusts and strange impulses? Never immediately post-orgasm, as if a switch were being thrown?

Have you, sir, never begun to rationalize something?

Have you, sir, never been aware that you are, hideously, constantly learning, learning, changing, even in minor perversities, willful blindnesses, cherished darlings, secret precioussss treasures, quid pro quos, understandings, arrangements, addictions, bad habits? No, sir, none of those?

You are young and perfect in every way, no corruption waiting in the wings?

Never been so emotionally desperate for some reason that you begin to believe in impossible things against your better judgment?

Maybe your baby done made some other plans.

Consider how the sexual impulse, rootlike, finds a way to topple anything.

Consider the demented old people masturbating in the nursing homes. Sex prevails, even as the mind is lost.

It's almost a vision out of __Nausea__. Rootlike proliferation. Cronenberg.

I agree with conservatives that human nature isn't perfectible, but disagree with religious ideals because they are unrealistic and unattainable.

Heh.

As for this thread, I figure the old joke applies to my post. Couldn't hurt.

 

[Distracted1]

This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.

Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, is'nt it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?

I don't expect to be considered a potential murderer, not because I have never expressed anger, but because I have never threatened it [murder],nor have I ever behaved in such a manner (IMO) that would give someone that impression about me.
If someone were to make the claim that at some time in the past they had been afraid that I was going to murder them, I would be shocked. And would probably apologies in some manner that equated to " I am sorry I gave you that impression ".

More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?
Has no one here missed out on the opportunity to have a physical relationship with someone they desired because of an expectation that the object of that desire was not " in to you ", only to find out later that they actually were- and you had missed the signals?

 

[Delvo]

Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, is'nt it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?

Being someone else's boss is enough to make them think you might use that to retaliate even if you don't explicitly threaten to; the threat could just be what comes next if you're rejected, or the implied/inferred action could follow without a threat even being spoken. It's up to the boss to not create a situation where an employee even has to think of this stuff at all.

More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?

This is where a line needs to be drawn between the more newsworthy reports and other cases that involve less radical methods of "making interest clear". One can state one's intentions without walking around naked in front of someone else or grabbing one's favorite parts of someone else's body. (I've been told that I should do either of the latter two, but only rarely compared to how often I've been told that I should do the former.)

 

[dann]

I totally agree!

 

[dann]

Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, isn't it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?

You should at least be aware that you put your subordinates in an awkward position if you make an unwanted pass at them. Even if a subordinate came on to you, you'd be stupid to think that it wouldn't be a way of influencing your attitude to employment, promotion, grades (whatever).

I don't expect to be considered a potential murderer, not because I have never expressed anger, but because I have never threatened it [murder],nor have I ever behaved in such a manner (IMO) that would give someone that impression about me.
If someone were to make the claim that at some time in the past they had been afraid that I was going to murder them, I would be shocked. And would probably apologize in some manner that equated to " I am sorry I gave you that impression ".

I don't think you'll find the kind of ambiguity in that context that you are bound to find in flirting!

More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?

At one point, if you're in doubt about the signals you're receiving, I'd recommend asking the person you're interested in if you're both on the same page. Only if the signals have become obvious, is it OK to go proceed without asking.

Has no one here missed out on the opportunity to have a physical relationship with someone they desired because of an expectation that the object of that desire was not " in to you ", only to find out later that they actually were- and you had missed the signals?

Yes, I have missed out. In high school. She told me thirty years later at a high-school reunion.
If I'd never gotten laid and had wasted the one opportunity of of a lifetime, I might have regretted it, but as things worked out, I'm still quite happy with my decision at the time not to be more 'pushy'.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

No, I don't want to have sex with an unwilling partner, and I don’t know what it feels like.

I don't either. But that doesn't stop me from using my imagination and a bit of logical reasoning to imagine why/how someone else would be attracted to that. In fact, you don't even have to go that far to see examples in consensual scenarios. Lots of people in consensual relationships do get turned on by different variations of "forced sex". Some couples have "rape role playing" and maybe they may tie each other up, where one of the partners can't "fight back". So it's not that hard to imagine how some people would be turned on by actual forced sex.

I think it's basically the "high" they get from the adrenaline rush. No different than kleptomaniacs, who steal things, not because they need the objects they steal, but because of the adrenaline rush of not getting caught. Of course, there may be much more variables to this, and it's different with each individual. But even though I'm not a kleptomaniac nor a rapist, it's not that hard for me to imagine why someone would be addicted to the adrenaline rush of those actions. In short: You don't have to like the thing someone else likes, to understand why they would like it. It's perhaps the most basic form of empathy.