Why do men commit so many rape crimes?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

I think Marat's point is that society's best method to fight rapes is to encourage voluntary promiscuity. His proposal is controversial because it essentially blames women for causing rapes, and suggests they make changes in their own behavior to solve the problem, rather than suggesting that perhaps rapists are motivated by other problems.

 

His proposal also begs the question, "Why should women have to act to satisfy men's every desire, rather than men having to adapt to reality?" It's essentially the doctrine of appeasement, whereby women must make concessions to stop the violence of men, rather than men making adaptations to stop their own violent acts.

[mooeypoo]

I think Marat's point is that society's best method to fight rapes is to encourage voluntary promiscuity. His proposal is controversial because it essentially blames women for causing rapes, and suggests they make changes in their own behavior to solve the problem, rather than suggesting that perhaps rapists are motivated by other problems.

 

He seems to state that the promiscuity should be women's. Now, I have no problems with promiscuity; in fact, I think the USA is, sometimes, too prudish (in movie-ratings, in Political-Correctness, in attitudes in the school, in sex-education, etc). But there's a difference between encouraging sexual freedom -- where people should be able to act promiscuously if they so wish, or not be 'afraid of' sex, etc -- and claiming that sexual assaults happen to women who don't want to be promiscuous.

 

The assumption that women don't want to be promiscuous because society dictates it is, on its own, bunk. There are countries (like Germany, for one) where sexual conduct is considered a lot more "free" and much less "horrible". You still have women there (and men) who do not wish to be promiscuous, or who want to do sexual acts the way THEY want to do them etc.

 

We can discuss the social implications of not having sex education, for being too "anal" (forgive the pun) about the subject, for not giving people a chance to discuss "taboos", etc. But the moment this is used as an excuse for aggressive violent assaults, it is no longer valid. The rape issue here is the key, not the sexual desire.

 

It was established time and time again that rape has nothing to do with sexual desire.

 

Not to mention Marat's claims he is so rational and yet we've seen absolutely no substantiation for any of his controversial comments. On the contrary; the evidence show the opposite.

 

There's nothing wrong with being controversial. There's something wrong with being controversial just for the sake of blowing wind up people's rears. There's sometimes wrong in making claims that seem to be excusing brutal assaults without substantiating them with evidence, especially in this forum.

 

His proposal also begs the question, "Why should women have to act to satisfy men's every desire, rather than men having to adapt to reality?" It's essentially the doctrine of appeasement, whereby women must make concessions to stop the violence of men, rather than men making adaptations to stop their own violent acts.

 

 

Reality isn't equal on that in all societies, and yet there is rape everywhere. Some places rapes are tolerated as just something that happens, and some societies treat it as a crime. It's not just about men and women adapting to a 'lesser' version of reality. It's about understanding that assault, no matter what form or shape, is never right.

 

If Marat's point was that it's "obvious" that some men want more sex, he should have said so. Instead, it seems he claims that it's "obvious" that some men brutally attack women for sex.

 

Can we please not lose sight of the fact we're no longer talking about promiscuity, sexual freedom or anything sexual, really? We're talking about violent assaults.

 

Violent assaults.

 

Incidentally, the type that uses sex as a weapon. It's still not about the sex. It's violent assaults. Saying it's about sex is offensive and, quite honestly, shows he doesn't understand what rape means. Rape isn't sex. Rape is assault.

 

Should I emphasize this more?

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And Marat's point is that if everyone had sex all the time, they wouldn't see sex as something worth weaponizing. Just like you'd never think "I hate that bastard so much, I'll go tie him down and talk to him about the weather!" If sex is just something you do all the time, like any other human activity, there's no reason it should be singled out to be used as a weapon.

 

While I can see this has some credence, I think the necessary levels of intimacy and trust required for sex (i.e. it's very easy to make it into an unpleasant experience) make it weaponizable even if it were commonplace. You can't poke a hole in your condom when you're talking about the weather.

