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)

TragicMonkey 20th November 2017 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12084119)
It's as bad as recommending TM to somebody who just needs to learn to relax …

I can be a very soothing presence. Why, my Sudden Shrieking technique has proven to increase relaxation in heart patients to the point where they have no detectable cardiac abnormalities afterwards.

dann 20th November 2017 05:43 AM

I can imagine!
Also no visible signs of excitation, except for a certain rigidity, but not where it counts. :)

dann 20th November 2017 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12084135)
I can perhaps be forgiven for thinking this might be for all time.

Well, no, that would be an exaggeration. If we go back in time, women did not have free will, they were the property of their fathers or the men who had bought them.
At least the guy in the song recognizes that it's up to her to decide if she wants to stay, he respects her free will (again: He's not a rapist), so he's just (being) a modern creep: trying to guilt her into giving in rather than forcing her to do so.
Of course, in biblical times a father would not have let his daughter be alone with another man unless she was married to him and she would have been married off or sold at 13.

calebprime 20th November 2017 07:03 AM

Ok. To be simple about it, I think you're being too harsh on this particular character, but I haven't studied the song for telling nuances, and we may be concentrating too much on 2 lines, or they might be essential.

The simple truth here is yes, if you repeatedly invite yourself over and then say your vanity is at stake, you're behaving badly.

I was assuming modern mores, equality, etc. that the song exists in.

calebprime 20th November 2017 07:42 AM

Looking over the lyrics, it seems to be carefully designed to be the rationalizations and lies of two people from the git-go, and that's the humor of it. It's set to charming music and ends in a triumphant line together.

The guy is a cad if he always lies like that.

Ron_Tomkins 20th November 2017 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12081837)
Here's why I think such answers are basically a waste of time: There's definitely an infinite number of reasons why people choose to believe in weird things. People are all different, so it's not up to us to figure out why each individual person believes what he or she believes. People will continue to do so anyway.

Right?!

No, not really.
First of all, you could say almost the same thing about animals: Each animal is slightly different from the others so it's no use studying them, systematizing them, dividing them into groups, and subdividing them because … well, they're still gonna stay animals.

Psychological research has already come a long way systematizing rapists, dividing them into groups with similar ideas and similar behavior, which is necessary if you're at all interested in finding a way of dealing with the them in a rational way.

I always get suspicious when somebody presents me with nonsensical reasons why a certain theme (for instance religion, superstition or rape) can't be studied and explained. It's fairly easy to see why some people don't want religion to be researched: They suspect that their beliefs aren't rational, that they can't stand the light of day, but instead of being honest and rational about this, they rationalize and claim that what they don't want to happen just can't be done.

Have you considered the real reason why "such questions" bother you in this case?

Well, yeah. If you're a psychologist who dedicates himself to deal with people with such problems, or if you're a anthropologist who's making a thesis about rapists and their behavior... then, I think it makes sense for you to want to study the behavior of rapists and such, because you need that information as part of the work you're doing.

Or then again, if you're a person with a lot of time on your hands, which I'm suspecting is your case, that would be another reason ;)

In either case, knock yourself out, junior. I'm sure you're gonna crack this case sooner or later.

dann 20th November 2017 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12084299)
The guy is a cad if he always lies like that.


He's probably sincere about his hurting pride! :)

dann 20th November 2017 12:18 PM

Amazing!
My question in the opening post appears to bother Ron Tomkins so much that in just four short posts he has gone from:

Ask the rapists!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12070612)
Have you tried asking them?


… to: Rape is funny!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12072688)
Actually, rape can be very funny and George Carlin already explained in detail how


… to: Leave it to the rapists to figure out why they do it 'cause they'll do it anyway!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12080608)
Here's why I think such questions are basically a waste of time (unless you're really bored and have a lot of time on your hands): There's probably an infinite number of reasons why an individual may wanna have sex with an unwilling partner. It's different for each individual, and each individual case. However, I think it is up for them (the individuals in question) to figure out why they want that. Not us. Because regardless of whether we figure that out in this forum, the people who are engaging in that activity, are gonna keep doing it.


