Enormous and acrimonious rape thread

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't think the question of motivation all that interesting really and is almost always discussed in a dumbed-down and/or political manner. I think the question of what differentiates a person who will rape from a person who will not rape to be a much more interesting and useful question.

For example, holding "rape-supportive beliefs" like victim-blaming and believing that women find sexual violence arousing are predictors of self-reported sexual aggression.
http://www.johnbriere.com/83JRP17.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x/abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q108k28040221861/

I agree completely. If you focus on who is more likely to rape you have specific observations about such people, and can potentially make falsifiable predictions.

That said, it's not clear where cause and effect lies. I suspect that shoplifters, if asked, would be more likely to say that shoplifting does no harm to a business than the general population. However I don't know how much of that is due to them rationalising their behaviour, and how much of that is genuinely their intellectual basis for shoplifting.

By the same token it's not clear from merely studying rapists' views on rape whether those views are the cause of their behaviour or a rationalisation for it.

Even showing that rapists hold such views before they get arrested for sexual assault wouldn't conclusively make the case since humans are quite capable of entertaining an idea and coming up with a rationalisation for it before they actually do it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think there's a slight issue with the first point.

No one that I'm aware of has ever said that rape is not about sex; they're merely stating that it's not the PRIMARY motivation. The power/dominance over another being IS the primary motivation, but it's not the only motivation. Getting sexual intercourse is surely part of it, but it is by no means the primary motivation.

IMO.

Thanks for the reply.

The reformulated version is more defensible, but I'm sure I've heard the absolute version around the traps too.

More importantly, the questions about what observations about the universe this claim is predicting, and what observations about the universe could potentially falsify it, stand. It looks at first glance like an unfalsifiable belief, since any instances where sexual gratification seems to be a motivation can be explained away by saying "That was a motivation but not the primary motivation", so the falsifiability question is very important.

 

[HansMustermann]

A couple of years ago, I did some sums (not my forte...) and figured that considering the about-50% female population of the school, and the numbers involved.... That even with the lowest-accepted reporting rate we should be getting perhaps a dozen reports of sexual assault per year.
However, we have had none for at least four years. We had one report of a so-called "date rape" then, just one, and again no reports whatever for some years prior to that.
The one reported incident came down to a "he-said, she-said" situation.
"He got me drunk and had his way with me."
"We got drunk together and had consensual sex."

No evidence. No claim of force. No injuries. No witnesses. Coitus admitted.
The case was not taken up by the local prosecutor. It would not have been provable.

But that's the one reported case in about an 8-year period, where simple statistics indicate (if the one-in-four statistic was correct) we should have been handling at least a hundred.....

I suppose your college could be somehow getting a better breed of students, because in another survey, 6% of male students self-reported as having committed a rape. Source, for example:

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Oh, much fewer will admit if you use the R word, but if you phrase the questions more like "did you ever use force to have sex with someone who didn't want to" or such, it turns out that a whopping 6% say "yes". Just for clarity, in fact the 4 questions were these:

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?​

Some admitted to as much as 400 attempted or completed rapes. Which pretty much boggles the mind.

There is no confusion, no "I thought it meant yes", no nothing. All 4 questions explicitly ask about someone who didn't want to at the time. So in the perp's own assessment, the victim didn't want to.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but they must have raped SOMEONE there, or at least that's what they've been saying "yes" to. Maybe it's women on the campus, or maybe not, but SOMEONE got some unwanted sex there.

Or, I suppose they COULD be lying, although it's not clear why someone would make up using force to get sex. Or taking advantage of someone too drunk to resist being undressed, but who still clearly didn't want sex, in the perp's own assessment of it. Especially since most of them will answer "no" if you use the R word, so clearly they're not trying to be cool by being one of the rapist gang.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I suppose your college could be somehow getting a better breed of students, because in another survey, 6% of male students self-reported as having committed a rape. Source, for example:

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

I find that article fascinating, firstly because the sample size is pleasantly large, the publication quite recent and the results interesting making it unusually good research for this area (in my opinion), and secondly because once they've finished analysing this good data they launch into the trope I questioned as topic #3.

The problem is a small percentage of men who repeatedly take advantage of drunk acquaintances, and an even smaller percentage who repeatedly use force to coerce acquaintances into sex. Their solution (in part): Stop rape jokes!

It's fascinating how they can analyse the data scientifically and then instantly switch tracks to parroting the exact same tropes that I would expect to see without such scientific analysis.