[Moontanman]

How can sex be used as a weapon? I'd really like to know, (edit, I should have said how can a woman use with holding sex as a weapon, clearly a rapist is using sex as a weapon of terror and this terror is what he wants and needs, my apologies) And how would everyone being promiscuous stop rapists? Sex as common as a hand shake, I still can't past that one, hello how are today, hike your skirt up and bend over for a sec there girly, I can't even imagine kissing in place of a hand shake, swapping slobbers with a stranger? Rape is violent, I am sure many rapists try to justify their actions with the idea of women withholding something or being stingy or selfish but that is a pubescent boy attitude, not a mature adult or even a half way mature teenager. It really makes no sense to defend the rapist in any way, if someone really thinks that rape is justified by anything, I MEAN ANYTHING, they need to be proactive and see a shrunk before they end up doing some one harm and ending up in jail. BTW, she might be pretty but in jail so are you

 

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

 

 

Did you think i was disagreeing with you there green?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

And Marat's point is that if everyone had sex all the time, they wouldn't see sex as something worth weaponizing.

Which he is in dire need of demonstrating, but that was less my problem in his multitude of points. My problem was the fact he seemed to ignore the idea it is a weapon, and blame the victims.

 

Just like you'd never think "I hate that bastard so much, I'll go tie him down and talk to him about the weather!" If sex is just something you do all the time, like any other human activity, there's no reason it should be singled out to be used as a weapon.

We do talk to each other all the time, and yet insults are still prevalent. In fact, increasing the level and amount of available communication between people and making it more "regular" and less "official" with the introduction of the internet did not deminish the number of violent/weaponized words, but rather seemed to increase it.

 

I think we all agree that we should stick to what we know with evidence rather that post guesswork that has no bearing on reality. Specially when that guesswork is, essentially, presenting the victims as the ones who set up the events for their own brutalization.

 

While I can see this has some credence, I think the necessary levels of intimacy and trust required for sex (i.e. it's very easy to make it into an unpleasant experience) make it weaponizable even if it were commonplace. You can't poke a hole in your condom when you're talking about the weather.

 

I also think there's a different between sex as a mechanical act and sex as intimate. Some people can do the first and some can't; either way, taking it by force is wrong because it's by force, not because it's sex.

 

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

 

Rape isn't wrong because it's SEXUAL, Rape is wrong because it's an assault.

And if that is indeed the case, then no matter what we do to sex or the perception of sex, it won't affect *rape*, because rape isn't sex. It's an assault.

 

I think it would be a tad more helpful if Marat would kindly make the clarification that he did not, in fact, mean to say that rape victims are to blame for their rape. That, and produce some evidence. Yaknow, like a scientific one, for a change.

 

~mooey

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We do talk to each other all the time, and yet insults are still prevalent. In fact, increasing the level and amount of available communication between people and making it more "regular" and less "official" with the introduction of the internet did not deminish the number of violent/weaponized words, but rather seemed to increase it.

 

Well, that's influenced by other factors, like anonymity:

 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

 

Rape isn't wrong because it's SEXUAL, Rape is wrong because it's an assault.

And if that is indeed the case, then no matter what we do to sex or the perception of sex, it won't affect *rape*, because rape isn't sex. It's an assault.

That's exactly the issue in question. This point needs to be supported by the research on rape's motivations to prove either that rape is about sex or that it's about assault; so far, the available evidence points to assault, and the burden of proof is on Marat.

[bob000555]

But the moment this is used as an excuse for aggressive violent assaults, it is no longer valid. The rape issue here is the key, not the sexual desire.

Bald assertion. Appeal to emotion.

 

It was established time and time again that rape has nothing to do with sexual desire.

No. It simply has not. No one has cited a single study that shows that "rape has nothing to do with sexual desire." I cited a study that showed that sexual desire was a motivator for rape, and was more significant motivator than the power and harm motivators that have been asserted here. If by "established" you mean that a bunch of people seem to agree on it, despite the data, you are committing an argumentum ad populum

 

Incidentally, the type that uses sex as a weapon. It's still not about the sex. It's violent assaults. Saying it's about sex is offensive and, quite honestly, shows he doesn't understand what rape means. Rape isn't sex. Rape is assault.

 

Should I emphasize this more?

No, you shouldn't. Its a blatant appeal to emotion, an ad hominem and a bald insertions.

 

 

You pointed out in a previous post that this was an emotional topic for you, but at this point, it strikes me that you're not even making a good faith effort to be rational or to understand what your opponents are trying to say. As I've said everyone acknowledges that rape is very bad, there's no need to abuse logic to make it seem worse. You really are above this, mooey.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bob000555

[Green Xenon]

Did you think i was disagreeing with you there green?

 

Absolutely not, I was clarifying your points and adding to them.

[mooeypoo]

Bald assertion. Appeal to emotion.

