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

[xjx388]

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.

I don't think anyone has missed anything, other people just see things differently than you do.

Does it seem to you as if the Weinsteins or the Cosbys "are honestly sorry about" anything?

How would we know what they think? A few public statements are not sufficient to come to any conclusion regarding their psychological state. I think it's possible that they are sorry about their behavior. Of course, it's also possible that they are pathologically antisocial/narcissistic. The mere fact that they raped someone or engaged in sexual harassment/abuse is not enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.

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.

I think it's likely that they had little, if any, empathy for their victims at least. Much like the average person probably has little empathy for a guy like Weinstein or Cosby. That is, lack of empathy for a particular person or group of people doesn't mean that the average person has a general lack of empathy.

When a rapist is convicted and sent to prison, you often hear people say, "I hope they get raped in prison to teach them a lesson." In the thread about the neo-Nazi who was profiled in the NYT, many posters have no problem expressing support for violence against neo-Nazis. Is this a sign of sociopathy? I don't think so. This mechanism, whereby we rationalize/justify violence against others in a way that allows us to overcome our innate empathy towards our fellow man is a natural human response. Of course, some people -psychiatry diagnoses them as having a personality disorder or other mental illness- have little to no innate empathy for anybody.

Evoluton doesn't explain rape. See difference between chimps and bonobos.
Bonobos and empathy.

I'm afraid a comparison between bonobos and chimps does not account for the differences between those animals and the human animal. Human behavior is a little more complex than that.

 

[xjx388]

Let me just add this: Your arguments here sound a little like as if I had posted the following:

"Can someone explain what makes people want to kill other people? Killing people is murder! There is no reasonable way for a person who murdered another person to rationalize or justify their way out of a murder. So I don't understand it. Help me figure out what exactly makes someone want to murder."

You would be quite right to point out that such a view point is naive and simplistic. Yes, we all agree murder is wrong. Some people who murder are indeed flat out crazy. But this does not explain all murder. Some otherwise normal people do indeed find a way to rationalize/justify murder: religion, greed, passion, jealousy, perceived threat. That only makes them less wrong in their own eyes, not in the eyes of the law or in most other people.

 

[theprestige]

dann, if you will tell me why you enjoy sex at all, I will tell you why some people enjoy sex with unwilling partners.

 

[dann]

I don't think anyone has missed anything, other people just see things differently than you do.
How would we know what they think? A few public statements are not sufficient to come to any conclusion regarding their psychological state. I think it's possible that they are sorry about their behavior. Of course, it's also possible that they are pathologically antisocial/narcissistic. The mere fact that they raped someone or engaged in sexual harassment/abuse is not enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.

They didn't rape someone! Why do you seem to pretend that they aren't repeat offenders? Do you see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out?

I think it's likely that they had little, if any, empathy for their victims at least. Much like the average person probably has little empathy for a guy like Weinstein or Cosby. That is, lack of empathy for a particular person or group of people doesn't mean that the average person has a general lack of empathy.

I'm sorry, but even though I'm trying to be as empathic as I can right now, I just don't see how you get to "the average person." Nobody has claimed that "the average person has a general lack of empathy."
The NYT article points out the general lack of empathy in rapists - and it seems to be even more lacking in repeat offenders. Empathy is what seems to protect even rape porn consumers from becoming rapists.

When a rapist is convicted and sent to prison, you often here people say, "I hope they get raped in prison to teach them a lesson."

I'm not one of them, and I don't think that it would teach them empathy. It would probably only inspire them, teach them new techniques to be used when they (hopefully never) are in control again.

In the thread about the neo-Nazi who was profiled in the NYT, many posters have no problem expressing support for violence against neo-Nazis. Is this a sign of sociopathy? I don't think so.

Neither do I, and I've pointed out a couple of times that if there are enough AntiFas, the Nazis can be defeated without the use of violence. They take off their polos and run home to mom, and the AntiFas let them!

!

This mechanism, whereby we rationalize/justify violence against others in a way that allows us to overcome our innate empathy towards our fellow man is a natural human response. Of course, some people -psychiatry diagnoses them as having a personality disorder or other mental illness- have little to no innate empathy for anybody.

