Why do some men commit rape?

Squall Leonhart

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If she doesn't say anything of the kind, you can safely assume that she is not into it

That's a safe assumption, the only assumption to make!

This Louis CK sketch gets it perfectly;

The Black Oil

Lu Tze wrote: »

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

eviltwin

The Black Oil wrote: »

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

I don't think men should feel they need to answer to anyone on this issue. You might as well ask why some men hit their partners or shoplift or are cruel to animals. Why do men rape? They just do.

orubiru

The Black Oil wrote: »

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

You are definitely right that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the accused especially in cases where there is no evidence and it's one persons word against the other.

As you say, a good defense lawyer can easily negotiate these kind of cases where no evidence or eyewitness testimony exists.

How can that be fixed though? The basis of the justice system is that if you make a serious accusation towards someone then the burden of proof lands with the accuser.

If we go down the road of blocking certain defense strategies or reducing the burden of proof then it's only a matter of time before we find an increase in cases of people being wrongly convicted and an increase in cases of people abusing the system. Historically, this has all happened before.

How do you find a "middle ground" without leaving the system wide open to abuse?

I think the lack of meaningful discussion from men really comes down to the fact that it's such a small percentage of men who actually commit these crimes. If you've ever been in a room of 10 people you'll know how hard it is to have a coherent discussion, about something common like watching the rugby, whilst also including everyone. Now imagine trying to do that in a room of 100. Now imagine doing it in a room of 1,000 where the topic is something that has never been done or experienced by any person in the room. People are just going to shrug because how valuable can their input actually be?

I would suggest that if people want to figure out the motivations of rapists then the people to ask would be rapists. I'm guessing that's what Criminologists do. Feminists? Not so much. Not so qualified.

OK, so it's a fact that the majority of rapists are men. Fair enough. The idea that it's "a male problem" doesn't make sense if only a small fraction of men will ever commit the crime.

100% of plane crashes involve planes but you can pretty much guarantee that any person who's been afraid of flying has been told that the odds of their plane crashing are small. We don't criticize them for saying "not all planes".

So even if all rapists are men the odds that any given man will be a rapist are small. The same logic applies here and so people who say "not all men" are actually making a rather valid point.

The ideal goal here would be to reduce the number of rapes in Ireland to zero. If that goal cannot be achieved then you want to make sure that perpetrators are caught, convicted, and given severe punishment. Running alongside that you would want to reduce the potential for anyone to become a victim.

Right now we seem to be stuck on the question of whether or nor rape is the responsibility of "Men" as a general group.

Right now we seem to be considering hypotheses such as "Rape Culture" from people who are not qualified to propose any kind of theory on criminal behavior.

The most popular solutions are some variation on "condition men and boys not to rape". Is that a realistic goal given that the vast majority already find the very concept of rape to be abhorrent?

It would need to be very specialized conditioning to target the specific individuals who are likely to commit such crimes. So why adopt the scattergun approach of trying to condition "all men"?

Is there a part of that approach that is appealing because achieves two goals at once? It implies that "all men" are part of the problem. It also gives women a free pass on taking some responsibility.

How can you expect someone who isn't a rapist, who doesn't understand rapists, who has nothing in common with a rapist other than a singular physical attribute, to be able to sit down and have a reasonable or informed conversation on the topic?

It all leaves me wondering about the motivation of people who want to shame others for saying "not all men".

Tipperary Fairy

intheclouds wrote: »

The difficulty in the Ched Evans case is around whether or not she was capable of giving consent.

No the difficulty in that case was that someone decided she couldn't have been capable of giving consent, presumably as she couldn't remember where she left her bag or lost it or it was stolen.

I'm not going to get into the things that make his conviction ridiculous anyway, I was using that as a point to say that not every form of rape (at least by legal definitions) is the forceful violent type that you're saying it is, that you're saying is 'simple'.

intheclouds wrote: »

Im not suggesting that circumstances are black and white btw, there may be many shades of grey (pardon the pun) in establishing whether or not consent was given.

But you are saying that things are black and white - or simple - and straightforward.

It's almost always a matter of one versus the other in terms of whether or not consent was given. But the thing is the majority of the time, nobody asks 'do you consent?' before engaging in any intimate or sexual activities. So you can't establish whether or not consent was given in the vast majority of cases.

intheclouds wrote: »

But the fact remains that if someone does NOT give consent then it is rape.

No no no no no. I have never been asked if I want to have sex. Not once. Yet I've sex hundreds of times. Does that mean I've been raped hundreds of times? No, it doesn't. (unless I decide retrospectively that actually I didn't really like them that much after all (lol jk)).

You'll probably argue the 'implied consent' thing, and tbh I completely agree with you. there are times where things are implied, but the problem with the likes of the Ched Evans case, is you have (the possibility at least of) a girl wanting to have sex with a man, and man wanting to have sex with a girl, and them having sex, and then someone deciding he should have known she was too drunk to be able to consent to sex.

Again, there are multiple forms of 'rape' as various laws define.

intheclouds wrote: »

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

Sorry, are you actually serious here? Simple? Have a think about that there. He should be charged with something in that situation, but it sure as hell isn't rape, and should not be charged with rape. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. Rape is not doing every scummy thing that may surround having sex.

intheclouds wrote: »

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

In that case you have 'evidence' that the condom split. No evidence that anyone knew about it or evidence that he didn't tell her.

And as to your reasons a woman might be able to get away with not being protected by the pill - a guy has to take full responsibility for wearing a condom and noticing if it splits, but the woman doesn't have to take responsibility for taking the pill right or knowing how to? Hmmm.

intheclouds wrote: »

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

She has evidence of a torn condom, which is just evidence that the condom split (though that's not even solid evidence, as the condom could probably not be proven to be from a specific guy much of the time)

So sorry, sperm (or DNA ) is proof of rape now?

intheclouds wrote: »

Whereas a torn condom is obviously comparable to no condom which was not agreed to.

A torn condom does not equal rape. I really hope this kind of logic doesn't follow to Ireland. The Ched Evans case already had me concerned enough.

Akrasia

The Black Oil wrote: »

The colours and sizes of the letters on that banner are raping my eyes

Is it just me, or has it been deliberately designed to cause epileptic fits?

johnnyskeleton

The Black Oil wrote: »

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim.

This is a misconception. A criminal trial is not Victim v. Accused with binary odds between them like a kind of football match. A criminal trial involves the Prosecution setting out the evidence and a jury, if satisfied that they have proved that the Accused committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt, will convict, but otherwise won't.

If there is no conviction, it doesn't mean that the "Victim", or strictly speaking "Complainant" loses, just that they haven't made out a case beyond reasonable doubt.

One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team.

That's not true. It's available to both the Prosecution and Defence, who will in turn send it on to their respective legal teams. The Judge can also get a copy on request.

A Complainant is a witness so they will often be shown any statement that they made which goes into the book of evidence. They will not, however, be entitled to the other statements in the book, because it's not relevant to them and to prevent them from tailoring their evidence based on what other people have said.