Hang on a second.

 

The fact something is infuriating doesn't mean it's an appeal to emotion. I didn't say that because it's emotional the other view is wrong, I said we should remember that rape is aggressive. I pointed it out multiple times because we seem to overlook this point with our discussion about how much sex rape has in it.

 

That's not appeal to emotion. It's just infuriating.

 

No. It simply has not. No one has cited a single study that shows that "rape has nothing to do with sexual desire." I cited a study that showed that sexual desire was a motivator for rape, and was more significant motivator than the power and harm motivators that have been asserted here. If by "established" you mean that a bunch of people seem to agree on it, despite the data, you are committing an argumentum ad populum

I think you should go over the entire thread again, but I admit that I should rephrase this.

 

Rape is not about sexual desire.

 

It probably does have something to do with it. It's absolutely not the main cause of it. It's why I repeatedly posted (with emphasis) that rape, unlike sex, is an assault.

 

[-EDIT-]

Here's one research from the American Journal of Psychiatry: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/11/1239

Showing that power, anger and sexuality are motivations for rape, though "sexuality" is defined not quite like you would think. Also, the majority of the rapes shown were out of power.

 

So yes. Rape is a violent aggressive assault. That's not a fallacious statement, bob.

No, you shouldn't. Its a blatant appeal to emotion, an ad hominem and a bald insertions.

I didn't say anything personal against anyone, I stated that rape isn't sex.

 

Bob, look at the definition of rape:

 

Definition of RAPE

1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force2: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault,statutory rape3: an outrageous violation

 

The fact that the act itself is appalling and emotionally disgusting doesn't mean that pointing out the clear definition of it is in itself a fallacy.

 

Suggesting victims deserve to be raped is infuriating. Pointing out the definition of rape as an aggressive action is too. It's still not a fallacy.

 

You pointed out in a previous post that this was an emotional topic for you, but at this point, it strikes me that you're not even making a good faith effort to be rational or to understand what your opponents are trying to say. As I've said everyone acknowledges that rape is very bad, there's no need to abuse logic to make it seem worse. You really are above this, mooey.

 

It's a subject I am having trouble remaining "unbiased" in. That's not to say I, merely by stating an view that is the opposite end of the infuriating initial ones I answer to, am abusing logic.

 

I put up the definition of rape. I claim we lost track of it in this thread.

 

Arguing about how much sex should and shouldn't be prevalent in society in this thread suggests that sexual acts or sexual openness or sexual promiscuity and rape are on the same battlefield. They're NOT.

 

It is no difference as saying that we should stop this thing we do with money exchanges (paying for items) which is how we will get rid of robberies.

Robberies are violent. The discussion about money or its use and abuse may be related to it, but it's NOT the main issue in robberies.

 

I hope I am getting this point across, it's an important one, and I think it will also show why my repeated emphasis of "rape is violent aggressive act" is not emotional appeal, it's a point to be made. Sure, it's a point that's infuriates people, but that's because it probably should. Rape does that. By definition, it seems.

 

~mooey

[bob000555]

I didn't say anything personal against anyone

Yes, you did. You said:

shows he doesn't understand what rape means.

You attempted to discredit someone's argument by making the (fairly ridiculous) claim that they don't know what the word "rape" means.

 

I stated that rape isn't sex.

Frankly, that's among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. How can forced sex not be sex? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

 

Rape is not about sexual desire.

 

It probably does have something to do with it. It's absolutely not the main cause of it. It's why I repeatedly posted (with emphasis) that rape, unlike sex, is an assault.

 

You've just defended yourself against the allegation that you've committed logical fallacies by committing a logical fallacy.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise is that rape is assault, and your conclusion is that rapists are therefore motivated by causing harm to their victims.

 

Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise, you've committed the non-sequiter fallacy. Robbery is also a crime that is defined as involving "force or the threat of force", this time it is to obtain money instead of sex. The fact that force is an inherent part of the crime does not prove or even come close to proving that the person was motivated by the desire to harm or overpower the victim. They could just want the money (or sex) and the harm/overpowering happens to be the only way they can obtain it.

 

Moving on to the study you cited, I'll admit I haven't read it yet, but its apparent you haven't read the one I cited yet either. I will say that based on the abstract alone, the methodology of this study seems flawed. How can interviewing victims of rape give you any incite into the rapists' motivations? Are victims of rape mind readers?

