I find it interesting for a number of reasons: people seem to think criminals are somehow fundamentally different from non-criminals, that the politics of rapist motivations cannot easily be separated from the science of rapist motivations, and that people seem to believe that there is a sexually deprived state that must precede a sexual assault for the motivation to include lust - just to name a few that have come up in this thread.
Good thing they didn’t make that claim. Read it again, this time taking care to note that the stuff about porn use and their definition of “hypersexed” rapists are independent from one another.
And I’m LOLing at the idea that there is some worldwide conspiracy among researchers to lie about rape. It sounds like you’ve taken a page out of the Creationist’s Handbook of Willful Ignorance with this nonsense. Or maybe you’ve taken some lessons from climate change deniers? Same school of thought. When confronted with evidence that goes against your dogma, you can only respond with “They must be liars with a political agenda!”
Since you’re reluctant to accept what research has shown, how about you conduct some surveys of your own and then come back and tells us what rape is all about. I’ll listen with open ears.
Depends on the crime. I have no problems judging the Cleveland kidnapper guy as being fundamentally different from most people. Jodi Arias, Sandusky, and OJ Simpson, too. Superficially they may seem like the nice guy next door, but they clearly are not in their private lives. Criminals of the drug selling/possessing kind I’m more inclined to see as psychologically more similar to others. The reason for that is that these crimes are less personal.
Anyone who derives pleasure in physically violating other people–whether that violation is in the form of overt violence or rape–strikes me as distinctly different in the head than people who are repulsed by acts of violence. Do you think this opinion is flawed in someway? I need to be convinced of that because it strikes me absurd.
Who said anything about a “conspiracy”?
It’s called “dogma”. And when a group starts putting out research that conforms exactly to political dogma, my general assumption is that they are lying, especially when people have a history of lying on the subject. I note that you totally ignored my example of researchers coming out with studies claiming that blacks are stupider than whites - are you going to claim that it takes a worldwide conspiracy to explain that? Or are you going to say that I should just “admit” that black people are stupid?
And I suppose you’ll volunteer to fund it? That’s a really ridiculous thing to say; “go perform an extremely expensive scientific survey to win an argument on the internet”.
Not that I really believe you’d listen, anyway.
You reject any scientist who presents evidence that you’re convinced is contaminated with bias. And yet you so desperately want to speak authoritatively about what causes rape.
The only option that I can see, if your goal is to be taken seriously, is to conduct your own “dogma-free” research. If you can’t even do that, then the world will continue to ignore you.
Ok, that’s an extremely strong charge that should be easy for you to substantiate if it’s based on something other than your own biases.
Please give us evidence of scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to studying rapists “lying”.
I’m sorry, but I’m reminded of all those denying global warming claiming that scientists were falsifying their research.
Oh please. So basically you’re claiming that rape researchers hate men and are falsifying studies to smear an entire gender.
Please produce cites for such ridiculous claims or retract your smears of scientists just because you don’t like their findings.
Yeah, I think you went slightly far with the term lying Der Trihs.
Probably it is more like confirmation bias. A particular interpretation has become fashionable, so psychologists tend to interpret events in that light.
Other than that, I for one agree with you. I note that you have not claimed that all rapes are motivated by sex, as some here have accused you of saying, all you’ve done is argue against is the position that rape is mostly about power / dominance.
What do you mean by persuaded to have sex? Why would you need to persuade a willing participant to do anything? That just sounds creepy
Well that is simply not true.
My problem with the focus on “female empowerment” is that it puts the burden on the victims, as if they are the ones with the problem.
Women in the military seem pretty daggone “empowered” to me, and yet they are being harrassed and assaulted at staggering levels.
“Female empowerment” sounds like a PC way of blaming the victim.
I mean that in a society like ours they are more likely to have sex if they want it, instead of abstaining out of some fear of “sin” or social ostracism. Which if why I talked about a society where women can say “yes”.
And in a society where women overwhelmingly still expect men to make the first move, that’s persuading on the part of the men. Especially given that men are hardly just expected to walk up to a woman, ask “can we have sex?” and wait for a yes/no question.
Agreed.
Ted Bundy certainly had women who were happy to have consensual sex with him but that didn’t stop him from raping and murdering dozens of women because if they consented it wasn’t as much fun.
ahh, got ya.
This is insulting. Knock it off.
This is turning into a hijack. Let’s stay on topic, if possible.
I do not view my motivations as being very much different than most people convicted of any crime in prison. I just have the advantage of a better education, a better family background, growing up in better neighborhoods, having a better functioning prefrontal lobe, having never become addicted to anything I’ve thrown in my body, and so on. I have the advantage of all these things and the ability to use prosocial means to gain the things I want for myself.
On the other hand, people who derive pleasure from physically violating others are probably so extremely rare that the only place we can see them is on CNN.
You’re accusing psychologists–the folks who coined the term confirmation bias–of being blinded by confirmation bias. And this charge is based on what exactly? Your own pristine, scientifically-informed objectivity? So again, I have to ask: How many rapists have you interviewed? How much research have you done? Do you even know any rapists?
It is. It gets our focus off the socialization of men and puts it on women who say “no” too much for their own good.
Newsflash: empowered women can yes and no. Men who relate to women in dysfunctional ways will have just as hard of time getting laid when women are “empowered” as they will will they are “disempowered” (in fact, I would say he’ll have a harder time as female empowerment increases…fearful women are more likely to acquiesce to manipulation). The problem isn’t that women want to have sex with him but refrain due to slut-shaming. The problem in all likelihood is that he is poorly socialized and has problems relating to women in a manner that will facilitate consensual sex.
So anyway, earlier you accused scientist of deliberately lying about their research regarding rape and claimed there was a long history of scientists studying rape doing so.
For the second time, please produce your evidence for such an outrageous claim.
If what you said was genuinely true as opposed to being complete bullshit it should be very easy for you to produce evidence of this.
Please do so or we’ll have to assume that you didn’t know what you were talking about.
Thanks.
This speaks to the whole question of how we can trust information we’re told when we don’t have the time or inclination to do the research ourselves.
I recently read a magazine article titled something like “Why we should not trust the opinions of so-called experts”. The article was bunk, and I wrote a retort (that they printed) about why, generally, we should trust what experts are telling us about their field of expertise.
Nonetheless, expert consensus does not always guarantee truth, and some topics have been dominated by groupthink. How can we tell when this is the case?
Well, there are some indicators, such as how scientific are their methods – are they creating models, and using those models to make surprising predictions? Are their methods rigorous? And lastly, are their conclusions strongly motivated (i.e. something that many like to believe is true)?
When we look at studies, such as the one that claimed men that masturbate at least once a month are “hypersexual”, that raises all kinds of red flags for me.
btw I’m not accusing all psychologists of anything, just this particular field of study. Just like some physicists are of the opinion that M theory is “not even wrong” – that doesn’t mean they believe all of physics is unscientific.
I was under the impression it meant that their concerns were taken seriously by law enforcement and society at large. In some societies law enforcement, immediate family, society at large, etc. aren’t going to take the concerns seriously.
The Scandanavian countries seem like the most enlightened, like they will do whatever works to stop a problem but sexual abuse is still a serious problem there.
But it is less common. According to this only 10% of Norwegian women over 15 have been raped, childhood sexual abuse rates are about 8%. Compared to the US that is an improvement where rates are 20-30%.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2320979
But Sweden is seeing rising rates of sexual assault, possibly due to immigration. Either way, maybe a nation like Norway that keeps sexual assault down to 10% of the population is the best a society can hope for.