Basically, if a complainant says that they were in a pub until X o'clock and didn't see the accused there, but an independent witness puts them both in the pub after that time, the complainant is not entitled to advance notice of this inconsistency so that they can change their evidence to suit it.

I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Why is it shocking? I'm genuinely puzzled by that. To be honest, it sounds like the type of thing that a person (not you, the author of the book) who starts with the presumption that the criminal justice system is too fair to the accused and not fair enough to the complainant and then looks for evidence to support that contention. She doesn't appear to have sought any deeper understanding of why things are the way they are, she seems to have sought out any differences and concluded that because the accused gets something and she doesn't get the same thing, there must be unfairness.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

This can only be done with the leave of the trial judge (if the defence want to do it. There is an argument that the Prosecution are at large to do so if they wish).

In effect, an accused person must satisfy the Judge that there are bona fides reasons for doing so. This goes beyond a mere character assassination attempt e.g. trying to paint a complainant as someone who is promiscuous. Leave is more likely to be refused than granted.

However, there are circumstances where it is relevant i.e. where it shows that the complainant is likely to be not telling the truth and where that happens a Judge will probably grant leave.

The Black Oil

ivytwine wrote: »

RE Fifty Shades, it's a dreadful book and the relationship is very unhealthy, but he gets her to sign a contract to issue her consent. Can you have clearer consent than that? I don't think so.

I haven't read Fifty Shades, that world really holds not interest for me. On the contract type issue, one of the things I heard brought up on a podcast I listen to was the possibility of recording consent, say on a smartphone. I found this a little hard to take seriously because even though it's a record, does it carry any weight, can you say it wasn't coerced? I don't know.

There's Even An App For That

Even more questionable to some experts is the bevy of mobile apps that promise to help curb assault. One that just hit the market, called We-Consent, records students agreeing to sexual activity. A breathy female voice with a British accent asks the user to "say the name of the person with whom you would like to have sexual relations." Then the app announces to the other person, that so-and-so "would like to have sexual relations with you" and asks for consent. If all goes well, the app ends with the sultry female voice announcing, "Have Fun!"

"It's a very powerful tool," says developer Michael Lissack, a former Wall Street banker turned social scientist. He's selling the app on his website, We-Consent, for $5 a year and is also trying to get schools to buy it in bulk, for all their students. Lissak says Apple has refused to sell it in its App Store, calling it "icky." But Lissack insists his app is exactly the kind of tool that's needed to change behavior.

"We need props. We need tools. We are human, This is how we make change," he says. "It's not going to happen by people saying education. No. We all took driver's ed. How many of us speed? How many of us pass on the right?"

But experts caution that as new untested products flood the market, the risk is not only that some just won't help but that some products have actually been proven to hurt.

"That scares me," says Charlene Senn, who studies sexual assault prevention at the University of Windsor in Ontario. "Money is being poured into getting those programs that are homegrown, and usually that's a bad idea."

Senn says her research suggests the most promising approach may actually be one that virtually no one is doing: teaching women ways to avoid assault. Most schools are loath to go there, fearing they'd be seen as victim-blaming. But Senn says her method of training women to recognize risk and resist assault was proven to reduce rape by 50 percent, making it an approach schools can't afford to ignore.

"We do need to make stopping sexual violence everyone's problem, and that's the long-term solution," Senn says. "But women need the tools now. They need them this year."

NPR

Here is some of Senn's work.

And Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

It didn't occur to me to look for this sort of research and it sounds like not everyone would be pleased that it exists.

ivytwine wrote: »

I'm female so hope it's ok to post here. I've not read Asking For It yet, I follow Louise O'Neill on Facebook and I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about what she posts. I work and interact with a lot of guys and I don't see what herself and Una Mullaly see. I see that if a guy *is* behaving inappropriately on a night out or whatever I've seen him being steered away by his mates. That does happen. Una was trying to make a gender thing out of being verbally abused by some of Dublin's more feral inhabitants... I've male friends who've been mugged and abused by these types, absolutely not gender-based.

Well, the UCD story was a mess, whatever the truth is, I don't know. Twitter's full on aggressive on one side, group think and the investigation was a sham/how can women on campus feel safe, personal accounts of TheJournal.ie journalists saying it's 100% a gender on another.

When someone like Una or now Louise social media like this I have to wonder if they have a brother or think these things about their father. I don't like to personalise when it comes a journalist, but the fixation with gender is frustrating and counter-productive. To be fair to Louise, one of the more supportive characters in the book is Emma's brother.

anothernight

I don't think it is possible to have a fully rational discussion about rape until it stops being a gendered issue, used as a weapon by the extreme ideologists of both sexes.
Rape doesn't have to be violent, it isn't always perpetrated by men, and the victims aren't always women. Rape is an attack on the sexual freedom of a person, one with horrific consequences in some cases, but which is so difficult to prove, and still so shameful, that victims will often refrain from reporting it.

If rape wasn't used as a gendered weapon of rhetoric, it would be easier to educate the population about it. No, I don't mean telling boys that rape is wrong and being done with it, or telling girls that they should hang out in dark alleys by themselves. I mean creating an environment in which victims won't be scared of letting the authorities know that they have been raped. Where a victim won't feel judged, won't assume their claim will be dismissed by the police, won't think the family will side with the relative who perpetrated the rape. Conversely, if rape isn't seen as a feminist or masculinist issue, handing out fair sentences for false accusations of rape won't be construed as an "anti-woman" policy.

In many cases, it's very difficult to prove that a rape has happened, even when it might have been one of those violent types that you see in films. That's why it's so important to work on recognising rape when it does happen, so that fewer instances will fall through the gaps and go unnoticed by anyone but the victim. In my opinion, the priority should be to help victims come forward as soon as possible, and to stamp out false accusations. I honestly believe that the best way to do this is to stop treating it as an issue of gender, and start treating it the same way as murder or theft: it happens, it shouldn't happen, but what can we do about it?

The Black Oil wrote: »

I haven't read Fifty Shades, that world really holds not interest for me. On the contract type issue, one of the things I heard brought up on a podcast I listen to was the possibility of recording consent, say on a smartphone. I found this a little hard to take seriously because even though it's a record, does it carry any weight, can you say it wasn't coerced? I don't know.

As an aside, in the BDSM world, at least that which is local to me, consent is considered even more important than in non-BDSM circles. I'm not just talking about safe words, which are an important part of the more violent types of role-play. In any sane BDSM group or club, the consensus is that there should be a previous discussion (in a neutral non-sexual setting if at all possible) of what will and won't be allowed within a scene, each time a new scene will occur with each new partner. In the case of kinky longterm 24/7 relationships, contracts are often used to set out what will, in general, be considered consensual within the relationship unless otherwise stated. Consent can always be withdrawn in those cases, but if there is no further mention, the terms of the contract will decide whether consent was present or not.

Depending on the kinkiness of the relationship, a contract won't just be used for consent, but that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

The Black Oil

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's not true. It's available to both the Prosecution and Defence, who will in turn send it on to their respective legal teams. The Judge can also get a copy on request.

A Complainant is a witness so they will often be shown any statement that they made which goes into the book of evidence. They will not, however, be entitled to the other statements in the book, because it's not relevant to them and to prevent them from tailoring their evidence based on what other people have said.

