These are the exceptions which prove the rule, and they show the opposite of your claim.
The likelihood of a woman being raped is very highly correlated with age of sexual attractiveness.
Thar person’s claim is correct, and your sentence here shows exactly why.
The purpose of the feminist nonsense about rape being all about power and only vaguely related to sex (if that) is revealed in your words here. It’s an effort to shift all responsibility for victimization away from women, by pretending that nothing they could have done would have made any difference.
Assault motivations can vary. But your logic is off.
Saying rape is about sex is not like saying armed robbery is about marksmanship. It’s like saying armed robbery is about money.
Saying rape is all about power is much like saying armed robbery is all about power. (“Hey, how do you explain that armed robbery where the victim was a penniless begger? Huh? Huh?”)
There are people who seem to just use rape for the fact that it causes harm to the other person. It seems to me that, like the pedophile distinctions made above, there are three types of rapists:
…
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Sex runs the gamut from cooperation to persuasion to coercion to forcing to outright violence (where the satisfaction is more in inflicting harm than enjoying sex). It seems to me the same should be true for pedophiles, except for two factors - a child cannot give informed consent, so cooperation or persuasion is still a crime, and a child is much more susceptible to strong persuasion and coercion due to the imbalance of power - but the same applies, informed consent does not exist.
I also think that with the phrase “incapacitated people unconscious in their beds getting raped” IvoryTowerDenizen is showing a bit of the classic female “tin ear” for the sexual feelings men experience. An unconscious hot girl is still a hot girl.
That is an exercise of power, though, which is not to say lust isn’t a factor.
In general, as someone who is capable of jerking off, I find the idea that a significant portion of rapes are purely about lust improbable – which, again, is not to say it isn’t involved.
I … can’t tell if you’re being serious here. “Only a wacky man-hating feminist would think to blame rapists for rape!”
While “pedophiliac” is technically more accurate than using “pedophile,” sometimes etymology is just not relevant to the current definition of a word. The word terrific, for example, came from a Latin word that meant “frightening,” and, sure enough, during the early twentieth century it was pretty much a synonym for horrific. But the word had undergone pejoration and now has a positive definition.
For this reason, using pedophile instead is acceptable. Pedophile doesn’t mean someone who likes kids in a similar way that a bibliophile likes books. Rather, it is used as the noun for a person with pedophilia.
But aside from what I rectified, you are very much correct. Pedophilia is just the attraction to prepubescent children (emphasis on prepubescent; different from hebephilia and ephebophilia), and they cannot help having these feelings in the same way a homosexual can’t help being attracted to those of the same sex. Pedophilia is the attraction; child molestation and/or rape is the act. And while they may conflate, these are not automatically the same thing. Yes, there have been child sex offenders with pedophilia, BUT there are offenders who don’t have pedophilia.
In response to the original question, though, yes, there are pedophiles who have fallen in love with children. But this does not automatically mean that the pedophile had approached the child sexually, making the child a victim of child molestation, since there are pedophiles who don’t want to grievously harm/emotionally scar children.
Of course, for the pedophiles who do wrongfully act on their urges, they have tried to justify that the relationship is based on mutual love, whether it is to convince the authorities or themselves or both.
Sweetie, feminists don’t deny people (men and women) have feelings; what they do deny is that anyone over the age of four is incapable of controlling their actions in response to feelings in order to avoid cause pain and harm to other people.
Not to mention that most men don’t actually think lusting after and raping unconscious women is anything other than the act of a pervert. It borders on necrophilia and bears little to no resemblance to a normal sex act with a willing partner. Might as well buy a sex doll and skip all the tedious drugging and legal problems.
I met some self-admitted pedophiles, back in the '80s. They claimed that their feelings of love were mutual, even claiming that it was the kids who initiated the interactions. You know, “kids today are so sophisticated, they know exactly what they want and how to get it.” Nowhere was there a sense that the relationships were harmful to the kids, but rather, loving and nurturing. :rolleyes:
While this is true, sometimes access is more important that pure attractiveness. And sometimes rape is more about the violence than about the attraction.
Hold on - the responsibility for victimization lies firmly and fully upon the attacker. Crime rests upon the criminal.
Now it is reasonable to acknowledge the reality that crime exists and consider your personal circumstances and safety and determine if there are any efforts you can take to minimize your risks. But none of that removes all culpability from the perpetrator. Victims are victims.
