Why do men commit so many rape crimes?

[Green Xenon]

if any man cannot control his sexual urges any better than that he needs to go for therapy or be locked up.

 

Rape has nothing to do with sexual urges. It's all about the urge to harm someone. Rape is like a beating, only much worse. Both are driven by the desire to hurt. Nothing sexual about it.

 

Woman can force sex on men but it is rare and usually not a violent act and men seldom even consider reporting it.

 

There are also many cases of women molesting girls. It's very common in Africa, for women to mutilate the genitals of young girls. The reason for this practice is to keep girls "modest" or some such BS.

 

I think pedophiles of either gender deserve life in the general population of prison -- let nature take it's course and give the taxpayers a break. Bubba hates "short eyes".

 

When children are concerned, same-sex rape is as prevalent as opposite-sex rape.

[bob000555]

Rape has nothing to do with sexual urges. It's all about the urge to harm someone. Rape is like a beating, only much worse. Both are driven by the desire to hurt. Nothing sexual about it.

That's a truly ridiculous bald assertion. Obviously, when a man rapes a woman, he does great harm to her as a consequence. But that says next to nothing about his motive. With the exception of sadistic rapists, it would seem they are motivated by sexual lust and harm happens as a consequence.

 

You really can stop making things up to make rape/pedophilia seem worse. Everyone (except Merat) already seems to acknowledged they are very bad things. On that note, I would appreciate it if you could address the things I pointed out in my precious post about your previous post in.

[DJBruce]

Rape has nothing to do with sexual urges. It's all about the urge to harm someone. Rape is like a beating, only much worse. Both are driven by the desire to hurt. Nothing sexual about it.

 

I am still going to have to disagree with you continuing to say that all rapes have nothing to do with sexual urges as the two articles I cited early showed date rape is more than likely in part caused by some urge of the man to have sex with the women. Yes, all rapes have power exchange, however, this does not mean that there was not sexual urges involved in the rapists motives.

 

Even in this case, the fact the he drunkens her means he has the urge to misuse his power over her. Obviously, any abuse of power is harmful. Once again, this, like most rapes are perpetrated by a guy that the girl knows and trusts and in a private area.

 

Obviously rape is harm for the victim, however, this does not mean the rapist's intention had only the motivation to harm his victim when he committed the act. You seem to be tying the consequences of the action to the motivation to the actions, and discounting any other source of motivation. Are the only motivations of a murderer those of taking the life of another and to hold power over another? No, there are numerous other sources of motivation that play into the act, and I would posit that the motivation of a rapist are the same. Yes, the college male was harming the girl when he was getting her drunk, but that does not mean he wasn't also thinking that he really wanted to sleep with this really attractive girl.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

With the exception of sadistic rapists, it would seem they are motivated by sexual lust and harm happens as a consequence.

That's a rather large exception, since any violent sexual assault would seem to imply a tinge of sadism.

[bob000555]

That's a rather large exception, since any violent sexual assault would seem to imply a tinge of sadism.

You seem to be misinformed as to the definition of sadism. Sadism is when a person is aroused by the infliction of pain or humiliation. If a person is aroused by intercourse, and there is incidental pain, it doesn't make them a sadist. By the definition of sadism that appears to underlay your claim, any man who breaks a woman's hymen is a sadist.

 

I agree that rapists are awful people, but there's no need to make them seem worse than the truth.

Edited July 12, 2011 by bob000555

[mooeypoo]

That's a truly ridiculous bald assertion. Obviously, when a man rapes a woman, he does great harm to her as a consequence. But that says next to nothing about his motive. With the exception of sadistic rapists, it would seem they are motivated by sexual lust and harm happens as a consequence.

 

You really can stop making things up to make rape/pedophilia seem worse. Everyone (except Merat) already seems to acknowledged they are very bad things. On that note, I would appreciate it if you could address the things I pointed out in my precious post about your previous post in.

 

While I do see what you're trying to do, you seem to fall into your own trap here. You criticize Green Xenon for making a false statement but your statement doesn't seem to be any better in being established. Do you have any research either way? Because (and I admit I *don't* know the research, hence I don't state a fact here but rather what I last remember reading) that the majority of acts of rape are not quite out of sexual desire, but rather acts of acquiring control. It's a physical "thrill" of controlling a woman, rather than "simply" the sexual desire behind it.

 

But I do believe it may be time to research through. I see what you're trying to do, and I think you have good points, but be careful criticizing others of saying "blatantly" false statements when you don't substantiate yours.

 

~mooey

 

I agree that rapists are awful people, but there's no need to make them seem worse than the truth.

 

It's easier said than done, because these are crimes that appall and upset people. It's easy to SAY that we need to be rational, it's harder to achieve this.

