That you ask me this question seems bizarre, so the answer is, of course I see them. Let me ask you: do you really think I’m saying that for some guys, it’s only about sex?
I’m saying that a rapists motives are, from what I’m reading, often very complex, involving several drives. A rapist may start off wanting to hurt a woman who will represent Womanhood, and will rape in order to cause this hurt. However, another rapist may start off wanting to have sex and simply not realize that the woman he’s raping is a person who desires not to have sex, or may not care about this. Those are two different motives (three, counting the not realizing/not caring as different). And those 2.5 motives involve three impulses: an impulse to hurt a woman, an impulse to dominate a woman, and an impulse to fulfill a sexual desire. And there are plenty more motives out there for rapists that involve plenty more impulses, mixed in different ways.
The sentence you quoted isn’t all about power. It’s about power and about a sexual urge.
I guess I didn’t state it well enough, then. “Drink responsibly” means don’t over do it – take care not to get too smashed then drive a car. “It’s your responsibility to get those reports down to accounting” means that the task has been assigned to you. It means take charge of the situation. “Exercise is your responsibility” means that no one else can exercise for you. If you choose to be well-exercised, the assignment for doing the work falls to you. If you don’t want to get slipped a mickey, take responsibility for your own drink. Take whatever actions are necessary to be confident of the contents of your glass. Since your own interests depend on it, trust no one but your self. You’re the one in charge here.
Clearer? It’s a perfectly cromulent use of the word.
There was a case a couple years ago that I read about. I will try to look for cites, but I am not hopeful.
In this case a woman went out on a date with a co-worker and he raped her. She reported it. The police wired her up and she talked to her attacker. His words were enough to convict him. As I recall, he apologised for being a bit rough and hoped that they could still date. It was reported that he was completely baffled as to why he was charged and convicted of rape. He seemed to think what he did was normal and that what just what men do.
For all those screaming “cite!” for the statement that rape is not about sex, it is about power, would you consider one of the FBI’s own experts on sex crime?
Roy Hazlewood was THE guy at the FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit for violent sex crimes, and over a long career, made a number of incredibly useful and insightful observations. Many of them are laid out in his book “The Evil That Men Do”.
Colin Wilson and Donald Seaman also delve into this in their book “The Serial Killers: A Study In the Psychology of Violence”. Violent crime and the psychology behind it, as best we understand now, is explored here - not just serial killers. Catchy title, though.
Both of the above books have an extensive bibliography in the back that you may find useful.
Rape is about power and control, and sex is the means by which it is achieved.
And one of the things that doesn’t seem to be touched on much in these threads is that many rapists rack up a chilling number of victims - much like pedophiles.
Lovely characterization on the “screaming cite” business. Gee, thanks for upping the tone of the thread!
As for considering the FBI’s own experts, of course I would. I wouldn’t trust his blanket statement, much less a third party’s memory of his blanket statement, but I would absolutely consider the facts he marshaled to support that idea. I would put them against the interviews listed above, interviews with rapists where obtaining sex was one of their motives for their horrific crimes, and I would figure out whether the FBI’s own expert could adequately account for their own explanations for their behaviors.
What I would not do, and what I will not do, is take it on faith, or even on authority. My deep apologies if that sounds to you like screaming.
Honestly, the idea that sex has nothing to do with rape sounds to me more like dangerous ideology than like a conclusion reached from the facts. It sounds simplistic and misguided. I think the truth in this case is probably very complex and not easily encapsulated: rape is about many different things to different rapists. Yes, rape is often about power (or about hatred, or about revenge), but there are other elements to it, and a desire to have sex is often one of those elements.
[QUOTE=tisiphone]
For all those screaming “cite!” for the statement that rape is not about sex, it is about power, would you consider one of the FBI’s own experts on sex crime?
[QUOTE]
Abso-freakin-lutely. Thank you.
On those same lines, check out John Douglas as well he was one of the first behavioral detectives with the FBI. He mainly deals with serial killers, but he also speaks of rapists, pedophiles, and other recidivist crimes.
Is it possible that control and dominance are sexual to the rapist, and sex is about control and dominance? Could it be that they are one and the same? It sounds plausible, and if it’s true, we don’t really need to split hairs about whether it’s sexual or not.
I just thought I’d dig into this a bit: I’m not sure why they call him a “professor of American studies” when he’s actually a biological anthropologist who’s spent a lot of his time studying chimpanzees and looking into the biological facets of male violence. The linked interview, part of the series that maureen cited earlier, is pretty interesting; I dunno if I agree with all of it, but it’s interesting.