Thanks for your response. Is what you outlined in your post available online somewhere, the legal specifics, etc?

Why is it shocking? I'm genuinely puzzled by that. To be honest, it sounds like the type of thing that a person (not you, the author of the book) who starts with the presumption that the criminal justice system is too fair to the accused and not fair enough to the complainant and then looks for evidence to support that contention. She doesn't appear to have sought any deeper understanding of why things are the way they are, she seems to have sought out any differences and concluded that because the accused gets something and she doesn't get the same thing, there must be unfairness.

Well, I guess for me it was rather like a key moment in the film In Name of Father, something about a piece of evidence not being shown to the Defence. In Asking for It, it sounded like that the book of evidence was one way traffic and that the Defence wouldn't have access to the

social media photos of the Emma being raped/or something related.

As in, the Defence didn't have the right to assess their evidential value or quality prior to trial, presumably that's what the trial is for - to weigh and test the evidence. It would be interesting to see if any lawyers have read this book. I can't think of any Irish legal bloggers, off hand.

The other thing about the book is at the end she adds a piece explaining her rationale about how things turn out. I found that a little unnecessary, if I'm honest. The story speaks for itself. The lead character is bruised throughout the book and I expect that it's written in such a way that many who read it will feel similarly afterwards. O' Neill also said that out of 20 women she spoke to only 1 went to the police, that she sees young girls playing in the park and fears for them because of the culture they're growing up in.

I do some work for a charity that aims to end sexual abuse in prisons and penal institutions, whether male, female or adolescent.

http://justdetention.org/

JDI operates internationally, All donations welcome and it's a Five Star Charity as described by Charity Navigator.

In that scenario, the most common reason why people rape is because they can.

To assert dominance, because they feel entitled to sex, to dehumanise the victim, and to be feared...they rely on the low rate of reporting, the low rate of prosecution, and the low rate of conviction, the stigma the victim feels, everything that means they feel they can because there is nothing to stop them.

Obviously this is a very specific scenario.

ancapailldorcha

Post by and response to troll deleted.

py2006

I find the whole consent thing worrying. At least the verbal consent. Who actually does that? Its a passion killer right? You just know if he/she wants to engage. At least right thinking people do.

When I was younger, the definition of rape was some evil scumbag lurking in the bushes at night and grabbing a random woman. That seems to have dissolved into, 'ladies, you had a good night but if you regret it the next morning you've been raped'.

How do you prove you asked her? If she regrets it the next day (and is the sort) she could easily just say she wasn't asked or doesn't remember.

Based on that definition I (as a man) have been raped at least 5 or 6 times in the last few years. Based on sex I regretted and every other sexual encounter because she never actually asked me if I wanted to.

Of course, men can't be victims!!

Why do men some people rape? Its a hard question to answer. Mental health amongst men isn't really tackled in this country. Does this lead to rapes and murders? Who knows.

Lady is a tramp

I was raped a couple of weeks back. "Date raped", I guess.

A few days ago, he texted me to apologise. That he'd taken drugs, that it was totally out of character for him to do what he did. Weirdly that made me feel better (although of course I didn't reply.) But at least, to know that yeah, it was wrong, what had happened.

I would be a strong advocate for womens' rights in these cases, but in my case, no. I've been told by the Gardai and the hospital and my mental health team that it was rape, but I don't care. I refused to be referred to the sexual assault unit, I refused to be physically examined, I insisted on showering before letting the Gardai take me to the hospital (against their advice, they made me sign that I was insisting on a shower even though they told me not to.)

Yeah there were bruises and bleeding and stuff, but who the hell is going to take that seriously. It's my word against his that I begged him not to do it, that I fought back, that I have the injuries to my hands to prove it. All he'd have to say is that it was just rough sex. That I wanted it. It would never stand up in court.

I guess the text he sent apologising could count as evidence, but I don't care. You see, as far as I'm concerned, I'm every bit as much to blame as him. If not moreso. And I hate myself for thinking that way. I'd never judge another woman as harshly as I'm judging myself. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much asked for it, I'm responsible. That does NOT absolve him of his responsibility for what he did. But even though, objectively, I know I wasn't in the wrong. Emotionally, I feel very much responsible.

So why did he do it? I don't know. He said drugs, but I don't really believe that. I mean, he seemed quite lucid at the time.

Control. Power. The knowledge that you have the power to hurt someone else so deeply, both physically and emotionally, and probably permanently. And actually wanting to do it. I can't empathise with that frame of mind at all.

Psychopathic behaviour, in my opinion.

Lady is a tramp

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

I was raped a couple of weeks back. "Date raped", I guess.

A few days ago, he texted me to apologise. That he'd taken drugs, that it was totally out of character for him to do what he did. Weirdly that made me feel better (although of course I didn't reply.) But at least, to know that yeah, it was wrong, what had happened.

I would be a strong advocate for womens' rights in these cases, but in my case, no. I've been told by the Gardai and the hospital and my mental health team that it was rape, but I don't care. I refused to be referred to the sexual assault unit, I refused to be physically examined, I insisted on showering before letting the Gardai take me to the hospital (against their advice, they made me sign that I was insisting on a shower even though they told me not to.)

Yeah there were bruises and bleeding and stuff, but who the hell is going to take that seriously. It's my word against his that I begged him not to do it, that I fought back, that I have the injuries to my hands to prove it. All he'd have to say is that it was just rough sex. That I wanted it. It would never stand up in court.

I guess the text he sent apologising could count as evidence, but I don't care. You see, as far as I'm concerned, I'm every bit as much to blame as him. If not moreso. And I hate myself for thinking that way. I'd never judge another woman as harshly as I'm judging myself. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much asked for it, I'm responsible. That does NOT absolve him of his responsibility for what he did. But even though, objectively, I know I wasn't in the wrong. Emotionally, I feel very much responsible.

So why did he do it? I don't know. He said drugs, but I don't really believe that. I mean, he seemed quite lucid at the time.

Control. Power. The knowledge that you have the power to hurt someone else so deeply, both physically and emotionally, and probably permanently. And actually wanting to do it. I can't empathise with that frame of mind at all.

Psychopathic behaviour, in my opinion.

Please get help. You're not processing this logically, and self-blame will add to the damage you feel.

This isn't your fault, tell yourself that often and believe it.

But please do get help as soon as you can.

eviltwin

Lady is a tramp, I sincerely hope you reach out to the rape crisis network and get support. You deserve it no matter what the circumstances. My heart dropped reading your username, I hope it's just coincidental and not an indication of how you see yourself.

Lady is a tramp

Candie wrote: »

Please get help. You're not processing this logically, and self-blame will add to the damage you feel.

This isn't your fault, tell yourself that often and believe it.

But please do get help as soon as you can.

Look I'm not going to believe it wasn't my fault for a long time. I will process it. Eventually. I've just too much else going on right now. For now, it somehow helps me to take control of the situation and to say it WAS my fault.

Anyways I've some very good counsellors who I trust, also I'm being admitted to a psychiatric hospital today/tomorrow, so I guess it'll probably come up in conversation then.

