International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324594)

dann 9th November 2017 09:07 AM

What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?
 
In order to avoid derailing the Kevin-Spacey thread, I'm starting a new one devoted to this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 12068784)
I'm going to make the assumption that you're straight and ask if you have the same difficulty comprehending those who are attracted to their own sex?

You assume correctly, but no, I have no more difficulty comprehending men who are attracted to men than I have comprehending women who are attracted to men! (And please don't tell me again that there are an awful lot of these cases, also in history!) So in a way, I find it much easier to comprehend lesbians: We are turned on by women! :)

And in this case (that is: ordinary sexual attraction and desire), Darwinian explanations make sense: it helps procreation if the act that results in offspring is enjoyable to the extent of ecstasy. And it helps bring up that offspring if the partners remain attracted to each other, i.e. love. That homosexuality doesn't result in procreation doesn't bother me. Nature sometimes works in mysterious ways. And I think that people who are bothered by this, "Unnatural!", resort to this pseudo-Darwinian argument, not because it's unnatural (which, of course it isn't since you find it all over the animal kingdom), but because they are against gays for different reasons and just use nature as an excuse the same way others use the Bible.

Quote:

I don't really think there's much of an explanation for taste. Well, there probably is, but it's likely to be neurological and complex and difficult to explain.

I think, perhaps, it's easier to comprehend kinks in others when one has kinks oneself. Sexual relationships aren't always symmetrical so, in order to, for instance, to get a thrill out of spanking someone, one has to be able to understand that someone is capable of getting a thrill out of being spanked while having no desire whatsoever to be on the receiving end of same.
Now, I think that it would be a good idea to distinguish between taste and kinks. They don't appear to be the same thing at all. (And I also find the question of different tastes rather uninteresting: I don't like cheese, for instance, but I really don't know why I don't, and I also don't care. Maybe a geneticist will someday discover the different genetic makeup of cheese lovers and cheese haters, but I won't buy the book.)

But unlike you, I think that there is much to be explained when we are talking about sexual kinks: I don't think that there is a bicycle-seat-sniffing gene, a necrophilia gene, a nylon-stocking gene or a masochism gene, and I doubt that being into one of these things will make it easier to understand the others. Why should it?
And some of these aren't that hard to understand with a little effort: Fetishes are often associated with the desired sex or body parts: bicycle seats, for instance, so if you believe that you cannot get nearer to the object of your desire you transfer your desire to the inanimate object.
And in the fantasy world of sado-masochism, the masochists are 'liberated' from being responsible and in charge of their own desires (really a contradiction in terms: tied down and free!), they don't have to feel guilty about sex (as you're supposed to if you are good Xians), and sadists don't have to fear the humiliation of rejection: their fantasy is one of being in total control (also a contradiction in terms, in as far as sex is usually a question of letting go of control).

But the sadists are different from sexual offenders like Spacey: They seem to want their partners to be consensual, they want them not only to like but to desire what is going all: their role-playing games.
The Spaceys, the Cosbys, the Weinsteins, the O'Reillys etc. don't really seem to care about this, and they may even be turned on by the unwillingness of their partners.

And that is the thing that I find difficult to understand: The sado-masochists are playing a game of unwillingness, but it is pretense and everybody appears to be aware of that.

But how can anybody enjoy to have sex with an unwilling partner?!
(And please don't tell me about the numerous historical cases! I know, I know!)

I also don't understand why so many people seem to find the explanation perfectly natural that this is how people (or at least men) behave when they are positioned so far above everybody else that they no longer have to care about how other people feel.
I can see why a celebrity surrounded by admiring and willing sex partners might feel tempted to 'stray', but that only makes it so much harder to understand why they would then resort to drugging or in other ways coercing or downright forcing people to commit sexual acts that they don't want to be a part of.
I don't see what's the 'fun' in that …

My original question in the Kevin Spacey thread

theprestige 9th November 2017 09:15 AM

Tell me why you don't understand the attraction some people have for it, and I'll tell you why they have the attraction.

dann 9th November 2017 09:22 AM

I have already told you what I don't understand, including a couple of examples of things that I find easier to understand. I don't understand your "why"?

Roboramma 9th November 2017 09:29 AM

Have you considered the possibility that some people just want to have sex with particular people, and whether those people are willing partners or not doesn't affect their desire to have sex with them?

John Jones 9th November 2017 09:32 AM

I don't, although Roboramma may be on to something

theprestige 9th November 2017 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069160)
I have already told you what I don't understand, including a couple of examples of things that I find easier to understand. I don't understand your "why"?

I know you already told us what. That's why I didn't ask what. Let's all move beyond what.

Why don't you understand the attraction some people have for sexual coercion? Is there something in your nature or nurture that blocks your understanding of this?

Some other ways to look at the question:

It's basically bullying. Do you not understand the attraction of bullying in general? Or is it just bullying with a sexual component that you don't understand?

