Enormous and acrimonious rape thread

[JJM 777]

Well, I can see how some cases would involve a lot of sexual arousal.

The fact that the assailant inserts a reproductive organ inside the other person, and experiences an ejaculation, indicates that we are talking about sexual activity.

In some most bizarre cases I would still assume the motive to be 0% sexual desire, for example in the example mentioned in another thread a week ago, which talked about the rape of male POWs in Congo and elsewhere in Africa. The circumstances described in the thread (left me wondering from where the soldiers involved get an erection and if they ejaculate too, and) gave me the impression that sexual desire towards the prisoners is not a motivating factor there, probably not lack of access to other sexuality either.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

But that's not what was asked, and thus not what those interviews they said "yes" to. It asked about having sex with someone WHEN that someone didn't want to. I get it that some people get hung up on the idea that women really really wanted sex with whoever happened to be there, and are just lying about it being rape. But in this case we don't really have a case of the woman saying it, we have the perp saying it was when the victim didn't want to. I'm supposed to believe now that men -- and in college, no less -- have trouble understanding English too, AND, presumably completely because of language problems and/or being scatter-brains, describe situations in an interview that qualify as rape without it actually having been so? I'd seriously worry about any country's education system if 6% of the people in college are that retarded

The rest of the objection is true, but it makes a somewhat minor a difference. Whether someone actually got women drunk or just repeatedly preys on women who are too drunk to defend themselves, it's still rape anyway.

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.

I never said "all" either. And really almost nobody goes as far as the unreasonable position that ALL rapes are fake. That much is already clear, so rest assured that nobody was thinking you're doing that. It's just about common to make only MOST raped women liars, or, I see, now most men who ever admitted it are made liars too.

Even though common sense and the way self-reporting is known to work, you'd expect most "lying" to actually be in the other direction. People present themselves as more socially acceptable in surveys, polls and interviews, not as bigger douchebags, and it's a phenomenon polling companies and anthropologists have known for decades. People report themselves as more helpful, less racist, more honest, less self-centered, more eco-minded, etc, than they reveal themselves when you actually study their actual behaviour. The same guys who'll side with the (actor playing) an overt racist in the actual exercise, will declare themselves to be totally not racists and totally wouldn't tolerate racism, for example. Sometimes skewing the results by ridiculous margins. It's not clear at all even why would it be more socially acceptable to claim to be raped (it wouldn't be so underreported if it were that fashionable), much less why would it be more acceptable to claim to be a rapist. So the normal extrapolation would be that it's probably actually under-reported there not overreported.

But, be it as it may, these are the numbers we have. In fact that's the numbers we have from several studies, not just one.

They COULD be skewed in either direction, indeed, but one can't just apply whichever Flannagan's Finagling Factor ("that quantity which, when multiplied by, divided by, added to, or subtracted from the answer you got, gives you the answer you should have gotten") makes one comfortable with the result. If further studies produce a more exact picture, sure, we'll go with the new numbers. Otherwise it just being possible doesn't really mean much. Yes, it is possible. It's also unsupported. One can't override actually measured stuff with hypothetical possibilities.

And finally, check out the Fallacy Of The Middle Ground. Just because one position is more in the middle than claiming an extreme, doesn't actually make it more reasonable or more likely to be real.

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.

... yet would they also describe it in an interview aimed specifically at catching false positives or negatives as something that qualifies as rape? And in a study which has as one of the primary goals to check the myth of it being just mis-communication? Right...

To wit, the interviews actually showed no false positives (those who said "yes", well, yes, had committed an act that qualifies as rape) while actually adding 12.2% false negatives (people who had said "no" to all four, but then described something in the interview which qualified as rape.) As the results were not corrected by that factor, actually the indication is that it is a case of UNDER-reporting, as expected, not as OVER-reporting.

Plus, again, considering that about two thirds reported repeating it, something is fishy in any case. A mis-communication or mis-understanding once is one thing, but by the time one "misunderstands" or "miscommunicates" half a dozen times (or for some dozens or even hundreds of times), you'd think they'd start taking the hint and being more careful about what means "yes" and what means "no". I mean, even after one "mistake", if it really was mistake or mis-communication, basic empathy should make someone want to not repeat it again, and be doubly careful next time. Repeating the same "mis-communication" again and again and again looks to me more like not giving a damn.

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.

Well, then you're in luck, because:

A) The study actually IS available online: http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/1348/134851.pdf

and

B) Several other studies do show largely the same numbers. Check out even just the ones mentioned in the PDF.

 

[HansMustermann]

The fact that the assailant inserts a reproductive organ inside the other person, and experiences an ejaculation, indicates that we are talking about sexual activity.

