I was once discussing lucid dreaming with a coworker. He told me he’d lucid dreamed once, and conjured up a beautiful woman. “And since I knew I was dreaming, I did what we’d all do.” “What was that?” I asked.
“I raped her,” he replied.
Single most disturbing conversation I’ve ever had about women with a guy. I distanced myself completely from him from that moment on.
(Prior to this he had also told me about being on a packed train and a female stranger rubbing herself against him until he ejaculated, but now suspect this was either a fantasy, or he in fact rubbed himself against an unwilling or unwitting victim.)
I’m not answering the poll because I simply don’t know how many other people would be like this. And I strongly suspect I don’t want to.
MrDibble, first off, let me say that I did not intend my earlier comment as a slander on your company. I hope you did not take it as such, and if you did I apologize.
That said…
Er…so what? Common refers to frequency, not absolute number. And I’d say four times the frequency definitely qualifies as far more common.
According to this site, Tennessee’s forcible rape rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2002 was 39.6, versus 121.6 in your citation. You do have a point, though.
And you have a point here as well.
My point was that the proportion of men who’d feel that rape is an acceptable behavior is going to vary considerably according to the environment. Which, I expect, is also your point.http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm
I do not believe the majority of men are rapists, but no way do I believe that the percentage of women being raped are all being raped by the same few men. It’s higher than what we probably think.
This poll reminds me of a conversation between my ex-fiance and a friend of his when I was 19ish. They were watching some movie where a knight grabbed some chick in the woods and dragged her (screaming) into the bushes.
His friend said “Wouldn’t it have been great to live back then? If you wanted a woman, you just took her.”
My ex said “Call me weird but when I’m having sex with a woman I like to think she’s thinking ABOUT me and not how to get away from me.”
I’ve never regarded that claim as anything other than ideological; it doesn’t hold up logically. For example; consider a ruthless man who wants sex, and finds a particular woman attractive, but has no particular issues with power and women. The “rape is only about power” position means that no matter how ruthless he is, no matter how much he wants sex with that woman, no matter how easily he can get away with it - he’ll never rape her because he isn’t interested in gender politics.
Most rape - especially acquaintance rape - is about power the same way that burglary is about power and robbery is about power. In other words, not at all. It’s a means to an end. I am fairly certain that most robbers and burglars would rather just be given $10,000 or a gold watch than have to go to the trouble of forcibly obtaining it, and I’m fairly certain that most rapists would rather have a woman willingly submit to them that go to the trouble of raping her. Just like most men fucking each other in jail would probably rather be fucking a woman. I’m sure there is a small minority who get off on the act of the rape, in the dominance or sadism of it, but I think for the majority it is a means to an end.
I don’t know whether this meets the ‘ideal circumstances’ of the OP, but I think the number is probably over 80% when you add peer pressure … just look at the behaviour of armies in warzones when law and order breaks down.
The American and British troops advancing East across Europe in 1945 committed huge numbers of rapes, as did the Germans and the Russians during the war.
By similar reasoning, under the right conditions, almost all humans will
[ol]
[li]cheer on the gang rape of someone[/li][li]stand by whilst others are tortured[/li][li]take part in ethnic genocide[/li][/ol]
So I don’t think the rape idea is unusually troubling. It’s just part of human tribal nature.
That just reaffirms what I said. Scum who rape are extremely self centered.
Rape is about power. The rapist is using his prick to hurt and wound, and welid power.
It’s basicly he’s saying " Fuck you" to the rape victim
naah, none taken, I’m aware of the shitty bits of where I live (I take it you meant “country”, not “company”).
ETA: Otherwise, you’re right, was just pointing out that on a scale, the US comes second after the shocking SA stats, so I’m not convinced the difference is in men’s mentality as much as it is just what people can get away with in a quasi-third-world country vs a first world one.
I find it interesting that the OP and subsequent discussion pretty much (not exclusively, but to a large extent) ignores the motivation of the rapist.
Surely the “ideal circumstances” should have as one of the elements “A reason, either general or specific, to want to hurt or humiliate the victim”. I think if you recast the question with that element you’ll get a different answer. One of the main inhibitory factors in the original scenario is “Why the heck would most men want to engage in sex with an unwilling partner?” They don’t get anything out of it that they wouldn’t from sex with a willing partner, except a load of disgust and guilt.
This is a valid series of disjoint observations that add up to a pretty distinct point–I wonder if there’s really two rates we need to worry about here.