Also, your question is presented as a rant fueled by personal incredulity. But I think what you're basically saying is, there's probably a psychological or sociological cause for this kind of attraction. You don't know what the cause is, but you assume it's there, and you'd like to try to find it and understand it if possible.

Is that about right?

dann 9th November 2017 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12069176)
Have you considered the possibility that some people just want to have sex with particular people, and whether those people are willing partners or not doesn't affect their desire to have sex with them?

Considered, yes, but I don't think that's the case. A similar theory existed about rape a long time ago: Rapists wanted to have sex, that's all, but since they hadn't succeeded to have sex with a consensual partner, they would rape somebody instead. However, nowadays the consensus seems to be that rape is more about power than about sex. That many rapists are married seems to confirm that view. Also, if they don't care if a partner is into them or not, an alternative would be to go to a prostitute. Instead they rape, which seems to indicate that what turns them on isn't sex but rape.
Drug rape is also odd: People usually prefer a partner who is active (or at least conscious). Sex with a person who's drugged seems to come close to necrophilia. (And IIRC, that's how Jeffrey Dahmer started.)

By the way, I find your "just" a little weird.

Imhotep 9th November 2017 11:13 AM

It's combining pleasure and power. The strong controlling the weak. The suffering of the victim provides additional pleasure to the perpetrator in an instinctual/primal way, I believe.

Belz... 9th November 2017 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imhotep (Post 12069312)
It's combining pleasure and power. The strong controlling the weak. The suffering of the victim provides additional pleasure to the perpetrator in an instinctual/primal way, I believe.

There's also the possibility, mentioned earlier, that they simply want people who don't want them back, and use force to get what they want: sex.

dann 9th November 2017 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12069184)
I know you already told us what. That's why I didn't ask what. Let's all move beyond what.

Why don't you understand the attraction some people have for sexual coercion? Is there something in your nature or nurture that blocks your understanding of this?

I'm sorry, but I think that the why is a silly question, which you make sillier by bringing nature/nurture into it: That I don't understand does not imply that I am genetically or sociologically incapable of understanding, only that I don't do so yet. But if it's because you find my lack of understanding unnatural, it might be a stepping stone towards understanding if you could tell me what is supposed to be natural about the Spacey (etc.) attitude to sex.

Quote:

Some other ways to look at the question:

It's basically bullying.
I don't think it is. If you mean that somebody exerts power over somebody else in both cases, then I think that you're right, but I fear that bringing bullying into it will only confuse the attempt at clarification.

Quote:

Do you not understand the attraction of bullying in general? Or is it just bullying with a sexual component that you don't understand?
Very often bullying seems to be about securing your position in a pecking order. It seems to occur mainly in groups, not in one-to-one relationships. (But, of course, exerting power over someone does exist, in and out of bed.)

Quote:

Also, your question is presented as a rant fueled by personal incredulity. But I think what you're basically saying is, there's probably a psychological or sociological cause for this kind of attraction. You don't know what the cause is, but you assume it's there, and you'd like to try to find it and understand it if possible.

Is that about right?
No, not quite. It's probably more a question of empathically understanding - which I know is a weird concept in this case. I think that I am able to empathize with both sadists and masochists (see OP), i.e. to understand what they get out of their 'kink', and I do so without finding their attitude to sex appealing. This then enables me to consider what might have caused this attitude. But in the case of forcing/coercing people to have sex, statistics about the correlation between abusive parents and predatory sexual habits wouldn't help me understand the phenomenon itself. I think …
(I suspect that it is probably psychological rather than sociological or genetic, but I'm not sure.)

dann 9th November 2017 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imhotep (Post 12069312)
It's combining pleasure and power. The strong controlling the weak. The suffering of the victim provides additional pleasure to the perpetrator in an instinctual/primal way, I believe.

What would make it instinctual? I know that you can find analogous behavior in the animal kingdom, but still … It also wouldn't explain how the alleged primal instincts would be transformed into human consciousness and concepts.
The reciprocity of the sexual act seems to be how we humans usually enjoy having sex so how do you go from that to the (apparently) complete lack of empathy?

The Great Zaganza 9th November 2017 11:35 AM

All I can think of is that such people have given up on getting a willing partner and are evoking some primitive right to take what they want as reward for their perceived status.

theprestige 9th November 2017 11:42 AM

You're looking for an explanation that will help you empathize with sexual bullies?

dann 9th November 2017 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12069357)
All I can think of is that such people have given up on getting a willing partner and are evoking some primitive right to take what they want as reward for their perceived status.


That idea seems to go against the consensus - I also find it hard to believe - but one researcher seems to think so (at least in the case of rape): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes..._gratification

dann 9th November 2017 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12069367)
You're looking for an explanation that will help you empathize with sexual bullies?