I speak on myself as well here, by the way. I admit fully that it's FAR from easy for me to be rational when speaking about rape, and in particular the claim initially that women seem to "deserve it" didn't make things any easier.

 

That said, I don't think that people try to make rapists 'seem worse than the truth'. There's no doubt that some rapists are sick individuals ni need of mental help, while some rapists are teenagers who lost control, or some are adults who lost control.

 

The point, however, is that the victim is still a victim; and if we try to "excuse" the act itself, we might lose some of the significance of making sure these type of things don't happen again. So, for instance, there's a lot of sexism and mysogeny in the world. Lots of it, and it's quite constant -- ask any woman and they will tell you how many times they have to thwart off sexualization attempts even in professional settings where these should not be prevalent. The thing is , though, that in the eyes of many women, the line between "harmless creepy" and 'rape' is sometimes thin. Compared to the possible damage made (by the act of rape), it's thin enough to be overly careful.

 

I think what we SHOULD strive to do in these sort of discussions is to see what the evidence (statistics and research) show us and try to see how this can be dealt with as a society. I sometimes feel like "being PC" is more important than speaking about things like this, which makes many women feel like this is such a tabboo to "open up for discussion" that there's no way to fix many things that are, eventually, leading people to think that some women "deserve it".

 

... I'm hoping I am making sense here. Please ask me if I wasn't, I'm trying to express my opinion without being emotional about it. It is, however, hard to do.

Not only do I know women who were raped and abused, I was in some situations myself that do not really contribute to being entirely rational. I do try.

 

By the way, just a quick comment here, but I personally know of women who were raped and abused, some at a young age and by a family member (who was married and had plenty of sex with his wife, or at least could "rape her" if that's the reason for rape). I'm not quite sure what a 13 year old girl could possible do to "deseve it". And yes, I will keep repeating this point. Because it's disgusting, and it deserves to be countered at any and all cost.

 

 

~mooey

 

You seem to be misinformed as to the definition of sadism. Sadism is when a person is aroused by the infliction of pain or humiliation. If a person is aroused by intercourse, and there is incidental pain, it doesn't make them a sadist. By the definition of sadism that appears to underlay your claim, any man who breaks a woman's hymen is a sadist.

 

I agree that rapists are awful people, but there's no need to make them seem worse than the truth.

 

Bob, you will achieve your goal much easier if instead of telling everyone how "misinformed" they are, you post references to how informed your statements are.

 

Incidentally, according to Merriam Webster, Sadism is:

 

: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) — compare masochism2a : delight in crueltyb : excessive cruelty

 

It seems both 1 and 2 fit Captain's statement; he stated quite clearly that

any violent sexual assault would seem to imply a tinge of sadism.

Breaking a woman's hymen is far from being a violent sexual assault.

Those two bolded words right there give you the entire meaning of his statement, and fit with the definition. It's one thing to demand to be rational, it's another to go around and state no one knows what they're talking about other than you without supporting your claims, bob.

~mooey

[bob000555]

While I do see what you're trying to do, you seem to fall into your own trap here. You criticize Green Xenon for making a false statement but your statement doesn't seem to be any better in being established. Do you have any research either way? Because (and I admit I *don't* know the research, hence I don't state a fact here but rather what I last remember reading) that the majority of acts of rape are not quite out of sexual desire, but rather acts of acquiring control. It's a physical "thrill" of controlling a woman, rather than "simply" the sexual desire behind it.

 

But I do believe it may be time to research through. I see what you're trying to do, and I think you have good points, but be careful criticizing others of saying "blatantly" false statements when you don't substantiate yours.

 

~mooey

You have a point there, mooey, so, I went back and looked at a bunch of studies on rape. There appears to be a significant divide in the literature. Studies based on empirical data reach one set of conclusions, and “studies” based on feminist theory and psychoanalytic theory reach a very different set of conclusions. The conclusions reached by the feminist/psychoanalytic papers are often directly contradicted by empirical studies.

 

Here, for example is a paper that

was directed toward testing a major component of the feminist explanation for rape: that such criminal behavior is most fundamentally the result of traditions of male domination in most sociopolitical and economic affairs.

And found

the belief that reducing average sex disparities in sociopolitical and economic terms will ameliorate a community's rape problem was not supported

By the data.

 

Ellis, Lee, and Charles Beattie. "The Feminist Explanation for Rape: An Empirical Test." Journal of Sex Research 19.1 (1983): 74-93. Print.

 

With respect to the debate between me and Green Xenon, as you may suspect, one of our sides is supported by empirical data-based research and one is supported by theory.

 

Indeed, feminist theory and psychoanalytic theory suggest that rapists are motivated by inflicting pain and by dominating their victims. I found references to several empirical studies and a meta-analysis that suggest this is wrong, but I could only access one of them through my university’s libraries’ website.