 

Suggesting victims deserve to be raped is infuriating.

 

Saying it's about sex is offensive

 

Obviously, I agree with you that victims didn't deserve to be raped. But saying that the opposite claim is "infuriating" or "offensive" doesn't prove anything about its validity, that's where the appeal to emotion comes in.

Edited July 15, 2011 by bob000555

[mooeypoo]

Yes, you did. You said:

Bob, saying that X shows someone misunderstood something is not ad hominem.

I didn't call him stupid, I didn't say he *can't* understand, I didn't say anything personal. I made an observation that it seems he doesn't know what rape means.

I criticized his opinion, not him as a person.

 

 

That's not a fallacy.

 

You attempted to discredit someone's argument by making the (fairly ridiculous) claim that they don't know what the word "rape" means.

That's not ridiculous, it's my observation, and it's absolutely possible that rape is viewed differently by different people.

 

Stop trying to find where I committed falacies. The fact my words angered you doesn't mean I committed a fallacy. I might've, but you'll need to tell me where a bit more carefully, because so far you're off the mark.

 

That, btw, was also not ad hominem.

 

 

 

Frankly, that's among the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. How can forced sex not be sex? http://en.wikipedia....ishful_thinking

It's not about sex. ABOUT sex, bob. It's about force. It's forced sex, which isn't strictly ABOUT sex, it's ABOUT force.

 

I might sometimes have a problem phrasing myself right, but you really need to stop being defensive to the level of offensive. Read my posts.

 

 

As to the research, I'll have to get back to you, I'm not ignoring, I just need to run. It was more important for me to answer the direct claims about the fallacies, but I will answer the rest of your post.

 

~mooey

[bob000555]

The fact my words angered you doesn't mean I committed a fallacy.

I never said that your words angered me. I'm not particularly angered by them, I'm just disappointed that someone who has, in the past, demonstrated a capability for clear, reasoned discourse has chosen to engage in emotional, illogical reasoning because of the subject matter. You've already admitted that you find it hard to be unbiased on this subject, why you can't see that your bias is clouding your judgment and effecting your reasoning is beyond me, perhaps its just the nature of bias.

Edited July 15, 2011 by bob000555

[mooeypoo]

Interesting. You're so disappointed in me, but the other posts in this thread that say directly and indirectly that rape victims basically "asked for it" -- that's not disappointing to you?

 

 

And, bob, the fact I find it hard to be unbiased doesn't mean I can't be.

[bob000555]

Interesting. You're so disappointed in me, but the other posts in this thread that say directly and indirectly that rape victims basically "asked for it" -- that's not disappointing to you?

I hold you to a higher standard than [name removed] for reasons that I should think are obvious.

Edited July 15, 2011 by bob000555

[mooeypoo]

I hold you to a higher standard than [others] for obvious reasons.

 

edit:name removed.

 

I appreciate that.

 

But I think that might be part of the problem I have with this thread. Particular posters made repeated claims that had no bearing in reality, no evidence and no substantiation and concluded incredibly sexist (and a slightly scary) remarks, and while I do see people answer, I think the answers concentrate on the argument as if it's totally valid.

 

As in.. people argue with these arguments as if the only thing that's wrong with them is that they disagree with them. It seems to me that we put these posters on another plane of argument where the fact the claims are completely fallacious *and* sexist is irrelevant over the argument in general.

 

I still don't quite see where I was so obnoxiously fallacious, but I understand what you are saying. That said, I don't know that I appreciate the fact that my words are being scrutinized so extravagantly (while the content of my points seem to be lost) while the other (fallacious) posts of the argument here is getting the benefit of the doubt of being otherwise civil posts.

 

I'm sorry, but that's offensive.

 

~mooey

[Green Xenon]

but the other posts in this thread that say directly and indirectly that rape victims basically "asked for it"

 

Boy victims of child rape are often stigmatized in this manner. Girl victims aren't as much. This "blame the victim" mentality is often perpetrated by macho men against the boy victims. A boy suffering such discrimination thinks that the same men who ruined his life [by schoolyard bullying] are the same men who really care about girls. He feels the only way to punish these men is to attack girls. This is what causes the boy to grow-up to be an anger-retaliation type of rapist.

 

A boy being raped will itself not cause him to repeat the cycle of abuse. Stigmatization from society, however, increases his chances of going psycho and raping/killing a bunch of girls to in an attempt to take revenge against the macho culture. No surprise here.