And finally to: Leave it to the professionals or people with too much time on their hands!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12084375)
Well, yeah. If you're a psychologist who dedicates himself to deal with people with such problems, or if you're a anthropologist who's making a thesis about rapists and their behavior... then, I think it makes sense for you to want to study the behavior of rapists and such, because you need that information as part of the work you're doing.

Or then again, if you're a person with a lot of time on your hands, which I'm suspecting is your case, that would be another reason ;)

In either case, knock yourself out, junior. I'm sure you're gonna crack this case sooner or later.


And ending with an insult: "junior"! Really?!

d4m10n 20th November 2017 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12074413)
We are just animals too. One of our big problems, in my opinion, is that we forget that. Almost all human behavior comes as no surprise if you think of us as just another species.

This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00069120

Myriad 20th November 2017 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12084686)
This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.


Or to put it much more simply: given that there's likely to be many more unwilling potential mates around than willing ones, is it surprising that pursuing the former is a viable (even if not optimal) evolutionarily stable strategy?

dann 21st November 2017 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12084686)
This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00069120

Quote:

We examine six testable predictions against existing data: (1) Both coercive and noncoercive will be associated with high levels of sexual arousal and performance in men. (2) Achieving physical control of a sexually unwilling woman will be sexually arousing to men. (3) Young men will be more sexually coercive than older men. (4) Men of low socioeconomic status will likewise be more sexually coercive. (5) A man's motivation to use sexual coercion will be influenced by its effects on social image. (6) Even in long-term relationships men will be motivated to use coercion when their mates show a lack of interest in resistance to sex because these are interpreted as signs of sexual infidelity.

(1) Men who coerce women to have sex are aroused, yes. And most of them, I assume, are able to get aroused by consensual sex, too. That sounds very likely.
(2) All men? Some men? How do you even test that claim?
(3) We know that the sex drive of men tends to decrease with age, but we also know that some fervent pussy grabbers are quite old, and some butt grabbers are decrepit and in wheelchairs.
(4) Crime statistics? Who gets caught? Who is able to talk/lawyer his way out of charges? Who decides not to press charges because the coercer is too powerful?
(5) So the assumption is that men of "low socioeconomic status" don't have any "social image" to protect. If the last couple of weeks have taught us anything about (some) men of high socioeconomic status …
(6) In all such relationships? (What does "a lack of interest in resistance to sex" even mean? Was "in" meant to have been "or"? Didn't anybody bother to proofread the abstract?!)

d4m10n 21st November 2017 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(1) Men who coerce women to have sex are aroused, yes. And most of them, I assume, are able to get aroused by consensual sex, too. That sounds very likely.

The study is focused on a sample of men, not a sample of men who are known for sexual coercion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(2) All men? Some men? How do you even test that claim?

You'd have to see the full article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(6) In all such relationships? (What does "a lack of interest in resistance to sex" even mean? Was "in" meant to have been "or"? Didn't anybody bother to proofread the abstract?!)

Pretty sure (6) should read "lack of interest or resistance..." in the abstract.

dann 21st November 2017 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12084832)
Or to put it much more simply: given that there's likely to be many more unwilling potential mates around than willing ones, is it surprising that pursuing the former is a viable (even if not optimal) evolutionarily stable strategy?


You can use evolution as an argument for almost anything, i.e. you can find all kinds of 'strategies', which means that it doesn't explain much about human behavior. You find rapist behavior among chimps, but it doesn't appear to be a 'strategy' favored by the consensual bonobos.
So considering the consequences that rape may entail for the rapist, the number of "unwilling potential mates" doesn't seem to explain anything, especially if you consider how easy and risk free going to a prostitute would be in comparison. Not to mention that some kind of sexual gratification rather than reproduction seems to be the driving force here. Some rapists use a condom, maybe to avoid leaving evidence behind, but still …

dann 21st November 2017 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12085570)
The study is focused on a sample of men, not a sample of men who are known for sexual


But do you know what kind of test they were subjected to? They obviously can't have had these men rape anybody, and letting them watch rape porn, for instance, wouldn't be the same thing since the test subjects would probably have known that the scenes were pretence: actors playing rape.
The abstract claims that "Both coercive and noncoercive will be associated with high levels of sexual arousal and performance in men." Some men? All men?
A couple of us have expressed that we find coercion a complete turn-off, in my case also the pretend variety: 1, 2, 3. (#2 only implied)
However, I've never been clinically tested! :)

Quote:

You'd have to see the full article.

