This thread is suggested by a disturbing remark made in a support group I occasionally attending the real world.
For purposes of this poll, ideal circumstances means that the prospective victim is sexually attractive to the man; that the man is virtually certain that he would be able to overpower and violate the woman; that the man is able to perform sexually; that the woman is unwilling to consent to sex; and that they are in circumstances in which the man needs not fear any legal repercussions.
For obvious reasons, only one answer per respondent. For equally obvious reasons, the poll results are private. There’s no option for 0% because, really, that could only be true in the Land of Oz.
I responded based on the percentage of my female friends who (claim to have been) raped. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it’s the only way I can answer.
I would like to know the circumstances that prompted this poll, if you feel you can share them.
I’m not going to answer the above. I will say this:
Could I see myself stealing? I’d like to think not, but I’ll admit to the urge, and if I were hard up financially and knew I could get away with it, I won’t say I wouldn’t steal.
Could I see myself assaulting someone? Yes, unfortunately. There have been times in the past year where the only thing that has kept me from going ballistic on a certain individual has been that he wasn’t there when I found out what he’d done. Had I been there, he’d have a broken arm.
Could I see myself murdering someone? Absolutely. I won’t because of the consequences to society, but the urge and inclination are there.
Could I see myself raping someone?
Hell, no.
No appeal at all. I’d rather eat a pound of snot. I’m not even invoking moral principles here, since I’ve demonstrated that mine are less than ideal. I just have no desire to have sex with someone who is unwilling, and I don’t understand people who do.
One person in the group claimed that the percentage is well over 90%.
I disagree, but I am also the one male who has, thus far, voted the the percentage was higher then 10%. (I voted the next group up.) That’s because I think there’s a lot of men who would never do so solo, but who could be emboldened to do so (or pressured to do so despite not wanting to) in a group situation.
I think your “ideal circumstances” are somewhat mistaken–I think that a very low (<1% ) of men would rape a woman in the scenario you describe where there would be overpowering involved.
I’d have voted potentially as high as the the 26-50% range if your definition of rape included “getting them so drunk/stoned/doped up (on recreational substances, mind, not GHB/roofies) they no longer remember why they wouldn’t say ‘yes’”, based on my frat party experiences–mostly because I believe a fair percentage of men would deliberately overestimate a “willing” partner’s legal ability to consent far more readily than they’d forcibly rape.
I said between one and ten. Oh, and I’m female. I know a lot of women are raped and assaulted and maybe it’s wishful thinking but I’d like to believe it’s a small number of men doing the raping.
Haven’t they done polls about these things where a lot of men admit to it, if they could get away with it? Though I don’t know how accurate those things are. They get cited a lot, but then again, I don’t know if the wording is, “Would you rape” or if it’s more like, “Would you coerce.”
Zeriel, I see your point, but I had assumed that “overpowering” the victim could include the use of drugs or alcohol. I don’t see the method of overpowerment being specifically addressed in the OP.
I think the number is higher than anyone would be comfortable knowing. I chose around 25%.
The “ideal conditions” could not have any less relevance for me personally. The idea of rape does not have the slightest erotic appeal to me under any circumstance, but I’ve heard way too much guy talk (including in military barracks) to think that the connection of violence/hostility/indifferent objectification to sex is all that rare among men.
True. Also if she’s drinking on her own but gets so drunk that she is unable to consent or even drunk enough to pass out. Like, a guy coming across a drunk woman where he hasn’t even encouraged her to drink but he does take advantage of the situation. He hasn’t actually caused it but if he takes advantage, it could be the “ideal” situation to rape a woman because she might not know it’s happened when she wakes up.
Maybe I shouldn’t have voted for a higher category…
Your thoughts & mine pretty much dovetail here, TDG. I’d consider “drugging into insensibility or paralysis and then fucking” to be a no less a form of overpowering as “beating with a tire iron.”
Also, what Dio said. 'Cept for the part about the barracks.
I assume you mean ‘what percentage of men who have not otherwise committed rape would be willing to do so under the correct circumstances’. I do not know what percentage of men have actually committed rape already, but I assume it is higher than 1%.
To my mind, very few additional men would commit rape.
There are several reasons:
Most men would not actually enjoy raping someone. First, because that requires a level of sadism and lack of empathy that most men simply lack; second, even if a man cares nothing for empathy, it is simply unappealing. The vast majority of men require at least the appearance or simalcrum of pleasure from their partners. A struggling victim isn’t a turn-on for the huge majority of guys, where that victim is genuinely angry or terrified (pretending to struggle or be a victim for BDSM purposes is of course very different).
Even assuming a man lacks empathy for others and positively enjoys having sex with a struggling victim ‘for real’, the social conditioning against this is very powerful; merely being told that there will be no consequences would not be enough to overcome it, for most men (even if as here you have good reason to believe it).
In short, I am not of the opinion that it is fear of consequences and lack of opportunity that keeps the vast majority of men from raping women.
I’ve voted 26-50, although I could as easily have gone for 51-75. I know lots of women who’ve been raped (I’d say around 1/3 of my acquaintances that I know of), inmore than one case it was gang rape, and certainly wasn’t the same guys every time, so I don’t think it’s a tiny minority of guys if they think they can get away with it.
And, of course, there’s this damning poll that shows what men would be like when society lets them get away with it. I don’t think there’s anything particularly unusual about South African or African men’s wiring in this regard , only the amount they can get away with in an indifferent society. You only have to look at war rape - take Serbia, Bosnia & Kosovo - a “small number of men” doesn’t rape 10s of thousands of women by themselves)
Obviously, those men who have already raped are just as likely to do so if there were no consequences. I’m not sure what value there is in guessing how many men are actually rapists, but I believe some college survey suggested that as many as 6% admitted to doing it for the survey-maker’s value of rape.
Assuming this is universally true, that would form the “floor”. To my mind at least, the interesting number is the difference between this 'floor" and the “ceiling” formed by the number who are not actual rapists but who would be if they had opportunity and lack of consequences.
In my opinion, the “ceiling” would not be much higher.
But if it’s only social norms preventing people from raping, then isn’t that like saying that the urge/ability to rape is there–it’s just controlled by society?