I would have said that candidate solutions include education for both sexes about what the dangerous situations are and how to keep friends out of those situations, changes to the legal system so that previous accusations of sexual assault are admissible as evidence of sexual assault, lengthier prison sentences for this kind of sexual assault to keep offenders out of circulation, more surveys like the one described only with follow-up education or counselling for self-identified rapists and probably other useful things I haven't thought of off-hand. Campaigning against rape jokes wouldn't even be on my radar.

 

[bookitty]

I find that article fascinating, firstly because the sample size is pleasantly large, the publication quite recent and the results interesting making it unusually good research for this area (in my opinion), and secondly because once they've finished analysing this good data they launch into the trope I questioned as topic #3.

The problem is a small percentage of men who repeatedly take advantage of drunk acquaintances, and an even smaller percentage who repeatedly use force to coerce acquaintances into sex. Their solution (in part): Stop rape jokes! It's fascinating how they can analyse the data scientifically and then instantly switch tracks to parroting the exact same tropes that I would expect to see without such scientific analysis.

I would have said that candidate solutions include education for both sexes about what the dangerous situations are and how to keep friends out of those situations, changes to the legal system so that previous accusations of sexual assault are admissible as evidence of sexual assault, lengthier prison sentences for this kind of sexual assault to keep offenders out of circulation, more surveys like the one described only with follow-up education or counselling for self-identified rapists and probably other useful things I haven't thought of off-hand. Campaigning against rape jokes wouldn't even be on my radar.

That (in part) came after seven (7!) paragraphs of other suggestions and the ultimate conclusion was in bold.

we need to adopt the stance that sexual interaction ought to always be had in a state of affirmative consent by all participants; that anything else is aberrant.

Which is a far cry from rape jokes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That (in part) came after seven (7!) paragraphs of other suggestions and the ultimate conclusion was in bold.

Which is a far cry from rape jokes.

Which, if any of the suggested actions in that article would you have been surprised to see recommended, if you had not just read the survey results the article discussed?

 

[HansMustermann]

1. Nevertheless, the important part is the data, rather than finding one bit to be flippant about. Even discarding the conclusions wholesale, if they bother you, there is some prevalence information there that is valuable by itself anyway.

2. As bookitty said, it's one conclusion out of SEVEN, you know?

3. Even granting that not all rape jokes are created equal, there are nevertheless jokes where the incongruity and resolution (layman's terms: why it's supposed to be funny) are based on a heinously prejudiced world view against someone or another. E.g., in a lot of jokes about domestic abuse, the whole joke is basically "ha ha, stupid woman didn't know she should keep her mouth shut." Similarly, a lot of jokes about rape DO rely on blaming the victim or negative stereotypes about women.

Basically I wouldn't go as far as forbidding rape jokes, but, yes, some do seem to serve no other point than perpetuating a certain mentality and are only funny if one subscribes to said mentality. I see no problem with not laughing at them.

4. Also, we do know from studies about cognitive dissonance that asking someone to say a certain view actually ends up skewing their own views towards that point of view. E.g., liberals asked to defend conservative positions, even if told it's just for an analysis of handwriting when telling a lie, will have shifted their position more towards the conservative side when polled again after a couple of weeks, and ditto for conservatives asked to defend a liberal position. Even the act of saying something IS altering one's mental model and can even produce false memories.

There is nothing rape-related or feminist about those studies, btw. Cognitive dissonance is a completely separate topic, studied for what it is, rather than for some gender studies point.

So, yes, the logical conclusion would be that also someone who spends every other evening propagating skewed stereotypes about women and rape, will end up believing them. There is no reason to believe that a brain mechanism that works to rationalize everything from boring jobs to political positions to choice of a favourite colour, would NOT work ONLY on the narrow domain of rape.

Again, I wouldn't go as far as damning every single rape joke or talk about it -- some humour works precisely BECAUSE you know it's about something horrible, after all -- but yes, there are plenty of jokes which just propagate pure bigotry and prejudice on any domain where such bigotry or prejudice exist. Be it sexism, racism, anti-semitism, religious bigotry, whatever. I don't mind calling it for what it is, when it pops up.

5. Also, yes, a lot of the interaction in groups -- the modus operandi of group-think, if you will -- is about affirming and confirming some core values or, for lack of a better word, pacts. Think people talking about football and convincing themselves to like football, just to align to a group which (they think) likes football. Or people who'd run for their life if it actually was up to them, participating in group-think talks about being brave and fearless. Whole societies were built upon that. It's a social ritual to reinforce group cohesion and the values that are important for that group.