Yes, probably, but I don't have access.

Quote:

Pretty sure (6) should read "lack of interest or resistance..." in the abstract.

It's 25 years old (online since 2011), and nobody's bothered to fix it!

d4m10n 21st November 2017 09:36 AM

You asked what makes some people desire coercive sex, dann. I pointed out that there has been at least some research into that question, investigating a specific hypothetical psychological adaptation which may or may not have proliferated in our ancestral environment. Read up on it (or don't) and make of it what you will.

dann 22nd November 2017 02:26 AM

I already mentioned that
Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085766)
I don't have access.


d4m10n 22nd November 2017 03:35 PM

Well okay, then. You can get an idea of Thornhill's hypothesis here, no paywall.

Quote:

The hypothesis of psychological adaptation to rape contends that there are psychological mechanisms that function specifically for the purpose of rape because they were designed by selection acting on males in the context of coercive sexuality. More specifically, the selection assumed by the hypothesis is as follows: During human evolutionary history, non-random differential offspring production by adult males occurred in the context of sexual access to reproductive-age females who were unwilling to mate.
It is a disturbing hypothesis, to be certain, all the more so since Thornhill does not suggest that he is talking about a rare mutation but rather an adaptation which has (hypothetically) achieved fixation in the XY human population as a whole.

dann 23rd November 2017 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12087526)
Well okay, then. You can get an idea of Thornhill's hypothesis here, no paywall.

It is a disturbing hypothesis, to be certain, all the more so since Thornhill does not suggest that he is talking about a rare mutation but rather an adaptation which has (hypothetically) achieved fixation in the XY human population as a whole.


Great! Thank you!
(And the article is not as long as I thought at first sight.)

Ron_Tomkins 23rd November 2017 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12084615)
Amazing!
My question in the opening post appears to bother Ron Tomkins so much that in just four short posts he has gone from:

Ask the rapists!



… to: Rape is funny!



… to: Leave it to the rapists to figure out why they do it 'cause they'll do it anyway!



And finally to: Leave it to the professionals or people with too much time on their hands!



And ending with an insult: "junior"! Really?!

Not sure if you had a point at all there, but you certainly have potential there to be a good forum commentator.

fuelair 26th November 2017 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12083047)
"The mouth says no, but the eyes say yes?"

If the mouth says no, trust it!!!! If only the eyes say yes, you have gone deaf on the topic. The words you hear are the ones that count.

theprestige 26th November 2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuelair (Post 12091108)
If the mouth says no, trust it!!!! If only the eyes say yes, you have gone deaf on the topic. The words you hear are the ones that count.

What are you talking about?

Delvo 26th November 2017 07:08 PM

Charlie Rose has said he thought he was acting on mutual attractions. I wonder how often that's the real answer: not wanting to impose one's self on somebody else, but thinking that's not what one is actually doing.

Something that some of you might not realize about the life of a long-term single man (whether it's the same for married ones, I don't know but I expect not): we are constantly getting bombarded with absolutely terrible advice from our female friends, telling us to think of pretty much anything & everything that any (other) woman or girl ever does in our presence as clear obvious unmistakable flirting.

dann 26th November 2017 11:32 PM

This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.

Quote:

Rose issued a statement reading: "I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken."
Wikipedia

xjx388 27th November 2017 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12091360)
This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.



Why do you find it hard to believe when there are so many examples of it happening? This is just the way people are.
We can’t be the bad guys in our own story.

dann 28th November 2017 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12092288)
Why do you find it hard to believe when there are so many examples of it happening?


