So I just found an article interviewing a man who is willing to corroborate one of the victim’s stories. He claims he received an urgent call from the woman in an apparently drugged state and had to go to Cosby’s house to retrieve her.
I’m curious what, if any, impact this story has on the skeptic’s view.
And here I was all out of the thread, like a good minded little girl. Woe, is me. Looks like using Google (your friend, yanno), I think you’d only be owed less than a $10 spot, but maybe that’s make you rich. So, go you! But as an aside, remember… accuracy is key. We at the Dope fight ignorance and all that. 
On another note, no, you’re not on my ignore list. Why? I don’t know who in the hell you are. I only reserve that special privilege for the lowest of low fucktards, do you hang with them? Aspire to be one? If not, I got no beef with you. Instead, if this post is any indication, you’re totally hilarious.
Eh, so someone did aim that at me? Bwahahahaha! I’ve been called worse, by much better. And if it was Strangling Tubist that did it, my work here is complete. Life is good.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but it was too late to edit: I really think I’ll lay off the old coot now. It really must suck to be him and there’s never anything said that could be worse than that. So, have at it and no more funny quips that draw me back into this cesspool. My sides can’t take all the laughing.
Might want to put that in the actual Cosby thread.
Done. I quite forgot all about that thread. 
It is, I think, less insulting to faithfool - who presumably doesn’t need to be much concerned with the aesthetic opinions of a guy desperately clinging to relevance he probably never had who has never even seen her in person - than it is to her friends, and to men in general. It implies sort of overall that the reason a given man isn’t a rapist is that his available targets just aren’t hot enough, which is… it’s kind of weird, isn’t it? Do you think that? Because I have some female acquaintances and friends who I consider unattractive, and some that I consider attractive, and some that I consider exceptionally hot… and I’ve considered raping the same proportion of women from each group. YMMV… but I kind of hope it doesn’t.
None if any. Like truthers, birthers, and Holocaust deniers they’re aggressively in denial of reality.
“it” means “the rationale for treating ‘too ugly to rape’ as some uniquely abhorent insult”.
It sounds from what you’re saying that you might not be a rapist, which is good to know. But if we’re discussing people who actually are rapists, then it could make a difference, and your own considerations when you contemplate raping your friends would not apply to such people.
I’m aware that there is a school of thought which maintains that rape is not about sex but all about power, but this is nonsense, especially in the case of date rape, and stats show that women at younger ages are far more likely to be raped than older women. But even if it were not so, it would not be insulting to all men to assume that it is.
In sum, suggesting that an unattractive woman is less likely to be raped is not any sort of implication that this is the only reason why any “given man” is not out there raping away. It does not imply this “sort of overall” or any other sort of way. It’s just a plain old logical error.
Here’s how I understand the “rape is about power, not about sex” thing: Rape, including date-rape, is about rape – rapists don’t rape because they want sex, they rape because they want to rape. They rape because they get sexual and/or other kinds of satisfaction from raping a woman (or a man) – satisfaction that they don’t get from having consensual sex. Some rapists probably get this satisfaction from the act of forcing a woman (or a man) to do his (or her) sexual bidding, or degrade themselves; some from drugging and raping an unconscious/semi-conscious woman (or man); some from threats of violence or other harm to compel a woman (or man); etc.
Bullshit. Just utter, utter bullshit.
Now wait, let’s let Mr F-P tell us how potential rapists think…
This could be true in some cases and not in others (particularly date rape cases, as noted).
But even if that were not true, and all rapes were of the sort that you describe, the context here is about whether a woman’s attractiveness is a factor in the likelihood of her being raped. Once you grant - as you do - that sexual satisfaction is a part of it, even if in some perverse rape-sex way, then attractiveness plays a role.
But I don’t think that’s correct, any more than it would be correct to say
‘Robbery, including bank robbery, is about robbery - robbers don’t rob because they want money, they rob because they want to rob.’
Sometimes? Yes. Always or usually? No.
The general breakdown of rape motivation that I learned is
[ul][li]Opportunity[/li][li]Power/dominance[/li][li]Reassurance[/li][li]Sexual sadism[/ul][/li]“Opportunity” is the most common, and includes date rape. The guy sees an an opportunity - on a date, burglarizing a home and finding a woman there alone, etc. - and, because he doesn’t think consent is a necessary part of sex, he rapes. Obviously someone is badly fucked in the head if he thinks consent is unnecessary, but this type of rape is closest to being motivated by sex.
