Why do some men commit rape?

Tasden

Lemming wrote: »

The tweets are "correct" (other than the hysterical claim that everyone knows a rapist if taken to the conclusion of what it implies) until the very last one where it tries to associate the reality that most rapists are known to their victims with dubious notion of "rape culture". It's crap. Agenda-motivated crap.

Yeah tbh I don't buy into the whole "rape culture" however I do believe that a lot of behaviour sometimes labelled as "rape culture" can have a negative impact on those who have been raped and attitudes towards rape generally. I don't necessarily understand the link there though.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

Yeah tbh I don't buy into the whole "rape culture" however I do believe that a lot of behaviour sometimes labelled as "rape culture" can have a negative impact on those who have been raped and attitudes towards rape generally. I don't necessarily understand the link there though.

But that's common sense and applies to people who have survived any sort of traumatic ordeal or had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of PTSD. A car crash victim might get upset if someone's joking about car-crash carnage videos on youtube and laughing about seeing bodies being flung out of windscreens for example.

Banter, jokes, and whatever else that might be intended as 'light relief' are all heavily dependend on context and whather or not it's appropriate for the moment. I wouldn't make a joke about car crashes - for example - if I were stood talking to a bunch of survivors in a hospital ward, nor would I make jokes about how much my friends & I got 'raped' playing a computer game last night in the presence of a) people I don't know and b) especially survivors of rape. That would just be insensitivity and lack of empath on my part.

But laughter can also be the best form of defense and coping with trauma. The prime example of this is the military and the popularity of gallows-humour to cope with experiences that would make any of the rest of us pop our minds.

It's all subjective and requires balance and common sense. Absolutes help nobody.

tritium

The Black Oil wrote: »

Well, sorry, I'm not friends with any rapists.

https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/741334217368309760

https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/741334924783845376

Ah this old bag of nonsense. The idea that rape is so prevalent that somehow on every room of people there's at least one rapist. Another brick in the culture of fear wall. I'm sure there are rapists and indeed other criminals of all types who appear normal and 'fit in'. However the reported rates would make the statement pretty much an impossibility (I'm rather lazily using Wikipedia as my source here)- note we're talking about reported rates, not conviction rates, so legally a significant number of the incidents don't refer to a rapist.

Now we could also look at extrapolating to non -
reported, except we now have the problem of what exactly should be counted in that number. What the heck, let's try for example an 85k figure per annum for the uk. Let's assume every single man involved was legally guilty here and acquittals can occur purely because of the patriarchy and its evil ways. If we extrapolate to a 40 year rate we would finally get to the about:1 in 16 for the UK for example that would be required to make the statement remotely true.

Oh that's of course ignoring the well acknowledged fact that offenders for this crime commit multiple instances.

Wow that's a lot of mental gymnastics- probably safer to just conclude the statement is basically bollocks

Tasden

Lemming wrote: »

But that's common sense and applies to people who have survived any sort of traumatic ordeal or had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of PTSD. A car crash victim might get upset if someone's joking about car-crash carnage videos on youtube and laughing about seeing bodies being flung out of windscreens for example.

Banter, jokes, and whatever else that might be intended as 'light relief' are all heavily dependend on context and whather or not it's appropriate for the moment. I wouldn't make a joke about car crashes - for example - if I were stood talking to a bunch of survivors in a hospital ward, nor would I make jokes about how much my friends & I got 'raped' playing a computer game last night in the presence of a) people I don't know and b) especially survivors of rape. That would just be insensitivity and lack of empath on my part.

But laughter can also be the best form of defense and coping with trauma. The prime example of this is the military and the popularity of gallows-humour to cope with experiences that would make any of the rest of us pop our minds.

It's all subjective and requires balance and common sense. Absolutes help nobody.

But "rape culture" doesn't just refer to harmless jokes. I don't think that is the main thing people are concerned with when discussing rape culture, just some people use that as an example of it. If a joke is funny I'd laugh at it myself, it doesn't necessarily give me flashbacks or make me feel they don't understand my pain. I'm the first to say that there is nothing you can't joke about, its all about context and being sensitive to the audience like, my closest work friend is black and we'd have no filter when it comes to black jokes that others would deem racist but like you say I'd never make the same jokes to a black stranger. But i do think those getting caught up on little things like jokes are doing a disservice to their "agenda" so to speak because there are so much more problematic complex issues than jokes. But then again they would probably argue that the jokes are symptomatic of the other issues at play so i dunno.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

But "rape culture" doesn't just refer to harmless jokes.

