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

[dann]

No, I'm talking about having empathy in general but allowing a justification or rationalization to override that empathy in a particular case. You agree that this is possible in the scenario I described but you don't seem to agree that someone like Weinstein could force women to have sex with him while at the same time having some empathy for them. I mean, maybe he is a sociopath -I'm not ruling that out but at the same time it's possible to understand his behavior without involving mental illness.

The only thing I agree with is that, yes, a fairly normal person may become so enraged by having a member of his family raped or killed that he resorts to vigilante behavior. So, yes, somebody with normal empathy may, in a very special situation, treat a perpetrator without any empathy or compassion. But this example is pretty contrived if you compare it with the (apparent) repeat offender Weinstein. Nothing seems to indicate that these women had harmed him in any way that would make him long for revenge.

How have I done that exactly? Because that's a pretty weird interpretation of what I'm saying.You really do come up with some weird stuff . . . You are totally misinterpreting why I gave that scenario. The "imaginary rape" of my loved ones was presented to demonstrate a scenario in which a person who is not mentally ill can do something horrible to another human being. Mental illness is not a prerequisite to bad behavior -and make no mistake, dismembering someone who raped my loved one would be bad behavior.

I know why you "gave that scenario": You wanted to compare the Weinstein case(s) with an imaginary example that had absolutely nothing to do with his specific behavior, in order to make it seem likely that he's an ordinary, compassionate person. But the problem is that the two scenarios are totally different, so your imaginary one doesn't really make your attempt to equip him with (fictitious) empathy any more probable. It is just as contrived as your diabetic!

#1, that wasn't a direct quote of Weinstein (although it was based off of his public statement), it was an example of how he might rationalize what he did. Do you know whether or not he feels any guilt or remorse? You can't possibly know that because you can't read his mind and you aren't his therapist.

Sociopaths don't usually have therapists. They are not the ones who suffer most from their sociopathy. And they are able to come up with rationalizations without the aid of therapy.

So, by your logic there, if I commit suicide, I'm only hurting myself and not my wife and kids?

Once again your example is extremely contrived: Unless you're and total ******* that they're better off without, you're hurting your wife and kids if you get yourself run over and killed or seriously maimed by a car. When we are talking about sociopaths or psychopaths, intention is important: Did your father want to harm his family by smoking? Did he smoke in order to hurt them? Or was he misled by a combination of tobacco propaganda and his own addiction into thinking that it probably wouldn't hurt him (and consequently his family)?
I don't know why you want to commit suicide ...

Sociopaths are not a different species of human, you know. They are just like me and you, albeit with certain defects in their thinking processes. And the way they treat people does indeed cause them problems -that's the very definition of mental illness!

Man, this is futile! Has anybody in this thread claimed that sociopaths are "a different species of human"?! Not as far as I recall! Are you even familiar with the concept of the strawman argument?
They actually "are just like me and you" … if you neglect to consider the one thing that makes them sociopaths: "certain defects in their thinking processes." You can do the same exercise with everything and everybody: Billionaires, for instance, are just like you and me, albeit with stuff worth at least a billion dollars in their portfolio.
See how easy your little game is?! A billionaire is not a billionaire if you take away the thing that makes him one. The same thing goes for sociopaths, obviously.
And, no, that is not the definition of mental illness.

But "utterly devoid of empathy and compassion," in general? There's no evidence of that. That's what a sociopath is, someone who doesn't feel empathy for anyone but themselves. From your link:

I'm sorry, but even if he is fond of his dog, that wouldn't make him any less of a psycho.

Pretty goddamn callous and evidence that these other kids had no empathy for the victim either, no? Anyone who shared pictures, video, texts, tweets, etc about what this poor girl went through displayed an extreme lack of empathy for the victim. Are they all sociopaths? I don't think so.

If they knew and understood the case and still "had no empathy for the victim" and even "displayed an extreme lack of empathy for the victim," then they are psychopaths. I'm a little surprised that you seem to consider that kind of behavior normal!
(That psychopaths are able to find each other much more efficiently these days of the social media is no surprise.)

