You’ve made this assertion before in previous threads, but strangely, you never get around to explaining how attributing rape to an overfixation with power is any more damning towards men than attributing it to something as intrinsic to their testoteronic nature as their frickin’ libido is. Hello? This makes sense to you?
And while I have your attention, can you please explain why you’re railing against the feminists when most theories regarding rapists have been produced and promulgated by men? Oh, I get it. We’re supposed to believe that people named Dr. A. Nicholaus Groth and FBI rape profilers Gene Rugala and Roy Hazlewood are really feminazi women posing under masculine pseudonyms. Right! Alternatively, they could be men but self-hating ones who secretely wish they could be women; anything’s possible.
But you know what? These self-hating feminazi men have had infinity times more contact with actual, real-life rapists than most men who post on this board who claim expertise on the subject by virtue of having a dick. Why does your opinion on this subject trump theirs? It’s about as precious as expecting us to discard what a PhD climatologist has to say about athropogenic climate change because “if global warming is happening, gosh darnit why is it so cold outside, huh?” Don’t argue with common sense, right?
And you say this as if you just communicated a completely lucid thought. Wow.
Rape isn’t free. A rapist has to risk getting caught, kicked, maced, and plenty of other things to get what he wants.
If it was all about getting some free sex, it would be easier for him to snatch someone’s purse, take the stolen money, and then buy an hour worth of prostitute time.
The offense is that you think one’s risk of rape is a reflection of the victim’s attractiveness, not their vunerability. The attitudes you have expressed here should have gone extinct a long time ago, when the perceived homeliness of a rape accuser and the status of the man being accused were used as criteria in determining who to believe in court.
Redpill, there are morethan a few womenout there who would disagree with everything you’ve said here.
Those women weren’t raped because they’re hot. They were raped, repeatedly, many of them in front of their children, in order to prove a point. A point about which side now had the power.
Skim those links, then read your line about “coddle, protect and provide for them” again. Then, maybe, you’ll see why we were offended. (Hint: for goodness’ sake, it was not because I took your words to mean I’m not hot enough to be raped.)
Back to the OP for a second.
Every time I hear woman referred to as the ‘fairer sex’, i want to launch into Sojourner Truth’s
“Ain’t I a Woman” speech.
Victim’s attractiveness in the immoral mind of the rapist is the primary motivation, even if she is homely. Everything else comes after.
African women might disagree and take offense with your assessment. They may not be hot in your opinion but during period the crime was being committed, she was physically attractive to the man, or else there wouldn’t be an erection. I’m not saying the attackers not trying to punish those they attack, just that the attacker will have to pick one he likes from the ones lined up.
African men do coddle and protect their women and children as long as they are alive and able to defend against attackers. They don’t just leave them in the village and run into the forest. Get real.
I didn’t call those women not-hot. I just was trying to say that their hotness was irrelevant to the attacks. Old, young, sick, healthy, virginal or already pushed out a buncha kids. Irrelevant.
This.
I am of the feeling that “Rape is about power” is rather an oversimplification. But OTOH suggestions of “She was so hot, I couldn’t help myself” are beyond ridiculous. As is the suggestion that all men can understand or relate to rapists: I can’t.
It’s generally a crime of opportunity by a sociopath. Making yourself less attractive will not make you safer, appearing less vulnerable will.
Absolutely, but lust not power is the primary trigger.
That’s like saying not displaying lots of cash in a crime ridden area at night won’t make you safer, carrying a gun will. Maybe true, just not common sense.
Redpill, you don’t seem to be understanding this connection - the control and display of power is what causes the lust in rapists, not the sexual desirability of the victim.
That isn’t a great analogy, since guns normally must be concealed.
But sure, if we say “Who is most at risk of being mugged: a huge, muscular guy wearing a gold chain or an 8 stone weakling who looks lost and confused wearing a cheap watch?”, the answer is obvious.
That’s because mugging is also a crime of opportunity, not about trying to score the highest prize.
I disagree, I think control and power (and utter lack of morals) enable the lust in the rapist and the victim can take steps to reduce the chance of the rapist picking her instead of others. (Like a wealthy person not showing off assets in a crime ridden area)