|
On August 27 2012 06:35 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:32 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me. The fact that the act is sexual in nature does not on its own suggest that the primary motivation is sex. The sex may just be the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power. But if this were true we would expect, that rapists prefer raping over consensual sex, but we do not see this at all. We would also expect many of them to be power fetishists in other aspects aswell, but most rapists will do their thing, and then leave. But if consentual sex is about sex and non consentual sex is about something else, why would they prefer raping all the time? Why can't they want both for seperate reasons?
It is certainly possible, the question is what is most plausible.
|
On August 27 2012 06:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 05:51 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. Do you believe rape sex is good? Sex with an unconscious girl? Sex with a girl who just lies there in shock? Sex with a girl who is completely dry? Sex with a girl who is clearly distraught? Sex where you have to struggle just to hold her down? Sex with a girl who actively hurts you to in the lead up to the sex? You'd get more pleasure from your hand every time. Sexual pleasure from the fulfillment of the specific rape fantasy is another matter of course but I'd argue that's the fetishistic aspect of a generic desire for control over women. If I may explain with an example. Say a man has a physically abusive mother and grows up with a load of trauma based desire to impose his power on women in their early 40s which is then fetishised to process it and becomes the desire to rape them. The desire to seek sexual fulfillment through the rape of the woman is not about the immediate sexual pleasure of his dick inside her but rather the pleasure from the fulfillment of the fantasy of the rape which ultimately comes back to imposition of power. The fact that he got off doesn't make it any less about power. I don't personally think rape sex would be any good but there are people who get enjoyment from murdering others, theft, and watching anime [edit: that was a strange juxtaposition], how can I know how rapists feel about "rape sex"? I mean, pardon me for being crude but they do get off. I understand that they might be getting off because they're getting a rise out of the other person or whatever, but you can't deny that they're getting off regardless. What I'm saying is, even if power is the primary reason, it doesn't change the fact that there may be a secondary or a third reason. And in the end, rape is forcible sex - sex is involved somehow. It's very much a resent part of the equation. So say that forcible sex is 100% power and 0% sex seems ridiculous, seeing how it's forcible sex. Why not just beat people up? Seems to me like rape is awfully specific and closely tied to sexual desire since it results in sex and sometimes procreation.
You're not arguing the question; you're arguing what you think the question is.
When people say "rape is about sex," what they're suggesting is, "rape happens when someone wants to get off and there's nobody willing nearby." That is what isn't true. Rapists are not driven to commit rape by the same impulses that people are driven to have sex by. By and large, they don't rape because they got really horny and their hand just wasn't enough.
Rape involves the act of sex, but that's not the reason why the rapist is doing it. Just like when you play StarCraft, your pressing buttons on the keyboard is involved and necessary, but it's not really the point.
|
On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it.
The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people.
Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here.
|
On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here.
Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes.
You offer very little evidence or even argument for your position.
|
On August 23 2012 23:42 SunsetSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 23:33 Zambrah wrote:On August 23 2012 23:27 SunsetSC2 wrote:On August 23 2012 23:20 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
...The golden rule imo is start, she says no you go "common"... No, see, if she says no ONCE, you stop. Seriously. WTF. You're kind of missing the second part where he says that you drop it after the second no... ...because it's irrelevant. Are we actually having this conversation? How many no's do you fucking need?
There's no harm in checking for the second no as long as you're not being stupid about it. If she says no once there could be more to that no than just the no. Just like I would similarly confirm a yes by backing off for a second and asking for a second yes.
Sunset here seems to think that all rape is black and white: it happens or it doesn't. What many on this forum have been arguing about is not that we should "blame the victim" of the rape, but rather that there can be more than one victim in a rape court case. Of course the woman is not at fault for what happened to her, but there are situations in which the men legitimately did not know that they were doing something wrong; in which the women did not explicitly state her opposition to the sexual acts. All of a sudden the man who thought he parted on good terms with his one night stand is looking at 15 years in prison (in the United States) for a simple communication error. To be absolutely 110 percent clear I am not talking about the situation where the woman says no and the guy continues with sex anyways. I am talking about the situations where no explicit refusal was given even if refusal was the intention.