No. Not all sociopaths engage in bad behaviors. But you got one part right, bad behavior is not always sociopathic in nature. If you understand that, then I'm not sure why you think rape must always be sociopathic in nature.

Wow! Once again you are contradicting yourself blatantly! I thought that everybody engages in bad behaviors, and now you're telling us that some sociopaths don't?! I think that your diagnosis comes as a surprise to everybody, in particular, professional psychologists and psychiatrists, because that is one of the most absurd contradictions in terms I've ever come across: sociopaths who don't "engage in bad behaviors."
This is what happens when you stretch the concepts to the extent where they don't make any kind of sense anymore. I think that your line of reasoning goes like this: 1) rape is just another example of one of your favorite abstractions: "bad behavior", and 2) you may claim that everybody exhibits bad behavior, especially if you include all smokers and 'misbehaving' diabetics, and since 3) not all sociopaths rape, you conclude that not all sociopaths engage in bad behavior.
The irony here is that you are the one who has now excluded (some of) these guys from the rest of humanity, and only because you are so fond of them that you can't allow them to be criticized!

OK, so you DO understand that behaviors that hurt other people are not necessarily rooted in sociopathy or lack of empathy. If that's the case, then why do you think that rape is necessarily always due sociopathy?

Because unlike the diabetic and your father, they know that they are hurting people, and they don't care. Maybe you should tell your mother that story!

AHA! Now we get to the root of your confusion here. Sociopathy IS mental illness. If one is a sociopath, then that means one is, by definition, mentally ill.

You've only managed to demonstrate your own confusion.

If one's behavior is the result of mental illness, then that in itself explains the behavior. No need to cognitively empathize with something that makes no rational sense.

No, it doesn't. A schizophrenic, a borderliner and a manic-depressive go into a bar … to have beer. Most of the time these guys are in possession of a lot of rational sense. You, however, are inventing another crazy definition of mental illness that makes no sense at all.

Evidently, you make a distinction between a sociopath and a mentally ill person. There is no distinction and hence, your conclusions are all wrong.

There are many differences between different mental disorders. Look it up if you never heard! Sociopaths are as different from bipolars as from the rest of us. Again you seem to be unable to juggle the concept of abstractions.

 

[xjx388]

You are unable to see the difference between:









Well, that can't be helped, then. You seem to be blind to this very important part of Roboramma's post:





That is, you treat it as if rationalizations are an indispensable prerequisite for rape, as if they didn't often appear only after the crime, post festum.

If the perpetrator didn’t come up with some reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person, then the act would never have occurred. Sometimes, there is nothing to overcome; the perpetrator is simply mentally ill and lacks empathy. But when someone who isn’t mentally ill is the perpetrator, then there had to be some r/j before the act. And, of course, after the act.

Another contradiction in terms since "identifying what interventions might help" depends on knowing "WHAT makes someone want to rape other people," which the researchers are well aware of. Your "exactly" is disingenuous. It only serves the purpose of prolonging your insistence on the obviously wrong idea that "they will never be able to explain" ... even when they actually are explaining.

They're getting there!

Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.

 

[dann]

If the perpetrator didn’t come up with some reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person, then the act would never have occurred. Sometimes, there is nothing to overcome; the perpetrator is simply mentally ill and lacks empathy. But when someone who isn’t mentally ill is the perpetrator, then there had to be some r/j before the act. And, of course, after the act.

Oh boy, oh boy, I don't know how to get this through to you. I've tried, and Roboramma has tried:

I agree with you that rationalization doesn't explain any behaviour by itself. There has to be some motivation for the behavior prior to the need to rationalize it.