What is called cognitive empathy (Wiki):
Quote:

Cognitive empathy: the capacity to understand another's perspective or mental state. The terms cognitive empathy and theory of mind or mentalizing are often used synonymously, but due to a lack of studies comparing theory of mind with types of empathy, it is unclear whether these are equivalent.
It doesn't say sympathize! :)

Imhotep 9th November 2017 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069346)
What would make it instinctual? I know that you can find analogous behavior in the animal kingdom, but still … It also wouldn't explain how the alleged primal instincts would be transformed into human consciousness and concepts.
The reciprocity of the sexual act seems to be how we humans usually enjoy having sex so how do you go from that to the (apparently) complete lack of empathy?

Yeah that's the complex part of it.

It's more easily explained for someone that has a complete lack of empathy, such as a sociopath. They just simply enjoy it this way more.

People that have some empathy would most likely feel some guilt after the act, but not having tied those thoughts of union and loving etc. to the act in the way you described, they would not necessarily experience any empathy for the victim during the act - and if they did, it would be overpowered by the primal desires.

I don't know how to explain what makes it instinctual. Genetics passed down from dominant males with little empathy, I would suppose. They would have had lots of offspring.

The Great Zaganza 9th November 2017 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069377)
That idea seems to go against the consensus - I also find it hard to believe - but one researcher seems to think so (at least in the case of rape): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes..._gratification

I'm probably wrong.
But people who presume to have the right to force themselves on others automatically presume that the other person doesn't have a right to refuse them. That is either because they consider themselves very worthy or the other person very unworthy (using derogatory and demeaning terms for them, examples of which probably won't make it through the forum censor).

theprestige 9th November 2017 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069392)
What is called cognitive empathy (Wiki):

It doesn't say sympathize! : )

I understand what empathy is. I never said sympathize.

Again: You're looking for an explanation that will help you empathize with sexual bullies?

ponderingturtle 9th November 2017 12:21 PM

Here is the thing, a lot of rapists have no idea they are rapists. Freezing up is a very common reaction to this sort of violation and so they just go on and have sex and their partner just lays there. Maybe bad sex but they wouldn't know it was rape.

Here is a story of a rapist who did not realize he was asking for legal advice on how to get away with rape.

https://archive.is/ZnMKo

mgidm86 9th November 2017 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069131)
In order to avoid derailing the Kevin-Spacey thread, I'm starting a new one devoted to this question.



You assume correctly, but no, I have no more difficulty comprehending men who are attracted to men than I have comprehending women who are attracted to men! (And please don't tell me again that there are an awful lot of these cases, also in history!) So in a way, I find it much easier to comprehend lesbians: We are turned on by women! :)

And in this case (that is: ordinary sexual attraction and desire), Darwinian explanations make sense: it helps procreation if the act that results in offspring is enjoyable to the extent of ecstasy. And it helps bring up that offspring if the partners remain attracted to each other, i.e. love. That homosexuality doesn't result in procreation doesn't bother me. Nature sometimes works in mysterious ways. And I think that people who are bothered by this, "Unnatural!", resort to this pseudo-Darwinian argument, not because it's unnatural (which, of course it isn't since you find it all over the animal kingdom), but because they are against gays for different reasons and just use nature as an excuse the same way others use the Bible.



Now, I think that it would be a good idea to distinguish between taste and kinks. They don't appear to be the same thing at all. (And I also find the question of different tastes rather uninteresting: I don't like cheese, for instance, but I really don't know why I don't, and I also don't care. Maybe a geneticist will someday discover the different genetic makeup of cheese lovers and cheese haters, but I won't buy the book.)

But unlike you, I think that there is much to be explained when we are talking about sexual kinks: I don't think that there is a bicycle-seat-sniffing gene, a necrophilia gene, a nylon-stocking gene or a masochism gene, and I doubt that being into one of these things will make it easier to understand the others. Why should it?
And some of these aren't that hard to understand with a little effort: Fetishes are often associated with the desired sex or body parts: bicycle seats, for instance, so if you believe that you cannot get nearer to the object of your desire you transfer your desire to the inanimate object.
And in the fantasy world of sado-masochism, the masochists are 'liberated' from being responsible and in charge of their own desires (really a contradiction in terms: tied down and free!), they don't have to feel guilty about sex (as you're supposed to if you are good Xians), and sadists don't have to fear the humiliation of rejection: their fantasy is one of being in total control (also a contradiction in terms, in as far as sex is usually a question of letting go of control).

But the sadists are different from sexual offenders like Spacey: They seem to want their partners to be consensual, they want them not only to like but to desire what is going all: their role-playing games.
The Spaceys, the Cosbys, the Weinsteins, the O'Reillys etc. don't really seem to care about this, and they may even be turned on by the unwillingness of their partners.

And that is the thing that I find difficult to understand: The sado-masochists are playing a game of unwillingness, but it is pretense and everybody appears to be aware of that.