 

In anger-retaliation rape, the only desire is to punish society to the core. Sadly, innocent girls are often injured or die in the process.

 

Once society stops favoring girls over boys, the prevalence of anger-retaliation rape [and the murders frequently that follow] will decrease significantly.

 

Remember, an anger-retaliatory rapist is like the boys who pulled-off the Columbine tragedy in '99. These boys were bullied by society. They were cruelly-mistreated by their peers. The then began to plan out their suicide. Realizing, that they had nothing to lose, these boys then punished the bullies. Anger-retaliation rapists works very similarly.

 

Anger-retaliatory rapists feel like victims of oppression. Ultimately they reach a point where their anger against society overrides fear of social condemnation. As a result, they act on their anger.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Green Xenon

[StringJunky]

 

 

It's not about sex. ABOUT sex, bob. It's about force. It's forced sex, which isn't strictly ABOUT sex, it's ABOUT force.

 

 

~mooey

 

" For example, if rape is evolutionary in origin, it should be a threat mostly to women of childbearing age. And, in fact, young adult women are vastly overrepresented among rape victims in the female population as a whole, and female children and post-reproductive-age women are greatly underrepresented.

 

By the same token, if rape has persisted in the human population through the action of sexual selection, rapists should not seriously injure their victims -- the rapist's reproductive success would be hampered, after all, if he killed his victim or inflicted so much harm that the potential pregnancy was compromised. Once again, the evolutionary logic seems to predict reality. Rapists seldom engage in gratuitous violence; instead, they usually limit themselves to the force required to subdue or control their victims. A survey by one of us (Palmer), of volunteers at rape crisis centers, found that only 15 percent of the victims whom the volunteers had encountered reported having been beaten in excess of what was needed to accomplish the rape. And in a 1979 study of 1,401 rape victims, a team led by the sociologist Thomas W. McCahill found that most of the victims reported being pushed or held, but that acts of gratuitous violence, such as beating, slapping or choking, were reported in only a minority of the rapes -- 22 percent or less. A very small number of rape victims are murdered: about .01 percent (that figure includes unreported as well as reported rapes). Even in those few cases, it may be that the murder takes place not because the rapist is motivated by a desire to kill, but because by removing the only witness to the crime he greatly increases his chance of escaping punishment."

 

http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

 

The whole article by an evolutionary biologist and evolutionary anthropologist is pertinent to this thread and is largely contrary to the feminist interpretation of rape which you seem to support.

Edited July 15, 2011 by StringJunky

[mooeypoo]

I think I wasn't clear. Violent aggressive acts are not necessarily strictly physical; the worse part about rape victims is the emotional and psychological aspect. They are, in essence, brutalized mentally, whether they come off it broken and bleeding or not.

 

My distinction was between sex and the aggressive violent act of *forcing* sex.

 

I would assume that the rapists who are motivated by rage are more prone to hurt their victims "excessively" physically. But not all rapists are motivated by rage (as many people stated); the act itself, however, is violent.

 

~mooey

[bob000555]

I appreciate that.

 

But I think that might be part of the problem I have with this thread. Particular posters made repeated claims that had no bearing in reality, no evidence and no substantiation and concluded incredibly sexist (and a slightly scary) remarks, and while I do see people answer, I think the answers concentrate on the argument as if it's totally valid.

 

As in.. people argue with these arguments as if the only thing that's wrong with them is that they disagree with them. It seems to me that we put these posters on another plane of argument where the fact the claims are completely fallacious *and* sexist is irrelevant over the argument in general.

 

I still don't quite see where I was so obnoxiously fallacious, but I understand what you are saying. That said, I don't know that I appreciate the fact that my words are being scrutinized so extravagantly (while the content of my points seem to be lost) while the other (fallacious) posts of the argument here is getting the benefit of the doubt of being otherwise civil posts.

 

I'm sorry, but that's offensive.

 

~mooey

 

It is generally acknowledged the the general quality of the politics forum has gone to hell. It would basically be a full-time job to point out all the logical fallacies/general stupidity that gets thrown around here, so unless SFN wants to make me a moderator (which will never happen), I decline to make it my job.