Exactly! Rapists, for instance! But what has that got to do with Nazi bashing? You seem to have invented a new variation of your argument about people's feelings when somebody hurts (for instance rapes) a member of their family. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this idea at all, unless you're saying that sexual predators rape their victims to punish them for being Nazis.
Punishment seems to enter into the story of some rapist, but that story is very different:

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.” (NYT, Oct. 30, 2017)

I suppose that Dr. Malamuth has a reason for his suspicion and will do more research into it, but your attempts at creating the image of the compassionate rapist is just as far out and contrived as the many movies and TV series about compassionate serial killers who only kill bad guys!

I'm afraid a comparison between bonobos and chimps does not account for the differences between those animals and the human animal. Human behavior is a little more complex than that.

No reason to be afraid. Human behavior is indeed much more complex than that, which is why I wrote:

Evolution doesn't explain rape.

 

[dann]

dann, if you will tell me why you enjoy sex at all, I will tell you why some people enjoy sex with unwilling partners.

I don't think you have a clue, but these guys actually do.

 

[dann]

Let me just add this: Your arguments here sound a little like as if I had posted the following:

"Can someone explain what makes people want to kill other people? Killing people is murder! There is no reasonable way for a person who murdered another person to rationalize or justify their way out of a murder. So I don't understand it. Help me figure out what exactly makes someone want to murder."

You would be quite right to point out that such a view point is naive and simplistic. Yes, we all agree murder is wrong. Some people who murder are indeed flat out crazy. But this does not explain all murder. Some otherwise normal people do indeed find a way to rationalize/justify murder: religion, greed, passion, jealousy, perceived threat. That only makes them less wrong in their own eyes, not in the eyes of the law or in most other people.

Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you?
But what I'm actually going to point out is that in the majority of cases the purpose of murder isn't the act itself. The murderer may want to get rid of somebody for any number of reasons, but except for the (relatively) rare serial killer the point isn't usually to enjoy the activity, the process of killing, and unlike the act of sexual intercourse where most people exhibit empathy and want to achieve mutual satisfaction that is not the case when the murderers go about it. But I guess that's a subtle difference that never occurred to you ...

So this is just another one of your usual strawman arguments, contrived as always. All this wasted effort just to be able to cling to your chimera: the compassionate, repenting rapist, tormented by guilt, who just has to resort to rationalization to be able to live with himself.
But that's not the rapist that we meet in the NYT article!

 

[xjx388]

They didn't rape someone! Why do you seem to pretend that they aren't repeat offenders?

What a pointless quibble. A person who has raped someone may have indeed raped many someones. That distinction is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.

Do you see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out?

I am not their psychiatrist so, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't sorry on some level. Just because you don't see it yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your thought process seems to be: "dann cannot conceive of any situation in which X is true; therefore, X must be false in all situations."

I'm sorry, but even though I'm trying to be as empathic as I can right now, I just don't see how you get to "the average person." Nobody has claimed that "the average person has a general lack of empathy."

I didn't say that anybody had. I only said that the average person -humanity in general- exhibits lack of empathy for certain people or groups of people.

The NYT article points out the general lack of empathy in rapists - and it seems to be even more lacking in repeat offenders.

Woah, stop right there! Go back and read what you wrote there: you basically just admitted that some rapists do indeed have empathy because some other rapists have even less empathy.

Empathy is what seems to protect even rape porn consumers from becoming rapists.

But it doesn't stop ALL empathetic rape porn consumers.

<snip>Exactly! Rapists, for instance!

Let's just be very clear here. Is it your position that every person who rapes another person (or persons ) is mentally ill? If so, you'll have to explain why the article cites research that contradicts that claim.

But what has that got to do with Nazi bashing? You seem to have invented a new variation of your argument about people's feelings when somebody hurts (for instance rapes) a member of their family. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this idea at all, unless you're saying that sexual predators rape their victims to punish them for being Nazis.

Again, you make some weird leaps there. I'll simplify my argument: People who lack empathy for a specific group of people (neo-nazis were just an example of that) are not necessarily mentally ill. A rapist can have lower empathy for their victim but still not lack empathy for people in general. Thus, not all rapists are mentally ill. The research cited in the NYT article confirms this. So does this paper:

The authors examined records of 239 individuals charged with sexual offenses and referred by the courts to a forensic service. Defendants charged with rape were typically under 30 with histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence. Major mental illness was rare in this group. Child molesters in the sample were of no particular age, usually had no history of violent behavior, and had a low incidence of psychosis. The most common secondary diagnosis in both groups was alcohol or drug abuse.