Never said it did. But then again nobody is able to give a concise definition of what entails the idea that shows "rape culture" exists. Because they can't, and it doesn't [edit: in the western world at any rate]

Tasden

Lemming wrote: »

Never said it did. But then again nobody is able to give a concise definition of what entails the idea that shows "rape culture" exists. Because they can't, and it doesn't.

I understand you didn't but your whole post in relation to my comment on "rape culture" was about jokes.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd be surprised how people you trust and consider good humans can actually be anything but

I would be, but only because I don't assume that by default every man is a rapist, nor would I assume that by default, every feminist agrees with the fearmongering, hateful crap that woman is spouting, which does nothing to address the issue of rape.

Tasden wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't see the problem with those tweets, they seem to say what most people know- that rapists aren't always a scary man hiding in the bushes with a shifty look on their face, they are people's friends, family and colleagues.
Maybe im missing something but I don't think they are insinuating that people are choosing to remain friends with rapists willingly.

They're insinuating that men are rapists and their friends and family just don't know it. The claim that feminists have been telling people this for years is a load of crap. I've never known any woman in my life who identified as feminist, to have ever come out with such crap. Plenty of women I know who identify as feminist would be embarrassed by her nonsense. Plenty more just wouldn't give her crap recognition it doesn't deserve as they know better than entertaining that sort of warped, divisive mentality.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

I understand you didn't but your whole post in relation to my comment on "rape culture" was about jokes.

Apologies if it seemed I was focusing in on jokes exclusively; it's an easy and extremely common example and is symptomatic of the mindset that thinks rape culture exists.

Tasden

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be, but only because I don't assume that by default every man is a rapist, nor would I assume that by default, every feminist agrees with the fearmongering, hateful crap that woman is spouting, which does nothing to address the issue of rape.





They're insinuating that men are rapists and their friends and family just don't know it. The claim that feminists have been telling people this for years is a load of crap. I've never known any woman in my life who identified as feminist, to have ever come out with such crap. Plenty of women I know who identify as feminist would be embarrassed by her nonsense. Plenty more just wouldn't give her crap recognition it doesn't deserve as they know better than entertaining that sort of warped, divisive mentality.

It's not saying every man is a potential rapist. From what i gather it is saying that not every rapist is a strange men lurking in alley ways, it is the men that seem perfectly respectable and charming and nice, that you would never know could do such a thing. To use a recent example, a popular all american straight A student who swims well. Not the loner with nothing going for him and no friends.
That is not the same as saying every man is a potential rapist. It is well known that most sexual assaults and sexual abuse is carried out by a person close to the victim, a lot of the time by someone trusted by the victim and their family. Not some stranger with a knife who jumps them in the street. And acknowledging that you could very well be friends with a rapist and not realise it is not the same as saying every man you are friends with is a possible rapist.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

It's not saying every man is a potential rapist. From what i gather it is saying that not every rapist is a strange men lurking in alley ways, it is the men that seem perfectly respectable and charming and nice, that you would never know could do such a thing. To use a recent example, a popular all american straight A student who swims well. Not the loner with nothing going for him and no friends.
That is not the same as saying every man is a potential rapist. It is well known that most sexual assaults and sexual abuse is carried out by a person close to the victim, a lot of the time by someone trusted by the victim and their family. Not some stranger with a knife who jumps them in the street. And acknowledging that you could very well be friends with a rapist and not realise it is not the same as saying every man you are friends with is a possible rapist.

Actually, the very first tweet does imply that every family or circle of friends hides a rapist, therefore someone you know close to you (if not yourself) is a rapist. I dare say it's built around that incredibly safe * and scientifically peer-reviewed ** "one in four" statistic that #NotAllFeminists are so want to cite over and over again as if saying it enough makes it true.