His research raises an interesting question: given that rape happens in nonhumans, is it reasonable to assume that it’s happening because the male nonhuman is seeking sex and doesn’t care about the unwillingness of the female nonhuman? If so, what is it about humans that makes such a primary motive so implausible among humans?
You should not have sex with any of these women. Women who play these stupid games need to learn that if they play them, they should not expect to get any sex.
There are a lot of grossly stupid attitudes about sex out there. Changing those attitudes would do a lot to reduce rape.
So what you’re saying, is that you would take the word of a convicted criminal, who has an agenda, and a belief that they did nothing wrong, over that of an expert in criminal psychology?
I have to point something out here - typically criminals aren’t the most self-reflective, or self-aware people in the universe. Just because someone says “My motive was sex!” doesn’t actually mean that their motive was sex. It could mean that is what the criminal BELIEVES was their motive. That doesn’t make it so.
People of all stripes spend loads of $$ with psychologists and psychotheraptists to try to understand themselves better. Why on earth would a criminal who has done absolutely NO self reflection be a good source to consult on this, or any other subject concerning motivations?
Finally, I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again - you are really painting men in a bad light here.
Yes, there are frat boys who think that forcing sex on a woman is normal, or No means Yes, or a passed out drunk girl is free game for a gang bang. Those men are rapists.
The reason I know this, and you should know this as well is simple - there are LOTS of men who DON’T force sex on women, they take NO as NO and stop what they’re doing, the make sure the drunk girl gets home safe, rather than being assulted. There are good, caring, self-aware men in the world who don’t objectify women, aren’t misogynitic in their attitudes, and actually respect women.
I submit that there is a difference in a rapists makeup - they will never be made to understand the wrongness of their actions - a deepseeded hatred of women is pretty hard to shake, and I can pretty much guarantee that none of these guys have ever even tried.
You are welcome to your opinions, but avoid the thinly-veiled personal attacks, if you please. What exactly do you base your opinion on? The “professor of american studies?” Do you have real first hand knowledge of this subject at all? It appears to me that you googled a search on this issue and then called it good. Do you have any information on this subject that you would purport to be accepted by the appropriate scientific communities: ie. abnormal psychology, behavioral science, forensic psychology?
I don’t know your background in this subject, but I am more than willing to bet that I have spent far longer contemplating and studying this subject than you have. Before you spin off words like 'simplistic" and “misguided,” please be sure of your own position and if it has any real merit. Frankly, I have yet to really determine what your position is other than it is obviously contrary to mine.
On to a specific point. You said, “However, another rapist may start off wanting to have sex and simply not realize that the woman he’s raping is a person who desires not to have sex…” In that scenario, no crime has actually occurred. The actor does not have any culpable mental state in which he could be prosecuted. All crimes require some attendant mental state (even strict liability crimes), typically the following: voluntary, negligent, reckless, knowing, or intentional. Rape typically requires that the person know that he is sexually penetrating the victim and that she does not consent or is unable to consent. If you want, I’ll walk you through the statutes in my state for the crime. In the scenario you described, the actor would be unaware of the attendant circimstance that the woman objects, and the person would therefore be not guilty. And even if he discovered that she didn’t approve of it after the fact, then there is a coprus delecti issue. If you want cites for this, I’ll be happy to overload you with colorado law, and about ten thousand pages explaining criminal procedure to you.
If this sounds like I take issue with your dismissive attitude apparent in the above post, good. I have been respectfully disagreeing with you up until now. Apparently, the respect is not mutual. By the way, if you would also do me the favor of fully reading my posts, I could then also finally stop repeating myself:
IMO, Power is PRIMARY need fullfilled by rape–not the only as you keep insisting I am saying.
To everyone else, I apologize for the tone of this post.
My apologies again; I let my annoyance at tisiphone’s attack on me get the better of me. I very much appreciate what you’re adding to this discussion, and really think we’re arguing semantics here: I think we both agree that sex and power are both needs fulfilled by some rapists through rape, and I’m not really sure where the point of disagreement is. I don’t think that you’re accepting the “rape is not about sex” as dogma; indeed, it seems to me that you’re taking a much more nuanced position than that.
Alice, I have no idea why you think I’m painting men with a bad light, unless you’re saying that rapists aren’t men, or that rapists are genetically programmed to be monsters unlike other men. Yes, I think that rapists are men; no, I don’t think they’re genetically programmed to be monsters. I think that events in their lives, coupled with decisions they make, are what make them rapists. We who oppose rape ultimately have no control over the decisions they make, but we do have some control over the events in their lives; if education can persuade a single man not to become a rapist, it seems paramount that this education occur.