But how can anybody enjoy to have sex with an unwilling partner?!
(And please don't tell me about the numerous historical cases! I know, I know!)

I also don't understand why so many people seem to find the explanation perfectly natural that this is how people (or at least men) behave when they are positioned so far above everybody else that they no longer have to care about how other people feel.
I can see why a celebrity surrounded by admiring and willing sex partners might feel tempted to 'stray', but that only makes it so much harder to understand why they would then resort to drugging or in other ways coercing or downright forcing people to commit sexual acts that they don't want to be a part of.
I don't see what's the 'fun' in that …

My original question in the Kevin Spacey thread


All the attention Weinstein and Cosby and the others get is because of what they are, not who. This is the only way these guys get adoring fans. They are used to getting sex because of their position - and it doesn't have to be a position of power. Do people think Weinstein would have women hanging on him if he were a plumber?

They are already used to being liked for who they are perceived to be and not for themselves. Getting sex because you are famous may not be coercion, but it isn't normal either.

What I'm trying to say is that these guys don't get women the normal way - they never have. Maybe they can't. They're f'd up dudes and maybe always have been.

dann 9th November 2017 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12069403)
I'm probably wrong.
But people who presume to have the right to force themselves on others automatically presume that the other person doesn't have a right to refuse them. That is either because they consider themselves very worthy or the other person very unworthy (using derogatory and demeaning terms for them, examples of which probably won't make it through the forum censor).

I can do without the examples! :)
But I think that you are on to something.
That would have to be a very twisted entanglement (tautology?) of two contradictory attitudes to your partners/victims: on the one hand desirable, but on the other hand unworthy. Maybe unworthy because you desire them. Or maybe even unworthy because you desire them …
The combination of contempt and desire reminds me of the Madonna-Whore Complex, even though it's not really the same thing.

3point14 9th November 2017 12:58 PM

Overpowering and dominating someone physically will often (always?) create a testosterone surge.

cullennz 9th November 2017 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12069357)
All I can think of is that such people have given up on getting a willing partner and are evoking some primitive right to take what they want as reward for their perceived status.

There are plenty of rapists who were married and even have kids

dann 9th November 2017 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12069475)
Getting sex because you are famous may not be coercion, but it isn't normal either.

It definitely isn't coercion - fans may even try to force themselves on the celebrity! And it certainly isn't something that ordinary people are exposed to.
But it completely destroys the idea that it's a question of inability to make a partner want to have sex with you: They are already throwing themselves at you, and yet you resort to drugging or otherwise coercing them.

dann 9th November 2017 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12069475)
What I'm trying to say is that these guys don't get women the normal way - they never have. Maybe they can't. They're f'd up dudes and maybe always have been.

They obviously don't get women the normal way, but you can say that about all celebrities. But then again, not all celebrities are Weinsteins or Spaceys, they're not all f'd up dudes - and most men who sexually abuse women one way or the other aren't celebrities, of course.
We should probably also recognize that in many ways being a celebrity is an enviable position, and envy/jealousy also generates hate.
What I mean is that one should be careful about not letting envy dictate one's appraisal of these guys, but what Cosby, Spacey, Weinstein are accused of is something that would also be condemned if quite ordinary men did the same thing, of course.

MinnesotaBrant 9th November 2017 01:25 PM

too much work. I did not answer that since I have no idea what the right answer is.

Imhotep 9th November 2017 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12069488)
There are plenty of rapists who were married and even have kids

This.

There are no golden rules for this stuff. People like the above can seemingly turn their empathy on and off like a switch, or they are emulating empathy when they are with their family, or some third possibility... like rationalizing that victims don't deserve any of their empathy (thinking Green River Killer).

Arcade22 9th November 2017 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069131)
Now, I think that it would be a good idea to distinguish between taste and kinks. They don't appear to be the same thing at all. (And I also find the question of different tastes rather uninteresting: I don't like cheese, for instance, but I really don't know why I don't, and I also don't care. Maybe a geneticist will someday discover the different genetic makeup of cheese lovers and cheese haters, but I won't buy the book.)

But unlike you, I think that there is much to be explained when we are talking about sexual kinks: I don't think that there is a bicycle-seat-sniffing gene, a necrophilia gene, a nylon-stocking gene or a masochism gene, and I doubt that being into one of these things will make it easier to understand the others. Why should it?

Because it directly gives insight into how one can be sexually aroused about something that's strangely specific and seemingly non-sexual in nature.

Rape is by its very nature sexual yet it's also about many other things, depending on how someone is raped. Such as: control, domination, humiliation, feeling powerful and manly. Although people might enjoy this on its own, for one reason or another, such thoughts become sexualized and highly erotic.

Feelings of of powerlessness and being under someones utter control might not seem highly arousing for most people yet clearly some people find it very, very arousing. Likewise there are those who find it very sexually enjoyable to have complete control over someone, although from what i can tell far more people seem to trend towards submissiveness.

