Rape?

[dust1n]

These things I've just recently considered, and I realize the approach is slightly different from ones used previously.

 

[dust1n]

A root cause of rape. Not THE root cause of rape.

And read in context, its discussing rape as a concept... i.e. what causes the prevalence of rape, what causes the current societal attitude towards rape.. as opposed to what goes through a rapist's mind before he makes the decision to commit rape. The trigger for an individual act of rape.

I get that patriarchy is what causes some people to (wrongly) blame the victim.

But to say "Rapist X committed rape against Victim Y because of patriarchy" sounds meaningless. It offers no clue to what triggered that particular chain of events.

I agree that the statement isn't really all there. But that is the stance that story is taking. You can't have more than one root cause. The root cause implies the beginning of a chain of causes. If it wasn't THE root cause, and just A root cause, then it would just A cause. I would think.

And, I do agree with you, that there has usually been an avoidance of addressing rape a biological entity that exists in many, many species, and there isn't much research into how that might or might in any play in human psychology. I agree that the best way to address rape is first and foremost in the mind of the individual male.

 

[Alceste]

Rape is ALWAYS an act against someone's will, therefore rape is always preceded by the intention to disregard someone's will.

And is an intention to disregard someone's will "violence" when acting upon their body?

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2]

Violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can it not be?

That's the issue right there. The attitude is "well maybe he's not feeling angry or violent, in which case it wouldn't really be violence". Totally, totally wrong. If I decide to kick somebody in the balls for fun, or for a joke, or because I have a really compelling fetish for it, or because I'm not completely sure whether or not he wants me to, bla bla bla, I doubt many of these guys would be arguing it's not really a violent act because I wasn't feeling violent.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, we can say why it happens, and we have said why throughout this discussion. Lack of consensual sex is not why. A study of convicted rapists found that 60% were married at the time they committed the assault and virtually all were having normal consensual sexual relations. Details inside.

MYTH: Studies of convicted male rapists indicate that more than 60% were married and virtually all had normal sexual relationships with women at the time they committed the assault. See http://www.cs.utk.edu/~bartley/sacc/whatIsSA.html. Women are often raped by "normal" acquaintances who resemble "regular guys." See David G. Curtis, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S., "Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape," Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape.

This is the info on the site to which you linked. Where is the non-myth part that indicates 60% were married? Thanks

 

[Alceste]

MYTH: Studies of convicted male rapists indicate that more than 60% were married and virtually all had normal sexual relationships with women at the time they committed the assault. See http://www.cs.utk.edu/~bartley/sacc/whatIsSA.html. Women are often raped by "normal" acquaintances who resemble "regular guys." See David G. Curtis, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S., "Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape," Perspectives on Acquaintance Rape.

This is the info on the site to which you linked. Where is the non-myth part that indicates 60% were married? Thanks

The top part is a rape myth acceptance quiz. You read each statement and choose myth or fact. The bottom part gives the answers. I believe that answer correlates to a statement like "rapists are lonely, frustrated people who can't get sex" in the top bit (don't recall the exact wording). That statement is a myth. The statistics and studies cited in the answer key are the facts.

The formatting is terrible, so I understand why it's confusing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The top part is a rape myth acceptance quiz. You read each statement and choose myth or fact. The bottom part gives the answers. I believe that answer correlates to a statement like "rapists are lonely, frustrated people who can't get sex" in the top bit (don't recall the exact wording). That statement is a myth. The statistics and studies cited in the answer key are the facts.

The formatting is terrible, so I understand why it's confusing.

No, it's not the formatting, it's being awake for far too long and consuming too much alcohol. But thanks, I get it now.

EDIT: and being an idiot. That I forgot to mention, but I have an excuse (which is being an idiot).

 

[Alceste]

No, it's not the formatting, it's being awake for far too long and consuming too much alcohol. But thanks, I get it now.

EDIT: and being an idiot. That I forgot to mention, but I have an excuse (which is being an idiot).

I drunk post all the time myself in the middle of the night, so I still understand why it's confusing.

 

[oldbadger]

Summary for those new to the thread.

That's not true.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Uh, huh.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not!

Yep.

Nope!

Yep!

NOPE!

YEP!

No it isn't!

 

[oldbadger]

You know, the other thing that is bizarre about filing rape in the "sex" category as opposed to the "violence / aggression" category is that it implies sexuality is inherently violent, or at least that sexuality and violence are so hopelessly intertwined that there's no point trying to distinguish between the two.

There is a difficulty with the above.

Rape can be carried out using violence or the threat of violence..... true.
But rape can also be carried out using deception, or without consent through alcoholic or drug (or any!) coma, or (in many countries) through breach of contract, or due to the age of the victim etc etc..

Rape therefore could not be bundled into any 'force' category.
Our law-makers can make mistakes, proven by repeals and addendums, but on the whole they do know their stuff.