That is, it seems like there’s one rate of rape that applies to the “rape as sex”/“rape as crime” motivation that happens in an orderly society–this rate is at least not frighteningly high, and basically encompasses the tiny fraction of guys who are capable of getting off when the woman involved is struggling or resigned/forced. And there’s another rate of rape, that might well approach 80-100% of men, that applies to the “rape as power” motivation and encompasses a lot of gang rape, rape by armies of the women of occupied or hostile countries, and rape by severely oppressed groups acting out in order to try to gain some measure of personal power for themselves–in many cases perpetrated by a feeling of peer pressure and “that bitch deserves it” and the idea that rape is the “worst thing” you can do to a woman. Those latter feelings on that list were stated as a motivation for rape in many accounts of modern soldiers (especially in WWII, on all sides) that I’ve seen–the idea that a woman in an enemy country needed to be punished because her husband may well have been a soldier and she therefore supported the war effort.
Ignoring the motivation of the man in question is purposeful and necessary for a meaningful poll. Here’s why.
Let’s take Diogenes the Cynic as an example. (And I hope he will forgive me for doing so.) I’m fairly certain that for him, no reason to want to hurt or humiliate the victim would suffice to cause him to rape. Dio’s posting history, as well as his specific statements in this thread, make it clear that he likes women in general and finds the idea of having sex with an unwilling, frightened, or coerced woman, however attractive she might be, the very opposite of arousing. Thus there is no set of circumstances in which he’s going to be able to commit a rape, much less willing.
By contrast, take the miserable fuckwit I spoke about in this threada few years back–the one who divided women into two or three categories, one of which was “rape-able.” I daresay that, except for being heterosexual, he was Dio’s polar opposite. I expect that he liked the idea of a woman begging him to stop fucking her.
I haven’t read all the comments so maybe this was covered. There’s a really wide range of activities that meet the legal definition of ‘rape’. Some men commit date rape and are not aware of it. Some women become convinced after the fact that a sex act was rape (and I’m not suggesting that this delayed recognition means they are wrong). A woman who has consented to one form of sex may still be raped if the man switches to another form without her consent–she might not even have a chance to say ‘no’ before the deed is done.
Statutory rape is a whole different ball game–if you’re asking what percentage of men would have sex with a willing 17-year-old (who can not legally consent) I’m sure the percentage would be much higher than for a jump-out-of-the-bushes sexual assault.
Also in case it hasn’t been covered, the ability of the man to sexually perform does not have any bearing on the question of whether a rape has occurred.
I have a pretty dim view of humanity, but I don’t think that very many men would rape even if they thought they could get away with it. Like with any other crime—particularly violent crime—a minority of the people cause most of the trouble.
If you look at the statistics, even the shocking ones, and actually think about what they mean you can’t possibly believe that a high percentage of men would rape. The highest stat mentioned in this thread is 121.6/100,000. What is that expressed as a percentage? 0.1216%
Even assuming a unique offender for each and every rape, and multiplying that by 10 to give a ridiculous buffer for under-reporting the crime, you barely edge over 1%. Even if you slice and dice the demographics and exclude everyone below and above a 20 year age bracket, you’re not going to get more than single-digit percentages of offenders. Saying that 50% of men would rape if given the chance is beyond hyperbolic; it defies any real-world basis.
Actually, the* highest *stat mentioned in this thread is a direct percentage figure for number of men who have raped in a particular country - 25% in South Africa. But your number’s a per-annum figure.
1/10 is not a ridiculous buffer considering opinions vary from 61% to 95% unreported.
In SA, this would be a mistake - 75% of that 25% start before age 20.
Per year. Multiply that by the…let’s call it total-possible-rapist-lifetime, say… and you’re talking real numbers.
It jibes exactly with my experience of both men as a gender, and the real world, actually. If 25% of men do it in a country which, while fairly shitty, still actually has a police force and courts and shit, my estimation of who would do it without those limits (as per the OP’s “ideal case”) is at least double that. Unless you make the argument that the number of rapists in SA is already at its upper limit for the male psyche, which is a possibility but doesn’t jibe with the existence of men who say they would rape if limits were not there, but don’t now.
Another point - one argument here is that a small % of men are raping more than their fair share. Again, that doesn’t jibe with my experience. In SA, at least, but also in other countries like Bosnia, Rwanda, etc, a lot of the rape documented is gang rape. So that means the numbers skew in the opposite direction. I mean, I’ve been raped twice, by 2 different guys at different times, but that means for my 1 victim, you have 2 perpetrators. Yes, those may have committed multiple rapes too, but the usual gang rape is a lot more than 2 guys, IME. They’d have to be at it full-time to account for the inequality.
+1 I guess that since the average person (first world) has Always lived in peaceful times with no civil unrest its easy to think that we dont all have a dark side. It doesn’t take very much to have looting and killing so I imagine raping is in there too. No i wouldnt do it and yes I would be protecting all I could. I just think we would have some shocked Dopers at just how fast it would go all to hell.