I honestly amn't all that upset about it because it doesn't feel like it happened to me. I'm sure the normal emotional reactions will come in time, though.

Lady is a tramp

eviltwin wrote: »

Lady is a tramp, I sincerely hope you reach out to the rape crisis network and get support. You deserve it no matter what the circumstances. My heart dropped reading your username, I hope it's just coincidental and not an indication of how you see yourself.

Lol yeah actually I think I set up that account the day after it happened. Not really a conscious thing. But probably not a coincidence.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

Please get help. You're not processing this logically, and self-blame will add to the damage you feel.

This isn't your fault, tell yourself that often and believe it.

But please do get help as soon as you can.

+1000. This was rape and no mistake. Hell, even the prick knows it and admits it.

Lady is a tramp

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

Look I'm not going to believe it wasn't my fault for a long time. I will process it. Eventually. I've just too much else going on right now. For now, it somehow helps me to take control of the situation and to say it WAS my fault.

Anyways I've some very good counsellors who I trust, also I'm being admitted to a psychiatric hospital today/tomorrow, so I guess it'll probably come up in conversation then.

I honestly amn't all that upset about it because it doesn't feel like it happened to me. I'm sure the normal emotional reactions will come in time, though.

Please do fully disclose what's happened to you to your care providers, and articulate how you're thinking about it, which sounds very damaging.

The only person responsible for rape is the rapist. Hopefully professional care in hospital will help you see that and I wish you the very best of luck with your recovery.

And please know it's not your fault.

Tasden

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

Look I'm not going to believe it wasn't my fault for a long time. I will process it. Eventually. I've just too much else going on right now. For now, it somehow helps me to take control of the situation and to say it WAS my fault.

Anyways I've some very good counsellors who I trust, also I'm being admitted to a psychiatric hospital today/tomorrow, so I guess it'll probably come up in conversation then.

I honestly amn't all that upset about it because it doesn't feel like it happened to me. I'm sure the normal emotional reactions will come in time, though.

There are no "normal" reactions. And the worst thing for me was the expectations re how i should feel. So many tv shows show the same reactions/responses to being raped, so I wondered why I didn't feel that way. Why I didn't feel fearful of all men suddenly or afraid to go out again or whatever else is usually depicted on tv. There is no normal way to feel.
Blame is a common way to feel at first but it does not mean it is right. Don't pressure yourself to feel a certain way. Just discuss how you are feeling with your counsellor/support team. Its not your fault. It's never your fault.

Lady is a tramp

Tasden wrote: »

There are no "normal" reactions. And the worst thing for me was the expectations re how i should feel. So many tv shows show the same reactions/responses to being raped, so I wondered why I didn't feel that way. Why I didn't feel fearful of all men suddenly or afraid to go out again or whatever else is usually depicted on tv. There is no normal way to feel.

Y'know that's a funny thing. I saw my counsellor a couple of days later. She was aware of what had happened. It wasn't an official appointment, just something that happened.

I was dressed up in a nice dress and shoes, makeup on, hair done. She was clearly confused. She didn't really know what to make of it. I was completely glib and blase about the whole thing.

The more something affects me, the more blase I am about it. I hope she knows that. I think she knows that, she seems to know me better than I know myself a lot of the time!

For now I need to need my makeup on and my eyebrows done and wear nice clothes and try to be and look normal. I am getting the help I need, both publicly and privately, and I'll be OK. I can't deal with what happened now. Hopefully I can soon.

I still think he's a b@stard of the highest order. But it'll be a while before I forgive myself for what happened.

Tasden

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

Y'know that's a funny thing. I saw my counsellor a couple of days later. She was aware of what had happened. It wasn't an official appointment, just something that happened.

I was dressed up in a nice dress and shoes, makeup on, hair done. She was clearly confused. She didn't really know what to make of it. I was completely glib and blase about the whole thing.

The more something affects me, the more blase I am about it. I hope she knows that. I think she knows that, she seems to know me better than I know myself a lot of the time!

For now I need to need my makeup on and my eyebrows done and wear nice clothes and try to be and look normal. I am getting the help I need, both publicly and privately, and I'll be OK. I can't deal with what happened now. Hopefully I can soon.

I still think he's a b@stard of the highest order. But it'll be a while before I forgive myself for what happened.

And that's ok. You're accepting help so on some level you do know you need help and need to process things. That will all come in time. You have nothing to forgive. You don't need to forgive yourself or forgive him. You just need to focus on processing it and moving forward. If that means wearing your full face of makeup and best clothes while you do so then so be it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Liam McPoyle

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

I was raped a couple of weeks back. "Date raped", I guess.

A few days ago, he texted me to apologise. That he'd taken drugs, that it was totally out of character for him to do what he did. Weirdly that made me feel better (although of course I didn't reply.) But at least, to know that yeah, it was wrong, what had happened.

I would be a strong advocate for womens' rights in these cases, but in my case, no. I've been told by the Gardai and the hospital and my mental health team that it was rape, but I don't care. I refused to be referred to the sexual assault unit, I refused to be physically examined, I insisted on showering before letting the Gardai take me to the hospital (against their advice, they made me sign that I was insisting on a shower even though they told me not to.)

Yeah there were bruises and bleeding and stuff, but who the hell is going to take that seriously. It's my word against his that I begged him not to do it, that I fought back, that I have the injuries to my hands to prove it. All he'd have to say is that it was just rough sex. That I wanted it. It would never stand up in court.

I guess the text he sent apologising could count as evidence, but I don't care. You see, as far as I'm concerned, I'm every bit as much to blame as him. If not moreso. And I hate myself for thinking that way. I'd never judge another woman as harshly as I'm judging myself. As far as I'm concerned, I pretty much asked for it, I'm responsible. That does NOT absolve him of his responsibility for what he did. But even though, objectively, I know I wasn't in the wrong. Emotionally, I feel very much responsible.

So why did he do it? I don't know. He said drugs, but I don't really believe that. I mean, he seemed quite lucid at the time.

Control. Power. The knowledge that you have the power to hurt someone else so deeply, both physically and emotionally, and probably permanently. And actually wanting to do it. I can't empathise with that frame of mind at all.

Psychopathic behaviour, in my opinion.

I know you didn't post looking for sympathy but this makes me really really sad and im sorry you had to go through what you went through.

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

So, if 50 Shades of Grey implies women want a man to dominate them, does this mean Lolita imply men like to prey on barely-pubescent girls?

You seem to have some pathological resentment of women.

The Black Oil

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

I was raped a couple of weeks back. "Date raped", I guess.

A few days ago, he texted me to apologise. That he'd taken drugs, that it was totally out of character for him to do what he did. Weirdly that made me feel better (although of course I didn't reply.) But at least, to know that yeah, it was wrong, what had happened.

I'm sorry this happened to you. What you've outlined is really what we see in other serious offences such as assaults on a Saturday night. 'I was off my face'. Some people appear to offer any excuse to distance themselves from what happened and personal responsibility isn't in their heads, at all.

orubiru

py2006 wrote: »

I find the whole consent thing worrying. At least the verbal consent. Who actually does that? Its a passion killer right? You just know if he/she wants to engage. At least right thinking people do.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. Sure, nobody will know how much of a passion killer it is until they have actually tried it out. I do believe though that a lot of women will eventually turn round and say to the guy "OK, you don't have to keep asking me like this every single time".