Again, there is nothing inherently rape- or gender- or feminism-related in that mechanism. It works just as well for religion, war, video games, or really whatever.

But in the end I also don't see any reason to expect that that mechanism WOULDN'T work on ONLY the narrowly defined domain of sex and consent. That the same people who can reinforce a "let's bomb them" group attitude by taking turns at saying it and nodding when someone else says it, wouldn't just as well reinforce a sex-related attitude. Or that when whole countries can reinforce the will to kill their own daughters over any immorality rather than be the odd one who doesn't conform to the group's values, they can't reinforce when it's still ok to go ahead with sex.

 

[Drachasor]

An interesting article on false claims.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/09/18/rape-myth-1-shes-probably-lying/

Though, I wouldn't go with the lowest figure they give there (2% or so). Or rather, I mean there are a significant number of those 8-10% that are ambiguous. Still, good to point out that false reports are few in number. It would be nice to know the statistics for "no crime occurred" and such.

There are a number of disturbing practices indicated there, however.

(1) Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?
(2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?
(3) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?
(4) Have you ever had oral sex with an adult when they didn’t want to because you used or threatened to use physical force (twisting their arm; holding them down, etc.) if they didn’t cooperate?​

To be fair,
1) Could be that they thought they were joking around with the person, then stopped when they realized the person really didn't want it.
2) They might not have known until after the fact that in her right mind she didn't want to have sex. They might have been willing while intoxicated, and afterwards been aghast at what they had done. (Not this accounts for a full 70% of the people).
3) and 4) are harder to justify like that, but it isn't impossible (BDSM).

I want to be clearly I am just saying more research needs to be done before I would feel comfortable with that 6% statistic -- for one, I'd like the study replicated multiple times, as well as the above possibilities properly looked at. Certainly, some of those numbers represent rape, but there is a real possibility that they do not all represent rape.

Of course, I do realize that poor or no proper communication is something that is perhaps worthy of debate.

That said, if a guy and girl get drunk and sleep together both intoxicated and willing at the time, but later it is revealed this isn't something one of them would do if they weren't drunk, is that rape? I'd say not, but I could see people arguing that it is. Reminds me of one of the reasons why I loathe alcohol.

Note also the language about "resisting sexual advances" and how sexuality is typically looked at by our culture, with men being a dominating force and women succumbing (I am exaggerating slightly here). One could well view a woman willingly engaging in sex after an initial half-hearted (even playful) resistance, as falling into one of the above groups. Courtship rituals are rather complicated.

Now maybe that 6% is an accurate number, but I think more research needs to be done before it can be taken too seriously.

I hope it is understood that I only mean to apply the proper caution when viewing any sort of survey. Wording is often more ambiguous than people think.

 

[quadraginta]

I think consensus about point #4 is now achieved to the satisfaction of all - hurrah!

Any progress on points #1 to #3?

I find that article fascinating, firstly because the sample size is pleasantly large, the publication quite recent and the results interesting making it unusually good research for this area (in my opinion), and secondly because once they've finished analysing this good data they launch into the trope I questioned as topic #3.

<snip>

We might be able to make better progress on #3 if you were to be a bit more explicit about what you consider to be "feminist ideas" as opposed to, for example, ideas which are not "feminist".

People who self-identify as "feminist" may sometimes be more vehement and possibly even less critical of data which supports them in their conversations about rape, but that certainly isn't their exclusive bailiwick (parents of girls come to mind), and it isn't clear to me that many of the core issues surrounding the topic are handled by "feminists" in a substantially different manner from a qualitative point of view. Quantitative I'll concede, but that only means they can be louder about it. I don't think this exemplifies a failure of logic exclusive to "feminists".

Upon reflection, it might help if you were to share your definition of "feminist" as well. Reading your OP someone could be led to the belief that you are using it in a derogatory manner, and I wouldn't want to assume that by mistake.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

1. Nevertheless, the important part is the data, rather than finding one bit to be flippant about.

I ask the same question of you I did of Bookitty: Which, if any of the suggested actions in that article would you have been surprised to see recommended, if you had not just read the survey results the article discussed?

Also, how would you cash out the rest of your remarks in terms of predicted observations and falsification conditions? Do you have any evidence that your predicted observations are actually observed, or that your falsification conditions are not?