Also the men in this forum are defending their rights against women who use the current laws for men against which they have certain resentments; or for women who use the laws to gain some favorable situation against a man IE extortion. It's this particular kind of situation in which men currently have no tools to use in this fight. I know it does not happen often, but it does happen and as a man who is very respectful of women and their rights, I am still afraid of this happening to me one day.
As for the whole "blaming the victim" thing, I do have this to say. I was raised in a Chinese household where I was blamed for many things that were not my fault. For example, I got food poisoning from a restaurant one time and my parents told me that I was stupid for eating sunny side up eggs (not cooked well). Also one time I was hit by a driver while riding my bike on a street without a sidewalk, and my parents told me that it was my fault for being on that street in the first place. My parents did not however say that the restaurant and the driver were not to blame.
Applying that to this situation, here's my 2 cents. I look at a woman who takes actions which put herself at risk of rape as being part of the reason that she got raped in the first place. I don't buy into the classical arguments by rapists like "she was dressed provocatively" or "she said no, but I could tell she wanted it." I'm talking about a woman who does things like go to a dodgy part of town, separates from her friends, goes home with a shady stranger, and gets raped. All legal action should be taken against the rapist obviously, but I look at that situation like I look at someone who just got robbed and didn't lock their door. I would look at that and go, I'm sorry that happened, but honestly maybe you should make some better choices in the future.
|
On August 27 2012 06:58 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:35 nihlon wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me. The fact that the act is sexual in nature does not on its own suggest that the primary motivation is sex. The sex may just be the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power. But if this were true we would expect, that rapists prefer raping over consensual sex, but we do not see this at all. We would also expect many of them to be power fetishists in other aspects aswell, but most rapists will do their thing, and then leave. But if consentual sex is about sex and non consentual sex is about something else, why would they prefer raping all the time? Why can't they want both for seperate reasons? It is certainly possible, the question is what is most plausible.
It was more you logic I put into question rather than what's more plausible. You said that if the sex is the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power rapist would prefer raping over consensual sex and that we are not seeing that. But if you make that assumption that raping is primarly about excersizing power over another, then it would very much still be possible for that person to prefer to have consentual sex for pure sexual gratification over raping since they are two (at least partially) needs. In fact, that would be what you'd expect to see. I don't get how you turn that into a pro argument for the other side.
|
On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral?
No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.
On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes.
But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth.
With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another.
|
On August 27 2012 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. So you think it's believable that someone who has no fetishised desire to impose his power over a non consenting woman would, when really horny, think the simplest solution was rape and not consensual sex with a prostitute or masturbation? I think that's absurd. Firstly you need to overcome whatever empathy you have that's telling you not to rape someone (assuming it's not about power and you don't think you have the right to take what you want) and secondly you have to deal with all the drama post-rape about how to avoid getting punished. The simplest solution for someone who wants something other than rape is never to rape someone. The only reason to rape someone is because it is the specific act of rape that you want, fetishisation rather than horniness.
As a matter of fact yes I think that is believable, given the 7 billion of individuals on Earth.
But I don't know why you would found such adamant beliefs of a global explanation for rape on the conclusions that you come to by giving it some thought. That's not very scientific.
Essentially what I and others have been saying is that sex, sexuality, and sexual impulses play a role in the act of rape, which is very sexual. To say a man's sexuality is not involved at all in rape is nothing short of absurd.
|
On August 27 2012 08:12 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:58 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:35 nihlon wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:26 Djzapz wrote:
The fact that the act is sexual in nature does suggest a sexual nature, I just don't understand how you get to deny that. I'm not saying that the component of sexual pleasure has nothing to do with the rest of their mental baggage, I'm just questioning the fact that you seem to deny the sexual element of the sexual pleasure.