Actually that was a pretty good verbal smack down. It doesn’t hurt that I agree that Daniel’s posts have been coming off as pretty condescending in this thread.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of DorknessYes, I think that rapists are men; no, I don’t think they’re genetically programmed to be monsters. I think that events in their lives, coupled with decisions they make, are what make them rapists. We who oppose rape ultimately have no control over the decisions they make, but we do have some control over the events in their lives; if education can persuade a single man not to become a rapist, it seems paramount that this education occur.
[/QUOTE]
And I would like to know what you’re basing this firmly held belief on. Honestly, it seems like you pulled this opinion (and others) out of your ass, and are now asking other posters in this thread to prove you wrong, while refusing to accept their answers and instead relying on self reports from convicted criminals.
I didn’t agree with everything I read there, either. But my primary response would be, humans have an over riding factor called “self awareness.” I would say most non humans do not, and sexuality is not tied in to emotions the way it is with human beings. Also, that same self awareness gives us the ability to determine right from wrong, and control urges that non humans see no need to control.
My apologies as well, for hitting a nerve. I’ve seen a rash of what looks to me like “I wanna cite but I don’t wanna have to make any effort so if you don’t gimme an on-line source RIGHT NOW you’re wrong…” behaviour on the boards and I’m finding it grating. Didn’t particularly have you in mind, now that you mention it…
Betcha don’t have to change your mind very often, do you? Seeing as how you insist on re-inventing the wheel before actually using one? I mean, how else are you going to be sure it works? ( I kid! Really! Well, mostly…)
For many topics, especially complex ones like this, the reference material is not yet on-line. Or if it is, the info’s not available for free.
Please do read “The Evil That Men Do”, by Roy Hazlewood. That’s why I cited it. In it he explains research methodologies, classifications, and summarizes the results of YEARS of interviewing serial rapists and other sexual offenders. Access to these individuals can be and often is highly restricted, due to their danger to the naive or just stupid. As I said, it has an excellent bibliography in the back, but a good chunk of the book is based on first-hand study and interviews. (Third-hand memory of a blanket statement, ouch. I own the book, and have read it several times.)
John Douglas is good, but his assignment was with the BSU proper, and he got the questionable fortune of getting to work primarily with serial killers/bombers/arsonists. Now, according to BOTH Hazlewood and Douglas, serial rapists can become killers, so the lines did cross and recross frequently. But Hazlewood’s primary focus was Sex Crimes, and those don’t always, or even often, end in death.
Wait wait wait. John Douglas and Mark Olshaker’s “The Anatomy of Motive : The FBI’s Legendary Mindhunter Explores the Key to Understanding and Catching Violent Criminals” is pretty good. Although the “Legendary Mindhunter” part just makes me :rolleyes:
I’m pretty sure that Colin Wilson and Donald Seaman get most of their information second-hand - studies of the studies, as it were. Still doesn’t invalidate their conclusions, and Wilson is usually pretty good about documenting his sources.
Dr. Barbara Kirwin also has a couple of comments about rape in her book “The Mad, The Bad, and the Innocent”, but the primary thrust of that book is the art of forensic psychiatry, and how difficult it can be to tell if someone is truly crazy, or if that someone is evil, or if that person innocent. I don’t agree with ALL her conclusions, but the overall direction is good.
The intertwining of sexuality and dominance is another subject again…I’ve only read one book about it, and it was within the context of relationships between consenting persons…but it was eight years ago and I remember neither author nor title. Sorry.
Actually, only the first thing I mentioned was a game. And even then, not much of one, at least in some instances. For example, this happened to me about a million years ago:
Her: Stop. I don’t want to have sex with you.
Me: OK. Can we just cuddle then?
Her: Sure, that’d be nice.
Me: Is it OK if I put my hand here?
Her: I don’t mind at all.
Me: Permission to unzip this, just a little?
Her: Please do. Unzip it all the way if you want.
Etcetera, etcetera. Repeat until screaming orgasms are bouncing off the walls.
I think the “game” she was playing was that she had to be sure I understood that she had limits and that I would respect them. The more I showed I did, the more the limits melted away.
I don’t think that’s such a horrible, deceptive game. In fact I think it’s kind of normal.
I think that’s more normal than “game,” and I wish more guys had that kind of attitude. It reinforces her comfort level and allows it to grow the more she sees you’re willing to respect her boundaries. Much better than smacking away a hand that magically finds its way down your sweater three times after the initial “no.”
I wouldn’t entirely discount accounts by criminals. A good shrink/interviewer can cut through the BS and get to the real story pretty well. Of course, a bad interviewer is just going to get crap, so you gotta know what kind of interviewer you’re dealing with. And I’d bet there are more bad ones than good ones.
( I kid! Really! Well, mostly…)