What I find hard to believe is that they don't even suspect that their victims accept their behavior, not because these guys are charming or irresistible, but because of the power they have to destroy the lives of their victims. It would be like going to a prostitute, which is something that most men don't do in the first place, and not suspect that she is probably not having sex with you because she's into you.

Quote:

This is just the way people are.

Nothing is "just the way people are."

Quote:

We can’t be the bad guys in our own story.

A few of them seem to accept as a fact that, yes, they have been bad guys.

dann 28th November 2017 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12091277)
... we are constantly getting bombarded with absolutely terrible advice from our female friends, telling us to think of pretty much anything & everything that any (other) woman or girl ever does in our presence as clear obvious unmistakable flirting.


That is one of the problems with flirting: There is no such thing as "clear obvious unmistakable flirting." It is a contradiction in terms!

Quote:

either to suggest (!) interest in a deeper relationship with the other person, or if done playfully, for amusement. In most cultures, it is socially disapproved for a person to make explicit (!) sexual advances in public, or in private to someone not romantically acquainted, but indirect (!) or suggestive (!) advances (i.e. flirting) may at times (!) be considered acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flirting

Flirting is, per definition, ambiguous! it is a way of revealing the feelings you have for another person, without being completely open about them. You give little signs and hints that could be interpreted as interest, but on the other hand, they might also just be a joke, nothing serious. Depending on the reaction of the 'object of your desire,' you can back down and pretend that you were never really serious in the first place, or you may feel encouraged to make your intentions clearer.
This also explains the "terrible advice" from your female friends, who are trying to persuade you not to give up hope.

xjx388 28th November 2017 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12093341)
What I find hard to believe is that they don't even suspect that their victims accept their behavior, not because these guys are charming or irresistible, but because of the power they have to destroy the lives of their victims. It would be like going to a prostitute, which is something that most men don't do in the first place, and not suspect that she is probably not having sex with you because she's into you.

Nothing is "just the way people are."

A few of them seem to accept as a fact that, yes, they have been bad guys.

Bad behavior towards others is not always a result of sociopathy or lack of empathy. Mostly, it isn't even self-assessed as bad behavior because we can rationalize/justify it. This is basic psychology and thus, is indeed "just the way people are."

Weinstein likely knew that what he was doing was wrong on some level. Indeed, his statement to the NYT says, "I came of age in the 60's and 70's . . . " when rules for behavior were different. That's a rationalization. People like that can still act badly and come up with a justification in his mind for that bad behavior: "This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"

Indeed, in another statement, he, "has a different recollection of the events." Right. His recollection is likely that they wanted him and he wasn't exploiting them. Rationalization/Justification.

If you want to "cognitively empathize," with sexual predators, all you have to do is look back on a time when you behaved badly but came up with a good reason why you should. It doesn't have to be anything really bad: "I know I shouldn't eat that donut because I'm diabetic; but, I'm going to because I deserve it after the hard day I had." Same thought process as a sexual predator but on a more twisted scale. Rationalization/Justification is about as close to an understanding of this behavior as you are going to get.

dann 28th November 2017 11:50 PM

Men behaving badly
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12093591)
Bad behavior towards others is not always a result of sociopathy or lack of empathy. Mostly, it isn't even self-assessed as bad behavior because we can rationalize/justify it. This is basic psychology and thus, is indeed "just the way people are."


No, it isn't. You make a couple of false analogies. You seem to think that because people in general "rationalize/justify" what they consider to be "bad behavior", we can't talk of "sociopathy or lack of empathy" in the case of Weinstein and his ilk because they rationalize and justify their "bad behavior", too.
You actually have some very good examples of sociopathic rationalization from Weinstein, but you refuse to see them as such, merely because they're also rationalizations!
'OK, so I raped somebody, and you took the name of the Lord in vain. We both came up with bad excuses for our behavior. That's just the way we people are.'
And then you try to prove your point with actual Wenstein quotations … I presume?!