It just seems completely disconnected to me. The fact that the act is sexual in nature does not on its own suggest that the primary motivation is sex. The sex may just be the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power. But if this were true we would expect, that rapists prefer raping over consensual sex, but we do not see this at all. We would also expect many of them to be power fetishists in other aspects aswell, but most rapists will do their thing, and then leave. But if consentual sex is about sex and non consentual sex is about something else, why would they prefer raping all the time? Why can't they want both for seperate reasons? It is certainly possible, the question is what is most plausible. It was more you logic I put into question rather than what's more plausible. You said that if the sex is the powerjunky's primary tool of excercising power rapist would prefer raping over consensual sex and that we are not seeing that. But if you make that assumption that raping is primarly about excersizing power over another, then it would very much still be possible for that person to prefer to have consentual sex for pure sexual gratification over raping since they are two (at least partially) needs. In fact, that would be what you'd expect to see. I don't get how you turn that into a pro argument for the other side.
Perhaps I need to be more precise in my wording. In the scenario, the man decides to rape a woman after consent is refused. Now that he is unable to fulfill his primary need, to have consensual sex, he decides to fulfill his secondary need, to excercise power over her. What would happen if this man gets a long-term relationship, he is having consensual sex, but supposedly this power wielding desire is something seperate from the need to have sex, would he then still go out and rape people to fulfil this desire? It is possible that men who rape are generally motivated by a desire to exercise power over women, but only women who refuse them. But ask yourself, what is the most plausible explanation?
|
On August 27 2012 08:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all. Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes. But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth. With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another.
It is very difficult to justify rape with a need. You can steal bread cos you are hungry, you would die otherwise. This is good justification, causes no disonance. With rape this is not the case. You need something more, and thoughts of entitlement begin.
Edit: As for this: ''No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.''
you again make a statement for which you offer no evidence or argument.
|
United States42551 Posts
On August 27 2012 08:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:18 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all. On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes. But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth. With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another. It is very difficult to justify rape with a need. You can steal bread cos you are hungry, you would die otherwise. This is good justification, causes no disonance. With rape this is not the case. You need something more, and thoughts of entitlement begin. Edit: As for this: ''No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.'' you again make a statement for which you offer no evidence or argument.
Rapists don't generally think what they did was wrong. They think it was justified because they were entitled to it. Whereas people who think they don't have a right to a woman's body generally exercise that belief by not raping women. Sorry if that seems a little like stating the obvious but there you go.
One myth that researches have shown to havelittle basis in reality is that rape is a crime of pure pas-sion, that it is primarly sexualy motivated. Although not all researchers agree on the extent of sexual motivation in rape, it was indicated that rape combineselements of power and anger, as well as sexuality.As early as 1977, Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom(1977) had concluded that, although sexuality wasthe method chosen to express power or anger, sexwas not the dominant motivator in rape.
http://ariel.academia.edu/SarahBenDavid/Papers/687926/Rape_perceptions_gender_role_attitudes_and_victim-perpetrator_acquaintance
Similarly, Prentky and Knight (1991) suggested that acute feelings of social and sexual inadequacy may motivate a rapist to overcome these feelings by asserting control and dominance in the most potentially threatening area to a woman*/sexual behaviour. Lisak and Roth (1990) reported that non-incarcerated rapists, compared to a matched group of controls, showed more hostility toward women, felt more betrayed and deceived by women and had stronger dominance and power motives for engaging in sexual activity. Darke (1990) also proposed that all sexual assaults are perpetrated to satisfy the offender’s desire for, and to enhance feelings of, power.
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdf
As with all social sciences it's not an exact proof but rather the result of research with rapists, both convicted and still free. One common strand in interviews with rapists is the stance dubbed by Scully (1990) as denier. These are rapists who maintain that what they did was not rape, despite the lack of consent. They do not describe their sexual urges overcoming their reluctance to rape but rather that it was not rape without denying the lack of consent. The reasons why they believe it was not rape come back to power and entitlement.