 

In this study, convicted rapists and a control group were shown pornographic scenes depicting various levels of consent, force and violence. Their levels of arousal were measured by penile plethysmograph. The study found that:

 

In contrast to previous findings, rapists showed an appropriate though comparatively moderate discrimination between rape and mutually-consenting episodes. They showed less arousal to rape episodes than to consenting episodes, with their weakest responses being to the most violent rape scene.

 

That is to say that rapists were most aroused by scenes showing consensual sex, less aroused by nonconsensual sex, and least aroused by violent, dominating, nonconsensual sex. This is the exact opposite of what would be predicted if rapists were motivated by domination or the infliction of pain.

 

Baxter, D.J, H. E. Barbaree, and W. L. Marshall. "Sexual Responses to Consenting and Forced Sex in a Large Sample of Rapists and Nonrapists." Behaviour Research and Therapy 24.527 Jan. (1986): 513-20. Print.

 

I guess it’s a question of weather you believe factual assertions should be based on data or not. Since this a science forum, the answer should be obvious.

 

I see that you have added more criticism of me to your post since I began crafting my response. (though “edited by…” doesn’t show up, perhaps because you’re staff.) I’ll come back to those later as these reponses take a while to research and write up.

[mooeypoo]

You have a point there, mooey, so, I went back and looked at a bunch of studies on rape. There appears to be a significant divide in the literature. Studies based on empirical data reach one set of conclusions, and "studies" based on feminist theory and psychoanalytic theory reach a very different set of conclusions. The conclusions reached by the feminist/psychoanalytic papers are often directly contradicted by empirical studies.

I'm a feminist, and yet I am not an extremist feminist. I'm also a scientist. I don't quite know what (or which pseudobabble extreme) "feminist theory and psychoanalytic theory" you talk about, but I humbly request you try not to group all feminists with the *extreme* feminism pseudobabble group. I am a feminist because I'm a woman who believes in women rights and the improving of those rights. I am *not* a supporter of these theories.

 

I think it's just fair not to make these generalizations; just like I try not to generalize men when I quote specific groups of men who are sayin something stupid.

 

 

As for the papers themselves, if you happen to have the links to them, it will be very helpful. Otherwise, I'll go over them a bit later, I just got back from work.

 

~mooey

[Marat]

Thanks Bob for restoring some sanity to a discussion thread that was becoming surprisingly unscientific for a science forum! I agree with you entirely that there was never anything like an overt conspiracy among women to create what Wilhelm Reich has called 'the artificial sex economy,' and that no doubt gradual, evolutionary processes such as you describe were the actual empirical form that the creation of this unnecessary shortage of sex partners took. But now that sex no longer means procreation, given modern birth control methods, the interest of women in withholding sex is biologically anachronistic and so should be abandoned. That it is maintained, however, is probably for the reasons I identify, which is that if women create an artificial shortage of sex partners by exploiting their own potential self-alienation from their sexuality by their longer period of hormonal variability (large-scale variation in desires on a monthly basis, as opposed to small-scale variation in desires in males on a daily basis), they can transform themselves in 'scarce commodities' in the artificial 'sex economy' which grows up to regulate and distribute these 'commodities' because of the unnecessary scarcity created. Being a 'scarce commodity in the artificial sex economy' endows women with great social power simply because of their physical existence, and the focus of women on self-adornment in contrast to men confirms this. Women generally want a higher rank as a governor of the sex economy, and make-up, fashion, weight loss, dyed blonde hair, etc. all go into gaining that rank.

 

But this harms women as well as men, since women invest themselves in self-trivializations in enhancing themselves as the type of commodity that the economy they maintain requires, and men are induced to devalue women as commodities because of the artificial shortage of partners created. In contrast, if no artificial shortage and resultant sex economy to manage the distribution of that undersupplied commodity had been created, sexual relations would be so casual and unpressured, given the absence of intense competition for 'favors,' that men and women could both select their partners for their intelligence, humanity, and kindness rather than in the current grotesque situation in which sex-starved men are selecting for sexual characteristics while economy-creating women are selecting for economic reasons, with an inhuman exploitation operating on both sides.

 

While moralistic thinking is characteristically linear, and just assumes that the existing rules are Right and Established by Divine Authority, so that anyone violating them is just Bad and deserves Punishment, scientific thinking is more dialectic in its approach and seeks to understand how the deficiencies of both the system of rules and the violations of those rules produce hurt all around. Much of the discussion so far in this thread has collapsed into purely moralistic, linear thinking, with no interest in exploring how the refusal of people to obey social rules points to something wrong in the social rules which can perhaps be corrected.