Quote:

Weinstein likely knew that what he was doing was wrong on some level. Indeed, his statement to the NYT says, "I came of age in the 60's and 70's . . . " when rules for behavior were different. That's a rationalization. People like that can still act badly and come up with a justification in his mind for that bad behavior: "This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"

Indeed, in another statement, he, "has a different recollection of the events." Right. His recollection is likely that they wanted him and he wasn't exploiting them. Rationalization/Justification.

Your argument is: Sociopathy is "bad behavior" and you and I sometimes exhibit bad behavior, so sociopathy is what everybody does, and consequently there is no such thing!

However, you yourself should have been able to see through your own rationalizations when you come up with the following example, another analogy - and a very unfortunate one when you consider that women abused by sexual predators are now analogous to food:

Quote:

If you want to "cognitively empathize," with sexual predators, all you have to do is look back on a time when you behaved badly but came up with a good reason why you should. It doesn't have to be anything really bad: "I know I shouldn't eat that donut because I'm diabetic; but, I'm going to because I deserve it after the hard day I had." Same thought process as a sexual predator but on a more twisted scale. Rationalization/Justification is about as close to an understanding of this behavior as you are going to get.

And yet you may be on to something! Your ridiculous analogy can actually be used to gain an insight into the difference between sociopaths and empathic human beings: Sociopaths devour fellow human beings and worry only about how it might affect themselves adversely! The interests and feelings of the people they prey on worry them as little as the feelings of the donut enter into the considerations of the guy who ate it.
And once again the only similarity is that both the sexual predator and the diabetic rationalize, and so, in your way of thinking, they are both examples of "just the way people are."

Unless, you seriously recommend that diabetic donut eaters should be accused of "lack of empathy" with the donut … :)

Delvo 29th November 2017 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12093423)
That is one of the problems with flirting: There is no such thing as "clear obvious unmistakable flirting." It is a contradiction in terms!..

...Flirting is, per definition, ambiguous!

...which has never stopped anybody from portraying it as such anyway and using that portrayal to tell men we're stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12093423)
This also explains the "terrible advice" from your female friends, who are trying to persuade you not to give up hope.

Their motivation and the explanation are beside the point. The point was the effects, or at least potential effects, if one of us were to actually buy it. The dispensers of this terrible advice are trying to create monsters.

Ron_Tomkins 29th November 2017 11:01 PM

Have you ever felt sexually attracted to someone who didn't want to have sex with you?

If so, you do know exactly what it's like wanting to have sex with an unwilling partner ;)

xjx388 29th November 2017 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12094113)
No, it isn't.

I think you are denying the reality of human nature here.
Quote:

You make a couple of false analogies. You seem to think that because people in general "rationalize/justify" what they consider to be "bad behavior", we can't talk of "sociopathy or lack of empathy" in the case of Weinstein and his ilk because they rationalize and justify their "bad behavior", too.
I didn't say that we couldn't talk about it, only that you don't have to be a sociopath in order to engage in the same kinds of behavior that sociopaths do. I also didn't say that rationalization/justification rules out sociopathy. All I said was that when humans behave badly, they tend to rationalize/justify their actions.

Quote:

You actually have some very good examples of sociopathic rationalization from Weinstein, but you refuse to see them as such, merely because they're also rationalizations!
'OK, so I raped somebody, and you took the name of the Lord in vain. We both came up with bad excuses for our behavior. That's just the way we people are.'
And then you try to prove your point with actual Wenstein quotations … I presume?!
Let me ask you: Are all rapists sociopaths? Are all sociopaths rapists? "No," is the correct answer to both questions.

Quote:

Your argument is: Sociopathy is "bad behavior"
No it isn't. You are starting from false premises.
Quote:

and you and I sometimes exhibit bad behavior, so sociopathy is what everybody does, and consequently there is no such thing!
And thus you have reached an erroneous conclusion.

Humans behave badly and come up with rationalizations/justifications to assuage anxiety and guilt. Again, this is basic psychology -the defense mechanism. Weinstein could be a sociopath -more properly, suffer from anti-social personality disorder- or he could just be a normal dude who got too carried away with his power. I am not attempting to diagnose anyone, just pointing out that bad behavior does not always stem from mental illness.