And a rapist asshole is still a rapist asshole. “She was hot” is never a justification.
And as mentioned, participatory sex is a different experience than a nonresponsive lump.
And the “rape the unconscious” or “drug to incapacitation” rapist will likely deny they are rapists, too. “It’s okay, we were flirting and then she passed out. That means she consented, right?”
People might try to steal smaller amounts of money if it’s more feasible than stealing large amounts of money.
To try to use this to prove that the motivation of theft is not money is idiotic.
Once you get to “sometimes” I can’t argue with you. That may well be true. I’m addressing a position which maintains that the primary motivation for rape is something other than sex.
I agree with all that.
But the thing is that this is slightly more complex and less black-and-white than just saying that the victim’s actions had zero to do with it. So for this reason, people who are very focused on stamping out any possible notion that anyone could ever “blame” the victim for the crime occurring prefer to claim that rape is about power and dominance and the like, so as to have this lack of blame be more clear-cut.
If you walk down the street in a bad area of town counting the $1,000 you just took out of the ATM, you are stupid. That does not mean the guy who mugged you is any less guilty or that this should be considered “mitigating circumstances” in his sentencing.
The counterpoint to this is that in 99.999% of rapes, the victim is dressed no more or less “provocatively” than anyone else around and none of the others were victims; and on the beach, where (some) women wear skimpy bikinis, rape is no more common (probably less common) than other locales. So “She was asking for it by dressing/acting that way” is pretty irrelevant as a justification or condemnation.
As for whether children “ask for it” or are aggressors… OK, maybe I lived a sheltered childhood, but I don’t recall any interest in trying out the mechanical details until after puberty, even though I was well aware of the mechanics - I had older brothers who updated me on the details and it was possible to peruse my dad’s copies of Playboy on the sly. I don’t remember any girls my same age coming on to me either. I’m more inclined to believe that it’s probably more likely a result of molestation for the vast majority of any apparently “receptive” under-age victims - or more likely, the predator sees what he wants to see when allegedly interpreting signals. The big problem is that children are very prone to suggestion and doing what they think adults, with their apparent authority, expect them to do.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that “in 99.999% of rapes, the victim is dressed no more or less “provocatively” than anyone else around and none of the others were victims” or did you just make it up to support your theory?
As I’ve noted previously in this thread, the likelihood of a given woman being raped is highly correlated to the ages of sexual attractiveness. This is a strong argument that sex is a big part of the motivation for rapes. What have you got?
never said it was not. There is a social trope that women bring it on themselves by dressing provocatively, but in all the cases I’ve read about, there was no comparison (“She was the only one with tight pants”, “she was dressed more provocatively than anyone else at the party”) Indeed, in any of the news reports I recall, there was nothing about dress that really indicated a reason for rape - other than the standard 60-year-old male judge who seemed to think every 16-year-old today dresses like a hooker.
Googling inappropriate judge comments lead mainly to this case:
for example, where an elderly white male judge seems to think that the victim is at fault for not stopping her attacker - so she must have wanted it.
There’s this, a woman judge in this case: the victim had had sex, had given birth, therefore was no the victim she claimed to be…
yet in all the stories I search like this, not once is the “provocative” comment backed up by facts - by the assertion, even by the judge, that the victim was dressed more provocatively than most others in the setting. The victim just happened to be… in a situation where the assailant thought he could get away with it. I presume the judge simply sees the evidence of the victim as she appeared in the social setting without the context and applies their 1950’s morals to the overall situation.
I will agree with you, the more likely the victim is “appealing” the more likely they get raped. Grannies do get raped, but the majority of victims are, ass you put it, correlated to age of sexual attractiveness. I suspect too, an incentive for rape is the fact that many times the victims are unlikely to report it - particularly if the circumstances are the least bit questionable or lack of consent is hard to prove.
Exactly. It’s a trope that is repeated, often to disparage that some Neanderthals hold the view that the choice of clothing means “they were asking for it” - but can you think of one single case in the news where the victim was in fact dressed more provocatively than her peers for the social setting where the offense occurred? I read the news fairly regularly, and I haven’t. I recall a case many years ago where the judge was called out for noting that a 13-year-old victim was “very well developed for her age” but that goes to sexual appeal, not clothing. Google doesn’t find me a case either.