So, I think you'll have to rethink your, "all rapists are mentally ill," position. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

<snip>...your attempts at creating the image of the compassionate rapist is just as far out and contrived

...as the straw man you just created right there.

 

[dann]

What a pointless quibble. A person who has raped someone may have indeed raped many someones. That distinction is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.

No, probably not, but it's relevant to the point I'm making.

I am not their psychiatrist so, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't sorry on some level. Just because you don't see it yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your thought process seems to be: "dann cannot conceive of any situation in which X is true; therefore, X must be false in all situations."

Good!
So you don't "see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out". But still, I'm the one who is in the wrong. You're like the guy with the invisible unicorn in his garage!
Give us proof that your chimera exists, that the world is full of compassionate rapists - on whatever "level"! I've heard of compassionate conservatives, but rapists? No, never. (And as for the former: I've heard of them, never met one.)

I didn't say that anybody had. I only said that the average person -humanity in general- exhibits lack of empathy for certain people or groups of people.
Woah, stop right there! Go back and read what you wrote there: you basically just admitted that some rapists do indeed have empathy because some other rapists have even less empathy. But it doesn't stop ALL empathetic rape porn consumers.

No need to go back. It may not stop all those lacking in empathy, it only stops the ones who've got enough - and aren't too stupid or misled to see that the women they're having sex with are unwilling, nonconsensual victims of rape.
No, surprise there, really. It's what the article says.

Let's just be very clear here. Is it your position that every person who rapes another person (or persons ) is mentally ill?

So now the distinction between repeat offenders and one-time-only rapists has become irrelevant? Why?

If so, you'll have to explain why the article cites research that contradicts that claim. Again, you make some weird leaps there. I'll simplify my argument: People who lack empathy for a specific group of people (neo-nazis were just an example of that) are not necessarily mentally ill.

No, we've been through that several times already: People who lack empathy for people who rape members of their family and people who don't empathize with advocates of ethnic cleansing probably aren't mentally ill. (And you couldn't blame them for being depressed if they were!)

A rapist can have lower empathy for their victim but still not lack empathy for people in general.

That is not very likely and for some reason not what the article says. And again I ask you: What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists? I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that? The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?
You won't tell us because the whole stupid exercise is to come up with your imaginary conclusion that:

Thus, not all rapists are mentally ill. The research cited in the NYT article confirms this. So does this paper:

The authors examined records of 239 individuals charged with sexual offenses and referred by the courts to a forensic service. Defendants charged with rape were typically under 30 with histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence. Major mental illness was rare in this group. Child molesters in the sample were of no particular age, usually had no history of violent behavior, and had a low incidence of psychosis. The most common secondary diagnosis in both groups was alcohol or drug abuse.

And what a wonderful paper it is: "histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence", the typical symptoms of sociopathy, but "Major mental illness was rare," and the child molesters usually weren't psychotic.
So thank you for proving my point again! Rapists are typically narcissists or sociopaths, not schizophrenics or mentally ill in any other way!

So, I think you'll have to rethink your, "all rapists are mentally ill," position. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

...as the straw man you just created right there.

And could you please post a link to the post where I wrote that "all rapists are mentally ill"?! Your strawman doesn't get any better because you repeat it. That would be a nice touch, now that you are accusing me of strawman arguments.

 

[dann]

PS

What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists? I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that? The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?

Let me help you with this one! The NYT article already told us:

… 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.”
(…)
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.”

That appears to be the crime that the rape victims are punished for: sexually arousing the rapists and rejecting the future rapists back in high school!

And now compare it to your favorite scenario of Nazi punchers and temporarily non-empathic relatives of rape victims. There isn't really any comparison, is there?!

 

[xjx388]

No, probably not, but it's relevant to the point I'm making.

Which is what, exactly? I said that the mere fact that they raped someone (even multiple someones) is not enough to draw a conclusion about their mental state or level of empathy. Quibbling over the word "someone" is pointless.

Good!
So you don't "see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out".

More precisely, I have no insight into how they feel or what they are thinking. In Weinstein's specific case, all I have is what has been publicly reported.

But still, I'm the one who is in the wrong.

It's not so much that you are "in the wrong." Your explanation is just too simple to suffice as explanation for a complex human behavior. Your view is correct for a certain portion of people; they are mentally ill, therefore their impulses to rape overcome what little empathy they have.
But that's only part of the story and it can't explain all rape. I assume that's why you asked your OP question, but I'm beginning to wonder.

You're like the guy with the invisible unicorn in his garage!