There are sources, books and research which contradict the above conclusions which if you actually take the time you'll be able to find. Hopefully you'll read a decent amount of generally useful information on the way if you try hard enough to find it.
|
On August 27 2012 10:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:25 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 08:18 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this:
Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement.
That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights.
Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality.
Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is.
Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all. On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes. But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth. With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another. It is very difficult to justify rape with a need. You can steal bread cos you are hungry, you would die otherwise. This is good justification, causes no disonance. With rape this is not the case. You need something more, and thoughts of entitlement begin. Edit: As for this: ''No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.'' you again make a statement for which you offer no evidence or argument. Rapists don't generally think what they did was wrong. They think it was justified because they were entitled to it. Whereas people who think they don't have a right to a woman's body generally exercise that belief by not raping women. Sorry if that seems a little like stating the obvious but there you go. Show nested quote +One myth that researches have shown to havelittle basis in reality is that rape is a crime of pure pas-sion, that it is primarly sexualy motivated. Although not all researchers agree on the extent of sexual motivation in rape, it was indicated that rape combineselements of power and anger, as well as sexuality.As early as 1977, Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom(1977) had concluded that, although sexuality wasthe method chosen to express power or anger, sexwas not the dominant motivator in rape. http://ariel.academia.edu/SarahBenDavid/Papers/687926/Rape_perceptions_gender_role_attitudes_and_victim-perpetrator_acquaintanceShow nested quote +Similarly, Prentky and Knight (1991) suggested that acute feelings of social and sexual inadequacy may motivate a rapist to overcome these feelings by asserting control and dominance in the most potentially threatening area to a woman*/sexual behaviour. Lisak and Roth (1990) reported that non-incarcerated rapists, compared to a matched group of controls, showed more hostility toward women, felt more betrayed and deceived by women and had stronger dominance and power motives for engaging in sexual activity. Darke (1990) also proposed that all sexual assaults are perpetrated to satisfy the offender’s desire for, and to enhance feelings of, power. http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdfAs with all social sciences it's not an exact proof but rather the result of research with rapists, both convicted and still free. One common strand in interviews with rapists is the stance dubbed by Scully (1990) as denier. These are rapists who maintain that what they did was not rape, despite the lack of consent. They do not describe their sexual urges overcoming their reluctance to rape but rather that it was not rape without denying the lack of consent. The reasons why they believe it was not rape come back to power and entitlement. There are sources, books and research which contradict the above conclusions which if you actually take the time you'll be able to find. Hopefully you'll read a decent amount of generally useful information on the way if you try hard enough to find it.
Once again you’re providing an incomplete picture of the studies that you’re citing.
In the “Behavioral Characteristics of Rapists” paper, for instance, the section that you’re quoting is mentioned during an overview of older “theorists” that tended to “emphasize one motive and minimize others” when discussing why rapists commit rape. Those findings are not being treated as authoritative or final. They're just part of a brief history lesson. The paper segues away from those findings to say this:
"From a different perspective, Prentky and Knight (1991) suggested that power and sexual factors are not separate from each other, and that anger and sadistic sexual factors also overlap. This is also suggested by Barbaree and Marshall (1991). In reality, sexual factors are inherent in all crimes of rape, which may be the reason why researchers tend to focus on other factors, such as power and anger, for discriminating one type of rape from another. Most of the research and the typologies that stem from this research focus on the cognitions and motivations of rapists (Hudson & Ward, 1997; Knight & Prentky, 1990; Langdon & Marshall, 2001). In fact, in a recent review of his typology system, Knight (1999) identified the four primary motivations of rapists as being opportunity, pervasive anger, sexual gratification and vindictiveness [emphasis mine]."
What people have been arguing about for the past couple pages is that it’s reductionist and absurd to try to minimize or deny the sexual element of a rapist’s motivation, and your source agrees with them. That idea had its heyday, sure, but according to your source that idea is waning now and being replaced by more complete understandings of rape motivations that correspond to the variety and complexity of, well, life. Having one, front-bench, catchall answer for why rapists rape is just as silly as having one answer for why murderers murder or why, I dunno, plumbers plumb.