In some most bizarre cases I would still assume the motive to be 0% sexual desire, for example in the example mentioned in another thread a week ago, which talked about the rape of male POWs in Congo and elsewhere in Africa. The circumstances described in the thread (left me wondering from where the soldiers involved get an erection and if they ejaculate too, and) gave me the impression that sexual desire towards the prisoners is not a motivating factor there, probably not lack of access to other sexuality either.

Well, as was mentioned before, nobody claimed that sex isn't involved. The question is about primary motivation, rather than sex drive also being involved.

 

[epepke]

The fact that the assailant inserts a reproductive organ inside the other person, and experiences an ejaculation, indicates that we are talking about sexual activity.

Not necessarily. Female prisoners have been known to rape others with broom handles, and a certain sensational case at FSU when I was on the faculty there involved a frat boy raping a drunk woman with one of those pump toothpaste thingies.

Some reports of rapists indicate that they are impotent.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I think if you try it with the right people you'll find that cooperation actually does have its rewards, inside and outside the bedroom, and that taking everything you can get without considering other people's interests won't make you happy in the long run.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

First of all, actually, I'm not the one shifting the burden of proof, it's still you. If you're trying to introduce an exception to an already supported general rule, then the burden of proof is yours.

Second, I do believe that I did answer. Given that we know how cognitive dissonance works, e.g., that people's position does shift towards what they say and/or towards the group's position, then yes, I think the article has a point in asking people to not cooperate in conversations that trivialize rape. Because from what we know about cognitive dissonance, the rather trivial conclusion is that even one instance does shift people's position more towards actually taking rape as less serious, repeated instances, more so.

Again, unless you wish to introduce an exception to cognitive dissonance. Which may even exist, but then the burden of proof is yours to support such an exception.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, I'm not the one shifting the burden of proof, it's still you. If you're trying to introduce an exception to an already supported general rule, then the burden of proof is yours.

You've still got two questions which you seem to be deliberately avoiding answering.

 

[epepke]

t'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.

Well, then you're in luck, because:

A) The study actually IS available online: http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/1348/134851.pdf

Excellent find! I think it's pretty good. It doesn't really address Drachasor's objection, of course, which specifies "by the time they are in college."

The study involved 1882 men, of which 120 reported having committed rape or attempted rape.

It seems a fairly careful study overall. The questions are well worded, much like those on the Conflict Tactics Scales, which give good results. For instance, they do not use words like "rape," "assault," or "battery," which might scare some respondents off. There was no outside indication as to what the questions would be about. The responses were written and anonymous. They had an analysis to avoid duplicates.

It wasn't a scientific random sampling of students. Although it says it was of students, there isn't any indication of that. Rather, they set up tables on campus and paid people between $3 and $4 to fill them out. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 71 years old, with a mean age of 26.5. More than 20% were over 30, and almost 8% were over 40. That seems a bit old to me for the students of a bricks-and-mortar university and leaves open the possibility of a self-selected "dirty old man" population. Still, it's probably good enough.

It occurred to me to wonder how many of the 120 had committed rape versus attempted rape. There are a number of reasons to wonder. One is moral. I think we can all agree that saying, "Have sex with me, or I'll swat you" is bad, but there may be people who think that actual rape is even worse.

Another is factual. One might be interested in factual questions, and despite the evidence, I cannot rule out the possibility that there are some here.

For the rest, there are those who, for ideological reasons, dislike the numbers for being too high or too low. Too-highers could construct an argument minimizing the actual rapes, which the study is vague enough to do. Too-lowers could realize that many studies have been discounted on these grounds, both by too-highers and the factual crowd.

Here is where I ran into a brick wall. Tables of responses are not given. Percentages, when given, do not indicate areas of overlap. The authors refer to both types as "rapists." References to rape and attempted rape flip back and forth. I went through the paper looking for some disambiguating clue. I found this:

Since 44 of the 120 rapists admitted to only a single rape, the 76 repeat rapists actually accounted for 439 of the rapes, averaging 5.8 each (SD=7.7)

44 + 76 = 120, which is the same number as the number of men who had committed rapes and attempted rape total. The only way to make the quoted statement true would be if all 120 had committed rape. If that's the case, why talk about attempted rape at all? Plus, if you use creative accounting on the percentages given, you can just make the rape categories add up to 100%, but that's only if there is no overlap. Surely some of these multiple rapists must have raped in different ways.

At that point I gave up. I can't get an answer.

Still, I'm guessing that this study is at least in the ballpark.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I thought it was pretty clear, but ok, let's hit them independently:

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?