Who really knows though? I'm not sure if there have been any studies and I'm pretty sure that all women were not consulted on how to draw up a proper code of sexual conduct for all men to follow. It seems sort of like a grey area.

My main worry is what happens if the consent classes etc fail to have any impact.

How would you resolve an argument where the lady running the Consent Class at university is getting opposition from a group of 10 or so girls who don't want their boyfriends to continuously, verbally, ask for consent?

It feels like the whole thing is going down a weird path where couples are entering into some kind legal contract for sex. He literally has to obtain legal permission to have sex with her. This essentially puts you in a situation where a man acquires legal "ownership" of the woman's sexuality.

How do women who won't require a man to obtain verbal, continuous, affirmative consent fit into this equation? Will they be shunned or accepted or will they be openly vilified?

Does this end up in a situation where sex can only be had under a legally binding contract (let's just call it "marriage") and any sex had outside of that (lets just call it "pre-marital sex") is deemed illegal and punishable by law?

I'm not saying that this will happen. I am only semi-seriously suggesting it. However, what happens if the consent classes and such fail to have any significant impact? More drastic measures?

Lemming

orubiru wrote: »

It feels like the whole thing is going down a weird path where couples are entering into some kind legal contract for sex. He literally has to obtain legal permission to have sex with her. This essentially puts you in a situation where a man acquires legal "ownership" of the woman's sexuality.

How do women who won't require a man to obtain verbal, continuous, affirmative consent fit into this equation? Will they be shunned or accepted or will they be openly vilified?

There is also the notion of whether or not she has to ask him for consent when she wants it? Or is it to be suggested that either a woman doesn't have to ask and can simply demand/take when expected or because a guy has an erection therefore "he must want it/women can't rape men/etc."

Whilst having a healthy and robust discourse on being sensible when it comes to matters sexual and avoiding any misunderstandings between two adults is to be encouraged, the key emphasis should be on the word "healthy". The current message that is being put out there is anything but healthy; less discussion and more dictat of what the guys should have to do, with absolutely nothing about when the scenario gets turned around. It's all very one-sided and not a little insulting as a guy to be implied - if not told outright - that I'm a rapist in waiting, I need to be less rapey, and that I am to personally take responsibility for all the rapey things that any men anywhere ever do.

anothernight

Lemming wrote: »

There is also the notion of whether or not she has to ask him for consent when she wants it? Or is it to be suggested that either a woman doesn't have to ask and can simply demand/take when expected or because a guy has an erection therefore "he must want it/women can't rape men/etc." There would appear to be lots of discussion dictats of what the guys should have to do, but absolutely nothing about when the scenario gets turned around.

Scroll down to see the poster with reversed genders: http://www.drcc.ie/media1/consent-page/

Lemming

anothernight wrote: »

Scroll down to see the poster with reversed genders: http://www.drcc.ie/media1/consent-page/

Wow. Buried at the very bottom of the page! Go DRCC! Almost like an afterthought.

But at least they have added something, so it's an improvement on all the sh1te going on in the media and in major campuses.

Edit: I think that DRCC would get a more encompassing message out there if those two images were a side-by-side thing (or one image, flip-sides if you will). It would also make the fact that there are two seperate messages (one for him, one for her) very obvious rather than people seeing similar colours and then simply assuming it is the same image at the bottom of the page as the top having taken the time to read through the article and getting to the end just move on. Which is a pity as the article itself does its best to stay neutral and give advice to everyone rather than just focus on one gender.

anothernight

Lemming wrote: »

Wow. Buried at the very bottom of the page! Go DRCC! Almost like an afterthought.

But at least they have added something, so it's an improvement on all the sh1te going on in the media and in major campuses.

Edit: I think that DRCC would get a more encompassing message out there if those two images were a side-by-side thing (or one image, flip-sides if you will). It would also make the fact that there are two seperate messages (one for him, one for her) very obvious rather than people seeing similar colours and then simply assuming it is the same image at the bottom of the page as the top having taken the time to read through the article and getting to the end just move on. Which is a pity as the article itself does its best to stay neutral and give advice to everyone rather than just focus on one gender.

I agree that it's terrible design, but I think they meant to have an image in the beginning, one at the end, and all the text (and video) in between. I honestly don't think they meant anything by it, especially when the content of the page is completely gender-neutral.


EDIT: Over on this page you only have the male version: http://www.drcc.ie/2015/09/ask-consent-campaign-launch-by-minister-for-justice/

The Black Oil

My sense of the consent debate is that it's not in great shape at the moment. Debate the topic, in general? OK. Consent classes? Debate that too. Make consent media/PR campaigns more visible - go for it. Fire out a few tweets and columns..., well, we appear to be more fixated on clamour than solutions. Thinking back, I don't think my sex education in the 90s had much of a discussion beyond biology and contraception i.e. condoms. Knowing Ireland, this likely hasn't changed much. Louise O' Neill ends her book with an afterthought that includes (paraphrasing): "We need to talk about rape. We need to talk about consent. We need talk and talk and talk so that the Emma's (lead character) of this world feel supported". OK, and how are we going to do that, what comes next?

I did some searching about consent on Google Scholar last night - I've not poured over any of the following in great detail, but I was a little surprised at what I found.

I criticised CSI et al in my OP. Depending on the show, perhaps they've a positive role to play. Take these with a grain of salt as research abstracts rarely give you the full picture.

Law & Order, CSI, and NCIS: The Association Between Exposure to Crime Drama Franchises, Rape Myth Acceptance, and Sexual Consent Negotiation Among College Students

Findings indicate that exposure to the Law & Order franchise is associated with decreased rape myth acceptance and increased intentions to adhere to expressions of sexual consent and refuse unwanted sexual activity; whereas exposure to the CSI franchise is associated with decreased intentions to seek consent and decreased intentions to adhere to expressions of sexual consent. Exposure to the NCIS franchise was associated with decreased intentions to refuse unwanted sexual activity. These results indicate that exposure to the specific content of each crime drama franchise may have differential results on sexual consent negotiation behaviors.

The UK's National Union of Students have a report: That's* what she said: Women students' experiences of 'lad culture' in higher education *(emphasis theirs). And "In light of the findings, NUS has called on Women and Equalities Minister Jo Swinson to convene a summit on ‘lad culture’." Jo Swinson lost her seat in the 2015 UK general election, the above report was published 2012.

Page 18
Research on sex and relationships amongst undergraduates in the UK is relatively underdeveloped in comparison with our American counterparts

OK, more research needed and Ireland's probably similar to the UK in this respect.