 

In our current social system, we insist that females withhold their sexual cooperation as something good. This requires women to alienate themselves from an easy relationship to their own sexuality, and produces anorgasmia in some women as a result. Self-discipline is required of women, and this is also hurtful to learn. Men are also hurt, because it is expected that they live in a sex-starved state, which is painful, and that they exercise constant self-discipline over their sex drive, which is also hurtful. Among both men and women various forms of mental illness arise from sexual frustration. A further hurt occurs, as detailed above, when the shortage of sex partners, artificially created from a natural abundance of sex partners, leads to women regarding themselves and being regarded as objects, because they are made into objects by sex being in short supply. Additional hurts result when this shortage causes men to break the rules favoring abstinence and commit sexual battery, molestation, abductions, rapes, etc. So to take a scientific approach to all these hurts, we have to ask whether they are really necessary?

 

Many social rules, like the requirement that people discipline themselves to work hard and live productive lives, are hurtful, but their hurt is justified by the great good they produce, which outweighs them. But in the case of the rules favoring the withholding by women of cooperation for sexual interaction, what good does it do which is comparable to all the harms created? Well, it empowers women in the sense that they become artificially precious because their sexual cooperation is a much rarer commodity than the sexual cooperation of men, and this imbalance between 'seller' and 'buyer' creates a 'seller's market' in which women can insist on material and social favors from men and can be valued in society even if they fail to develop their intellect, humanity, and emotional sophistication. But given the problems we have seen above from the resultant commodification of people that occur, surely the gain for women in this system is not to the advantage of society, nor does it really benefit women, who are encouraged to value themselves as pretty things rather than as thinking, feelling, and moral beings.

 

So what would happen if we just abolished the existing rule system, causing the shortage market to disappear? Women would no longer be socially conditioned to withhold sex, and the society would take a benign and tolerant view of sex and sexual interest, rather than treating it as some sort of toxin to be tolerated only if cleansed by romance or religion. All the harms detailed above would disappear, since there would be no more motivation to withhold sex than refusing to shake hands with someone, refusing to give a stranger directions, or refusing to converse with someone sitting next to you on a bus who wanted to talk about her knitting project. Sex if no longer rare would also no longer be precious and could be recognized as the simple biological pleasure it is, unburdened by all the metaphysical trappings of romance, marriage, precious virginity, sin, God's laws, monogamy, etc., which now make it seem so difficult to deal with rationally. And most importantly in the context of the present discussion, there would no longer be rape, since no one vandalizes mud or steals the air, and something now common and ordinary would simply not attract the attention of any pathological individual as something to attack.

 

"You mean I would have to sleep with every man on the street?!" a feminist friend of mine once protested to this argument. But of course not, since who would want to force you in a world where there was nothing special about sex? If sex was as ordinary and generally available as a willing ear to discuss the day's weather, the likelihood that you would be forced to have sex with people you didn't like or when you were not in the mood would be the same as the odds are now that a gang of old ladies would kidnap you, tie you up, and force you to discuss with them how much rain we've been having lately. There will always remain real reasons for refusing sexual cooperation, just as there are now real reasons for refusing to talk with strangers on a bus or shake someone's hand, but without the artificial, superadded, unnecessary motivations for withholding sex, sex would become enough of a commonplace that no one would think of forcing people into it.

[Green Xenon]

With the exception of sadistic rapists, it would seem they are motivated by sexual lust and harm happens as a consequence.

 

Anger-retaliation rapists are not at all motivated by lust. They want to get even with society because they feel society treats young girls better than young boys. So in revenge, they molest young girls. The average anger-retaliation rapist is himself a victim of child-rape and wants to punish society for not showing him the same sympathy -- that he believes -- it would should a female victim of pedophilia.

 

This type of rapist believes that a boy who is molested, will likely be bullied by his peers, while a girl in the same situation would receive sympathy from her peers. He develops the perception that the same men/boys who ruined his childhood are the same men/boys who really care about girls. He then harbors a passionate hatred for minor girls and the males who protect them. He is also jealous of minor girls because he thinks society favors them. This boy feels that the only way to retaliate against the "macho man" culture is to rape and kill young girls. So that is pretty much what he grows up to do.

 

I've taken psychology classes, so I would know this.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Green Xenon

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Thanks Bob for restoring some sanity to a discussion thread that was becoming surprisingly unscientific for a science forum!

Indeed. I like that we've started citing references. However, there's a number of issues I would like to see your references for; in particular:

 

In our current social system, we insist that females withhold their sexual cooperation as something good. This requires women to alienate themselves from an easy relationship to their own sexuality, and produces anorgasmia in some women as a result. Self-discipline is required of women, and this is also hurtful to learn. Men are also hurt, because it is expected that they live in a sex-starved state, which is painful, and that they exercise constant self-discipline over their sex drive, which is also hurtful. Among both men and women various forms of mental illness arise from sexual frustration.