Being impulsive, lacking in empathy, having "victim blaming" beliefs and narcissistic tendencies also make one more likely to rape someone. Again it's important to not conflate finding thoughts of rape, raping someone or being raped and finding it enjoyable to rape someone. One does not presume the other.

Very "normal people" might engage in rape and other forms of sexual coercion under certain circumstances such as group pressure, them feeling compelled to prove their masculinity and manliness, as well as it giving outlet for any sexual frustration because their victims are treated (officially or otherwise) as an acceptable target. Rape during warfare is a great example of that can occur together with other forms of abuse and brutality that would not occur during times of peace.

dann 9th November 2017 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12069427)
Here is the thing, a lot of rapists have no idea they are rapists. Freezing up is a very common reaction to this sort of violation and so they just go on and have sex and their partner just lays there. Maybe bad sex but they wouldn't know it was rape.

And aren't they even aware that they're actively trying to interpret what's going on as consent? They actually think that freezing up is the state a woman is in when enjoying or looking forward to having sex? (Unlike many others, that is one delusion you probably won't get from watching porn!)
To me the description sounds like a very bad excuse from somebody who feels entitled to have sex with an unwilling partner.

Quote:

Here is a story of a rapist who did not realize he was asking for legal advice on how to get away with rape.

https://archive.is/ZnMKo
I think it's a troll. I'm not sure, but he doesn't sound like a real person to me.

dann 9th November 2017 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12069605)
Because it directly gives insight into how one can be sexually aroused about something that's strangely specific and seemingly non-sexual in nature.

No, it doesn't! The idea that genes are what makes people aroused by "strangely specific" objects is absurd. Do you know when nylon stockings were invented? Or bicycle seats? (Neither do I, but it doesn't matter.) They haven't existed long enough for genes to target people's sexuality towards them. This is nothing akin to the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults.

Quote:

Rape is by its very nature sexual yet it's also about many other things, depending on how someone is raped. Such as: control, domination, humiliation, feeling powerful and manly. Although people might enjoy this on its own, for one reason or another, such thoughts become sexualized and highly erotic.

Feelings of of powerlessness and being under someones utter control might not seem highly arousing for most people yet clearly some people find it very, very arousing. Likewise there are those who find it very sexually enjoyable to have complete control over someone, although from what i can tell far more people seem to trend towards submissiveness.
Yes, some people clearly find it very, very arousing, but you appear to have missed the point in the OP and here as well: This wasn't meant to be a prove-that-these-things-actually-exist thread. See also (in the Spacy thread).

Quote:

Being impulsive, lacking in empathy, having "victim blaming" beliefs and narcissistic tendencies also make one more likely to rape someone. Again it's important to not conflate finding thoughts of rape, raping someone or being raped and finding it enjoyable to rape someone. One does not presume the other.
presume???

Quote:

Very "normal people" might engage in rape and other forms of sexual coercion under certain circumstances such as group pressure, them feeling compelled to prove their masculinity and manliness, as well as it giving outlet for any sexual frustration because their victims are treated (officially or otherwise) as an acceptable target. Rape during warfare is a great example of that can occur together with other forms of abuse and brutality that would not occur during times of peace.
They might, but feeling compelled to prove your masculinity etc. doesn't seem to be very enjoyable. On the contrary, they would probably hate the act so it isn't really relevant.
Also, does it seem as if Cosby and Spacey wanted to prove their masculinity due to group pressure? Again and again? If they had bragged about it, I might think so, but that does not seem to have been the case.
Unlike the pussy-grabbing Trump …

isissxn 9th November 2017 02:58 PM

It seems somewhat pointless to me to try to really understand something like this. You can understand the technical manifestations, you could HEAR the reasoning, but if your mind isn't a rapey mind, you won't ever "get it" to your satisfaction.

Why do some people enjoy killing and dismemberment? Why do some people enjoy putting cigarettes out on themselves? Why do some people get off on eating ***** ?

It's pretty hard to fathom a satisfying "explanation" for these things occurring in brains. Why is rape different? There's nothing to get. It's a pathology.

Imhotep 9th November 2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12069685)
It seems somewhat pointless to me to try to really understand something like this. You can understand the technical manifestations, you could HEAR the reasoning, but if your mind isn't a rapey mind, you won't ever "get it" to your satisfaction.

Why do some people enjoy killing and dismemberment? Why do some people enjoy putting cigarettes out on themselves? Why do some people get off on eating ***** ?

It's pretty hard to fathom a satisfying "explanation" for these things occurring in brains. Why is rape different? There's nothing to get. It's a pathology.

To me anyway, it's in the realm of criminology which I enjoy reading about as its a combination of some interesting disciplines; psychology, issues of society, criminal investigation, the legal system, how people deal with loss or trauma, etc. I like complex stuff that has many facets.

dann 9th November 2017 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12069685)
It's pretty hard to fathom a satisfying "explanation" for these things occurring in brains.