(I also might note that you’re drawing your quotes exclusively from the introductions of these papers. If I were grading your work for my composition class, that would throw up a big red flag. Scholars who are familiar with a body of literature or a field of study don’t have to rely on quotes that can be attained for the low, low price of a Google search and a few paragraphs of reading. I mean, I’ll be the first to admit that I am not an expert on current theories about rape, but I can say with a certainty that expertise on a subject like rape is not going to be attained by hastily parsing through a bunch of journal article abstracts because you’re involved in a disagreement on an internet forum. I think it's healthy to admit that we don't have all the answers, rather than trying to solve all the questions with the one or two answers that we do know, valid though those may be in some circumstances.)
I mean, look at how the "Behavioural Characteristics of Rapists" paper concludes:
"Although these descriptive and qualitative data do not appear to fit neatly into any of the typologies proposed by previous researchers, they are more consistent with some typologies than others... It is not clear at this stage if it is more useful to classify rapists according to various dimensions or to place them into different types within a particular typology system... In order to obtain a better understanding of rape it is important to conduct further studies with different populations of rapists to determine the types of behaviours that accompany rape. This will, in turn, provide information on the type of person who engages in rape."
The professional researcher whose paper you're citing is hesitant to speak authoritatively about the "type of person" who engages in rape or the "types of behaviours" that accompany it. We could learn from that. Part of being a good critical thinker is being fessing up to uncertainty.
|
On August 27 2012 08:25 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:18 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 05:35 Djzapz wrote:
Reading about this leads to some pretty strange discoveries -_-
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -Susan Brownmiller
That said, the idea that rape is always about power boggles my mind. If it's true that power is (generally) the primary motivation, we can't just say that sexual desire has little to do with it. The fact that it may not be the primary motivation doesn't make it an irrelevant one. So, I call bullshit. You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this: Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement. That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights. Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality. Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is. Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all. On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes. But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth. With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another. It is very difficult to justify rape with a need. You can steal bread cos you are hungry, you would die otherwise. This is good justification, causes no disonance. With rape this is not the case. You need something more, and thoughts of entitlement begin. Edit: As for this: ''No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.'' you again make a statement for which you offer no evidence or argument.
That's because you offered the scenario. You said, "The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it." That's the scenario you offered.
If you take away the "he's insulted by her denying him" part (ie: the entitlement issue), then rape doesn't happen in this scenario. In the scenario you offered, it's clear that rape only happens because of entitlement.
Do you get that? Your own example shows that it isn't about sex.
|
Could somebody point me to somewhere that says what exactly Assange did? Wikipedia was most unhelpful.
I feel like I should be saying more here to add to the intriguing conversation but I'm really not sure IMO, don't have sex with someone unless she (or he) gives consent in an adult sober state of mind... But I don't get laid often (read: ever) so to be honest my opinion there is actually just a reflection of my insecurity and not my morality as my morality hasn't been tested really. I mean, if there was a naked woman passed out in my bed and my roomate wasn't home what would I do? The truth is that I don't know. I'd like to tell you I'd go fall asleep on the couch without a second thought but I can in no way gaurantee that. Context is everything of course. Were she and I drinking all night? Well that SHOULDN'T matter, but it does... Probably.
Anyway yeah, what exactly did Assange do?
|
On August 27 2012 13:25 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 08:25 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 08:18 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 07:56 NicolBolas wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 Djzapz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 Crushinator wrote:On August 27 2012 06:08 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2012 05:58 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
You're arguing a different thing. You're arguing against Susan Brownmiller, who has her specific view. Kwark's view is not necessarily that. My view is this:
Rapists are motivated to rape, not out of sexual desire, but by personal self-aggrandizement.
That is, what it takes to mentally put oneself in the state needed to commit rape is not merely being horny. It requires something more than that. It requires seeing the woman as nothing more than a tool to be used. As less than a human being, as something that doesn't have rights.