And now I try again:
The sociopath doesn't need any "reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person", because he hasn't got any aversion, natural or artificial. He actually enjoys it so much more. And, yes, that's makes him a sexual predator, a sociopath, somebody who 'suffers from' a mental disorder (a very specific one!), but he's not the one who does the actual suffering in the case of this very particular disorder. His victims are!
When somebody who is not a sociopath - and please stop using the term "mentally ill" because most of the other categories of mental illness would do no such thing - we are probably dealing with a person who is so retarded that he is unable to read and understand the signals of a distressed woman. And that also doesn't seem to be the case with any of the celebrities who have been mentioned so far.

Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.

Yes, those are among the things that they have learned, and only some of the researchers thought that “few generalizations could be made.” The rest were busy categorizing. All of this is mentioned in the article, and you might notice this yourself if you stopped cherry picking. One important thing is the one I've already mentioned: They actually do know that they are forcing unconsenting women to have sex! They are fully aware of the fact that they are. They just don't like the word rape! (Probably because they know that this word is connected with repercussions for themselves!)

 

[xjx388]

Oh boy, oh boy, I don't know how to get this through to you. I've tried, and Roboramma has tried:



And now I try again:

The sociopath doesn't need any "reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person", because he hasn't got any aversion, natural or artificial. He actually enjoys it so much more.

Indeed. I said exactly that. I go further and point out that sociopathy is only part of the story for some perpetrators.

And, yes, that's makes him a sexual predator, a sociopath, somebody who 'suffers from' a mental disorder (a very specific one!), but he's not the one who does the actual suffering in the case of this very particular disorder. His victims are!

When somebody who is not a sociopath - and please stop using the term "mentally ill" because most of the other categories of mental illness would do no such thing - we are probably dealing with a person who is so retarded that he is unable to read and understand the signals of a distressed woman. And that also doesn't seem to be the case with any of the celebrities who have been mentioned so far.

. You seem to have no room in your world view for the idea that a person who is NOT mentally ill -that is, to be clear, NOT a sociopath or “retarded” as you describe it-can indeed want to have sex with unwilling partners and act on that desire. I cannot help you achieve this understanding except to point out that yes, people who are not mentally ill can and do rape people.

A first step for you is to grok that “sociopath,” and “mentally ill” are the same thing in that sociopathy -what psychiatry labels as Anti-social Personality Disorder these days- is a mental illness.



Even if you don’t agree with that basic psychology, your world view is apparently complete: Rapists are sociopaths and so they don’t care about other people. I think this view is naive and simplistic; however, it seems to me like you already have your answer. Coupled with your rejection of other, more nuanced, viewpoints... I am not sure why you asked the OP question.

Yes, those are among the things that they have learned, and only some of the researchers thought that “few generalizations could be made.” The rest were busy categorizing.

Ok. Now what exactly are they categorizing?

 

[dann]

You sum up the article in the following way:

Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.

You are being very disingenuous again. The article doesn't note that “few generalizations could be made.”
Instead it mentions that one (!) guy, Dr. Smithyman, "concluded that few generalizations could be made." And only six lines later, the article tells us:

But more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults.

Not exactly the same thing, is it?! How do you rationalize that?!

You also claim that "What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,”to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape."

Well, how do you account for this, then?

Antonia Abbey, a social psychologist at Wayne State University, has found that young men who expressed remorse were less likely to offend the following year, while those who blamed their victim were more likely to do it again.
One repeat offender put it this way: “I felt I was repaying her for sexually arousing me.”

I can't quote the whole article so I recommend that everybody following this thread reads it themselves. It isn't very long.

I'll end with this quotation for those of you who proclaim that understanding what goes on in the mind of a rapist is not only impossible, but also irrelevant:

Clarifying these and other patterns, many researchers say, is the most realistic path toward curtailing behaviors that cause so much pain.
“If you don’t really understand perpetrators, you’re never going to understand sexual violence,” said Sherry Hamby, editor of the journal Psychology of Violence.

 

[dann]

Ok. Now what exactly are they categorizing?

Rapists! Read the article again. You were too busy cherry picking the first time to notice what it actually said!
(You do know what "commonalities" are, don't you?!)