Yes, it is pretty hard.

Quote:

Why is rape different?
Don't you know the difference between, killing, dismemberment and eating *****? Are you saying that they're all the same thing? Feel the same way? Or are caused by the same thing???

Quote:

There's nothing to get. It's a pathology.
It may be "a pathology", but why would that mean that there's "nothing to get"??!

isissxn 9th November 2017 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imhotep (Post 12069690)
To me anyway, it's in the realm of criminology which I enjoy reading about as its a combination of some interesting disciplines; psychology, issues of society, criminal investigation, the legal system, how people deal with loss or trauma, etc. I like complex stuff that has many facets.

On that level, I can see it. I originally went to school for psychology and still find it interesting (just not enough jobs, so I went back for business management.)

But once someone bypasses the academic portion and starts trying to understand it on another level, an empathetic level or whatever, I believe it becomes an exercise in frustration. It can also be upsetting. Some minds are just broken.

And I also worry about lines blurring between discussions of consensual sadism enthusiasts and rapists. I've seen it happen before. They are not two sides of the same coin. Not even in the same purse, really.

dann 9th November 2017 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12069700)
And I also worry about lines blurring between discussions of consensual sadism enthusiasts and rapists. I've seen it happen before. They are not two sides of the same coin. Not even in the same purse, really.

I tried to avoid that and pointed out major differences in the OP.

John Jones 9th November 2017 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12069427)
Here is the thing, a lot of rapists have no idea they are rapists. Freezing up is a very common reaction to this sort of violation and so they just go on and have sex and their partner just lays there. Maybe bad sex but they wouldn't know it was rape.

Here is a story of a rapist who did not realize he was asking for legal advice on how to get away with rape.

https://archive.is/ZnMKo

A reddit link. Aren't you the persuasive one?

isissxn 9th November 2017 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069699)
Don't you know the difference between, killing, dismemberment and eating *****? Are you saying that they're all the same thing? Feel the same way? Or are caused by the same thing???

First of all, calm the heck down. Why are you firing strings of question marks at me like a broken grammar check? It's incredibly stressful to try to have a normal conversation with someone doing that. If you are not in fact worked up, then I apologize. But the style of your post certainly makes it seem that way, and it automatically gets my hackles up.

Ignoring that for now, I will move on to my response. Which is that I do not understand your first question. Of course I know the difference between those things. I also know the thing they have in common. Which is that they are all harmful behaviors which a small subset of humans find pleasurable, sometimes sexually so, but the majority of humans rightfully find viscerally abhorrent. Rape would also fit into that category.

So it is going to be very difficult for a "regular" person to really understand how those so afflicted could derive pleasure in such ways. There isn't any common ground there for a lot of people. And my point in bringing up the examples I did was merely to point out that just because something occurs in brains all over the human race doesn't mean it has a purpose or (even biological) reasoning behind it.

Quote:

It may be "a pathology", but why would that mean that there's "nothing to get"??!
There's nothing to "get" for me, and I studied this sort of crap quite in-depth for almost six years. (Yeah, I was a super-senior at university. Does that really surprise anyone? :D) I understand how it manifests, I know the common comorbidities, I know how to talk to the afflicted in a professional setting (though I never have - when I worked in the field it was as a lowly drug & alcohol counselor, and I would have needed a few more years of schoolin' before they let me talk to Dahmers), and I could even take a stab at what childhood incidents might have led to the pathologies developing, provided I were given that information and had the patient in a proper clinical setting.

But NONE of that means I am even a step closer to really understanding WHAT they get out of it, HOW they could possibly do it, WHAT is going through their heads as they undertake vile activities such as rape for pleasure, etc. That's all I was saying. It was almost a philosophical musing, and it certainly wasn't meant to insult you or your question. Merely to point out the futility of trying to understand minds objectively (another reason I quit).

Maybe I didn't understand your original question properly, then. If so, please feel free to correct me.

isissxn 9th November 2017 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069702)
I tried to avoid that and pointed out major differences in the OP.

I know that, and I was not referring to you. I was making a general statement. As threads progress, these side topics often drift in. In my experience, actual rape and so-called "rape fantasy" can get conflated a lot - if not explicitly, then in the nuances, connotations, and subtext of the psychology discussion.

xjx388 9th November 2017 03:59 PM

I don't see what's so difficult here. Some people get off on the power. Someone like Weinstein (allegedly). . . he's a powerful guy in Hollywood so he knows that he can use that power to coerce hot women he would never have a real shot at -indeed that have flat turned him down- to give in to his demands. And when they don't, it pisses him off so he forces it on them one way or the other. It's probably not about sex per se (well, it's partially about sex) but about the ability to manipulate beautiful and desirable women to feed his ego. He probably justifies it to himself like, "Of course they want me, I'm Harvey Weinstein! Yeah, maybe I forced the issue a little but they would have given in anyway; they always do."