Sometimes, it's an "I'll show her what a man is," kind of thing. Sometimes, it's "We've had sex 30 times before; even though she's wiggling around a little, she still wants me." And so forth. But it all comes down to the same mentality.
Ultimately, these are all about the man involved using power over the woman. Of putting himself above her needs. Of denying what she is.
Sex is the tool, the means to the end. I agree with this post. If I may pose a simple hypothetical. Ask yourself "Would I, as a non rapist, derive sexual pleasure from the rape of a drugged unconscious woman?". Not the angry fighting sex you see in films where they suddenly jump on each other in a moment of tension but simply getting an unconscious woman, jacking yourself until you're hard and then sticking it in there dry. Presumably the answer is "no". Clearly there must be a mental component. Now imagine you've decided for yourself that you are owed sex by this woman due to her actions that night (I bought it when I bought her those drinks, I'm $20 down at the moment) and that her rejection of you is an unfair imposition upon you. Even though the sex is shitty you've shown her that she can't tell you what you can and can't do with her, your ego gets off. Your second hypothetical is interesting. Why would this man go through actual effort to get consensual sex, and only rape after he is rejected? This would suggest that it is sex he wants, and chooses only to excercise power after he is denied it. If is consensual sex that he wants then why is he raping someone? At that point he clearly doesn't desire consensual sex because he isn't getting it. I agree that at that point he desires non consensual sex but I believe his motivation is based in feelings of entitlement and anger at denial, both intrinsically tied with power. There's a lot of research on sexual entitlement and the relation with rape. This research from South Africa finds that "the most commonly reported motivations stemmed from ideas of sexual entitlement and of rape motivated by anger and a desire to punish.", Maybe his mentality is that if he can't get consensual sex, rape is the second best thing. The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it. The power element in this hypothetical person isn't just "there"; it's the very reason he's committing rape! If he didn't feel "insulted by her denying him," if he didn't feel a sense that she owed him sex, if he didn't feel that he deserved sex from her, he'd just leave. You know, like normal people. Your argument isn't exactly helping your case. Without the power-trip and ego-massage, rape isn't happening here. Have you considered that the entitlement issues are simply a justification for commiting an act that is immoral? No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all. On August 27 2012 08:01 Crushinator wrote:
Somebody takes the thing they want, sex, because know they can and have convinced themselves it is what they deserve. Like with many other violent crimes. But unlike with many other violent crimes, rape is almost never committed for other reasons. Some people steal out of need, not entitlement. And so forth. With rape, it almost always comes back to power, to entitlement, to the imposition of one's will over another. It is very difficult to justify rape with a need. You can steal bread cos you are hungry, you would die otherwise. This is good justification, causes no disonance. With rape this is not the case. You need something more, and thoughts of entitlement begin. Edit: As for this: ''No. Because if the entitlement issue wasn't there, the act wouldn't be committed at all.'' you again make a statement for which you offer no evidence or argument. That's because you offered the scenario. You said, "The power element might be there in that he's insulted by her denying him, but he still wants sex with her, that's why he's doing it." That's the scenario you offered. If you take away the "he's insulted by her denying him" part (ie: the entitlement issue), then rape doesn't happen in this scenario. In the scenario you offered, it's clear that rape only happens because of entitlement. Do you get that? Your own example shows that it isn't about sex.
This is getting confusing. The rapist surely thinks he is entitled to sex, no? I very much disagree that it only happens because of entitlement. And even if it did it would not matter. I find the whole argument bizarre.
If rapists were not motivated by sexual desire, why are most rapists young men, who are known to have alot of it? And why are by far most victims women between 15 and 35? Women who are known to be more desirable?
Anyway, this is the last argument I will offer on this. Arguing against dogma is tiring.
|
I don't think UK will let Assange go easily. They will die before he gets free.
On Topic: There are a lot to consider in defining rape, and it is best to leaev it to the cultural and social idiosyncracies of each country.
|
What I do to people on the ladder.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 27 2012 13:57 TheDougler wrote:
Could somebody point me to somewhere that says what exactly Assange did? Wikipedia was most unhelpful.