And you are like the guy with hammer; everything's a nail!

Give us proof that your chimera exists, that the world is full of compassionate rapists - on whatever "level"! I've heard of compassionate conservatives, but rapists? No, never. (And as for the former: I've heard of them, never met one.)

Pure straw. I have never mentioned a "compassionate rapist." But let me ask you a question: consider a regular average guy: no violent past, no antisocial behavior to speak of, no mental illness, average IQ, loves his wife and family . . . can that person commit rape?

No need to go back. It may not stop all those lacking in empathy, it only stops the ones who've got enough - and aren't too stupid or misled to see that the women they're having sex with are unwilling, nonconsensual victims of rape.

Hammer. Nail. For you, all people who commit rape just don't have enough empathy OR are stupid and misled.

No, surprise there, really. It's what the article says.

Please quote the article where it says anything about a threshold of empathy or being stupid or misled.

So now the distinction between repeat offenders and one-time-only rapists has become irrelevant? Why?

Don't dodge the question which I will expand for your benefit here. Is it your position that every person that has committed an act of rape is mentally ill? Is every person who commits multiple acts of rape mentally ill?

No, we've been through that several times already: People who lack empathy for people who rape members of their family and people who don't empathize with advocates of ethnic cleansing probably aren't mentally ill. (And you couldn't blame them for being depressed if they were!)

Think on that a bit. . . You agree that people who lack empathy for Nazis and rapists are probably not mentally ill (at least as it relates to their lack of empathy). Let's call this "situational callousness" as a shorthand. Now, people with this situational callousness think it's ok to hurt a nazi or a rapist (or a nazi rapist, presumably!) because they deserve it, right? Those are bad people and hurting them is therefore justified. Yet you agree they are not mentally ill, sociopathic or whatever you want to call it... Now, why can't a person who is a rapist also have this kind of situational callousness?

That is not very likely

Why not? You acknowledge this kind of situational callousness in people who don't rape.

and for some reason not what the article says.

It does say it. You've quoted it repeatedly.

And again I ask you: What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists?

Objectively from our point of view? Absolutely nothing. Subjectively from the eyes of the rapist? Any number of perceived slights, insults, provocations, seductions, etc. You did want insight as per your OP, yes? If so, then I don't see how pointing out the obvious -women are not to blame for rape- is helpful.

I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that?

You are approaching the question from the wrong side. The question should be (to keep it simple) "what do the rapists think these women did?" It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong in their thinking if you want insight into "what makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners."

The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?
You won't tell us because the whole stupid exercise is to come up with your imaginary conclusion that:

I won't tell you because I can't. I am not into the victim blaming game.

And what a wonderful paper it is: "histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence", the typical symptoms of sociopathy, but "Major mental illness was rare," and the child molesters usually weren't psychotic.
So thank you for proving my point again! Rapists are typically narcissists or sociopaths, not schizophrenics or mentally ill in any other way!

I see what you are saying. Sociopathy and narcissism, in your view, are not mental illnesses. OK, let's go with that, for arguments sake. Your invocation of labels such as sociopathy and narcissism seems like one of those "explanations that explains everything so explains nothing," kind of things that you have complained about in this thread. If your goal is "cognitive empathy" and understanding "what makes some people" rape, such labels don't seem helpful.

What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners? Sociopathy. Not very descriptive and way too simplistic -not to mention a misuse of the plain meaning of the word.

And could you please post a link to the post where I wrote that "all rapists are mentally ill"?! Your strawman doesn't get any better because you repeat it. That would be a nice touch, now that you are accusing me of strawman arguments.

Sure, just look at your previous paragraph.
You see where you use the word "sociopathy?" Sociopathy (see that -pathy at the end? That should be a clue.) is what psychiatrists now call Anti-Social Personality Disorder, which is indeed a major mental illness. You are apparently using it to mean something other than APD or mental illness, which is an incorrect usage of the word. I just assumed that when you use that word, you understand what you are saying. So it's not a strawman on my part; it's non-standard usage on your part.

 

[dann]

Somehow I can't find any trace of empathic rapists in these stories.

 

[xjx388]

Somehow I can't find any trace of empathic rapists in these stories.

Why would you? Those stories are stories of victims in a popular magazine.