“Power/dominance” is more rare. It is the person who rapes to assert himself as alpha. Many prison rapes are like this. It is (IMO) less accurate to characterize this kind of rape as motivated by a desire for sex - it is the assertion that is wanted.
“Reassurance” is related to power/dominance. It is the man who rapes to reinforce in his own mind that he is capable of sex and therefore of being masculine. It doesn’t usually work - about half of all rapes are unsuccessful in that they do not achieve penetration, and about half of the rest, the rapist cannot ejaculate (for a variety of reasons).
Sexual sadism is the last and rarest form of rapist, and also the most dangerous. This is the kind of guy who can’t get it up with a consenting partner, and needs sado-masochism and rape.
Opportunity rapes by strangers are easiest to prevent, with good locks and traditional advice like “don’t hitchhike or get drunk in public”, and are easiest to escape. A study at (I believe) the University of Minnesota of sex offenders found that if they accosted a woman and she ran away, most of the time they didn’t even bother to chase her. They were sure that they would find another woman sooner or later who would freeze.
Power/dominance and reassurance rapists can be deterred by delay - the longer it takes to subdue the woman, the longer the rapist has to consider that he cannot quickly subdue a woman, which he has taught himself to look down on as weak, and therefore to lose confidence or interest.
Sexual sadists are the most dangerous. This kind of guy is nearly always a repeat rapist, and the struggle and screaming is what he wants. He will often try to kidnap the woman to get her to what he considers a safe place to assault her. Which is why, if he points a gun at you and says “Get in the car” your first response ought to be to run like hell. It is also one reason why serial sex killers target prostitutes - it is unfortunately easy to get a hooker into your car.
The notion “rape isn’t about sex” is, IMO, not generally true.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see how this changes things – a rapist chooses to rape an attractive woman not because he wants to have sex with an attractive woman, but because he wants to rape an attractive woman.
I think rape is a very different sort of crime.
But the opportunity is to rape, not for sex – since (presumably) the act of raping is a sexual turn off for the majority of men, the only ones who rape are the ones left for whom it’s a turn on, or for whom it’s neutral plus they have no moral compunctions about it.
Since most rapists don’t just rape once, or just a few times, from what I understand, I think it’s reasonable to assume that most “opportunity” rapists commit rape because that’s the kind of sex that they want. So it’s sort of motivated by sex, but not normal sex – rape-sex. They want a specific type of sex – rape.
This would seem to reinforce the idea that what they’re searching for is rape, not just an opportunity for sex.
It’s certainly complicated, but I think this phrase is short-hand for “rape is not, for the most part, about men whose desire is simply to have sex, and they choose to rape because this is an easy/convenient way for them to have sex”. Rather, it’s, for the most part, about men whose desire is not simply to have sex, but rather to commit rape – they want rape-sex.
I would hesitate to generalize even that much.
I think Shodan’s post is spot on. There are folks who truly get off on the raping part, and there are folks who really don’t care, rape is just a means to an end (sexual gratification.) There are premeditated rapists like the knife-weilding street criminal, and there are ‘‘heat of the moment’’ rapists like the guy in crucible’s hypothetical.
While ALL rape is bad, the actual motive behind the act could be wildly different depending on the circumstances.
You need to remember the context of this discussion.
We’re discussing whether the concept of “too ugly to rape” makes sense. Per your position, it does, because a man who “wants to rape an attractive woman” would be less interested in the “too ugly to rape woman”.
[This began when storyteller0910 claimed that the notion that a woman could be “too ugly to rape” implies “that the reason a given man isn’t a rapist is that his available targets just aren’t hot enough”. Almost too stupid for words, but I addressed it anyway.]
It might, unless of course the rapist preferred to rape an unattractive woman.
I object to the “too ugly to rape” insult too, but I think for a different reason – it’s misogynistic, in my view, because it implies the value of a woman is tied to her sexual attractiveness.
Right. I’m not sure what the point of this observation was, but OK.
This is not logical.
Do you apply this standard to all insults?