I feel like I should be saying more here to add to the intriguing conversation but I'm really not sure IMO, don't have sex with someone unless she (or he) gives consent in an adult sober state of mind... But I don't get laid often (read: ever) so to be honest my opinion there is actually just a reflection of my insecurity and not my morality as my morality hasn't been tested really. I mean, if there was a naked woman passed out in my bed and my roomate wasn't home what would I do? The truth is that I don't know. I'd like to tell you I'd go fall asleep on the couch without a second thought but I can in no way gaurantee that. Context is everything of course. Were she and I drinking all night? Well that SHOULDN'T matter, but it does... Probably.
Anyway yeah, what exactly did Assange do?
He had sex with 2 women, the sex was consensual on the condition that a condom was used.
With one it broke she told him to stop and he wouldn't.
With the other he said he used one and he didn't, also it is said that he had sex with her while she was asleep without a condom.
some blog about it
some other blog about it
|
On August 28 2012 08:22 TabyLing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 13:57 TheDougler wrote:
Could somebody point me to somewhere that says what exactly Assange did? Wikipedia was most unhelpful.
I feel like I should be saying more here to add to the intriguing conversation but I'm really not sure IMO, don't have sex with someone unless she (or he) gives consent in an adult sober state of mind... But I don't get laid often (read: ever) so to be honest my opinion there is actually just a reflection of my insecurity and not my morality as my morality hasn't been tested really. I mean, if there was a naked woman passed out in my bed and my roomate wasn't home what would I do? The truth is that I don't know. I'd like to tell you I'd go fall asleep on the couch without a second thought but I can in no way gaurantee that. Context is everything of course. Were she and I drinking all night? Well that SHOULDN'T matter, but it does... Probably.
Anyway yeah, what exactly did Assange do? He had sex with 2 women, the sex was consensual on the condition that a condom was used. With one it broke she told him to stop and he wouldn't. With the other he said he used one and he didn't, also it is said that he had sex with her while she was asleep without a condom. some blog about itsome other blog about it
Okay, but don't you think Sweden should guarantee they won't extradite him to the US so that he will cooperate with the investigation? This isn't about avoiding rape charges this is about his very real fears that this is all just a precursor to the US getting of hold of him for the purposes of prosecution.
|
On August 28 2012 09:19 Chriscras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 08:22 TabyLing wrote:On August 27 2012 13:57 TheDougler wrote:
Could somebody point me to somewhere that says what exactly Assange did? Wikipedia was most unhelpful.
I feel like I should be saying more here to add to the intriguing conversation but I'm really not sure IMO, don't have sex with someone unless she (or he) gives consent in an adult sober state of mind... But I don't get laid often (read: ever) so to be honest my opinion there is actually just a reflection of my insecurity and not my morality as my morality hasn't been tested really. I mean, if there was a naked woman passed out in my bed and my roomate wasn't home what would I do? The truth is that I don't know. I'd like to tell you I'd go fall asleep on the couch without a second thought but I can in no way gaurantee that. Context is everything of course. Were she and I drinking all night? Well that SHOULDN'T matter, but it does... Probably.
Anyway yeah, what exactly did Assange do? He had sex with 2 women, the sex was consensual on the condition that a condom was used. With one it broke she told him to stop and he wouldn't. With the other he said he used one and he didn't, also it is said that he had sex with her while she was asleep without a condom. some blog about itsome other blog about it Okay, but don't you think Sweden should guarantee they won't extradite him to the US so that he will cooperate with the investigation? This isn't about avoiding rape charges this is about his very real fears that this is all just a precursor to the US getting of hold of him for the purposes of prosecution.
Sweden can't actually guarantee that, by law it is completely impossible.
However to be extradited to the US it would require the permission of Sweden AND the UK. There are also international laws in place that protect people from being extradited if they would face torture or death in the country in question.
you can read about such myths here
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