You have not, as yet, presented any evidence that sexual alienation leads to anorgasmia, that male and female self-discipline is hurtful, that sexual "starvation" is painful (although "starvation" is a wonderfully suggestive term to use), and that mental illness arises from sexual frustration. Perhaps you know of some articles which specify the causes of anorgasmia or list the mental illnesses associated with sexual frustration. ("Female hysteria" is one that I know of, but it went out of favor some time ago.)

 

A further hurt occurs, as detailed above, when the shortage of sex partners, artificially created from a natural abundance of sex partners, leads to women regarding themselves and being regarded as objects, because they are made into objects by sex being in short supply.

Here lies one of the central premises underlying your argument: that sex is in short supply for men. One finds, however, that less than half of both men and women desire more sex than they currently experience, totaling only a third of all adults. What supply would you find to be adequate?

 

But now that sex no longer means procreation, given modern birth control methods, the interest of women in withholding sex is biologically anachronistic and so should be abandoned.

Here you imply another central premise: that the reason for withholding sex is the risk of bearing children. Do you suppose there may be other interests of women in withholding sex? For example, the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases implies that sex is not a risk-free activity, even with widespread education on safe sex.

 

Let us consider your proposal that sex be as commonplace "as a willing ear to discuss the day's weather." The adult female population of the United States is roughly 100 million, and we might suppose that in a casual-sex society some two-thirds of that group is sexually active, for around 66 million sexually active adult women. Now, condoms are the only form of birth control which serve to ward off STDs as well; applying the 15%-per-year typical pregnancy rate for women whose partners use condoms, we get roughly ten million unwanted pregnancies yearly.

 

This is more than twice the United States' annual birth rate.

 

Consider also that condoms are not perfectly effective in stopping the spread of sexually transmitted disease -- particularly for oral sex, kissing, and other contact, for which the use of protective devices is not widespread or likely to be so -- and one winds up with a pregnant and purulent nation.

 

---

Apart from practicality, however, there are deeper issues to consider; an argument from practicality is not satisfactory. Your fundamental argument goes like this:

 

1. A shortage of female sexual partners leads to objectification of women and sex-deprived men.
   
2. Objectification of women and sexual deprivation leads to rapes.

 

There are four points which need to be substantiated for this argument to be sound, however:

 

1. There is a significant and widespread shortage of female sexual partners. Statistics would suggest otherwise, as I have mentioned.
   
2. Lack of sexual partners causes objectification. This is not at all clear without empirical evidence; one can concoct a just-so story to explain how it happens, but likewise I could say "as men get more female sexual partners, they learn to associate women with sex, and objectify women further." The point can't be settled without evidence.
   
3. Objectification and sexual deprivation leads to rape. This is again not clear, given the studies on the motivating factors for rape linked to by other thread participants; one would also expect to find that rapists tend to have fewer sexual partners and higher sexual frustration, but studies have shown that rapists tend to have a large number of sexual partners ("Like physical sexual aggression, verbal coercion was associated with a large number of sexual partners," and a sexually assaultive group had an average of 14 partners per person, well above the population average in the study I linked to earlier on sex deprivation). Similarly, "The strongest risk indicators for sexual coercion were psychopathy [...] and an extensive history of uncommitted sexual relationships."
   
4. That the obvious solution is increased female sexual promiscuity. There are in fact other possible solutions; for example, suppose women were to cease their so-called objectifying behavior, such as their obsession with fashion, makeup, dieting, and so on, hence forfeiting their positions as "governor of the sex economy," but did not accordingly increase their promiscuity. Unless you can establish through conclusive evidence that male sexual deprivation will lead to further rapes, what one would expect in your model is a decrease in objectification and hence a decrease in rapes.
   

 

I hope I've explained these points adequately. I am particularly interested in how you explain the fact that rapists tend to have a large number of sexual partners -- rather than obvious sexual deprivation -- despite your claims in post #14 that "deprived people steal."

[DJBruce]

I agree with you entirely that there was never anything like an overt conspiracy among women to create what Wilhelm Reich has called 'the artificial sex economy,' and that no doubt gradual, evolutionary processes such as you describe were the actual empirical form that the creation of this unnecessary shortage of sex partners took.

 

Can you show that there is a shortage of sexual partners? According to the US census there are roughly 4 million more women in than there are men, so either there are a lot of nuns, a lot of polygamists, or your claim might not be true. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html

 

 

But now that sex no longer means procreation, given modern birth control methods, the interest of women in withholding sex is biologically anachronistic and so should be abandoned.