The psychological motives for rape must be legion, and I don't honestly think that the psychologists have a clue because rape convicts could be saying whatever they have learned to be the 'quick payroll' formulas during counselling and 'board questioning'.

One thing that all countries should be doing is introducing 'hard work' into any and all violent-offence sentences. I know that would be difficult, but I frankly don't care about that........ all violent offenders should be punished, and I don't think that they are, just now.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But in both situations, the perpetrator IS showing a lack of empathy towards their partner. Even if you think you might have heard something different or only have 2 seconds to go until you finish, the moment that thought is made, a decision has to be made to either a.) ignore the consent of the other person or b.) respect the consent of the other person.

As soon as consent is disregarded, then a very fundamental difference has taken place. And since there is no real definition of "rape" or "sex," then, if anything, why shouldn't the line be drawn on the precedent of consent?

I can't imagine in one instance of "rape" in which consent has ever played a part, and if one has knowingly acted past consent, whether drunk in a dorm room or being nefarious preemptively from a van, the one "motivation" that is always present is to act upon a person regardless of their consent. It's an intention that must be present in order act upon the decision to rape someone.

I can only assume you haven't read all my posts in this thread or understood what my points are. I explicitly stated that lack of empathy was a primary component from the beginning. And rape, by definition, is lack of consent implicitly or explicitly.

The question isn't whether there was an intentional act against somebody's will at some point (whether intended beforehand or during), but that in the widely varying types of scenarios that could be defined as rape, whether the primary drive/motivation is always violence, and never sexual. This was the point of my two examples representing two ends of the spectrum of rape.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's the issue right there. The attitude is "well maybe he's not feeling angry or violent, in which case it wouldn't really be violence". Totally, totally wrong. If I decide to kick somebody in the balls for fun, or for a joke, or because I have a really compelling fetish for it, or because I'm not completely sure whether or not he wants me to, bla bla bla, I doubt many of these guys would be arguing it's not really a violent act because I wasn't feeling violent.

Just as you say - if you kick somebody in the balls, it's a violent act, but if your intention was to do it for fun, then your primary motivation/drive wasn't to commit an act of violence against someone, but to have fun. I don't think anybody's arguing that rape isn't an act of violence, just that it isn't always the primary or only motivation for committing the act. Just as all kicks to balls are a violent act, but you outline a list of possible motivations of the kicker that aren't to commit violence primarily or specifically.

 

[Koldo]

Rape is ALWAYS an act against someone's will, therefore rape is always preceded by the intention to disregard someone's will.

And is an intention to disregard someone's will "violence" when acting upon their body?

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2]

Violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can it not be?

I have no problem saying rape is a form of violence.
So i don't get what point you are trying to make.

 

[dust1n]

I can only assume you haven't read all my posts in this thread or understood what my points are. I explicitly stated that lack of empathy was a primary component from the beginning. And rape, by definition, is lack of consent implicitly or explicitly.

The question isn't whether there was an intentional act against somebody's will at some point (whether intended beforehand or during), but that in the widely varying types of scenarios that could be defined as rape, whether the primary drive/motivation is always violence, and never sexual. This was the point of my two examples representing two ends of the spectrum of rape.

I'm getting there, hold your horses.

So we know the lack of consent is there in all rape cases, so we can agree upon that. So how is knowingly acting on someone's body not an act of violence?

This is World Health Organization's definition of violence in a study on violence, according to the wiki on violence:

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

In either case, whether a drunken frat guy thinks he heard the lack of consent but wasn't sure, or whether it was a planned event, a decision must take place to ignore the consent of the other person and act upon their body. This has to be the primary motivation for rape. It doesn't matter whether someone was horny or wanting revenge or whatever.

If I'm having sex with someone and she stops, and I keep going, my main motivation for ignoring her, no matter how bad I want to ejaculate, is to act regardless of one's will, not to ejaculate to continue sex.

What I'm getting at here, is how can ignoring someone's consent not be the primary drive/motivation when ignoring someone's consent?

And if we agree in any instance that my definition provided by WHO is in any way accurate when describing violence, and if we agree that primary reason/motivation to ignores someone's will and act upon their body is to disregard their will and act upon their body, then main drive to rape is always innately and first-most violent.

There would be difficulty basing that as the "primary drive/motivation" but the wanting to continue past someone's consent is always a drive or motivation prevalent in someone when acting past someone's consent (on their body that is). And wanting to continue on someone's body through the use of force is violence. Whether the motivation is the primary one or not seems rather unimportant when determining if violence is always there.

Your post said:

"In between, there are many gradiations of various elements, but I'd say that both scenarios could be defined as rape. However, for situations closer to the first scenario, I don't think committing violence is the prime motivation of the person, whereas in the second scenario, violence is clearly the primary, and perhaps, only motivation."

Whether or not the former situation's example-person's intentions to ignore one's consent and act on them irrespectively is the "primary drive" or not, it is still there, it is still violence, and it still precedes the rape. And, if I'm understanding the arguments of others, then what they are getting at here, is that this drive, whether primary or not, is always violent, and is always intentional by the person doing it. The drive for "violence" must be present in every case in which someone is acting out violence. Whether that is the primary cause or not seems to be unimportant.

