Enormous and acrimonious rape thread

[A Laughing Baby]

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.

Incredibly enough, that would be called Bioshock 2. It takes collectivism to its extreme conclusion that you outlined, just as Bioshock 1 took objectivism to an extreme conclusion. It looks like the new Bioshock game coming out soon is going to take jingoistic patriotism to an extreme conclusion. It's kind of their thing.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

Well, I can see how some cases would involve a lot of sexual arousal. But I also happen to know first hand that... well, I have been refused after a good two hours or so of kissing and, let's just say, giving the girl a thorough check for breast cancer and let me tell you I was turned on plenty, but somehow the thought didn't even occur to just forge ahead. I mean, well, damn, but if she doesn't want to, then she doesn't want to. I'll just, umm, take the problem in my own hands after she leaves.

I don't think I'm some exception there. People ARE capable of controlling themselves even when turned on, or all the people world-wide surfing for porn at work would be humping someone's leg or worse when you pull them from that into some meeting

I think something more than just arousal must be present for someone to just forge ahead. At the very least some... entitlement delusion, so to speak.

 

[bookitty]

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.

It doesn't matter if one partner is turned on if the other isn't, they have no right to that person's body. Even if they can emotionally or physically manipulate the situation in order to get what they want. This is where "no means no" fails. It gives people the idea that if they don't specifically hear "no" or if they can push past it, that everything is OK.

"No means no" is problematic and full of loopholes. The best way to protect both parties is to insist on enthusiastic consent or "yes means yes." This way both parties have a great time and there is no chance of non-consensual sex. There are no "he said/she said" quandaries. (or he said/he said, she said/he said, she said/she said, or they said, for that matter.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

It doesn't matter if one partner is turned on if the other isn't, they have no right to that person's body. Even if they can emotionally or physically manipulate the situation in order to get what they want. This is where "no means no" fails. It gives people the idea that if they don't specifically hear "no" or if they can push past it, that everything is OK.

"No means no" is problematic and full of loopholes. The best way to protect both parties is to insist on enthusiastic consent or "yes means yes." This way both parties have a great time and there is no chance of non-consensual sex. There are no "he said/she said" quandaries. (or he said/he said, she said/he said, she said/she said, or they said, for that matter.)

That was something I thought about. If a limit was set at the start and say after necking for a while someone poses the question in a physical fashion that could leave things open to miscommunication.

 

[Drachasor]

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.

Reading over the link, it was unclear exactly how the interviews were conducted and what exactly they were confirming.

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.

It is not unreasonable to read such questions and conclude that if afterwards the other person was upset with having sex with you, then you answer "yes." That's my point.

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?

Err, why are you assuming they were getting the women drunk as opposed it was the women who were deciding of their own volition to drink? Which lowered their inhibitions, causing them to do something they would ordinarily not do. Afterwards, when sober, they were upset.

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.

You seem to be assuming that I am saying all the people who answered those questions with a "yes" are not rapists. That's not what I am saying. I am saying it is quite possible that some or most of them are not rapists and that the number is too high.

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.

But the questions didn't clarify WHEN the man found out the woman didn't want to do it. If you have sex with someone who is willing at the time, but later says they didn't wouldn't have done that with a clear head or wish they hadn't done that, would you say it is consensual? Probably. Now, could say, 4% of men classify such situations as sex with a woman who didn't want it? Possibly.

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

It's not clear at all the questions were asked in a more careful manner, however. For instance, stating that the lack of consent was during the sex rather than after or well before (with the person changing their mind).

I am not saying the study is necessarily wrong. However, it is going to take more than a study with questions that I find a little bit suspect and unclear for me to conclude that more than 1 in 20 men is a rapist by the time they are in college.

It's also possible some of my concerns could vanish if I could actually read the whole study, but unfortunately it isn't available.

 

[Drachasor]

It doesn't matter if one partner is turned on if the other isn't, they have no right to that person's body. Even if they can emotionally or physically manipulate the situation in order to get what they want. This is where "no means no" fails. It gives people the idea that if they don't specifically hear "no" or if they can push past it, that everything is OK.