 

Beyond that, I should think the selection of targets for scrutiny is a matter of taste. If you chose to target sexist fallacious posts, go ahead. Personally, I see nothing that makes sexist fallacious posts ipso facto more objectionable than simply fallacious posts. I do, however, see how targeting posts for special criticism just because they go against established values reinforces those values by circular reasoning (this argument leads to conclusions that go against societal values, therefore it gets more criticism, thereby the same values that we started with are perpetuated.) It strikes me that it is in the interest of honest debate that we not dog pile on one side of the debate while letting the other side off with relativity little criticism. The side that you oppose is quite clearly the underdog here, so forgive me if I don't jump on the dog pile. I will, however, continue to criticize your side of the argument, because no one else seems to be doing it, because untruth in the service of truth is still untruth, and because you should be held to a higher standard.

 

In addition, Marat's argument doesn't strike me as being clearly fallacious. The worst that could be said about it is that its specious Sophistry, but I'll leave that point for others to make.

 

Anyway, getting back to the substance of the thread:

 

When you respond to the rest of my last post, could you explain what this means:

It's not about sex. ABOUT sex, bob. It's about force. It's forced sex, which isn't strictly ABOUT sex, it's ABOUT force.

It strikes me as being either a platitude or a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

edit: you explained it while I was writing this, but rather unsatisfactorily .

Edited July 15, 2011 by bob000555

[StringJunky]

Mooey

 

I hope you'll take the time out to read that article...they've been working on the evolutionary origins of rape for forty years and we would do well to try and bring some scholarly references to this discussion of a difficult subject.

[swansont]

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

 

And found

 

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:

 

 

 

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.

 

Arousal by watching videos does not necessarily correlate with the motivation. If someone is not aroused by watching porn videos, does that mean they don't have/enjoy sex? I don't see how this addresses the contention that more available sex would reduce/eliminate rape. Remember, that was the thesis that sparked the bulk of the discussion. It has not been defended with anything resembling scientific analysis.

 

In Nevada, US, prostitution is legal in parts of the state. Yet the statistics show a higher incidence of rape there that the US average. In Germany, the rate of rape increased despite the relaxing of laws regarding prostitution. (The problem with rape statistics, of course, is that you cannot measure the cases that go unreported, as there is a stigma attached.) So there is least a hint that greater availability of sex does not reduced the incidence of rape.

[imatfaal]

Thornhill and Palmer's evolutionary biological explication in a Natural History of Rape whilst adding to the scholastic argument is hardly definitive. It was criticised for scientific laxity by other evolutionary biologists and scientists (eg see Nature review at the time) and by sociologists for being simplisitic and reductive.

 

Personally I find it hard to reconcile Thornhill and Palmers assertions with the claim that in the USA nearly as many men are raped each year than women (don't forget the fact that prison rape is endemic in the USA).

 

It also strikes me that the classification of Mooey's points as the the "feminist perspective" (implying that this perspective is opposed by an objective scientific reality) ignores the fact that all positions taken are contextual and no perspective is truely value free.

[Athena]

The thesis is more sexual satisfaction less rape? It is my understanding Latin Americans expect a lot of sex, and much effort is made to restrict female freedom in order to protect them from their own weak ability to resist sex, as well as protect them from male aggression. I don't think more sex would decrease rapes, but believe rape and pronography is about ego and dominance, as well as hormone levels. Rape is connected to everything about how we should act and treat others.

 

I think the reason men rape is the same reason military cadence have a male dominant sexist quality. When a female made a slight change in the words, so the male was the subject instead of the female, her commanding officer called her into the office and told her, her words were not appropriate. There is a fine line between sex and fighting. Arousing sexual impulses also increases the potential for fighting. There is a surge of energy, good for marching another mile, or attacking the enemy, or building a bridge, so there is a sexual connotation to the cadence. It gets the juices flowing and a lot can be done with the energy.

 

I remember going to meeting places expecting others to show for a fight, when I was young. This would be my teens years, when wearing black leather and smoking were important to the whole mating thing. I was tough and any attractive male had to be tough. I am now past 60 and being tough has a very different meaning.

 

I think high school sex education is funny, because it is so limited. Sex is about so much more than what we do in bed. It is about how we feel about ourselves and others, how we dress, what we do and do not do. It is also tied to cultural taboos and cultural acceptance. Some cultures being more male dominant and threatening to females, and homosexuals, than others.