Is a fairly nonsensical and irrelevant question. You could just as well ask whether you'd be surprised to learn that the Earth is round if you hadn't already learned what that's based on. Yes, I probably would be surprised it's round, but that actually is not really saying anything about its being round or not.

Ditto in this case, whether I had been surprised or not to read a conclusion, if I didn't know what it's based on, is not really relevant to said conclusion. It's a fully irrelevant detour, in fact, and I really see no reason to address fully irrelevant detours at all. Seriously, trolling about who can't answer your silly red herrings may be funny and all, but it doesn't make them relevant.

But, if it keeps you happy, although I've already said the relevant parts, let's see:

- "we need to spot the rapists" sounds like a sensible ideal. I don't know how would one go about that, but the general idea that one needs to spot the criminals sounds sane. And no, I wouldn't be surprised to read that even without any preamble. But reading it does make a point of how endemic the problem is, hence why it's a "need".

- "we need to shut down the social structures that give them a license to operate" again, sounds like a common sense ideal. If any social structures favour one sort of crime, whatever that crime may be, then it seems common sense to want to change them. Again, hardly the thing that would be surprising without a preamble. But reading the study does make the case that the problem is endemic, hence supports it being actually at the stage of "need to" and not juts "would be nice if someday we got around to that."

- "Listen [... to what the victim tells you...]" again, sounds like common sense. In no other crime we'd try to judge and blame the victim nearly as much. If someone came and tried to tell a friend that they've been mugged, chances are they wouldn't have an uphill battle ahead of them to prove that they aren't lying and/or didn't actually somehow provoke the mugger themselves. People would at the very least listen. It seems quite natural to extend that to rape victims too. So, no, I wouldn't be surprised to read that without needing any studies. This case I don't even see the need to mention the problem being endemic, because, frankly, even if there were one single victim of a certain crime, it still seems to me like listening is literally the least we can do.

- "The Pact." It seems to me that if social structures or group customs allowed perps of any other crowd to just stay in plain sight, including of the victim, and keep on looking for more victims, that yes, it should be common sense that such structures need to go away. It's not just about rape. In kleptocracies for example it's common for people and groups to justify corruption, embezzling, etc, and really the only way to make any progress is to change the culture and that pact. If any group dynamics favour rapists in a similar way, I should say that yes, they need to go.

Again, I don't see why that would be surprising without a study as a preamble, though it would remain hinging on a big "if". But when a large number of people DO continue to be in the same group or bar or campus or generally community where by their own assessment they raped a median of half a dozen women, and some even ridiculous numbers like 400, would indicate that yes, SOME phenomenon must be at work that allows them to do that. Imagine that happening for any other crime where the victim saw the perp, to see why something isn't quite normal there. Could you imagine some guy who mugged 6 other people on the campus, still hang around the same campus bar looking for more people to mug? And if a system existed where a lot of people CAN hang around the same bars and dorm buildings and whatnot looking for the 7th person to mug, would you not think that SOMETHING is wrong there and needs to be changed?

- "Change the Culture." Again, it seems common sense, because in any other cases where a type of crime is endemic and perps are free to show their face around as if nothing happened, you can find a cultural component behind it. If a country has endemic corruption, for example, you'll find that it goes hand in hand with a culture that allows or turns a blind eye to corruption. Again, hardly something unexpected without a study behind it anyway, but the studies showing that the crime IS endemic just make it clear that the problem does exist.

As I've mentioned before, though, I would disagree about jokes. I think it's more nuanced. Jokes exist that use something horrible in a joke without actually saying it's ok, and without perpetuating any stereotype. E.g., from another domain, consider Jimmy Carr's "They say there is safety in numbers. Well, tell that to six million Jews." or the reference to the Nazi salute that ends with "Never high-five a rabbi." It's using something horrible in a joke, but he's not actually saying it's ok (in fact the joke works BECAUSE it's something horrible and not ok), nor blaming the victims, nor perpetuating any stereotypes.

But anyway, I disagree there, I'd like to see a much more nuanced discussion of jokes. SOME are a problem, SOME aren't.

- "Incentives work [... and people do what works ...]" Well, they do. And seeing as that the citation comes from an economist, and it's something we've known since Adam Smith and actually before... again, is hardly something that needed a rape study to be unsurprising.

- "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." Sounds sane, actually, as it leaves the least margin for error. I don't think we really needed to know how many rapes or rapists exist, to find the idea entirely unsurprising that if one relies on wild guessing what means "yes", there will be a lot of guessing wildly wrong.

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?