William Parcher 9th November 2017 05:04 PM

If it's really about power and forced manipulation then Weinstein can demand that the beautiful actresses clean his office and home and scrub his floors and toilets. Instead he just seems to want the sex, so I'm thinking it's a hell of a lot about the sex and the power is only used to get the sex.

xjx388 9th November 2017 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher (Post 12069821)
If it's really about power and forced manipulation then Weinstein can demand that the beautiful actresses clean his office and home and scrub his floors and toilets. Instead he just seems to want the sex, so I'm thinking it's a hell of a lot about the sex and the power is only used to get the sex.



Well, sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power. So, of course the sex is important, but only as it relates to the feeling of power over the victim.

Dr.Sid 9th November 2017 05:08 PM

Agreed. Projection of power. The are not attracted to refusal. They are attracted to getting what they want, refusal or not.

Roboramma 9th November 2017 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069282)
That many rapists are married seems to confirm that view. Also, if they don't care if a partner is into them or not, an alternative would be to go to a prostitute. Instead they rape, which seems to indicate that what turns them on isn't sex but rape.

That’s why I said they want to have sex with particular people. As I said in the other thread, sexual partners aren’t fungible. I’m not suggesting that rapists just want sex. I’m suggesting that a rapist may have potential willing partners but the particular person that they want to have sex with is unwilling.

dann 10th November 2017 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher (Post 12069821)
If it's really about power and forced manipulation then Weinstein can demand that the beautiful actresses clean his office and home and scrub his floors and toilets. Instead he just seems to want the sex, so I'm thinking it's a hell of a lot about the sex and the power is only used to get the sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12069825)
Well, sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power. So, of course the sex is important, but only as it relates to the feeling of power over the victim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 12069828)
Agreed. Projection of power. The are not attracted to refusal. They are attracted to getting what they want, refusal or not.


When I read “used to get the sex”, “sexual domination is a particularly satisfying kind of power” and “getting what they want,” it reminds me of the rape scene in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America (the really ugly rape scene, not the funny one!) where we see Noodles, the main character, ‘getting the sex that he wants’ – and has wanted for a very long time – yet getting the opposite of what he wants because the victim is and remains unwilling, and both she, the driver and Noodles himself are disgusted with the whole thing, i.e. with Noodles’ behavior. And what is more important: So is the audience. It’s one of the worst scenes ever. You want it to stop, and it just goes on and on and on, making it excruciatingly apparent how disgusting sexual coercion is.

Another description of this scene:
Quote:

Then comes the second sequence, which is miles away from the first. We're now in a different world -- a self-respecting woman, who has chosen a career over her lover, rejects his proposal. They are in the back of a car, and driver keeps driving during the beginning of the sequence. But as it progresses, and the screams become louder and include screams of pain, the driver stops the car and opens the door. Now, we are back where we started. The man opening the door to stop the rape is our best hero at that moment, and we suddenly are reassured that this is not 'of the time,' and the friends watching the prior rape are horrible people for letting it happen. it permanently ruins the relationship between Noodles and his childhood lover -- it ruins his only chance at happiness and he turns to opium.
You then realize where Leone has taken you -- the first scene was prelude to the second. It more potently drives the point of the wrongness of the act, the destructiveness of it. The rapes were in fact probably the most important plot points. Instead of Leone treating it another "something gangster they do." he treated it with the seriousness it always deserves.
Still, I can't help but feel uncomfortable when it appears on screen.
from Reddit discussion about Once Upon a Time in America

And that is what we’re talking about here. (I know that it's fiction. For obvious reasons there aren't any documentaries.) It isn’t simply a question of breaking the law, like stealing a flat-screen TV that you can’t afford. I’m pretty sure that the stolen flat screen looks much the same as the store-bought one. The movies and TV shows you watch remain the exact same.

But that is not the case when we are talking about sexual coercion. In the movie, Noodles is surprised by what he gets. And what he gets obviously isn’t what he's always desired. But these guys, the ones we’re talking about who do it more than once, they know what they’re getting, and what they’re getting is as different from real sex as it could possibly be.
And it seems to me that some of you aren’t fully aware of that difference: the difference between having sex with a woman who is enjoying it and having sex with a women who definitely isn’t.
‘He got what he wanted – one way or the other,’ is a weird euphemism for what he actually must have wanted and also got: not simply sex, but that exact kind of sex!

(I’m not sure, but even if you have seen Once Upon a Time in America, you may not have seen the rape scene(s).)

Bikewer 10th November 2017 06:45 AM

It’s been a while, but I did a lot of reading on the subject of paraphilia some years ago... Mostly the works of the late John Money, who was pretty much the authority in the field at the time.
We’re all familiar with the common paraphilias or “fetishes”... Things like exhibitionism, frottage, voyeurism, transvestism, sadism, masochism.. Etc.