 

[dann]

Yes. Does the popularity of the magazine have anything to do with that?
I would love to see the magazine round up all the perpetrators and make and in-depth interview with them.
But maybe we can expect to see them interviewed by the the researchers mentioned in the NYT article, but then they'll probably be anonymized …

 

[xjx388]

Yes. Does the popularity of the magazine have anything to do with that?

Time is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. While it's a great story that shines a light on a heretofore hidden problem, we shouldn't expect to gain any real insight on anything.

I would love to see the magazine round up all the perpetrators and make and in-depth interview with them.

That really wouldn't accomplish much. If you look, there are plenty of popular outlets that publish interviews with rapists. I'm not sure that those interviews give us much insight, though. They could just be telling us what they think we want to hear.

But maybe we can expect to see them interviewed by the the researchers mentioned in the NYT article, but then they'll probably be anonymized …

The research is where you will find more insight; however, I don't think that you will find your answer there, either. For each individual rapist, the "what makes" question will have a different answer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dann,

What exactly do you want to hear? There is no single 'magic bullet' cause for rape and sexual assault. Some people lack empathy, some people receive sexual satisfaction from the act of force, some live in macro or micro societies that don't place as much of a standard on sexual consent.

 

[dann]

For each individual rapist, the "what makes" question will have a different answer.

So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.
That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way) did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.
It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.

 

[porch]

So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.
That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way) did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.
It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.

If we exclude rapists that feel empathy from the discussion, then it is true that rapists lack empathy. What was the question again?

 

[xjx388]

So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.

As long as you understand that such "categories" are artificial and incomplete. Each rapist is, basically a category unto themselves.

That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way)

No, it's not. It is an article about researchers so it serves as a decent overview of current research as well as a springboard for more digging.

did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.

But not all rapists fit into the neat categories researchers create. That's why they use words like, "typical."

It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.

While I agree with you, I don't think that only listening to the victims will give you any insight into the question, "what makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners.' "

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.

I know you are being facetious, but yes. Not all rape is explained by Anti-Social Personality Disorder. This means that there has to be some rape perpetrated by men who are situationally callous.

 

[Venom]

I can definitely see how women can be coerced into sex, however I have to suspect a large number of these women coming out also just feel disappointed or generally disgusted of their affair when they were young and seek to bring down the man when he's in power.

I've often compared this to my being bullied constantly when I was in middle school. People underestimate the kind of psychological damage that can do to someone, particularly a child just about entering puberty. Now I know where my former bullies live and you have to ask: Is it worth it to break the news anymore? Is it worth it to dish some kind of long-arm revenge after all these years?

Course I don't want them to lose their jobs that they're supporting their families with. I don't see the point in making old ass men who bullied or coerced decades ago when they were young lose their jobs and lives now.

 

[dann]

I can definitely see how women can be coerced into sex, however I have to suspect a large number of these women coming out also just feel disappointed or generally disgusted of their affair when they were young and seek to bring down the man when he's in power.

There is ample reason to assume that some women will take advantage of the situation, but false rape accusations are not without consequences for the accuser - if they're found out. And it's up to the judicial system to find out, not us.

I've often compared this to my being bullied constantly when I was in middle school. People underestimate the kind of psychological damage that can do to someone, particularly a child just about entering puberty. Now I know where my former bullies live and you have to ask: Is it worth it to break the news anymore? Is it worth it to dish some kind of long-arm revenge after all these years?

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know what you might expect to get out of "some kind of long-arm revenge": Hurting them back? Or would you just like them to acknowledge what they did to you and apologize?

Course I don't want them to lose their jobs that they're supporting their families with. I don't see the point in making old ass men who bullied or coerced decades ago when they were young lose their jobs and lives now.

An awful thing about bullying apart from the bullying itself is the long-term effect: Bullies Grow Up To Be Healthier Than Their Victims, New Research Shows (Huffington, May 14, 2014)

And sometimes bullies don't change much. Sometimes they grow up to become work-place bullies or bullying husbands and fathers. You're right, of course, in thinking of their families, but you might have a higher degree of empathy for the members of their family than the former (?) bullies do themselves.
I wouldn't worry too much about a sociopath losing his job or his family. Both colleagues and family might be better off without him (or her).
On the other hand, if they seem to have stopped bullying, it would seem futile to hurt them now.
I think the best course of action for you would be to discuss it with a reliable therapist: What will help you heal? What will give you closure? To engage in fighting the bullying that is happening right now might also bring some relief. You can't undo the bullying that you were exposed to, but maybe you can help stop the present-day bullies.