This was your original statement:

Many rapes occur without a violent element, so it seems strange to label them as violent. Although, I suppose if we're turning this into a pedantic issue of semantics, then anything is possible. Maybe we could merge this with the "Semantics" thread, as some people had good posts about how people misuse semantics in arguments.

We agree that ignoring someone's consent is always present in rape. I guess you're right that it comes down to semantics. So how is willfully ignoring someone's consent to act upon their body not violence? Again...

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

Or, is there an objection to this understanding of violence?

 

[dust1n]

I have no problem saying rape is a form of violence.
So i don't get what point you are trying to make.

Actually forget it. I just remembered past conversations with ya about various topics of this sort, and them going no where. Ignore my response and continue how you wish.

 

[Alceste]

There is a difficulty with the above.

Rape can be carried out using violence or the threat of violence..... true.
But rape can also be carried out using deception, or without consent through alcoholic or drug (or any!) coma, or (in many countries) through breach of contract, or due to the age of the victim etc etc..

Rape therefore could not be bundled into any 'force' category.
Our law-makers can make mistakes, proven by repeals and addendums, but on the whole they do know their stuff.

The psychological motives for rape must be legion, and I don't honestly think that the psychologists have a clue because rape convicts could be saying whatever they have learned to be the 'quick payroll' formulas during counselling and 'board questioning'.

One thing that all countries should be doing is introducing 'hard work' into any and all violent-offence sentences. I know that would be difficult, but I frankly don't care about that........ all violent offenders should be punished, and I don't think that they are, just now.

Your definition of violence is to narrow. There's more to it than punching and kicking. Would you say the force feeding at Guantanamo Bay is violent, for example? Because I believe most people probably would. I doubt you think of it as a snack, or a meal, or a type of cuisine. It's torture (and violence) because the volition and physical autonomy of the victim is denied, and the objectives of the torturer are carried out without regard to the physical or psychological impact on the victim. It happens in a clinical setting and there are usually doctors and nurses present. The victim is restrained, so no beatings are necessary unless they refuse to cooperate. Of course it's very physically painful for the victim having a tube shoved up his nose and into his stomach, but the nurse or doctor doing it isn't specifically trying to cause pain. They're just following orders. The distinction you're making here would require that only force feeding where the victim doesn't cooperate and gets shackled is considered violent because of the beatings, and force feeding where they do cooperate is not violent, even though their only other option is a beating.

I get what you're saying, though, out laws also have a wide range of factors in our sexual assault laws that don't intuitively scream "violence", like the abuse of a position of authority, sex with a minor, etc. I still think that's unethical, aggressive behavior, and achieving one's objectives by aggression, without concern for the impact on others, is violent. It's on the spectrum, albeit on the low end.

 

[dust1n]

Your definition of violence is to narrow.

I wonder, does anyone dispute this description provided by a study on violence by the World Health Organization?

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

WHO | World report on violence and health

 

[Koldo]

Actually forget it. I just remembered past conversations with ya about various topics of this sort, and them going no where. Ignore my response and continue how you wish.

Alright. :sarcastic
You misunderstand what i said, and then follow up with this...

 

[Alceste]

Just as you say - if you kick somebody in the balls, it's a violent act, but if your intention was to do it for fun, then your primary motivation/drive wasn't to commit an act of violence against someone, but to have fun. I don't think anybody's arguing that rape isn't an act of violence, just that it isn't always the primary or only motivation for committing the act. Just as all kicks to balls are a violent act, but you outline a list of possible motivations of the kicker that aren't to commit violence primarily or specifically.

Well there's the disconnect, then. I don't really give a fiddler's fart exactly what is going through the mind of any individual perpetrator of any violent assault at the exact moment of the crime. The only interest I have is in positive correlations in the psychological profiles of most or all violent criminals, such as the desire to dominate and control the victim. I'm also interested in other positive correlations on a society level, such as the correlation between poverty and sexual assault. I'm very meta about social problems. I'm quite committed to trying to solve them.

If any individual rapist thinks he or she has a really good excuse, they're welcome to use it at their trial.

 

[Koldo]

Well there's the disconnect, then. I don't really give a fiddler's fart exactly what is going through the mind of any individual perpetrator of any violent assault at the exact moment of the crime. The only interest I have is in positive correlations in the psychological profiles of most or all violent criminals, such as the desire to dominate and control the victim. I'm also interested in other positive correlations on a society level, such as the correlation between poverty and sexual assault. I'm very meta about social problems. I'm quite committed to trying to solve them.

If any individual rapist thinks he or she has a really good excuse, they're welcome to use it at their trial.

That's a curious way to say you are not interested on this topic.

 

[Titanic]

I did not read that part about mystic. I am sorry for what happened.