The subsequent tweets are factually correct in stating that most rapists are known to their victims rather than the popular bogeyman of the stranger in an alleyway, but that's the thing; the smears and accusations are followed with bits that are true, and suddenly people start saying "oh there's nothing wrong in those tweets because xyz is factually correct" whilst neglecting the opening statement. Classic blurred lines (ho ho) tactic; Do you criticise and be attacked for "condoning rape culture" or follow the herd and say "right-on"? Politicians do th is all the time when trying to pass deeply dubious leglsiation; they'll stuff it in alongside a load of really good legislation that the public can get behind and then you are portrayed as a monster if you don't support the good legislative proposals.



* Set your sarcasm detector to full ...
** :pac: oh god oh god it hurts :pac:

Tasden

Lemming wrote: »

Actually, the very first tweet does imply that every family or circle of friends hides a rapist, therefore someone you know close to you (if not yourself) is a rapist. I dare say it's built around that incredibly safe * and scientifically peer-reviewed ** "one in four" statistic that #NotAllFeminists are so want to cite over and over again as if saying it enough makes it true.

The subsequent tweets are factually correct in stating that most rapists are known to their victims rather than the popular bogeyman of the stranger in an alleyway, but that's the thing; the smears and accusations are followed with bits that are true, and suddenly people start saying "oh there's nothing wrong in those tweets because xyz is factually correct" whilst neglecting the opening statement.



* Set your sarcasm detector to full ...
** :pac: oh god oh god it hurts :pac:

The first tweet, which was in the conversation and not the main tweet so sorry didn't register it, says that "pretty much every person is friends with a rapist" is bull**** yeah.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

The first tweet, which was in the conversation and not the main tweet so sorry didn't register it, says that "pretty much every person is friends with a rapist" is bull**** yeah.

As I said in my edit: this is a time-honoured political tactic used to create a very black or white dividing line whereby you must either support them in totality or be opposed and therefore to be castigated as some sort of monster.

It's also [the first twitter statement fart] classic fear-mongering. Make people so paranoid and afraid of the bogeyman - that they naturally can't see - that they'll hang on your every word.

One eyed Jack

Tasden wrote: »

It's not saying every man is a potential rapist. From what i gather it is saying that not every rapist is a strange men lurking in alley ways, it is the men that seem perfectly respectable and charming and nice, that you would never know could do such a thing. To use a recent example, a popular all american straight A student who swims well. Not the loner with nothing going for him and no friends.
That is not the same as saying every man is a potential rapist. It is well known that most sexual assaults and sexual abuse is carried out by a person close to the victim, a lot of the time by someone trusted by the victim and their family. Not some stranger with a knife who jumps them in the street. And acknowledging that you could very well be friends with a rapist and not realise it is not the same as saying every man you are friends with is a possible rapist.

Ok, even if I were to agree with your interpretation of that series of tweets (which I don't, but I'll explain why in a minute), what does even acknowledging that supposition actually do to address the issue of rape? How does suggesting that everyone knows someone who is a rapist, but they don't actually know they're a rapist, actually do anything other than fester fearmongering and suspicion of people who are their family, their friends, people they trust? What purpose is served by telling people that they should be suspicious of people whom they trust? I would consider that a paranoia fuelled mentality which has nothing to do with rape, let alone anything to do with feminism. It's a warped mentality which has no place in society.

The reason I don't agree with your interpretation that her declarations are a benign message with no harmful intent is because she is promoting her ideas under the banners of feminism and rape culture. Rape culture as she would promote it is an idea that women are by and large the victims of a society which influences men who commit rape against women. Therefore she actually is suggesting that men, by virtue of their gender, are rapists, and there is no acknowledgement that her declarations do absolutely nothing to address the issue of rape, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim.

At best, her nonsense is the misguided ramblings of a paranoid narcissist. At worst, her nonsense is actually a dangerous and damaging message that is encouraging people to think of people they trust, as likely to rape them.

The Black Oil

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd be surprised how people you trust and consider good humans can actually be anything but

There's certainly a lot that goes on behind closed doors, thinking of one or two people at the moment who've had to get the hell out of dodge for their emotional safety. Of the 3 people who've told me they were raped, one was by a family member, another a colleague.