 

[xjx388]

Rapists! Read the article again. You were too busy cherry picking the first time to notice what it actually said!
(You do know what "commonalities" are, don't you?!)

Oh, I noticed exactly what it said which is why I posted it. Now don’t evade the question; the answer is in the article. The researchers are categorizing rapists according to what, exactly? You said part of the answer, “commonalities,” but you are missing something...

 

[dann]

I have left out most of the bits that either xjx388 or I myself have already mentioned or quoted:

Unlike what you said, the article didn't note that “few generalizations could be made.” Instead, after mentioning that one single researcher thought so, it went on to say that "more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults."
So generalizations can be made, the idea that some people in this thread have advocated is wrong: Rapists actually do have certain things in common! "patterns have emerged: these men begin early, studies find. They may associate with others who also commit sexual violence. They usually deny that they have raped women even as they admit to nonconsensual sex.

(And these things that they have in common are things that make them different from ordinary guys (something that ought be obvious to everybody: ordinary guys don't rape!).)

These guys know that they rape. Like I said above: They just don't like to hear or say the word! "The focus of most sexual aggression research is acknowledged (!) nonconsensual (!) sexual behavior."

After having delved into the psychology of the sex offender (see my quotations in earlier posts), the article finally deals with "risk factors":
"Heavy drinking, perceived pressure to have sex, a belief in “rape myths” — such as the idea that no means yes", using hostile language to describe women, being aroused by rape porn, and narcissism (mentioned a couple of times).
And an important counteracting factor is, no surprise there, empathy!

Another important thing they have in common: "they do not believe they are the problem."
And since they enjoy nonconsensual sex and are fine with it: Why would they? The only problem they see is probably their own incarceration.

 

[xjx388]

I have left out most of the bits that either xjx388 or I myself have already mentioned or quoted:

Unlike what you said, the article didn't note that “few generalizations could be made.” Instead, after mentioning that one single researcher thought so, it went on to say that "more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults."
So generalizations can be made, the idea that some people in this thread have advocated is wrong: Rapists actually do have certain things in common! "patterns have emerged: these men begin early, studies find. They may associate with others who also commit sexual violence. They usually deny that they have raped women even as they admit to nonconsensual sex.

(And these things that they have in common are things that make them different from ordinary guys (something that ought be obvious to everybody: ordinary guys don't rape!).)

These guys know that they rape. Like I said above: They just don't like to hear or say the word! "The focus of most sexual aggression research is acknowledged (!) nonconsensual (!) sexual behavior."

After having delved into the psychology of the sex offender (see my quotations in earlier posts), the article finally deals with "risk factors":
"Heavy drinking, perceived pressure to have sex, a belief in “rape myths” — such as the idea that no means yes", using hostile language to describe women, being aroused by rape porn, and narcissism (mentioned a couple of times).
And an important counteracting factor is, no surprise there, empathy!

Another important thing they have in common: "they do not believe they are the problem."
And since they enjoy nonconsensual sex and are fine with it: Why would they? The only problem they see is probably their own incarceration.

Rapists with empathy tend not to repeat the behavior...what does that tell you?

They don’t believe they are raping anyone even though they admit to non-consensual sex. What does that tell you?

Some people are aroused by rape porn. What does that tell you?

 

[dann]

Rapists with empathy tend not to repeat the behavior...what does that tell you?

That Cosby and Weinstein don't belong in that category. What does that tell you?

They don’t believe they are raping anyone even though they admit to non-consensual sex. What does that tell you?

That you completely miss the point no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you: They admit to the concept of rape, i.e. non-consensual sex (even to the point of: "Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes. Asked if he did “something (!) like (!) rape,” the answer is almost always no.").
I.e. they just don't admit to the word.
What does that tell you?

Some people are aroused by rape porn. What does that tell you?