Page 35
‘Lad culture’ as thought by our participants to involve the following;

- ‘Banter’
- Sexism and misogyny
- Sexualisation and the objectification of women
- Rape supportive attitudes, sexual harrassment

"The one guy in my group of friends who went to an all-boys school, we went out fresher’s week and…I was likely ‘go in and buy some jugs’ and he grabbed my boob and said ‘I’ll have this one’….he’s one of my really good friends now…but I just found that so acceptable. I was shocked, I slapped him quite hard actually. I just didn’t know what to do." Participant C

Prick

Page 37

For almost half the women in our study, ‘lad culture’ was highly sexualised and involved pressure to engage in a high frequency of sexual contact with a number of different partners. Participants noted the dominance of sexual themes, some derogatory towards women, in ‘laddish' conversations, with one interviewee reciting ‘banter’ about ‘notches on the bedpost’, and phrases such as ‘I’d tape that’

Page 38

"Facebook has a Uni Lad group which regularly posts demeaning things about women and rape jokes, which I and my fellow female students find appalling. I’ve seen my male university Facebook friends have ‘like’ this page" (Interviewee 16)

There's no doubt a lot of this goes on. It's not difficult see how columnists have come to their conclusions. If Louise's recent column had same something like 'whilst UCD's recent finding were _____, a 2012 report from the UK found _____' her column might have had more weight been less predictable. I'd bet there's an awful stench desperation and self-centredness about some of these Facebook pages, tbqh. I'll leave reading of all 84 pages of report for another day. The ‘Recommendations and next steps’ section of the report (page 65) is insanely short, half a flippin’ page…it's just the 'lad culture' summit, as mentioned earlier.

There appears to be range of different studies out there looking at various aspects of the problem and I only had a cursory glance. I'm not going to discuss ones where alcohol is highlighted, for now. I've written a number of position papers and policy docs for my job. I don't work in justice system or in an area related to sexual offences. If I had the time and energy I'd really go into this, just to see what's out there.

Take this, for instance. [URL="hhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/258187218_Postfeminist_sexual_agency_Young_women's_negotiations_of_sexual_consent"]Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent[/URL]

Our analysis revealed that the ‘just say no’ approach of risk-avoidance discourse permeated our young women’s consciousness and influenced their perceptions in line with neoliberal ideals encouraging individual responsibility in experiences of violence and inequality. All of the young women in this study had been exposed to dominant risk-avoidance discourses in their experiences of school sex education and sexual violence prevention. The key tenet underpinning these discourses, of women needing to assertively communicate their sexual choices, was also reinforced in their everyday lives through advice from family and friends to be sexually responsible.

From some participants

If you go home with someone you don’t know, you’re putting yourself in that position. Even though you might think differently, everyone knows that gives him the idea that you’re going to have sex, so if they threat[en] or force [you] then [that’s] sexual assault but if it’s just normal advances and you’re too gutless to say ‘I don’t want to do this’ I wouldn’t class that as sexual assault: I would class that as a weakness on your part. (Lisa)

if you’ve been sending certain signals all night and you go off with a guy you can’t just pull out at the last minute . . . you both know things will happen . . . with guys I’ve met, when you know they expect to get laid, you know you have to keep your word.(Tracey)

Researchers

We found that these young women felt that they implicitly consent to sex through particular actions, such as going home with a man or engaging in heated sexual talk. Once these actions are carried out, then they have no choice (even during non pleasurable or coercive encounters) but to follow through with intercourse as it would be inappropriate to simply ‘say no’.

Like the women’s experiences of casual sex, some of the participants described sexual experiences within their intimate relationships as distinctly unpleasant and coercive. This was the case for Holly who returned home with her partner after a social evening and passed out drunk. She later awoke to find her partner attempting to use her body for his sexual pleasure without her consent or her willing participation:

I was like what is he doing? Can’t he see I’m drunk . . . that really upset me that he didn’t really give a **** about what I wanted. (Holly)

So, there are huge personal and expectations here and gender is a factor, I don't think that can be denied. I found this study quite insightful to hear another aspects of women's voices and experiences. Perhaps if more of these negative experiences were used in campaigns then it might help to clearly highlight some of the crap they have put with.

One might criticise aspects of academia for being even further to the left of socialism, but if there's good, reliable research indicating possible solutions then it needs to be brought into the mainstream. No shutting it down because it offends or is perceived as blaming someone.

Lisacatlover

The Black Oil wrote: »

There appears to be range of different studies out there looking at various aspects of the problem and I only had a cursory glance. I'm not going to discuss ones where alcohol is highlighted, for now. I've written a number of position papers and policy docs for my job. I don't work in justice system or in an area related to sexual offences. If I had the time and energy I'd really go into this, just to see what's out there.

Take this, for instance. [URL="hhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/258187218_Postfeminist_sexual_agency_Young_women's_negotiations_of_sexual_consent"]Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent[/URL]



From some participants





So, there are huge personal and expectations here and gender is a factor, I don't think that can be denied. I found this study quite insightful to hear another aspects of women's voices and experiences. Perhaps if more of these negative experiences were used in campaigns then it might help to clearly highlight some of the crap they have put with.

One might criticise aspects of academia for being even further to the left of socialism, but if there's good, reliable research indicating possible solutions then it needs to be brought into the mainstream. No shutting it down because it offends or is perceived as blaming someone.

The second link couldn't really be called 'good, reliable research' it's based on an interview with only 8 women, who all just happen to express similar opinions, and clearly an exercise in supporting what the researches already believe and want to argue in favour of.

I think that's part of the problem to be honest. A lot of the academic work out there is an agenda driven exercise in confirmation bias. People setting out to support their preconceived ideas rather than determine the reality of things.

newport2

Lisacatlover wrote: »

I think that's part of the problem to be honest. A lot of the academic work out there is an agenda driven exercise in confirmation bias. People setting out to support their preconceived ideas rather than determine the reality of things.

+1000

That's a big problem in a lot of topics, not just this one. And a lot of people fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

Is it just my perception or has it always been this bad? I think because of the way media has changed, there is not as much money and time put into open minded and unbiased analysis to determine reality as you say. Probably largely due to the fact that, particularly in emotive topics such as this one, researchers (and the universities supposedly behind them) would be reluctant to publish the results if they didn't show the "right" outcome for fear of the reaction to follow. There's too much you're not allowed say now, irregardless of whether it's true or not.

Wibbs

newport2 wrote: »

Is it just my perception or has it always been this bad?

It seems to be getting worse and not just a perception. The Lancet reported on a medical science conclave in the UK a while back where speakers were growing increasingly concerned over the trend towards shakiness in much medical science studies and research. A quote from the PDF article said:

this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

IMHO another line would be better applied to the subject at hand: Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. I'd swap out bits in the last sentence to read "Journalists and commentators(and politicians) are incentivised to be noticed, productive and to fit the expected narrative".

The Black Oil

Lisacatlover wrote: »

The second link couldn't really be called 'good, reliable research' it's based on an interview with only 8 women, who all just happen to express similar opinions, and clearly an exercise in supporting what the researches already believe and want to argue in favour of.

I think that's part of the problem to be honest. A lot of the academic work out there is an agenda driven exercise in confirmation bias. People setting out to support their preconceived ideas rather than determine the reality of things.