"No means no" is problematic and full of loopholes. The best way to protect both parties is to insist on enthusiastic consent or "yes means yes." This way both parties have a great time and there is no chance of non-consensual sex. There are no "he said/she said" quandaries. (or he said/he said, she said/he said, she said/she said, or they said, for that matter.)

I pretty much agree with this. Well said.

 

[JJM 777]

It doesn't matter if one partner is turned on if the other isn't, they have no right to that person's body.

The topic was, what motivates rape. Whether rape is right or wrong is a different issue (the answer to that question is assumed to be already known and agreed, so it requires no debate).

Greed for money motivates many a crime. Also sexual desire motivates many a crime. Just because crime is wrong does not mean that crime has no motive, and indeed a varying one.

 

[epepke]

The topic was, what motivates rape. Whether rape is right or wrong is a different issue (the answer to that question is assumed to be already known and agreed, so it requires no debate).

Greed for money motivates many a crime. Also sexual desire motivates many a crime. Just because crime is wrong does not mean that crime has no motive, and indeed a varying one.

It's a promising sign, though. Conflation leads to obtuseness which leads to acrimony, which is the purpose of this threat. Maybe in a couple of days, when people are reacting to factual judgments as if they were value judgments, and the signal-to-noise relationship is sufficiently low, I'll start in with feminist theory.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

It's too late for me to collect the million for an attempt to shift the burden of proof, but better late than never. You also totally ignored both questions I asked you, which makes me suspect you either do not understand their importance or you just can't answer them.

Can we stick to the subject at least until those two questions I asked you are resolved?

 

[bookitty]

That was something I thought about. If a limit was set at the start and say after necking for a while someone poses the question in a physical fashion that could leave things open to miscommunication.

Oh geez. This comes up a lot within the "yes means yes' conversation. But what if? "But what if you make a move..." blah, blah, blah. It feels like angling for the after-the-fact justification.

This is sucha buncha crap. Anyone who is sexually active knows what enthusiastic consent is because they've experienced it. It's not rocket-science, there's no formula. It's not about "yes" but "hell yes!" If there is the potential for miscommunication, it's not enthusiastic. So all the "what if" scenarios are invalid.

 

[bookitty]

It's a promising sign, though. Conflation leads to obtuseness which leads to acrimony, which is the purpose of this threat. Maybe in a couple of days, when people are reacting to factual judgments as if they were value judgments, and the signal-to-noise relationship is sufficiently low, I'll start in with feminist theory.

Golly! Will ya? Because really, it's been literally dozens of minutes since I've been patronized.

 

[Bikewer]

I suspect that if not the motivation then the essential behaviors leading to rape may be hard-wired to some extent.
We know that our cousins, the chimps, indulge in rape. In chimp clans, with a patriarchal "silverback" responsible for most all the sex... Young juicy males are sometimes frustrated and will "rape" females away from the control of the silverback.
This is simple reproductive strategy... Pass on those genes.

We humans are sentient and supposedly beyond such mere mechanical impregnation (it's pretty cursory with chimps) but the essential behavior might be built in. Under the right conditions...
What those conditions might be would be highly individual. It might include a mindset where the male is convinced of various stereotypes..."No means Yes", "All women want it".... That sort of thing.
There could be an element of sociopathy involved; we are told that there is a fairly high percentage of people with sociopathic tendencies and that these folks are seriously deficient in empathy....
Add in chemicals like alcohol which decrease normal behavioral controls...

 

[epepke]

Golly! Will ya? Because really, it's been literally dozens of minutes since I've been patronized.

If you insist on believing that discussing a topic automatically patronizing you, then I'm sure there will be some acrimony soon.

 

[Drachasor]

Oh geez. This comes up a lot within the "yes means yes' conversation. But what if? "But what if you make a move..." blah, blah, blah. It feels like angling for the after-the-fact justification.