 

Sex is much more than a biological act, in that for most people it does carry some feelings of intimacy and love. So just because sex no longer means procreation does not mean it does not have emotional ties that mean being selective important.

 

Men are also hurt, because it is expected that they live in a sex-starved state, which is painful, and that they exercise constant self-discipline over their sex drive, which is also hurtful.

 

I have to say that I don't believe this is true at all. I know numerous men who are more than happy choosing abstinence over sex. Also I don't really understand the painful or hurtful part.

 

Marat, you are correct if we as a society treated sex as a hand shake there would certainly be a decrease in rape, however, do we as a society really want sex to lose all of the emotions of love and intimacy it normally has now days? At least for me the answer is a resounding no, as although those emotions that sex carries can be just as fulfilling as the act itself.

[mooeypoo]

Marat, I'm just impressed that you manage in the same post to state on one hand that the thread became "surprisingly unscientific for a science forum" and yet at the same type declare quite audacious claims with absolutely zero evidence.

 

You're not new to this forum; we always ask for sources, and if you already claim you're so uniquely rational above the others in this thread, perhaps you should post the evidence of all these magnificently mysogynistic claims you post.

 

~mooey

 

Marat, you are correct if we as a society treated sex as a hand shake there would certainly be a decrease in rape

 

I'm not too sure about that. Rape isn't just sex, it's sexual assault. Isn't it like saying, then, that the fact we have hand shakes we should experience a decrease in violence in general?

 

Also, take a look at the statistics Capn posted. Rapists seem to mostly have quite a lot of sexual partners.. so... it *isn't* about being deprived.

[baric]

I will also add, pedophiles molest children not out of sexual interest but to cause harm to those children. It just so happens that pedophiles are sexually-attracted to kids.

 

I think a lot of grown men become pedophiles because of issues about sexual inadequacy.

 

Someone like this would be more confident around a child -- a person so inexperienced with sex that the pedophile's inadequacy is no longer an issue. I think this also explains some cultures insistence on virgin brides.

 

There are other, more malevolent causes to pedophiles as well, but I think one episode of "Perverted Justice" makes it plain how many men approach young girls due to inadequacy.

 

I would almost feel sorry for them if they weren't preying on children. Sometimes I think our culture's Puritanical obsession about sex creates much of this problem.

[mooeypoo]

Sometimes I think our culture's Puritanical obsession about sex creates much of this problem.

 

I don't know if it creates the problem of rapists or pedophiles themselves, but I do agree that it extends it; when you feel like you can't really talk about a subjet openly and honestly without scrutiny (or, because it's taboo) it makes the "dealing with the problem" part much harder. This, in my opinion, is true to the majority of the spectrum of this problem, from "mild" sexism to the response to repeated sex offenders and to the treatment of those who are (at least considered to be) mentally ill sex offenders.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think a lot of grown men become pedophiles because of issues about sexual inadequacy.

Is there research on this subject? I'd expect there to be plenty, but I'm not familiar with it.

[Marat]

A common mistake in a lot of the criticism directed against my theory is that if rape is motivated by violence rather than by sexual deprivation, then the theory makes no sense. But my point is broader and theorizes that if sexual cooperation were not made artificially valuable and precious by being routinely withheld by females as part of their social conditioning, then it would not be necessary for people to steal EITHER because they were deprived of female sexual cooperation OR because female sexual cooperation was an aritificially valuable, rare, sacred thing by its scarcity and thus worth attacking as a way to express anger. No one angry at a women would bother taking a sword and cutting up the air around her house to manifest his rage, simply because air is ubiquitous, cannot be owned, and is not withheld, so it has no value as a target for rage. This was the point (universally missed) of my example about a gang of grandmothers kidnapping people to force them to talk about the weather. Since everyone is routinely willing to talk about the weather, such discussions are not an object of value whose transgression can effectively express anger. Since the original question of this thread was, why is there so much male rape, I think I've answered the issue right there: Females make their sexual cooperation artificially sacred by withholding it, so that cooperation becomes a commodity in an economy which is then worth stealing or vandalizing to express anger. Don't withhold it and no one will attack it.

 

Of course there was never a female conspiracy to become withholders of sex in order to enhance their social power and become 'dumb blondes' who have social power even without intellligence, humanity, or deeper personal value. I agreed with an earlier poster that this may have had biological roots in the female desire for stable nest-building to protect her during her nursing of the newborn, or in some genetic role determination by which women represent the stability of early child rearing vector to promote the survival of the species while men represent the hybrid vigor vector to promote the survival of the species by a directly contrary device. But my own point was that once procreation became decoupled from sex with modern birth control methods, the persistence of the institution of female withholding of sex has to be explained for other reasons, which I think consist in the desire of women to make themselves socially valuable as objects of sexual cooperation so that they can save themselves the real labor of have to become intellectually interesting and morally appealing as true human beings. This is not to say that some women do not concentrate on these more important human virtues, often to the exclusion of self-objectification and the withholding game.

