First, THANK YOU for finally offering substance to a different opinion......a perspective like this is refreshing.
I almost didn't post, and I wrote a post about a hundred times but I was never satisfied so I resorted to a few studies to give some indication of some views or evidence which I hoped (I usually try to find studies that others can access but by that time I was too worn out) would have available copies somewhere.
Uh, yes and no. No, because whatever controls and tests they used were not enough, but yes because of the reason (hopefully) they didn't feel the need. The intro is a survey of four decades of "representative" literature such that the authors are able to test something pretty specific.
But perhaps some of that introduction might help clarify or at least provide context (and not just make things worse):
"Researchers and theorists have been emphasizing the role of deviant sexual fantasy in the etiology of sexual offending ever since Abel and Blanchard (1974) stressed its importance in the treatment of sexual deviation. This role has been and is still predominantly related to the acquisition and maintenance of deviant sexual interests via various conditioning and social learning processes (Laws and Marshall, 1990 and McGuire et al., 1965). Considering that deviant sexual interests have been shown to be a key risk factor in sexual offending (Thornton, 2002) as well as the strongest predictor of sexual recidivism (Hanson and Bussière, 1998 and Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005), the assumption that sexual fantasies are an important factor in understanding sexual offending appears more than plausible.
However, it has been argued that deviant sexual fantasies can have a more direct influence on sexual offending. For example, many researchers propose that the recurrent use of deviant sexual fantasies can lead to the commission of a sexual offence in some offenders, whereby the individual becomes motivated to enact the imagery they have mentally simulated within their fantasies (Deu and Edelmann, 1997, MacCulloch et al., 1983, Ward and Hudson, 2000 and Wilson and Jones, 2008). Recent research has provided some support for this hypothesis. For instance, Beech, Fisher, and Ward (2005) found that, in a group of 14 sadistically-motivated sexual murderers, 79% reported carrying out sexual fantasies as their main motivation for offending.
Alternatively, others assert that deviant fantasies act as disinhibitors that desensitize an individual to deviant behavior. This lowers their internal inhibitions against engaging in such behavior and, therefore, increases the likelihood of offending (Gee, Devilly, & Ward, 2004). Indeed, based on official records and interview data, Proulx, Perreault, and Ouimet (1999) found that for extrafamilial child molesters, deviant fantasies were one of the most frequently reported immediate (12-h) disinhibitors.
Deviant sexual fantasy is, therefore, a factor worthy of both clinical and academic attention. However, as Hudson and Ward (2000) note, it is unlikely that deviant sexual fantasy alone will predict future offending in isolation from other factors related to the offender. Indeed, research has shown that sexual fantasies are interrelated with other key factors such as emotional states and sexual arousal. For example, Gee, Ward, and Eccleston (2003) qualitatively analyzed the interview transcripts of 24 sex offenders and found that sexual fantasies can be used to: (a) regulate affect, (b) enhance/induce sexual arousal, (c) cope, and (d) re-live an offense or simulate a future offense. Researchers also assert that sexual fantasy use is dependent upon the disposition and motivation of the sex offender (e.g., Langton and Marshall, 2001 and Ward et al., 1998). For example, Langton and Marshall explain that sexual sadistic rapists use deviant sexual fantasies for sexual pleasure, whereas sexual nonsadistic rapists use deviant fantasies as a way of compensating for their low masculine self-image and sexual inadequacy. Thus, given that deviant fantasies interrelate significantly with other factors associated with a sexual offender, it appears as though their role is not as straightforward as first thought. Thus, the current paper aims to describe and synthesize research and relevant theory related to deviant sexual fantasy and its various correlates. We begin with a detailed discussion on the definition of deviant sexual fantasy before moving on to discuss some of the main factors that are associated with sex offenders' fantasies. These include deviant sexual interest/arousal, affective states, personality, and behavior. We end with an overall summary and considerations for future research."
....you are astute. Correlation is not causation, but the same people who teach this as a mantra often forget it in practice.
I cannot read studies about women who rape. I want to be able to as it is important but I am not able to do it.
Prison rape is thoroughly investigated and there is an enormous amount of support for...
contradicting theories. One big problem is that the main way to obtain information is from inmates who have various reasons give false reports in different ways, and guards. There is a fair amount of literature on prison guards, from who takes these jobs and why, to the toll it takes. Then there's the pressure that has been addressed more with police in general (i.e., the Serpico/thin blue line problem) but in a community where a guards life can frequently depend upon others guards who can just let lethal situations occur in a number of ways. So both sources are often problematic, and thus there is a lot of data and a lot of arguing over data and not a lot I can discern from it without losing all faith in humanity.
However, prison populations create unique social structures and dynamics (even fake ones: Stanford prison experiment) . And when you remove a gender in a species largely dominated by dyadic gender relations, put large numbers of people whose behavior is already deviant in some way (if they were guilty) with others of the same, it is hard to get conclusions. The prostitution culture in prisons is another area which is totally different except in that it deals with prisons and what is to some degree an emergent social structure that has men doing things they would not otherwise do, but nobody agrees why (how mutable is sexuality? how much is
War is a different matter. Not because the literature is much more clear here (it is, but one of the main theories I believe is wrong), but because long before I went to pursue an undergrad degree, I became interested (or worried) about what makes empathy "work" so that societies can function, and what doesn't. It's the only thing I've published on in a "journal". Evolutionary psychology and its "just so" stories/theories have ways of explaining why humans can be monsters for x evolutionary reasons, but in the end it is (I think) basic human nature to be empathetic to those one regards as people, but not basic human nature to think all humans are people. Historically, this was simply true in general. One tribe, whether Aztec or Achaean, had no problem slaughtering another, especially if they didn't speak a similar language. Roman "peace" (pax romana) was kept through the use of the sword.
It is only in more recent times that the widespread idea of "people are people" has been acknowledged, even if not practiced. But when you ask soldiers to go out and kill people, and these soldiers were raised to believe that killing is wrong, a fundamental psychological mechanism for being able to commit violent acts is to dehumanize the other. Humiliation, sadism, and all forms of cruelty can and do arise. I believe that soldiers raping has the same underlying psychological mechanisms that had men in Abu Ghraib stripped naked and photographed, and probably countless other acts of torture, humiliation, and cruelty in general that will never be reported.
Personally, I have more problem with them citing Thornhill & Palmer.
Crime in general is divided among genders. An evolutionary psychologist would say that this is because historically men did more fighting. They might throw in other arguments too (anything can be an "adaptive psychological trait" as long as you're making up the situations). But I do think that men in general are more easily prone to dehumanizing behaviors. This remains true even in abnormal social settings (e.g,. violence in male prisons vs. females).
Certainly. There are so many things about this paper I keep coming back to because of so much I have trouble thinking could be thought (even just author and title) yet I wonder what if anything is accurate: Feminist contributions to understanding woman abuse: Myths, controversies, & realities.