 

Green Xenon, it distresses me that anywhere in the world children can be seen as sexual conquest, however, this is not limited to India. I like your reference to animal behavior, and would add, male dogs do a dominant humping of other dogs without regard to if the other dog is male or female. I think plenty of human sexual behavior is the same thing. It is about dominance. The weaker the male feels, the weaker the subject of his/her sexual aggression must be, so we have adults sexually stimulated by children, and unfortunately some act upon this. I think it is less likely for females to be sexual with children, because they are in general more accepting of being submissive.

 

 

I think I wasn't clear. Violent aggressive acts are not necessarily strictly physical; the worse part about rape victims is the emotional and psychological aspect. They are, in essence, brutalized mentally, whether they come off it broken and bleeding or not.

 

My distinction was between sex and the aggressive violent act of *forcing* sex.

 

I would assume that the rapists who are motivated by rage are more prone to hurt their victims "excessively" physically. But not all rapists are motivated by rage (as many people stated); the act itself, however, is violent.

 

~mooey

 

Many years ago I got into role playing games, and lost interest in the gaming when I male player arbitrarily decided the role of the dice meant his character had successfully raped mine, and that I lost the land I held as a queen. As you said, mooeypoo, this subject is about so much more than a sexual behavior. I remember when if a girl became pregnant she was forced our of school. She may have been forced to leave town, and there was no welfare for these girls. She might find a shelter for unwed mothers, and then she would be expected to give up her child, because a mother with a child can not work to support herself and child and take care of a child at the same time. Whatever, rape is about loosing and shame and maybe it help if this were better understood.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Athena

[Green Xenon]

Green Xenon, it distresses me that anywhere in the world children can be seen as sexual conquest, however, this is not limited to India. I like your reference to animal behavior, and would add, male dogs do a dominant humping of other dogs without regard to if the other dog is male or female. I think plenty of human sexual behavior is the same thing. It is about dominance. The weaker the male feels, the weaker the subject of his/her sexual aggression must be, so we have adults sexually stimulated by children, and unfortunately some act upon this. I think it is less likely for females to be sexual with children, because they are in general more accepting of being submissive.

 

Athena, I never said that child sex abuse is limited to India. It happens all around the world. However, it must be understood that the gender-discrimination I was describing is far more intense in non-western cultures than in the west. In western cultures, we tend to be very protective [and rightfully so] of children, regardless of gender. Outside of the western society, the gender-discrimination against boys is very obvious and out in the open. For example, in China, the laws against child molestation only protect girls from men, they make no mention of the molestation of boys. This means, that a man could easily get away with raping a boy and not face any legal or social consequences. Similar situation in many non-western societies.

[Athena]

I guess it is the word clearly I cannot fathom. I agree that there are cases, and these maybe common in the non-western world, but I am unsure if the main motivator for most paedophiles is to deliberately course harm. Again, let me say that I am in no way saying that they do not course harm. They do damage children and their families, and this is clear.

 

Do we know what the medical/psychological opinions are on this? Am I right in understanding that most medical health professionals consider paedophilia as a mental illness? What is given in court as reasons for the behaviour? Not that this can necessarily be trusted.

 

Unfortunately, I personally knew a pedophile and he had absolutely no intention of harming anyone. Human beings do not have hard wiring for sex. Actually, neither do other primates who do not have sex, if when as babies they were isolated, and did not play with their peers. Anyway, what turns us on depends on things like playing together as children and our social confidence and position, and also, what we are exposed to when our hormones start doing their thing. So a person can have a fetish such as a rubber or leather or a foot or shoe fetish.

 

It is a tragedy when a child is molested, because the child can then grow up with an overwhelming desire to be sexual with children. The sexuality of the pedophile I knew was unclear. That is, it was not known if he preferred males or females. Then when I was in a swimming pool with him, it became obvious what turned him on! Children! His face flushed, and he could not keep his eyes off the children, although he did his best to control his behavior, and to appear "normal". There was no malice in this man, what-so-ever, but he had no control over his physical/sexual response to children. He had been molested as child. I did research on this, and learned that pedophiles tend to have an unhealthy relationships with their mothers. So it is not just that the child is sexualized by an adult, but also the child's relationship with the mother matters.

 

I knew a man who had a fox fur fetish and this most certainly was tied to his relationship with his mother, who would sit on her bed with him and play with him using her fox fur. I think we might want to extend this discussion to what parents have to do with their children's sexuality and in general the child's social responses. Problems in the sex area, are also social problems, and these seem to go together. For sure as the pedophile's had a social problem even before his sexual preference was known. He was just creepy, and had no social confidence. So too the guy with the fox fur fetish. Actually the fox fur guy seemed normal enough, until he started to be aroused, bringing out his weirdness.