This is sucha buncha crap. Anyone who is sexually active knows what enthusiastic consent is because they've experienced it. It's not rocket-science, there's no formula. It's not about "yes" but "hell yes!" If there is the potential for miscommunication, it's not enthusiastic. So all the "what if" scenarios are invalid.

I think you are assuming everyone prefers to have sex and experience it the same way. In my very limited experience (I'm picky), I've seen a large spread of behaviors and reactions from consensual partners.

Your standard here is also very biased against people that are shy, who can well have trouble saying "hell yes." I think "yes" means "yes" is generally a good standard, but only "hell yes" means "yes" is rather ridiculous -- there are exceptions to this though, but they should be setup ahead of time with open communication and "safe words" or whatever.

Now, there is a bit of a problem perhaps with non-verbal communication (or verbal communication that isn't clear). Ideally both people should make their wishes clear. A person who does not consent who doesn't make clear they don't consent (for whatever reason) is arguably doing something wrong,* imho, though again we might have a problem with shy people here who could have trouble getting "no" out. Hence why I like the "yes means yes" standard -- it's annoying for some people (both men and women), but better to be clear than risk miscommunication.

Unfortunately, this is an ideal that is often not reached.

And this isn't even delving into the grey areas of consent, which I think exist. Like if someone wanted sex a particular way and their partner does it say 85% right** (or half right or what-have-you), and the reaction is "ok, whatever, we'll just do this I guess." I wouldn't classify that remotely as rape but it is about as far from enthusiastic consent as you can get without becoming a "no". These areas are made even greyer by the reality that poor communication can come from both sides.

Overall I think the landscape is more complicated than you are giving it credit.

*I am definitively NOT saying they deserve whatever happens to them here, merely that open communication is a responsibility of both parties.

**Due to lack of skills, let us say, or perhaps there's an (unspoken) compromise of desires or whatever.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I mostly disagree with you Drachasor, in that I think the responsible thing to do is proceed only with enthusiastic consent, and to stop and communicate if it's not clear that enthusiastic consent has been given.

That doesn't mean that I think the actors in your "grey area" scenarios should be burned at the stake as rapists, but I definitely think that their behaviour is open to criticism and in some cases runs the risk of sex without genuine consent.

 

[L.Y.S.]

If you insist on believing that discussing a topic automatically patronizing you, then I'm sure there will be some acrimony soon.

Repeat these very words in the TG thread will ya.

On another note, isn't rape in some cases biologically drive and psychologically reinforced? Man is aroused----> He is denied sex-----> therefore he rapes?

 

[Drachasor]

I think I mostly disagree with you Drachasor, in that I think the responsible thing to do is proceed only with enthusiastic consent, and to stop and communicate if it's not clear that enthusiastic consent has been given.

That doesn't mean that I think the actors in your "grey area" scenarios should be burned at the stake as rapists, but I definitely think that their behaviour is open to criticism and in some cases runs the risk of sex without genuine consent.

I never said they were acting perfectly, and in fact I said they were not. I said there are a lot of grey areas when you look at the reality of human interactions.

Since it is generally agreed that rape can happen at any time during sex, if someone continues after another person wants things to end, the "enthusiastic consent" desire is silly though. It demands that all sex have enthusiastic consent constantly throughout the entire process and if it ever unclear (which can EASILY be the case in a number of positions for one), then you should stop immediately. I think that's more than a little stifling.

And I think it is a little unfair to people who have trouble showing enthusiasm (or trouble showing it in certain areas) to demand that they must be enthusiastic, otherwise they shouldn't have sex (which is essentially what this standard says).

 

[Cain]

According to a lot of XXs, we men have sex on our minds all the time. Blow me. ALL the time. Except when it comes to rape. What on earth does rape have to do with sex?

Fertile girls-women between the ages of 15 and 35 are more likely to get raped precisely because they're young and vulnerable -- exactly what a man needs to get off with a feeling power. The kind of power GOD must have felt when He raped Mary.

 

[epepke]

Repeat these very words in the TG thread will ya.

Well, they won't be listened to anyway.

