Ridiculous man-bashing. Like it or not, they are a great many men who have no particular agenda. Men, including bad men, have motivations that have nothing to do with oppressing women.
Who has said anything oppressing women except you, Trihs?
You forgot to mention the lost weakling wearing a gold chain, but that’s OK I understand.
Why do you think people who have actually interviewed and analyzed rapists, written at length on the subject, and have had advanced training in criminology and psychology seem to approach this subject with more nuance than you do?
Say what? That’s the whole point of claiming that “rape is about power, not lust”. It’s about the idea that men are these demonic things that have no motives beyond oppressing women, not even lust.
I’ve never seen any evidence that the “rape is about power” theory is believed by all or even most such people.
I was wondering that myself. I was talking about what rapists do, not what men do.
Actually it was deliberate and kinda key to my point. I’m saying that mugging being a crime of opportunity, you’re more at risk looking vulnerable with mediocre possessions than looking like a badass with something of value.
What was the OP again?
Because like you said, they are “trained” and selected.
Its a great idea to defer to experts but all experts are not created equal. Its our job to critically analyze the biases. (Remember the Iraq WBD experts, and the pre-housing bubble economy experts?)
So you can reduce risk by either not display your possessions in a risky area or start pumping iron. Which one is more practical?
It was an analogy, Redpill. I’m not telling women to transform into huge, muscular men in order to be more safe (“You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry…”).
It was a point regarding whether being more vulnerable or having a greater “prize” is more significant for crimes of opportunity.
Yeah, I know, that’s your opinon. But it comes off as a hysterical one when that plus illogical conclusions are all you’re bringing to the table.
I mentioned this guy earlier (please note, I said GUY…ergo, not someone who should be automatically written off as a man-hater simply because his theories contradict your beliefs). Roy Hazelwoodis an FBI profiler who has had a career concentrated in sex crimes. He’s one of the lead proponents of categorizing rapists into groups based on their motivations, what’s going in on their heads when they rape, and their relationship with women and other people. Of these six categories, only one–the opportunists–isn’t driven by psychological motivations that have more to do with power, sadism, or a need for approval than the desire to get laid. And of the six categories, only one–the anger-retaliatory types–are lashing out to “oppress women”, which is what you wrongly insist your opponents are saying all rapists/men are. Either a dyfunctional need for power or social approval, psychopathic sadism, or some combination of all three seem to be traits that define most kind of rapists, according to Hazelwood and others.
It seems to be believed by a lot of people who are in the full-time business of researching rapists. Can you name one person with any kind of credibility in criminology who believes what you do? Being a man with an ardently expressed idea or two doesn’t make one an expert in rape.
If rape is about the rapist finding that particular woman sexually arousing, how does that explain the rape of elderly women on the streets or in nursing homes? If we were to investigate the elderly women rapists, would we find gigs of senior citizen porn? Erections can be caused by all manner of things, not all of them sexual. Strong emotions can and do trigger sexual responses–I shudder to think what Redpill will say about the women who experience orgasm during rape. (I’ll tell him right now that she didn’t enjoy the rape, no matter the orgasm).
Thinking that women would resent not being found attractive enough to be raped is fucked up thinking at its finest. Are the men who don’t find women attractive enough to rape then considered latently homosexual? None of it makes sense.
How could rape be about anything but power-immediate power over another human being? If anything, I’d call it the "poor man’s? murder–it’s a lashing out to hurt/control another.
The whole “men are oppressors” POV is just so very twisted, it’s laughable. I know you to have extreme opinions** Der Tris**, but seriously? Truly bizarre.
To the OP: your friend is a sexist tool, no matter how “liberal” he thinks himself. There is nothing inferior about being the “fairer” sex; there is a lot wrong with assuming that that adjective is self-limiting and confining.
Wow. Even I assumed it was about rape. I don’t normally make that type of assumption, so this may be a deeper thing than you think. And, of course it was emotional reasoning when you challenged him on a deeply held belief. People don’t like to admit to being wrong, especially about hings they are passionate about.
I don’t think it’s just availability or attractiveness. I think it’s a mix of both. That being said, how do you explain people having sex with their animals. I mean animals are super gross, right?
Google “granny fuck” or something like that. Have fun. 
I’m pretty sure most of my African neighbours would not be offended by being “passed over”, if that is what you think happens.
Sexual arousal is not dependent on physical attraction. There do exist people who get turned on by the idea of attacking an unwilling, non-consenting indivdual. Arousal comes in many, many forms.
When someone is using their penis as a weapon, do you really think they are looking that closely? They’re just aiming and shooting, period. They see the victim as a recepticle for their aggression/anger/psychoses, nothing more. There’s really no “I like this one, or I like that one” to it. A rapist, in simplest terms, is a bully. And bullies, as we all know, pick the easiest targets, not the prettiest ones.
What about in cases when they use weapons like sticks or in some case fire guns into the vagina? It seems like the object is less to get off and more to cause pain/suffering.
Probably, yes. That’s hardly the rapist norm.
*Rape *isn’t the norm, so I don’t understand why you’d attribute it to normal sexual desires.
Because I’m not interested in demonizing men. I’m not interested in pretending that men all have some sort of intrinsic anti-woman agenda. Nor do I see any reason to assume that rape is such a special crime that no one, nowhere is motivated just selfish lust.
Rape is only not the norm because we are taught to not rape and because the law forbids it, in places where that’s not true it happens all the time. It isn’t some special perversion, it is just ruthless people taking what they want. Just like murder or theft. Men want sex with women, just as they want money and property; some are ruthless enough to take them by force. That does not mean they are part of some conspiracy against women. Do you think that the mugger or purse snatcher who steals from you is also part of the Evil Patriarchal Agenda?
You understand that you sound crazy, right? You’re the only person ranting about the demonization of men. The rest of us just talking about rapists. We correctly identify individual men who get their jollies hurting women as haters of women. I’m sure you’d agree that a woman who gets her jollies hurting men is a hater of men. Hell, apparently all a woman has to do for you to think she hates men is think that it’s not okay or normal to get your jollies hurting women.