 

To get this back on the subject of rape- sexual slurs made in a military cadence are socially acceptable, and some of us believe, lead to rape, because of the underlying notion that "a real man" is a dominating sexual creatures. I have seen this be a big problem for males who come to hate their own sex, when they experience what such male abusiveness does to their mothers and sisters.

 

Athena, I never said that child sex abuse is limited to India. It happens all around the world. However, it must be understood that the gender-discrimination I was describing is far more intense in non-western cultures than in the west. In western cultures, we tend to be very protective [and rightfully so] of children, regardless of gender. Outside of the western society, the gender-discrimination against boys is very obvious and out in the open. For example, in China, the laws against child molestation only protect girls from men, they make no mention of the molestation of boys. This means, that a man could easily get away with raping a boy and not face any legal or social consequences. Similar situation in many non-western societies.

 

I assumed you knew of world wide differences, but just had to open the discussion to discussing them, and thank you for following through.

 

I remember when we didn't protect young males and just assumed encouraging them sexually was a good thing. However, we did draw a firm line between children and adults. I was shocked when I learned some people thought of the youngest children as sexual! I wondered how could anyone think of a child in a sexual way, before the child actually became sexual.

 

However, at what age is a child no longer a child? We have a history of marrying girls at age 14. Boys did the work of men by age 14. This is when the body of a young person has adult functions, and they usually become interested in sex. We married our young girls off because survival was a struggle, and getting rid of the girl meant one less mouth to feed, and also, you wanted to get rid of the girl before Dad got too interested in her, or she got pregnant. Incest is a universal taboo, with exception a place in Africa where the father can have sex with his daughter, just before the rhino hunt, because the sex is suppose to make him stronger, and hunting rhinos is very dangerous.

 

Age 18 is not the magic age of adulthood, as the brain is not fully developed until age 25, and in at least one country, anyone under age 25 enjoys protections, that are lost after age 25. I am fully in favor of this. But when it comes to sex? I have some questions about how seriously anyone should be punished for having sex with a willing 14 year old. I think we have gone way too far with attitudes about when consensual sex is statutory rape. Especially when the "rapist" isn't that much older and is not him or her self that mature. I would draw a firmer line at age 25 than at age 18. Banishing a 6 year old from school for kissing a play mate is totally ridiculous!

 

Bob, saying that X shows someone misunderstood something is not ad hominem.

I didn't call him stupid, I didn't say he *can't* understand, I didn't say anything personal. I made an observation that it seems he doesn't know what rape means.

I criticized his opinion, not him as a person.

 

 

That's not a fallacy.

 

 

That's not ridiculous, it's my observation, and it's absolutely possible that rape is viewed differently by different people.

 

Stop trying to find where I committed falacies. The fact my words angered you doesn't mean I committed a fallacy. I might've, but you'll need to tell me where a bit more carefully, because so far you're off the mark.

 

That, btw, was also not ad hominem.

 

 

 

 

It's not about sex. ABOUT sex, bob. It's about force. It's forced sex, which isn't strictly ABOUT sex, it's ABOUT force.

 

I might sometimes have a problem phrasing myself right, but you really need to stop being defensive to the level of offensive. Read my posts.

 

 

As to the research, I'll have to get back to you, I'm not ignoring, I just need to run. It was more important for me to answer the direct claims about the fallacies, but I will answer the rest of your post.

 

~mooey

 

It is my observation/experience that males and females have had very different attitudes about rape! I remember when "good girls didn't" and it was assumed the male "should not give up too easily". "Come on you know you really want it". I remember when what call rape today, was considered the wife's duty. Things are changing and I am very in favor in discussions like this one.

 

Sometimes I wonder if we should simplify things by making any sex outside of marriage taboo, but then you get the problem of men thinking, "if she loved me, she would have sex with me" and women thinking demonstrations of love needed to come before sex. I know plenty of females who crave affection and would love to sit on a couch with a man and be affectionate, without this leading to sex! There is a disparity between men and women, with women wanting affection without it leading to sex, and men wanting sex without all that stuff that women want, and if sex is the wife's duty, it can make marriage pretty bad. Perfection is hard to achieve.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Athena