There are over 40 known and cataloged paraphilias, and oddly most of them are male-specific. Money felt that this may have had to do with the fact that the male embryo is “masculinized” in the womb (starting out female, as it were) and that this process may lead to more “errors”.
Also, as to causes, Money felt that child abuse was a big factor, as well as the repressive attitude about sexual education and experimentation in young children.

The reasoning was that each person forms a psychological “lovemap” in early childhood...An idealized construct of a mating partner. Usually, this is built on parents, siblings, caregivers, etc.
But he felt that this lovemap could be “vandalized” by child abuse (and perhaps other factors), and this would lead to the person sexualizing “other” things, usually things that have some sexual connotation in society.
These paraphilias can become very powerful and compulsive. I’ve dealt with exhibitionists who have ruined thier lives with constant cases of “exposing person”.... They are unable to stop.
The same applies to other types. They all exhibit bell-curve type distributions of severity.
A “shoe fetishist” may simply be turned on by the sight of a woman in heels... on the other end of the spectrum, he may collect shoes and use them as sex objects... Not able to have relationships with a woman.

This doesn’t explain everything in these “men in power” cases.... But Money went against the grain of the typical meme that “Rape isn’t about sex, it’s about power.”
He felt the opposite was true... That it was about sex. (Serial rape is a form of paraphilia as well)

dann 10th November 2017 07:27 AM

It obviously has to be both, somehow: sex and power, but what I was trying to point out in post 44 is that only psychopaths will be able to enjoy being with a woman (or man) who isn’t into them, who hates what’s going on. It isn’t simply sex, it’s a particular kind of sex, a very different experience from being with somebody you love – requited love. You also can’t treat somebody you love (or even somebody you just like) the way some people treat their partners, so there’s probably hate or contempt involved as well: ‘Men who hate women’ (misogynists) or ‘Gay men who hate other (gay) men …’ (gay homophobes - Roy Cohn, Trump’s old associate, springs to mind).

calebprime 10th November 2017 07:43 AM

I think that, over time, there is a degree of control that [a male who is approximately the same race, build, age, and occupation as me] has in steering, cultivating, pruning, giving in to, sexual impulses and patterns of arousal.

One is greedy for pleasure. In the sexual act, what happens if I introduce this or that? Most things produce nothing.

One is surprised by actual love, actual tenderness, actual mutuality, only in contrast with this other polyp-like, root-like, tendril-like mass of interconnecting images and desires -- the things you jerk off to.

Actual mutuality is surprising, is fresh.

But what if you've never gotten as big a charge from someone giving to you, but only from the jerk-off side, the side of yourself that directs and cultivates your own movies?

You make movies, you gotta break some eggs, some little people get hurt along the way.

Just sayin'.

dann 10th November 2017 07:45 AM

Sorry about getting your hackles up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12069721)
But NONE of that means I am even a step closer to really understanding WHAT they get out of it, HOW they could possibly do it, WHAT is going through their heads as they undertake vile activities such as rape for pleasure, etc. That's all I was saying. It was almost a philosophical musing, and it certainly wasn't meant to insult you or your question. Merely to point out the futility of trying to understand minds objectively (another reason I quit).

Maybe I didn't understand your original question properly, then. If so, please feel free to correct me.

No, I think you understand me. It's the misogyny (or in the case of Spacey probably a kind of homophobia but expressed in the sexual act that I find difficult to understand - and you appear to have the same difficulties.
I can understand misogyny as such. It is easlily recognizable in some of the early lyrics by Mick Jagger:

Under My Thumb
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Yesterday’s Papers
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Out of Time
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And it's not that I find his contempt for the women he sings about/to less irrational than the contempt expressed by the sexual predators, but in his lyrics the misogyny is separate from and not entangled with the desire in the sexual act.

dann 10th November 2017 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12070562)
But what if you've never gotten as big a charge from someone giving to you, but only from the jerk-off side, the side of yourself that directs and cultivates your own movies?

You make movies, you gotta break some eggs, some little people get hurt along the way.


I am not sure that I understand you correctly: Are you talking about actual movies (Weinstein, Spacey) or 'movies in your head', i.e. masturbatory fantasies? (as long as they remain fantasies only, they don't hurt anybody)

calebprime 10th November 2017 07:53 AM

I don't think a lot of these people are sociopaths, but I do think that they shade off into that population. There has to be a spectrum.

I think that Woody Allen is a mediocre artist and an oblivious control freak who's managed to keep his own shuttered world alive for a long time based on his early and considerable comic energy.

Even if he did the worst things he's accused of, he's not really a sociopath.

How common sexual perversity is doesn't really mean that people are free from moral responsibility. I sort of take the view that it's like excretion: everybody is responsible for their ****.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.