That some people are aroused by rape porn. What the article tells us is that being highly aroused by rape porn is one of the risk factors - in particular in people who lack empathy:

Men who are highly aroused by rape porn — another risk factor — are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy, Dr. Malamuth has found.

What does that tell you?

 

[xjx388]

That Cosby and Weinstein don't belong in that category. What does that tell you?









That you completely miss the point no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you: They admit to the concept of rape, i.e. non-consensual sex (even to the point of: "Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes. Asked if he did “something (!) like (!) rape,” the answer is almost always no.").

I.e. they just don't admit to the word.

What does that tell you?









That some people are aroused by rape porn. What the article tells us is that being highly aroused by rape porn is one of the risk factors - in particular in people who lack empathy:









What does that tell you?

What all that tells me is that there are people who do not lack empathy who rape. That there are people who know they lack consent from their victim but find ways in their minds to make it “not rape.” You see, a sociopath doesn’t care about hurting his victims and doesn’t need to find ways in their minds to make it not rape.

 

[dann]

They don't "make it "not rape."" Lacking consent from your victim, penetrating against your victim's consent, is the definition of rape:
"According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."
Ask any lawyer! These guys don't care about hurting their victims, they just don't want to go to jail, and they know that this is what happens if you are a condemned rapist!

You appear to be in as much denial about this concept as the rapists!

 

[xjx388]

They don't "make it "not rape.""

Oh, but they did...in their own heads.

Lacking consent from your victim, penetrating against your victim's consent, is the definition of rape:

"According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."

Aside from the woefully incomplete definition of rape you quoted...do you really think I’m saying that the perpetrators literally and legally make it not rape?

Ask any lawyer! These guys don't care about hurting their victims, they just don't want to go to jail, and they know that this is what happens if you are a condemned rapist!

That applies to perpetrators who lack empathy. But the article says that rapists who have empathy are less likely to rape again. So those rapists do care about hurting other people so there must be something that allows them to overcome their aversion to hurting others...

You appear to be in as much denial about this concept as the rapists!

I’ll be charitable and assume that you are simply misunderstanding.

 

[dann]

Oh, but they did...in their own heads.

No, they didn't and they don't. They know very well that they what they're doing is rape, but they did't want to use the word rape.
From the article in the New York Times, the one you thought proved your point:

Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes.

They don't rationalize, they admit it outright!
And let me (again) give you the one, unequivocal definition that everybody agrees on because it's not statutory, it's not one thing in one state and another one in a different state, this is what constitutes rape everywhere: "According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."
So these guys know, "in their own heads" and unequivocally, that this is what they're doing!

They just don't want to use the right word for it:

Asked if he did “something like rape,” the answer is almost always no.

which you insist on treating as a sign of empathy!

So what else are you in denial about?

Aside from the woefully incomplete definition of rape you quoted...do you really think I’m saying that the perpetrators literally and legally make it not rape?

Absolutely nothing is incomplete about the definition of rape I presented you with. The only thing that's woeful is your denial of the fact. On the one hand, you are aware of this, but on the other hand, you are hellbent on rationalizing in order to make it seem as if these confirmed rapists don't know what they're doing, merely because they won't accept the use of the one word that the rest of the world knows is the proper one to describe their crime.

That applies to perpetrators who lack empathy. But the article says that rapists who have empathy are less likely to rape again.

No, that's not what the article says! This is what the article says:

Men who are highly aroused by rape porn — another risk factor — are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy, Dr. Malamuth has found.

So the group of people that the article talks about aren't rapists. It talks about "Men who are highly aroused by rape porn," which is a "risk factor" of becoming a rapist, but if you are a highly empathic human being it is very unlikely that you will turn into a rapist from watching rape porn. But if you don't have empathy, it's much more likely that it will. Please notice that this also is not about repeat offenders, which you seem to think: "less likely to rape again." It doesn't describe a group of rapists; it describes a group of rape-porn watchers, most of which (the ones with empathy and compassion) will probably never rape anybody!