 

I think we can assume from common experience that involuntary sexual restraint is hurtful: Just look at a male elephant during its 'must' who goes berserk if he is not satisfied. Generally, there is a mistake in the criticism of the arguments I am developing which is to insist that every single statement of what is essentially an INTERPRETATION of human experience has to be supported by some scientific data collection before it can be accepted as a rationally illuminative perspective on common experience. Perspectives just develop the data we already have before us; empirical data collection is not required to develop a new way of seeing commonly experienced things. This is the difference that Dilthey pointed out long ago in sciences of 'Verstehen,' which seek to 'understand' things in a new way rather than discover new data to prove things. You won't find out whether human life if worth living or not by using a microscope and entering the data on a graph.

 

Since our society has powerful taboos against sexuality and embarrasses people who openly confess their sexuality, any self-reporting of sexual desires is skewed by this ideological overlay of sexual repression. No one is encouraged to think of himself as sexual, and everyone is discouraged from self-identifying as such. But statistics suggesting that half of males and half of females don't want any more sex than they now have range over all age groups, so they don't really speak to the experience of the sexually active age group where the active withholding of sexual cooperation, the sexual starvation of males, and the socially harmful objectification of females as a 'scarce commodity' whose distribution has to be regulated by an 'artificial economy' that I am talking about go on.

 

The old arguments against sexual freedom, that STDs are inevitable and that condoms used before marriage renders everything safe and clean are always useless are somewhat shop-worn. Condoms are highly effective against both STDs and pregnancy when used with any care at all, and many pregnancies ascribed to birth control failure arise in fact from subconscious misuse of them to achieve pregnancy. Given the mass of different ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, from condoms to coils, from pills to tube tying, from vasectomies to abortions, I don't think we need to worry about that problem. Most STDs, such as gonorrhea and syphilis, are easily treatable. AIDS is still extremely rare in the Western world, despite what the hysteria of the AIDS industry would like you to believe. Neither pregnancy nor STDs will work today as sufficient reasons to discourage a freer sexuality. All social and medical decisions are a cost-benefit analysis, and only junior high school health instructors think that in sex all that matters is unwanted pregnancy and STDs; there is also the much greater value of human pleasure to consider, which outweighs those small and treatable risks by a thousandfold.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have asked for references for your key points and have again received none. Again, certain of your core assumptions must be supported for the entire argument to be convincing; you claim that statements of an "interpretation of human experience" do not require additional support -- but statements of what purport to be fact must be established as such. If you wish to convince us of your "interpretations" you must show they can be tested and validated.

 

First is the allegation that sexual deprivation leads to a number of physiological and psychological problems. In post #34, you listed a number of specific issues -- anorgasmia, mental illness, "hurtful" self-discipline -- purportedly caused by involuntary sexual restraint. I asked specifically whether you have evidence that any of these problems are specifically caused by sexual deprivation, and you have responded with an analogy to elephants. This is not a matter of interpretation or widespread experience: you made a very specific claim with testable consequences. Whether deprivation leads to anorgasmia is not a matter of interpretation.

 

I might also point out that sexual behavior varies widely between animals; look at any animal apart from apes, monkeys and dolphins and you will find evidence that deprivation of recreational sex is not harmful at all -- because none of those species desire it. (You might recall that humans are one of only a few species which have sex for purposes other than procreation.) Human sexual behavior is sufficiently complicated and distinct that it must be examined on its own, not by analogy with other animals. I do not find your analogy to be convincing.

 

Another statement of fact you present without factual evidence is also interesting: "many pregnancies ascribed to birth control failure arise in fact from subconscious misuse of them to achieve pregnancy." This is, again, not a matter of interpretation; one could analyze birth control failures and categorize them to determine the cause.

 

Regarding STDs, I might point out that nationwide herpes prevalence remains around 15%, and it is not "easily treatable," as you allege most STDs are. Furthermore, condoms only reduce the risk of transmission by 30%, due to the reasons I pointed out in post #36.

 

You claim to make arguments based on new interpretations of common human experience. However, your arguments rest on questions of fact, and you frequently make factual assertions which are not borne out by evidence. This is a science forum, not an unfounded interpretation forum. Back up your facts.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I don't understand the basic premise here that woman are with holding sex, what planet do you come from? You really think that sex could be no more emotional than a handshake? How often do you think sex is "required"? Since my late teens i never lacked for sexual partners, while I didn't have sex several times a day (well at least not with someone else) I always had girl friends and if you treat them with some respect and dignity and are careful to date girls who are mature enough to want to have sex and if you are mature enough to actually be in a relationship instead of a expecting a quicky out side a bar when ever you want with no emotional investment and if you don't require every woman you have a relationship with to be a playboy center fold prospect it shouldn't be a problem to find someone who will make love to you regularly. I honestly do not see women with holding sex in any realistic way. I think you should establish just what you mean by with holding sex, do you mean you think you should get a quicky from any girl you meet any time you want? If so then I can see why sex is being with held is part of your world view.