Pretending not to notice that I mentioned the cognitive dissonance studies repeatedly, does not constitute an obligation on my side to meet you on the unreasonable side. Again: if a more general rule is already supported, I don't need any extra data to apply it on a sub-domain. If I know how gravity works around Earth, I don't have to support that it also works around Alpha Centauri, to everyone who wants to introduce such an exception. The one who wants to introduce an exception, is the one who has the burden of proof.

The default assumption, the most Occam-conform assumption, is to assume that the rule does apply unless an exception is actually supported.

Same here. If you suspect that things work differently on the domain of rationalizing rape than for rationalizing a crap job or rationalizing a political position (both the actual subject of actual cognitive dissonance studies), fine, such an exception COULD exist, but then it's your burden of proof to falsify the rule on that domain and thus support the exception.

 

[HansMustermann]

It occurred to me to wonder how many of the 120 had committed rape versus attempted rape. There are a number of reasons to wonder. One is moral. I think we can all agree that saying, "Have sex with me, or I'll swat you" is bad, but there may be people who think that actual rape is even worse.

Granted, from a legal and partly moral point of view, there is a difference between attempted X and completed X. On the other hand, both were trying to do something illegal and immoral.

Still, without being ok with either, I will agree that it would have been more informative to tell us how many of those only said "yes" to the first question.

Still, maybe we can take an informed guess. The split by which question they said "yes" to, is in the first paragraph below the "Results" title, and it's:

1. attempted rape by force or threats: 17.5%

2. completed rape because of alcohol: 80.8%

3. completed sexual intercourse kind of rape by force: 9.2%

4. completed forcing oral sex by force kinda rape: 10%

(I took the liberty of sorting the results to match the 4 questions there.)

Obviously there is a degree of overlap, because that adds up to more than 100%. In fact, it adds up to 117.5%.

The highest possible percentage for those who only attempted but not completed a rape, is really that 17.5%. Because to qualify one had to answer yes to at least one of the 4 questions, and the other 3 involved completed rapes. So even the most creative kind of overlap, while still covering the whole 100% range, would necessarily still leave us with 82.5% of those having actually completed a rape.

The lowest possible percentage of perps who only attempted and never completed a rape, is 0%. Because if there were no overlap in the "yes" answers to the last 3 questsions, they add up to 100% by themselves.

But at a wild guess the number must be something in between, because reality is rarely that neatly arranged to fit the exact maximum or minimum possible value in a range.

Granted, it isn't very exact, but at least we have some ballpark figure.

44 + 76 = 120, which is the same number as the number of men who had committed rapes and attempted rape total. The only way to make the quoted statement true would be if all 120 had committed rape. If that's the case, why talk about attempted rape at all? Plus, if you use creative accounting on the percentages given, you can just make the rape categories add up to 100%, but that's only if there is no overlap. Surely some of these multiple rapists must have raped in different ways.

Err... that split wasn't between attempted and completed. That was the split between those who had attempted (and some completed) only one rape, and those who confessed more than one such incident. There is exactly zero overlap in THAT, and no creative accounting needed to add up categories which are by their very definition non-overlapping.

It's like, if you will, counting how many people ever had zero cats, one cat, or more than one cat. There is no overlap there. Someone can't both (A) have never had more than one cat, AND (B) have had more than one cat.

 

[JJM 777]

I think if you try it with the right people you'll find that cooperation actually does have its rewards

Yeah, and honesty inherits the land. Then why is Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Obama the President?

In social life honesty and modesty pays in the long run.

 

[JJM 777]

taking everything you can get without considering other people's interests won't make you happy in the long run.

Probably not happy, but it gets people to bed with more different partners than not doing so.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Well epeke I was arguing from the sex drive + psychological deprivation standpoint. Where the man is both compulsively aroused and upset. He then commits the act.

 

[Drachasor]

But that's not what was asked, and thus not what those interviews they said "yes" to. It asked about having sex with someone WHEN that someone didn't want to. I get it that some people get hung up on the idea that women really really wanted sex with whoever happened to be there, and are just lying about it being rape. But in this case we don't really have a case of the woman saying it, we have the perp saying it was when the victim didn't want to. I'm supposed to believe now that men -- and in college, no less -- have trouble understanding English too, AND, presumably completely because of language problems and/or being scatter-brains, describe situations in an interview that qualify as rape without it actually having been so? I'd seriously worry about any country's education system if 6% of the people in college are that retarded

I am not sure the question is necessarily unambiguous to everyone in that regard. I could see some people answering "yes" to that if the situation was one where the woman would not have had sex with them unless they were drunk.

I can see that potentially some people could read it that way. That's why I wanted information on how the interview was done. Unfortunately, the study you linked to does not go over this.