Tasden wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't see the problem with those tweets, they seem to say what most people know- that rapists aren't always a scary man hiding in the bushes with a shifty look on their face, they are people's friends, family and colleagues.
Maybe im missing something but I don't think they are insinuating that people are choosing to remain friends with rapists willingly.

Demystifying is fine, I think. It's just Twitter is too compact a medium and echo chamber ish for such a complex topic, (says he who linked to it...) and tonally, a few too many rocks are being thrown around and feeding in effect, a siege mentality, imo.

Lemming

The Black Oil wrote: »

Demystifying is fine, I think. It's just Twitter is too compact a medium and echo chamber ish for such a complex topic, (says he who linked to it...) and tonally, a few too many rocks are being thrown around and feeding in effect, a siege mentality, imo.

This comes back to something I've said on a few occasions; this entire debate (not this forum) on gender behaviour, consent, sexual assault et al. would be better served by being led by medical & psychological behaviour professionals, not from tinder, twitter, and facebook. Social media is a great medium for throwing out quick sound-bites, but that's it. For such a complex and minefield of a topic it's simply not good enough and the net result to allow social media to take the lead has been greatly damaging and generated little but toxicicity and entrenchment with even less to show for it (except some impressive bank balances for a few #NotAllFeminists and a handful of MRA types & trolls)

Tasden

But so many women are fearful walking home alone at night in case they are raped. People tell us not to wear revealing clothes to a club because we could be raped by some drunk guy. Cover your drinks so you wont be drugged by some creep at the bar lurking in the shadows waiting to rape you. Don't get in a taxi alone cause he might rape you. Yeah they all may very well happen but you are just as likely, if not more likely, to be raped by someone you trust. That you don't have a fear of.
In every case of rape that I personally know, not just read in the paper or heard from a friend of a friend, but I actually know the details of, it was a close friend or a boyfriend and in two cases their father/stepdad. Those girls needn't have worried about all the nights out or the clothes she was wearing or carried her key in her hand while walking home late because it was just on run of the mill days with someone she trusted. And that isn't fear mongering. And acknowledging it doesn't "do" anything. It is simply acknowledging a truth. It is not asking that women be suspicious of every man they trust in their life. Just like we shouldn't be fearful of every stranger we encounter on the street.

I don't agree with her first tweet and I personally hate all this "speaking as/for feminists" stuff, she is one woman with one opinion, just like every feminist is, she is just giving her own opinion. Just like one person on twitter who claims to speak for all men clearly doesn't.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

But so many women are fearful walking home alone at night in case they are raped. People tell us not to wear revealing clothes to a club because we could be raped by some drunk guy. Cover your drinks so you wont be drugged by some creep at the bar lurking in the shadows waiting to rape you. Don't get in a taxi alone cause he might rape you. Yeah they all may very well happen but you are just as likely, if not more likely, to be raped by someone you trust. That you don't have a fear of.
In every case of rape that I personally know, not just read in the paper or heard from a friend of a friend, but I actually know the details of, it was a close friend or a boyfriend and in two cases their father/stepdad. Those girls needn't have worried about all the nights out or the clothes she was wearing or carried her key in her hand while walking home late because it was just on run of the mill days with someone she trusted. And that isn't fear mongering. And acknowledging it doesn't "do" anything. It is simply acknowledging a truth. It is not asking that women be suspicious of every man they trust in their life. Just like we shouldn't be fearful of every stranger we encounter on the street.

Then why is the popular narrative one of fear of the bogey-man? What does it serve? Apart from a few healthy bank balances for the cynical peddlers. The first few sentences that you said, about things like walking home alone at night, watching your drink, etc. are common sense. And apply to both sexes to varying degrees; men are statistically more likely to be assaulted whilst walking home at night than women are to be raped whilst walking home at night for example, whilst a spiked drink can be argued either way because the victim is rendered vulnerable to pretty much everything from theft to assault to sexual assault and murder.