 

I also can't see how not having a sexual partner leads to rape, while sex is important you are not going to die or experience any pain if you don't "get it" and unless you have some philosophical reason not to masturbate any over whelming sex urges should be taken care of in the privacy of your own domicile. And if your philosophical leanings do forbid masturbation I would look into modifying them a tiny bit at least.

 

I can honestly say that most if not all women I've known well enough to be aware of their sexuality seem to like sex at least as much as I do and many made me very envious of their ability to "enjoy" sex...

 

 

 

Fat bottomed girls,

You make the rockin' world go round. YEAH!

Edited July 13, 2011 by Moontanman

[Green Xenon]

I also can't see how not having a sexual partner leads to rape, while sex is important you are not going to die or experience any pain if you don't "get it" and unless you have some philosophical reason not to masturbate any over whelming sex urges should be taken care of in the privacy of your own domicile. And if your philosophical leanings do forbid masturbation I would look into modifying them a tiny bit at least.

 

Even if a man abstains from sex and does not masturbate, he is no more likely to rape women than a man who regularly has consensual sex.

 

As I've exhaustively stated, sexual violence -- just like any form of violence -- has nothing to do with sexual urges.

 

Any sexual activity outside of consenting-adults [who are not drugged or drunk] is automatically sexual violence.

 

As you rightly state, the absence of sexual activity does not have any ill effects on health.

 

Sort of OT but research shows, that sexual violence can physically-damage the brain if the victim is a child. This is because molestation is extremely stressful to the mind and the mind is in the brain. Extreme psychological distress can cause physiological changes in the brain that can be measured via EEGs and brain scans -- including seizures.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Neurological_damage

 

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4898/m1/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf

[ajb]

I think a lot of grown men become pedophiles because of issues about sexual inadequacy.

 

Someone like this would be more confident around a child -- a person so inexperienced with sex that the pedophile's inadequacy is no longer an issue. I think this also explains some cultures insistence on virgin brides.

 

Not that I want to say too much, but there is also mental inadequacy. By this I mean adults that cannot relate to other adults and/or would not be able to have a romantic relationship with another adult for whatever reason.

 

I know of one such person. He was only really able to impress under-age girls, any woman would not find him desirable for several reasons. He some how impressed one young girl and she ran away from her family for several years, while he proceeded to terrorise the family. The police were not interested in the slightest. However he has matured in some sense, he now uses fear, violence and intimidation to keep is relationship with a grown woman going, who thankfully is not the young girl he took from her family.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ajb

[michel123456]

I found part of the 5%.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, there are rapes done by women. Due to social misconceptions, these reports are often laughed at -- sadly. They shouldn't be.

 

Rape is a violent act, whether it is done by a man on a woman, a woman on a man, a man on a man or a woman on a woman.

 

Whether we want to explain the "motivations" for this 'act' or not, there's no going away from the fact that it is an aggressive violent assault on another person.

 

Quite frankly, I'm a bit distressed that some posts dismiss this fact while trying to explain the rationality (?) behind it with pseudo-evolutionary claims. It's true rape occurs in the animal kingdom as well. Yes. Great. That doesn't make it any less aggressive, any less violent, or any less horrible.

 

~moo

[ajb]

Quite frankly, I'm a bit distressed that some posts dismiss this fact while trying to explain the rationality (?) behind it with pseudo-evolutionary claims. It's true rape occurs in the animal kingdom as well. Yes. Great. That doesn't make it any less aggressive, any less violent, or any less horrible.

 

And has nothing to do with the fact that society should do all it reasonably can to prevent rapes. Remember we are very privileged to have an understanding of our nature. This means we can modify our behaviour and not be driven by our animalistic heritage. We can fight nature.

[swansont]

But my own point was that once procreation became decoupled from sex with modern birth control methods, the persistence of the institution of female withholding of sex has to be explained for other reasons, which I think consist in the desire of women to make themselves socially valuable as objects of sexual cooperation so that they can save themselves the real labor of have to become intellectually interesting and morally appealing as true human beings. This is not to say that some women do not concentrate on these more important human virtues, often to the exclusion of self-objectification and the withholding game.

 

I venture to guess that rape predates "The Pill"

 

I second the call for some references to back up the points you are presenting.