On another note, isn't rape in some cases biologically drive and psychologically reinforced? Man is aroused----> He is denied sex-----> therefore he rapes?

I doubt it, and it doesn't make sense to me. My sex drive, or whatever you want to call it, seems to be about an order of magnitude greater than what most men report, and my sexual frustration is quite serious. At 50, I can fairly easily have seven orgasms a day, as long as I drink enough orange juice, and after a period of 2 years of not having any sex at all, I actively planned suicide. I am truly a sex fiend. It's a really good thing that I now know how to seduce, because otherwise, I'd be a basket case. Which I was before. A couple of years after I figured out how to get laid to a level of basic confidence (which I did pretty late in life), my very serious mood disorder just went away and has stayed away.

At the same time, rape holds no appeal for me. Completely apart from moral revulsion, which I've learned to ignore in order to be a skeptic and keep factual judgments clear of value judgments, I just don't see the point.

Which is funny, because I'm just fine with rape play, consensual non-consent, and a variety of BDSM activities that would make a sailor blush. The slightest indication that a woman isn't happy with me, and I just shut down. When Aristophanes wrote in Lysistrata "Take a woman without her volition? Men don't enjoy it in that condition," he was speaking for me.

I can't speak for everybody, but I can see the appeal of murder, or warfare, or even genocide, and I can get extremely angry indeed, enough to make my face break out. But actual rape doesn't seem to fire a single happy-making neuron in my head. Nor does it seem that there are any environmental factors that can explain this. I wasn't lectured about it as a child or adolescent. It wasn't my own victimization, because I was that way before. I became quite hostile toward women who, according to the prevailing ideology of the time, pooh-poohed my experience, and there were a few I could conceivably have popped a cap into, but never rape. (I'm glad the ideology has changed, and most women at least acknowledge the existence of male victims, so those days are behind me.)

Nor does it have anything to do with some sort of esteem of women. Women are just people, and not particularly impressive people at that. They tend to be shorter, and I think they smell nicer (except for 1/4 of the time between puberty and menopause), and I have a lot of brain wiring to want them, but that's about it. I am neither inclined to put them on a pedestal nor praise or defer to them when they say something idiotic.

If their were anything at all in me that liked actual rape, well, I could see, maybe some other men have more of it, or less empathy, or something like that, but there's nothing at all. I can only conclude that either there is something desperately wrong with me, or there is something desperately wrong with rapists.

So I have a really hard time seeing how rape falls out of the sex drive in any way, as I have more than most can imagine, and there's nothing there. I tend to listen a bit when people suggest other things, but the "rape is about power" stuff comes across as too inchoate to be talked about. Specific paraphilias? I know oodles of paraphilias. Childhood abuse? Well, I didn't get much physical abuse, but I know all about emotional abuse. So what is it, then?

I once heard an NPR report with a woman who had done lots of research into serial killers. (I wish I remembered her name so I could find the book.) She said something that surprised me and which isn't present in most stuff about killers. She said that they had a great deal of difficulty telling the difference between the living and the dead. They played a bit of a recorded interview with a serial killer. She asked "Am I alive?" He thought for some time and replied "I guess." Even animation doesn't seem to help, as a lot of serial killers keep the corpses dressed up and talk to them.

Maybe something like that is going on in the brains of rapists. Maybe they don't see people, or maybe they just don't see women as obviously alive, but in a way like inanimate objects. So a woman is just an animated sex toy.

And maybe there are women who don't see men as being alive. In fact, I think there are, but they mostly just write books or become nuns or prostitutes or something.

 

[JJM 777]

I think the responsible thing to do is proceed only with enthusiastic consent, and to stop and communicate if it's not clear that enthusiastic consent has been given.

This sounds noble, but the world functions by different rules. Being timid and obeying the unwritten rules does not reward a person in any way. Those thrive (in business and everywhere) who are intrusive and break the norms just as much as is tolerated de facto in each situation, no matter what is the written or unwritten norm de jure. Ice hockey games are won by the team who have an effective balance of gaining advantage by breaking the rules a bit but not too much. The same goes for marketing, and mating.