But you continue, based on your completely wrong assumption:

So those rapists do care about hurting other people so there must be something that allows them to overcome their aversion to hurting others...

As you can see, you got it completely wrong: those rapists, your imaginary rapists with empathy, weren't and aren't rapists. They watch rape porn, but they don't rape, they don't hurt others, so they also don't have to come up with rationalizations for the rape that they don't commit!

I’ll be charitable and assume that you are simply misunderstanding.

I think that I've now made it clear to the rest of the world that you are the one who is adamant about misunderstanding this question. The only thing you've managed is to present us with your own striking example of rationalization and denial.

 

[xjx388]

No, they didn't and they don't. They know very well that they what they're doing is rape, but they did't want to use the word rape.

From the article in the New York Times, the one you thought proved your point:

They don't rationalize, they admit it outright!

And let me (again) give you the one, unequivocal definition that everybody agrees on because it's not statutory, it's not one thing in one state and another one in a different state, this is what constitutes rape everywhere: "According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."

So these guys know, "in their own heads" and unequivocally, that this is what they're doing!



They just don't want to use the right word for it:



which you insist on treating as a sign of empathy!



So what else are you in denial about?









Absolutely nothing is incomplete about the definition of rape I presented you with. The only thing that's woeful is your denial of the fact. On the one hand, you are aware of this, but on the other hand, you are hellbent on rationalizing in order to make it seem as if these confirmed rapists don't know what they're doing, merely because they won't accept the use of the one word that the rest of the world knows is the proper one to describe their crime.









No, that's not what the article says! This is what the article says:









So the group of people that the article talks about aren't rapists. It talks about "Men who are highly aroused by rape porn," which is a "risk factor" of becoming a rapist, but if you are a highly empathic human being it is very unlikely that you will turn into a rapist from watching rape porn. But if you don't have empathy, it's much more likely that it will. Please notice that this also is not about repeat offenders, which you seem to think: "less likely to rape again." It doesn't describe a group of rapists; it describes a group of rape-porn watchers, most of which (the ones with empathy and compassion) will probably never rape anybody!



But you continue, based on your completely wrong assumption:







As you can see, you got it completely wrong: those rapists, your imaginary rapists with empathy, weren't and aren't rapists. They watch rape porn, but they don't rape, they don't hurt others, so they also don't have to come up with rationalizations for the rape that they don't commit!











I think that I've now made it clear to the rest of the world that you are the one who is adamant about misunderstanding this question. The only thing you've managed is to present us with your own striking example of rationalization and denial.

It seems quite obvious to me that, while you may have read the article, you are only getting out of it what you want. You may have read the words of my arguments but you don’t seem to get what I’m saying. Your representations of my arguments here are straw men.

I’ll simply respond with two quotes from the article:

“Antonia Abbey, a social psychologist at Wayne State University, has found that young men who expressed remorse were less likely to offend the following year, while those who blamed their victim were more likely to do it again.”

“Most subjects in these studies freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex — but that does not mean they consider it real rape. Researchers encounter this contradiction again and again.”

But you know, again, you already have your answer, naive and simplistic as it may be.

 

[dann]

The only thing that's simplistic is your interpretation of the article. Probably because you have a problem with the word "contradiction" not unlike the problems that rapists have with the word rape:

Most subjects in these studies freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex — but that does not mean they consider it real rape. Researchers encounter this contradiction again and again.

The rapists "freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex", i.e. having sex with women who don't want to have sex with them, forcing their victims to have sex, the definition of rape. There is no sensible way of interpreting this as if they don't know what they are doing, as if they pity, empathize with or feel compassion for their victims. They just don't like the connotations of the word rape = an atrocious disregard for other people's feelings and well-being, something that you are punished for.

They are absolutely fine with raping but they're just too sensitive to use the correct word for the crime.
That is their one and only concern. It hurts their vanity (cf. narcissism) and has nothing at all to do with empathy.

Contradiction solved!