If I were to be coldly analytical, on what you've said regards personal knowledge of rape victims, those girls who were raped by boyfriends, fathers, etc. had their guard down because of trust (or at least in part). Now, if the "QED" moment is to say "don't trust anybody" then one is in for a very long, lonely, and hasslesome life. And society is f*cked if we go down that path. So how does one combat something like that? The answer isn't consent classes * or "men, don't rape" articles because we have to think deeper than the banal for an answer. Neither this forum nor social media will yield an answer to that.


Edit: * regards consent classes; whilst I think the current approach is just a stupid exercise in box-ticking and hysteria, I do think that we need a better, more consistent and rounded approach to sex-education that doesnt' simply deal with the biological description of puberity and the lifecycle of a gestating foetus. But it needs to be applied to all children in their early teens. Uni student level is far too late, as is targetting one gender whilst giving the other a free pass.

Tasden

Lemming wrote: »

Then why is the popular narrative one of fear of the bogey-man? What does it serve? Apart from a few healthy bank balances for the cynical peddlers. The first few sentences that you said, about things like walking home alone at night, watching your drink, etc. are common sense. And apply to both sexes to varying degrees; men are statistically more likely to be assaulted whilst walking home at night than women are to be raped whilst walking home at night for example, whilst a spiked drink can be argued either way because the victim is rendered vulnerable to pretty much everything from theft to assault to sexual assault and murder.

If I were to be coldly analytical, on what you've said regards personal knowledge of rape victims, those girls who were raped by boyfriends, fathers, etc. had their guard down because of trust (or at least in part). Now, if the "QED" moment is to say "don't trust anybody" then one is in for a very long, lonely, and hasslesome life. And society is f*cked if we go down that path. So how does one combat something like that? The answer isn't consent classes or "men, don't rape" articles because we have to think deeper than the banal for an answer. Neither this forum nor social media will yield an answer to that.

That was exactly my point. Girls are always told to fear strangers and take all these precautions against "the rapists" when in actual fact they are more likely to be raped by people they know and trustwho they would never think of as "the rapists". They shouldn't be told to be in constant fear in either cases. Just take usual precautions that everybody would for their own personal safety. It's like stranger danger with kids, you need to teach them not to get in cars with people they don't know but you can't keep relaying this stranger danger fear and demonising every stranger because 1) every stranger is not a danger, and 2) the unfortunate truth is it is usually a person you know and trust that will harm a child. Acknowledging that truth is not the same as saying you shouldn't trust your sister in law or whoever to mind your child. Or that every family member is a possible child killer. It is pointing out that demonising random bogeyman serves no purpose when we are just as likely to know the bogeyman. And that imo is quite the opposite to "all men are rapists" I would've thought. Maybe thats my naivety though.

One eyed Jack

Tasden wrote: »

That was exactly my point. Girls are always told to fear strangers and take all these precautions against "the rapists" when in actual fact they are more likely to be raped by people they know and trustwho they would never think of as "the rapists". They shouldn't be told to be in constant fear in either cases. Just take usual precautions that everybody would for their own personal safety. It's like stranger danger with kids, you need to teach them not to get in cars with people they don't know but you can't keep relaying this stranger danger fear and demonising every stranger because 1) every stranger is not a danger, and 2) the unfortunate truth is it is usually a person you know and trust that will harm a child. Acknowledging that truth is not the same as saying you shouldn't trust your sister in law or whoever to mind your child. Or that every family member is a possible child killer. It is pointing out that demonising random bogeyman serves no purpose when we are just as likely to know the bogeyman. And that imo is quite the opposite to "all men are rapists" I would've thought. Maybe thats my naivety though.

I personally don't think you're naive at all. I don't think that Wendy lady is naive either. I think she knows exactly what she's doing, and IMO appears to be more concerned with promoting her own warped views of feminism, and her own ideas about "rape culture", than actually having anyone examine why some people choose to commit rape.

Lemming

Tasden wrote: »

That was exactly my point. Girls are always told to fear strangers and take all these precautions against "the rapists" when in actual fact they are more likely to be raped by people they know and trustwho they would never think of as "the rapists". They shouldn't be told to be in constant fear in either cases. Just take usual precautions that everybody would for their own personal safety. It's like stranger danger with kids, you need to teach them not to get in cars with people they don't know but you can't keep relaying this stranger danger fear and demonising every stranger because 1) every stranger is not a danger, and 2) the unfortunate truth is it is usually a person you know and trust that will harm a child. Acknowledging that truth is not the same as saying you shouldn't trust your sister in law or whoever to mind your child. Or that every family member is a possible child killer. It is pointing out that demonising random bogeyman serves no purpose when we are just as likely to know the bogeyman. And that imo is quite the opposite to "all men are rapists" I would've thought. Maybe thats my naivety though.