 

[epepke]

People who self-identify as "feminist" may sometimes be more vehement and possibly even less critical of data which supports them in their conversations about rape, but that certainly isn't their exclusive bailiwick (parents of girls come to mind), and it isn't clear to me that many of the core issues surrounding the topic are handled by "feminists" in a substantially different manner from a qualitative point of view. Quantitative I'll concede, but that only means they can be louder about it. I don't think this exemplifies a failure of logic exclusive to "feminists".

Well, no it isn't.

There is stuff called "feminist theory," and there's a particular view of rape within it, and this view is ideologically motivated and may not map onto reality very well.

For an analogy, consider the possibility of a view of rape to support "Marxist theory" or "libertarian theory" or "progressive theory" or "Keynesian economic theory" or whatever. Actually, for all I know, there might be, but if they exist, they haven't quite managed the hegemony that feminist theory has.

There is (and certainly was) a view of rape based on conservative ideology, based on a lot of Biblical claptrap. I think that the most notorious advocate was Anita Bryant.

Talking about how feminist theory (well, theories with some central common tenets and a common filter) informs views of rape might be interesting. However, I'm not sure that it would reliably fulfill the purpose of maximizing acrimony. It sometimes does, but it's unreliable. It seems to require a critical mass of obtuse people, which this thread may not yet have.

Even the more common and appealing "you're broad-brushing all feminists!" and "you're a rape apologist!" flames have hardly kindled, if at all.

We'll see in a few days. In the mean time, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit about which to become acrimonious.

 

[Drachasor]

For an analogy, consider the possibility of a view of rape to support "Marxist theory" or "libertarian theory" or "progressive theory" or "Keynesian economic theory" or whatever. Actually, for all I know, there might be, but if they exist, they haven't quite managed the hegemony that feminist theory has.

This a video game by the people that made the Bioshock games that seems to do this. All things must be shared and belong to everyone including wives/women/etc and this done by force (they are the bad guys). I am not sure of any serious view of this though. Ok, it really is more of a strawman of such views.

 

[tyr_13]

Depends on the kind of coercion, I should say. Or at least the law says. For duress (coercion) to invalidate a consent, the criteria are:

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death
2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime
3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable
4, The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own​

BUT, at that point it's irrelevant anyway, since if sex was obtained by threat then that qualifies as rape right there and then, and you can skip criteria 2 to 4 for duress anyway.

So really, all that remains there that isn't already included in the normal and pretty clear definition of rape are cases when, I guess, someone was coaxed to consent without any actual threat being involved. Which really just isn't rape (if begging and pleading were a crime, most husbands would be in jail), and has little bearing on the cases that are.

Where did you get those criteria? It seems fairly restrictive.

 

[quadraginta]

Well, no it isn't.

There is stuff called "feminist theory," and there's a particular view of rape within it, and this view is ideologically motivated and may not map onto reality very well.

For an analogy, consider the possibility of a view of rape to support "Marxist theory" or "libertarian theory" or "progressive theory" or "Keynesian economic theory" or whatever. Actually, for all I know, there might be, but if they exist, they haven't quite managed the hegemony that feminist theory has.

There is (and certainly was) a view of rape based on conservative ideology, based on a lot of Biblical claptrap. I think that the most notorious advocate was Anita Bryant.

Talking about how feminist theory (well, theories with some central common tenets and a common filter) informs views of rape might be interesting. However, I'm not sure that it would reliably fulfill the purpose of maximizing acrimony. It sometimes does, but it's unreliable. It seems to require a critical mass of obtuse people, which this thread may not yet have.

Even the more common and appealing "you're broad-brushing all feminists!" and "you're a rape apologist!" flames have hardly kindled, if at all.

We'll see in a few days. In the mean time, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit about which to become acrimonious.

My problem is that a term like "feminist ideas" means very little to me in isolation, and that is what we have been given so far. I am wary when someone uses such an expression and simply assumes that my concept of it is identical to their own.

I feel much the same way about such rhetorically suspicious terms as "liberal",or "conservative", or (as you say) "Marxist", or "progressive". They can be semantic traps which paint broadly enough to make a backdrop for nearly any statement. Until it is clear to me that the terms are not being used as epithets, and that my definition is in general agreement with theirs I cannot be certain that I understand what they are proposing, much less whether or not I have any opinion one way or the other.

I'm not disagreeing with Kevin. I'm asking him to offer more elaboration about this aspect of what he is trying to say so that I can give his thoughts a fair consideration and not simply respond to culturally loaded language out of sheer reflex.