There's truth in what you say, of course. Small sample sizes can't be generalised. If you're looking for red flags in the literature that might seem too agenda driven, the NUS report I referenced might well be interpreted as an example of that. It's abysmally short on solutions, written by a researcher in Gender Studies - a section of academia whose very existence appears to gets some people's backs up, it contains go to buzzwords like 'gendering' of university campuses, something which suit the likes of Mullally down to the ground. One must be critical, but I think not overly so otherwise there's the risk of pushing the debate in the wrong direction and at the more hysterical end we get into nonsense like no-platforming, which is counterproductive.

If you are aware of more neutral yet robust studies I'd be happy to hear them.

mariaalice

Leaving aside metal health and looking at behavioural issues.

The big issue about consent classes or the like is that underneath its not about consent as such it about trying to reshape relationships and to an extent save people from themselves.

For example if someone enrages in a sex act they were not totally happy with: because of passive aggressive behaviour by the person they are in a relationship. There is a lot more going on that consent.

nozzferrahhtoo

OP I do not expect you are going to get a coherent answer to your question. We are talking about one single aspect of human behavior and then asking why people do it. As with most human behavior, there are going to be any number of answers. 10 reasons. 100 reasons. 1000 reasons. Even 10000?

It would be like asking „Why do men play football“. You are not going to get a coherent single answer to it. Some do it to stay fit. Some do it to be part of a social group. Some do it because they are driven to win and beat others. Some do it because they are made to some how. And so on and so on.

So why do men rape? Any number of reasons. And each case of a person raping another will be due to one, or a combination, of those reasons. So when someone tells you „It is about power“ or some other sound bite answer they are simply wrong from the outset.

For some it is about power. For some it is a desire to have sex so strong that it over rides morality and emotion. For some they are just psychopaths who do not care about morality or emotion. For some it will be because they hate women and want to hurt them.

For some it will be the assumption of consent from someone not capable of giving it... based on previous words or actions leading up to that point. The "She came to me hotel room and got drunk" types we have already seen on this thread for example.

For some it will be some messed up view of what it is to "be a man". For some it will be some kind of pressure (social, psychological, some narrative or something else) to "complete the deed". For some it will be the mistaken idea, that some minority of men do appear to have, that "no means yes and really all women want to be raped".

For some it will be…. Well you get the picture. There is no one answer and I could go on listing all day. I imagine every user could probably throw in 10 of their own. But suffice to say.... rape is a complex issue, a complex human behavior, and a sub-set of another complex.... perhaps even THE most complex.... discussion of humans..... human sexuality.

Even the word "rape" is an umberella term to some degree, covering everything from the violent attacker leaping from the bushes, to the actions of a known and trusted family member or friend.

So you are not likely to get any satisfaction in finding an explanation for it I am afraid. It is a many faceted issue with potentially years of study one could invest in any one facet of it.

Lu Tze wrote: »

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

Yet diagnosis of what a problem _actually is_ generally tends to be the most important step in solving it. So I have no issue with people discussing, clarifying and laying out the boundaries of what a problem actually is, before even remotely moving to discussing solutions for it.

If you do, great then simply stay out of such conversations would be useful advice. But other than letting us know it bothers you, you have not actually presented any _actual_ issue with doing it.

And I always find myself wondering at the motives of people who wander into a thread on a topic only to moan about how they have no time for the topic, or people discussing that topic.

Let us remind ourselves here the thread topic (it is there in the thread title if you need help) is "Why do men rape?" not "What ideas have we got to prevent people from raping" or anything else.

nozzferrahhtoo

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

Do you actually understand the terms "rape" and "forceful" and "consent" I wonder? Because what you wrote here suggests very strongly that you do not. I have not, nor have I interest in, reading that particular book. But from what I have heard about it, it described a CONSENSUAL S&M/Bondage relationship between two people.

There is a WORLD of difference between consenting to and enjoying "force" in the bedroom, and being forced to have sex. They are not the same thing and you are attempting here to paint them as being the same.

So the "dichotomy" you imagine does not exist, nor does the "wanting it both ways" that you have entirely fabricated.

To add a further level of how wrong you are however, you are extrapolating to a wanton extreme. That is to say... just because one, or some, women enjoy forcefulness and even pain in the bedroom.... that does not mean all of them do.

So not only are you extrapolating a generalization of women from a character in a work of FICTION that does not even EXIST, even if the person did exist you would be extrapolating that "women want it both ways" from the actions or desires of a single person, or small minority.

But your nonsense is exactly the type that occurs when someone takes the actions or positions of a hand full of people and turns it into an "Us against all of them" issue and generalizes a whole group of people based on it.

frostyjacks wrote: »

You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent.

No it does not. Are you Roosh V or something? It sounds like something he would write, literally word for word. Returning to a location with someone implies nothing but you wish to spend time in that location with that someone. Any other "implication" you imagine is entirely of your own fabrication.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

It is not "the same" no. It is in fact "worse" in my opinion. Or at least it would be if I saw any utility in ranking them as "better" or "worse".

But in both cases there is a person leaping on another person to force sex without consent on them. In one case however it is a random attack. In the other it is ALSO a breach of trust.

In the former there is of course the horror of the "can happen to anyone, anytime, any place" but me personally, subjectively and entirely my own feeling and opinion, I find rape in a position and situation of trust to be the more horrifying of the two types/categories.

And the MORE a position of trust a person is in the MORE horrifying I find it. Which you might find is why people find things like Child Rape by the Clergy in our country to be more abhorrent than Child Rape in general. Because there is the added lair of the breach of trust represented by it.

frostyjacks wrote: »

A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

Perhaps you would do well to learn the difference between "expectation" and "consent" then.

Firstly there is no reason to actually have that expectation. I travel a lot to hotel rooms because I like traveling to see live music. In the past I have invited many people, sometimes one sometimes more, of both sexes, to those hotel rooms to partake of further conversation, the mini bar, and so forth.

No expectation of sex was involved or aroused. So you are simply wrong to suggest that going to a hotel room automatically means such expectation. Perhaps YOU expect sex if someone accompanies you to your hotel room, but this is a comment on the state of your thought processes, not the state of actual reality.

But despite you being wrong from the outset, even if you WERE right about such expectations, your point is _still_ wrong. Because even if you consider sex more likely in that location, and so expect it, that does not in any way imply consent. Even a little bit. Expectation of sex and consent to sex are entirely separate things and you should be wary of conflating the two baselessly in order to justify crime.

Canadel wrote: »

Every person is a potential rapist. Having the potential to rape does not necessarily mean you are ever going to show the capacity to rape or develop into a rapist. But the potential is still there.

I fear that that may simply be a pedantic point of no actual use or merit then? It is pedantically correct to say every person is a potential rapist. But you could say that about any person on any subject.

I am a potential athlete. I am a potential dictator of the next North Korea. I am a potential leader of love and peace for a newly founded religion. I am a potential chef. I am a potential lotto winner.

And as a greater man than me once said.... a point that says everything.... ends up saying nothing at all. And rather than furthering the actual topic of the thread.... it appears to put people on the off topic tangential "No I am not" defensive.

In the context of "Why do some men rape?" is there any merit to the point that everyone is a potential rapist? Does it say or do anything for the actual topic?