I don't think you're naieve in the slightest and I wish more people thought as deeply on the matter as you appear to come across; there might be a more meaningful and helpful discourse if that were the case than what is found thrown out on social media for cheap monetary click-bait.

The 'stranger danger' idiom is quite good actually, I like it. We've all learned it at some point as kids so we can all empathise with the point it makes, rather than dive into polarised 'adult' camps divided by a very uncompromising line.

The only thing I'll disagree with you on - and it's a subtle point - is how the spectre of rape is portrayed; again by the fvcktarded muppetry that is social media. It is portrayed as hysteria and "1-in-4" and as shown above, "every body knows a rapist" ergo "every family contains a rapist" if you draw that rather dubioous "statistic" argument to its conclusion on implication. It achieves nothing helpful and only forments distrust and seperation of the genders. There is a world of difference between pointing out that rapists are more likely known to their victims and that we should all exercise self-awareness on our nights out, which is a very sensible thing to say, versus implying that everybody is friends with a rapist.

The Black Oil

Tasden wrote: »

In every case of rape that I personally know, not just read in the paper or heard from a friend of a friend, but I actually know the details of, it was a close friend or a boyfriend and in two cases their father/stepdad. Those girls needn't have worried about all the nights out or the clothes she was wearing or carried her key in her hand while walking home late because it was just on run of the mill days with someone she trusted. And that isn't fear mongering. And acknowledging it doesn't "do" anything. It is simply acknowledging a truth. It is not asking that women be suspicious of every man they trust in their life. Just like we shouldn't be fearful of every stranger we encounter on the street.

I have found the same. It's an absolute breach of trust, not just through the act itself. I don't really know what to say to that, it's basically impossible for me to comprehend someone undertaking the choice to behave that way. And perhaps that's partly why the Stanford case has lit up the web in the way it has, not just due to how Turner's parents have reacted. Joe Biden's open letter response pretty much floored me too.

So now I'm wondering if that's fixable at some level - the trust aspect. Maybe it needs to be more than just consent in consent classes, but warning signs of an abusive relationship around behaviours before they might escalate. For instance, in Niamh Ni Dhomhnaill's case she found the relationship "became abusive, slowly but surely". You couldn't hold different opinion to her partner "without incurring his full wrath", she was upset by his aggression because she simply expressed a different view, or said everyone was entitled to one. Her friends didn't like him (and they didn't know how to raise it with her), he masturbated to porn whilst she slept, in the same bed. He threatened suicide when she wanted to leave.

Rather than just having consent classes that are 'well, 17 is the legal age and consent is _____' why not take real life examples of what people have been through, as in the possible secondary behaviours? I'm not blaming Niamh at all. It's often only in the aftermath of something significant that people have the ability to look back on the 7-8 things that might have come before. If we want to give people the tools of empowerment on this sort of issue (not stranger danger) then that must that involve facilitating them to feel emotionally safe in relationships, and surely that is the responsibility of men and women.

Lemming

BlackOil, I'm not suggesting that 'stranger danger' is a tool of empowerment in itself; more that the idiom that we've all learned as kids equally applies to adults. Children know that some adults might try to take advantage of them for bad reasons, but children are also taught that that's not true of most adults. Compare and contrast that with the message being sold to women by the modern feminist movement.

Not a tool of empowerment, more a means of applying some introspective common-sense thinking.

The Black Oil

Oh yeah, I agree. What I meant was we really have to up our game on the empowerment side and get beyond the 'don't wear or drink XYZ' stuff.

Thinking of 'rape culture', again. Does this phrase primarily apply to cases where younger, college going women have been assaulted? There was that horrific case in Athlone a few years ago where a man raped two 10 year old girls. I don't recall any columns about rape culture there.