 

[epepke]

My problem is that a term like "feminist ideas" means very little to me in isolation, and that is what we have been given so far. I am wary when someone uses such an expression and simply assumes that my concept of it is identical to their own.

That's fine, and I think I agree with it.

I could explain what I mean when I say what I wrote, based on my long study of feminism back in the day.

However, as I've explained, it's probably not sufficiently inflammatory, and/or at least it can wait until the fuel for other kinds of flames has worn out. I really do try to describe things rationally, and it takes a real bonehead to get upset at it. Besides, I have enough boneheads to deal with right now. Maybe later.

 

[truethat]

I don't like to call myself a feminist because of some of the ways the "feminist" views seem to skew with reality to me.

For example to me there are degrees of rape. In essence the simplest way to decide if it's rape is to say "non consensual sex" and there are certain cases that would suggest that it is non consensual even if the "rapist" is not intending to rape a woman. That would include a wife who goes along with her husband having sex just to make him happy, a woman who gets drunk with her boyfriend and both have sex and statutory rape.

As a rape victim of a violent rape that left me unable to hear, I do tend to get a bit perplexed at the idea that all rape should be discussed under the same umbrella because to do otherwise revictimizes the victim.

The idea that rape is done for sex isn't true in the violent versions I would think. Ted Bundy had no reason to rape women for sex and he had a lot of sex on a regular basis. Obviously he's not doing it for sex. Rape is a high I think to men who feel they have no power in their lives. For those types it would be like murder. You are doing it because you want to feel you can do anything you want.

The first types that I mentioned are ones that are more about misunderstandings. (except in statutory rape where the man is much older than the girl or vice versa) Although I do understand that those cases do create a lot of emotional trauma for women, it does honestly upset me that feminists want to lump them into the same category as a violent sexual assault.

I don't understand why there can't be different levels here. I also don't get the need for these threads over and over again, usually made up of people who have never experienced it.

 

[epepke]

Where did you get those criteria? It seems fairly restrictive.

I tend to dismiss references to The Law. There are many laws.

Here is a link to Florida's main law:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0794/Sections/0794.011.html

It seems pretty good to me. Brownie points, however, for anyone who can spot the oddity in the definition of "sexual battery." I've given up trying to explain it to anybody.

 

[HansMustermann]

To be fair,
1) Could be that they thought they were joking around with the person, then stopped when they realized the person really didn't want it.
2) They might not have known until after the fact that in her right mind she didn't want to have sex. They might have been willing while intoxicated, and afterwards been aghast at what they had done. (Not this accounts for a full 70% of the people).
3) and 4) are harder to justify like that, but it isn't impossible (BDSM).

First of all, as mentioned on the page, the researchers also did interviews to confirm those answers. So the possibility of it being just a misunderstanding are somewhat slimmer than you think.

Second, I would maybe write it off as BDSM, if it were consensual. But when those self-reporting as the perps are explicitly asked if the victim didn't want to, it really doesn't look like BDSM to me. BDSM is consensual role-playing, and really the subbie is in control. That's why the safeword. There is no such thing as just having BDSM with someone who doesn't want to. Non-consensual BDSM is assault, battery and/or rape, so it's a felony either way.

Third, at 2, read the question again. It explicitly asks about having sex someone when that someone didn't want to, and was too intoxicated to defend themselves. There is very little wiggle room there. It's not a case of "she said, he said", it's HE said that it was when the victim didn't want to.

Fourth, note that a hefty chunk of those self-reported as repeat offenders. It's pretty hard to believe that it was just some misunderstanding when, as for some of those, it happened 400 times. Someone who 'accidentally' gets 400 women too drunk to defend themselves and completely 'by misunderstanding' screws them against their will, needs to be put in a psychiatry ward. There's just no way to keep repeating the exact same 'mistake' over and over again, as a genuine
'mistake', and not be able to learn from it every time, short of some severe neurological dysfunction. But then, how were they able to learn to tie their shoes, if their brain just doesn't learn?

And finally, note that there still is the strange correlation with other stuff asked there. Because actually there was more asked there than those 4 questions. Those 4 are for determining the number of rapists, but they also asked stuff like domestic violence and violence against children. And the strange part is that it correlates with those answers about rape. E.g., those 4% of the rapists who committed numbers of rapes in the hundreds, also reported about a quarter of the violence. So, there seems to be something genuinely abnormal with those people.