The Black Oil

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why do some men murder
why to some steal
why to some commit terrorism

you'll no more understand the reason behind rape than you would any of the above IMO. to put it very simply, some people are just 'despicable excuses for humanity'

Certainly true. The reasons for those 3 are at some level (imo) more identifiable than explanations for rape. They range from domestic, pre-meditated to criminality. Drugs, money, selfishness to political instability and religious ideology can be linked to points two and three..

However, there's no one writing about 'murder culture' in this country is there?* Apart from maybe gangland, which is a very specific. Perhaps Paul Williams is the Mullally of his world, then.

*Or gendering the bejaysus out of it.

We had decades of murder with The Troubles on this island. Maybe that was a murder culture.

Lemming

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So why do men rape? Any number of reasons. And each case of a person raping another will be due to one, or a combination, of those reasons. So when someone tells you „It is about power“ or some other sound bite answer they are simply wrong from the outset.

So you're going to argue against criminal psychology now? From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of convicted rapists carried out rape as a means of asserting power over their victims; be it power for the its own end and gratification, out and out gender-hatred, or whatever. Rape - it would seem - is rarely a means for sexual gratification in itself, but a tool used to achieve some other perceived level of control over a victim.

There will always be some who are actually in it for sexual gratification, but again as I understand it, the numbers are not there to show that rape for sex is a notable motivator in the majority of cases.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lemming wrote: »

So you're going to argue against criminal psychology now?

If you say so. I certainly did not. From what I understand of my own words the exact opposite is true in that what I said INCLUDES the things you might (but do not appear to have) quote from criminal psychology.

Nothing I said is about what the "majority" do either. Or the minority. Again quite the opposite in that I am pointing out a number of motivators and causes of rape, without suggesting any one is, or is not, the majority or dominant factor.

I would not be so fast to rule out sexual gratification as a motivator though. It has been shown for example that rapists respond stronger to rape pornography as you would expect, but rapists AND "normal" people BOTH respond BETTER to consensual pornography. And some researchers in fact do argue that gratification is often a stronger motivation than either Anger motivators, Hate motivators or Power motivation.

While other writers on the subject suggest "Masculine Identity" as a strong motivator, or as I put it in my post above, a messed up view of what it is to be a man.

So no, I do not see myself at odds with the realm of criminal psychology at all, whether you deign to quote or cite any of it or not. What I am at odds with is anyone who thinks rape as a diverse and complex human behavior can be summarized in a single catch all sound bite such as "It is all about power".

mariaalice

The Black Oil wrote: »

Certainly true. The reasons for those 3 are at some level (imo) more identifiable than explanations for rape. They range from domestic, pre-meditated to criminality. Drugs, money, selfishness to political instability and religious ideology can be linked to points two and three..

However, there's no one writing about 'murder culture' in this country is there?* Apart from maybe gangland, which is a very specific. Perhaps Paul Williams is the Mullally of his world, then.

*Or gendering the bejaysus out of it.

We had decades of murder with The Troubles on this island. Maybe that was a murder culture.

But that might have noting to do with rape per say it could just that most public discourses about a whole range of topics is moving to the fringe element of what ever the issue is. A lot of public discourse is pandering and not comment and its pandering to the worst elements.

Its good to remember that the vast majority of people wont commit rape or wont be raped.

The Black Oil

Wonder if this'll pop up online.

https://twitter.com/UCDWelfare/status/703207416452657152

Cosmicfox

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

The Black Oil

Here's the consent video form TCD SU. I was expecting something along the lines of what the Road Safety Authority put out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-q363omSQ

Wibbs

Cosmicfox wrote: »

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

Rape in war seems to be another side to this crime. As you say it went on in pretty much every war to some degree or other. Your evolutionary psychologist types might say it's a primal thing based on war being a resources grab and the women of the opposing side are one of the biggest "resources" there are. That on a visceral level as well as taking the enemy's land, you're also taking his genetic heritage. In primitive societies where land is not considered as something a tribe owns as such, women are usually the primary target for acquisition in local wars.

It can vary and can depend on cultural forces too. EG World war two shows quite different attitudes and levels of it depending on the side involved. In the European theatre the Soviet forces were the worst offenders. Vanishingly few German women from children to grandmothers who fell under their influence weren't raped. Officially it was punishable by death, but blind eyes were turned. French forces though not nearly as bad as Soviet weren't exactly safe either. For a German woman being in the US or British sphere of influence was significantly safer. The conduct of German soldiers varied and it very much depended on where they were and how they viewed the "locals". In places like France it was a limited enough issue, in Russia it was far more in play. The more the population was seen as less than human/Aryan, the more likely rapes were to happen. In the Eastern theatre the Japanese were the most appalling. Barely human animals really. What they did to local populations as a matter of official practice beggars belief.

Just a thought, but maybe those men who rape in peacetime, the "classic" predatory rapist of the common mind lurking in bushes, is the minority who channel this "war program" in peacetime? Like the minority hyper aggressive violent type who might make a helluva soldier in war, but are a danger to society of a normal Friday night. Ordinary men(and some women) can kill in war and then go back to living perfectly normal average decent lives. They can switch that on or off, but maybe for some those switches remain on?

As for the reasons for rape? Personally I would see rape and sexual assault like cancer; we think of it as one disease that needs curing, but it's actually a whole suite of diseases with different causes and treatments. So for example consent education will "treat" one type of sexual assault, but is unlikely to treat another. EG for the "classic" rapist, consent means jack. That's the point. It's the lack of the victim's consent that turns them on.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

It can vary and can depend on cultural forces too. EG World war two shows quite different attitudes and levels of it depending on the side involved. In the European theatre the Soviet forces were the worst offenders. Vanishingly few German women from children to grandmothers who fell under their influence weren't raped. Officially it was punishable by death, but blind eyes were turned. French forces though not nearly as bad as Soviet weren't exactly safe either. For a German woman being in the US or British sphere of influence was significantly safer. The conduct of German soldiers varied and it very much depended on where they were and how they viewed the "locals". In places like France it was a limited enough issue, in Russia it was far more in play. The more the population was seen as less than human/Aryan, the more likely rapes were to happen. In the Eastern theatre the Japanese were the most appalling. Barely human animals really. What they did to local populations as a matter of official practice beggars belief.

According to Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, Stalin's regime put out a huge amount of propaganda stating that Nazi soldiers were raping Russian women en masse in order to persuade young men to join the Red Army. As you might expect, this worked and no doubt when they reached Germany they thought they were giving the Germans their comeuppance.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, Stalin's regime put out a huge amount of propaganda stating that Nazi soldiers were raping Russian women en masse in order to persuade young men to join the Red Army.

Yep, that's a very popular propaganda tactic that has been used for centuries by many nations. The "while you're at the front fighting and dying your women are being raped back home".

Emme

Cosmicfox wrote: »

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

Rape is about power. War is about power. You don't have to look very far to see situations which apparently aren't war but where men are behaving exactly like rapacious invaders. I think there might be a primal instinct driving rape in war - after rape the conquered females are theoretically likely to bear the children of the invader.