The rest of the objection is true, but it makes a somewhat minor a difference. Whether someone actually got women drunk or just repeatedly preys on women who are too drunk to defend themselves, it's still rape anyway.

Here is my small issue of concern regarding this. People can do stupid things when they are drunk. Their inhibitions are lowered and they do things they would not otherwise do. There's a difference between having sex with someone when they physically can't resist because they are drunk, and having sex with someone when they are drunk enough to not resist psychologically. The latter can allow for consent in the person's altered mental state, even if they would not have given consent otherwise. This, imho, creates an POTENTIAL ambiguity regarding consent.

Now maybe you are right and this doesn't come up. I'd just like to see how the interview methodology worked. Of course, the study you linked to didn't conduct follow-up interviews from what I saw. They just assumed the questions were rock solid based on another study (which I can't seem to find)..

And finally, check out the Fallacy Of The Middle Ground. Just because one position is more in the middle than claiming an extreme, doesn't actually make it more reasonable or more likely to be real.

I have admitted I have a bit of personal skepticism of the numbers. That's not the basis of my concern about the study. I've just learned to have a good bit of caution about questionaires since these can be horribly difficult to do and get really good data.

My concern about the study is that you might get false positives with one of the questions. I am uncertain if the study is accurate. This is not the fallacy of the middle ground.

... yet would they also describe it in an interview aimed specifically at catching false positives or negatives as something that qualifies as rape? And in a study which has as one of the primary goals to check the myth of it being just mis-communication? Right...

A process the linked study did NOT go through. So it doesn't go over the interview methodology, which I was most interested in.

B) Several other studies do show largely the same numbers. Check out even just the ones mentioned in the PDF.

Though they don't say those numbers. Here it is 4%, elsewhere, such as in the original link provided it was around 6% and 10%. So that's actually a fair bit if variance.

Of course, this isn't a properly randomized sample, so that makes the whole thing a bit suspect as far as the accuracy of the percentage, honestly.

I would generally agree that most non-stranger rapes go unreported and that a small number of people do most of the damage. I am just not sure these studies are done with the require methodology to return numbers that are all that good for the following reasons: I'm not sure the questions are necessarily good (I'd like to see the interview methodology). They were random samples of the population (big problem -- I had assumed they were before).

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

In doing some reading in the area of forensic sexology (admittedly some years ago), authors like John Money disputed the statement that "rape is about power". He said it was about sex. Specifically that serial rapists are suffering from specific paraphilias and the pathology is very similar to that of serial killers. (he maintained that in most cases, serial-killing should be considered to be a form of paraphilia)
There are several different types of serial rapists and they have very different psychological motivations.

As a for-instance, one type is deluded insofar as he thinks he is actually in love with the victim, and that physical consumation will cause the victim to love him back. These rapists rarely harm (but usually threaten) the victim and often pursue a relationship after the rape, sending letters, phoning, etc.
One of our local individuals, the so-called "South Side Rapist", maintains this very thing in interviews.
There are other types as well, some of whom are very violent and who are "turned on" by resistance. These often kill the victim and may be classified as serial killers though the pathology is slightly different.
As to the reporting-percentage thing...
As most know, I'm in campus law enforcement, and here at the university the "one in four" statistic is posted all over the place. Indicating that 25% of females enrolled will experience rape during her four-year enrollment.
I have commented before that this seems vastly unlikely unless one defines "rape" to include "consensual sex which you later had regrets about".
I have seen feminist literature on campus claiming this very thing....

Interesting, and I wanted to expand on that a bit. My sad entry into rape literature was via adult victims of child sexual abuse. My wife's elder sisters and her were successively raped for years running by the father - daily - until the eldest was well into her college years. Then surprisingly it turned out to be something quite important in Alaska native studies, which I was doing for other reasons, but that was another source of experience.

From there I went off into other literature, some of which you have apparently read. One of the things about the serial killers and others is the conflation of sex and violence at a young age. Sure, it is about domination and sadism and control, but they find sexual excitement in that.

The child incest rapist is having an orgasm, and so is Ted Bundy or the Green River killer, etc. so we can't say it isn't about sex. It's that sexual excitement is found in what we consider sick: hurting them at the same time or the control in a sexual context, or the fear. But that can be obtained by robbing them or torturing them or killing them too. So the moment they start raping someone it is a tautology that it is sexual.


I like my wife to wear thigh-high black leather boots. So you can say that what happens after she puts them on is not about sex. It's about the boots. Well, no - these things are intertwined with one another. I do not get off on the idea of punching her face and forcing it out of her. Apparently, some guys are wired that way. They aren't going to punch her and then walk away. Their violence is mixed up with sex, so they're going to beat and rape her too.