I want to be clearly I am just saying more research needs to be done before I would feel comfortable with that 6% statistic -- for one, I'd like the study replicated multiple times, as well as the above possibilities properly looked at. Certainly, some of those numbers represent rape, but there is a real possibility that they do not all represent rape.

Well, yes, those guys didn't think it was "rape rape" either, to borrow Whoopi's stupid expression. But nevertheless, the questions were explicitly about having sex with someone when that someone didn't want to, and the researchers did interviews too, to confirm the answers.

Plus, you're in luck, because there is a second study cited down the page which largely corroborates the numbers that both studied.

Of course, I do realize that poor or no proper communication is something that is perhaps worthy of debate.

But again, the question wasn't about what he said and what she said. The interviewed were asked about situations when, in their own assessment, the other person didn't want to. I fail to see where more/less communication even enters it. It wasn't the other person who reported not wanting to, and the perp thinking it was totally consensual rough play. It was the perp affirming and confirming that the other person didn't want to.

I'd say that however little communication there may have been, it was obviously enough to get that crucial point across. There may not have had enough communication to get across the victim's favourite colour or what she's majoring into, but if the perp knew she doesn't want to, then THAT piece of information obviously did get across.

That said, if a guy and girl get drunk and sleep together both intoxicated and willing at the time, but later it is revealed this isn't something one of them would do if they weren't drunk, is that rape? I'd say not, but I could see people arguing that it is. Reminds me of one of the reasons why I loathe alcohol.

That's a good reason to avoid alcohol indeed, but unfortunately a red herring here, because that's not what those guys said "yes" to and then confirmed. The question wasn't about having sex with someone who had the beer goggles on, but with someone who didn't want to, and was too drunk to defend themselves.

Plus, see again, about two thirds were repeat offenders, with at least two offenses, a median of just over FIVE, and the top range going well into the hundreds. If someone is repeatedly unable to figure out the difference between "no" and "yes", they need psychiatric help ASAP.

Note also the language about "resisting sexual advances" and how sexuality is typically looked at by our culture, with men being a dominating force and women succumbing (I am exaggerating slightly here). One could well view a woman willingly engaging in sex after an initial half-hearted (even playful) resistance, as falling into one of the above groups. Courtship rituals are rather complicated.

Err... courtship rituals may be complicated and played in many ways, but I don't think the kind of force they asked about is normal. Twisting someone's arm or using one's superior weight and strength to pin them is well beyond the average courtship play, I would say. In fact, legally speaking it's assault. Whether it's about sex or not, I should hope most people know where the line is between "play" and "assault". And, after all, the purpose is to get them to like you enough, not to scare the crap out of them by looking like a genuine assault.

Now maybe that 6% is an accurate number, but I think more research needs to be done before it can be taken too seriously.

Well, more research is always good, so far from me to have anything against it. But in the meantime, these are the numbers we have.

I hope it is understood that I only mean to apply the proper caution when viewing any sort of survey. Wording is often more ambiguous than people think.

It wasn't that ambiguous, and it was confirmed in interviews. There may be some inaccuracy, but, really, it wasn't that ambiguous.

 

[HansMustermann]

I ask the same question of you I did of Bookitty: Which, if any of the suggested actions in that article would you have been surprised to see recommended, if you had not just read the survey results the article discussed?

Also, how would you cash out the rest of your remarks in terms of predicted observations and falsification conditions? Do you have any evidence that your predicted observations are actually observed, or that your falsification conditions are not?

Do you have evidence that basic and by now fairly well understood brain mechanisms like cognitive dissonance DON'T apply on the domain of rape? Because basically it's like asking for extra evidence that rocket engines still work beyond the orbit of Pluto, or that reindeer are still heavier than air if raised at the north pole, or that rabbits still don't carry baskets of eggs on Easter. As long as we have evidence that things generally work by a certain rule, there is no reason to believe that an exception exists unless the EXCEPTION is supported by evidence. The exception may still exist, but just carving an arbitrary domain to where the absence of that exception somehow needs to be explicitly supported again isn't skepticism, it's the "God Of The Gaps" all over again.

 

[JJM 777]

Various possible motives for rape:
100% Sadism only
Mass rapes of population during war, for example male rapes by non-gay soldiers. Incentive for sadism: we hate them, hate hate hate did I say hate, they are our enemies, they try to kill us.

100% Sexual desire only
Many date rapes and spousal rapes, when the other refuses when the man already was turned on and wants to have it here and now.