 

[xjx388]

The rapists "freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex", i.e. having sex with women who don't want to have sex with them, forcing their victims to have sex,

Yes. This is what the article says.

the definition of rape.

Ok, this is true but irrelevant. It’s about what the perpetrators internally think about what they did. We are, after all, discussing what makes someone want to rape. If one can rationalize themselves out of thinking of it as rape, then one is not a rapist in their own eyes.

There is no sensible way of interpreting this as if they don't know what they are doing, as if they pity, empathize with or feel compassion for their victims.

This is does not reflect anything in the cited research. This is your own argument from incredulity. You personally can’t think of a sensible way, therefore, nobody can.

They just don't like the connotations of the word rape = an atrocious disregard for other people's feelings and well-being, something that you are punished for.



They are absolutely fine with raping but they're just too sensitive to use the correct word for the crime.

That is their one and only concern. It hurts their vanity (cf. narcissism) and has nothing at all to do with empathy.



Contradiction solved!

This is 100% pure speculation on your part and does not reflect anything in the research cited. You see the word “narcissism” and immediately jump to NPD. This is not what the article said.

 

[dann]

Having mentioned Dr. Malamud’s findings that men who watch rape porn

are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy

- unlike narcissists where one of the defining traits is “Difficulty with empathy” (another one is: "Using other people without considering the cost of doing so"), the article continues:

Narcissism seems to work in the other direction, magnifying odds that men will commit sexual assault and rape.
(…)
Dr. Malamuth has noticed that repeat offenders often tell similar stories of rejection in high school and of looking on as “jocks and the football players got all the attractive women.”
As these once-unpopular, often narcissistic men become more successful, he suspects that “getting back at these women, having power over them, seems to have become a source of arousal.”
What Experts Know about Men Who Rape (New York Times, Oct. 30, 2017)

It’s also interesting that in spite of the sensitivity of rapists to the word rape:

Asked if he did “something like rape,” the answer is almost always no.

the article nevertheless begins with the ad that Smithyman placed in newspapers in 1976:

Are you a rapist?
Researcher interviewing anonymously by phone to protect your identity. Call 213/ …

resulting in the 200 calls and 50 interviews that got him started on his dissertation.

 

[Cheetah]

An exercise for you.
There must be something you really like, really enjoy, you might even be willing to spend money on it. It could be anything, food or drink, a hobby or a sport or some or other game, music, sex or just an idea, whatever.
Now realize you are part of the bell curve, there are probably people, lots of them, out there who are even MORE enthusiastic, much more (some are even fanatical) than you, about their THING. Some things you might find totally arbitrary might be very important to someone else, tastes differ.
Now to evolution, self preservation and procreation are the two most important drives in all animals. That explains the HUGE income generated by the sex trade and porn industry, in general people are obsessed with sex.
We are also supremely social animals and status and 'power' are very important and directly related to reproductive success.
Being the Boss or having power over people did a great deal for the number of offspring produced during our evolutionary history.
Evolution also does not care about the means, just about the end result, offspring.
It might make you just LOVE babies, or it might make you fall head over heels in love, or it might make you really crave sex or give you mind blowing orgasms, bell curve.

No wonder some people are obsessed with sex and power and dominance, its just the bell curve.
Empathy as well, not something some have and some don't, bell curve.

Now imagine if your THING involves sex and power and dominance and it is (maybe only sometimes) stronger than your empathy. You might do things you later regret and are honestly sorry about. Does not mean you might not do it again, but you could really be sorry, happens all the time.

 

[dann]

You seem to have missed the entire discussion and in particular what the NYT article discussed on this page tells us about rape and narcissism. See my post above yours.
Does it seem to you as if the Weinsteins or the Cosbys "are honestly sorry about" anything?
The point seems to be that if your alleged "THING" involving "power and dominance" is so much "stronger than your empathy," it's probably because you never had much of the latter in the first place.
Evoluton doesn't explain rape. See difference between chimps and bonobos.
Bonobos and empathy.