Quote:

However, you yourself should have been able to see through your own rationalizations when you come up with the following example, another analogy - and a very unfortunate one when you consider that women abused by sexual predators are now analogous to food:
:confused: How are these women analogous to food? It couldn't be anything I said because I wasn't making an analogy. I was providing an example of a minor instance of a bad behavior most of us can relate to in order to illustrate the idea that we rationalize/justify bad behavior. If you understand that minor instance of rationalization, you can get a better idea of the thinking process behind rationalizing more egregious forms of bad behavior.

Quote:

And yet you may be on to something! Your ridiculous analogy can actually be used to gain an insight into the difference between sociopaths and empathic human beings: Sociopaths devour fellow human beings and worry only about how it might affect themselves adversely! The interests and feelings of the people they prey on worry them as little as the feelings of the donut enter into the considerations of the guy who ate it.
And once again the only similarity is that both the sexual predator and the diabetic rationalize, and so, in your way of thinking, they are both examples of "just the way people are."

Unless, you seriously recommend that diabetic donut eaters should be accused of "lack of empathy" with the donut … :)
That was a very tortured response to an argument I never made.

dann 30th November 2017 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12095654)
...which has never stopped anybody from portraying it as such anyway and using that portrayal to tell men we're stupid.


No, but in that case they're the ones who are stupid.

Quote:

Their motivation and the explanation are beside the point.

Then I don't see why you carry on talking about their motivations:

Quote:

The point was the effects, or at least potential effects, if one of us were to actually buy it. The dispensers of this terrible advice are trying to create monsters.

They aren't "trying to create monsters". They are trying to help somebody overcome (what they perceive to be) their inhibitions. But you are right about the potential monstrous effect that their advice would have "if one of us were to actually buy it."
But I don't see the relevance of that fact in this discussion: Weinstein, Cosby and Spacey aren't what you describe as "one of us".
Well-intended dispensers of advice don't recommend that you slip the girl a Mickey because she's probably just playing hard to get.

dann 30th November 2017 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12095666)
Have you ever felt sexually attracted to someone who didn't want to have sex with you?

If so, you do know exactly what it's like wanting to have sex with an unwilling partner ;)


No, I don't want to have sex with an unwilling partner, and I don’t know what it feels like.
The concept that you don’t seem to grasp is the difference between, on the one hand, wanting to have sex with someone who turns out not to want to have sex with you, and on the other hand, knowing that somebody doesn't want to have sex with you and still insist on having sex with that person or maybe even be turned on by the lack of consent.

dann 30th November 2017 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12095670)
I think you are denying the reality of human nature here. I didn't say that we couldn't talk about it, only that you don't have to be a sociopath in order to engage in the same kinds of behavior that sociopaths do. I also didn't say that rationalization/justification rules out sociopathy. All I said was that when humans behave badly, they tend to rationalize/justify their actions.


If what you're saying is that sociopaths also, for instance, use language to communicate, then, yes, that's a kind of behavior that ordinary people use for the same purpose. If you are saying that ordinary people, i.e. people who aren't sociopaths, rape, then, no, you are wrong. Both sociopaths and ordinary people go to the bathroom, too. If you're saying that ordinary people rationalize what you describe as "bad behavior", then you are also right.
And that is what you're saying:
Quote:

Let me ask you: Are all rapists sociopaths? Are all sociopaths rapists? "No," is the correct answer to both questions.

Not all sociopaths are rapists, but most rapists are probably sociopaths, in particular the repeat offenders. I can't rule out the guy in Delvo's example who is clueless and receiving bad advice from friends about the 'nature of women' (whatever), but he would still have to be rather unempathic if he insists on having sex with a woman who exhibits all of the obvious (to most people) signs of not consenting.

Quote:

No it isn't. You are starting from false premises. And thus you have reached an erroneous conclusion.

That is what you were doing, and you're still doing it: You go from sociopathic behavior and find something that is analogous to this behavior in people with empathy, and then you generalize: Everybody comes up with bad excuses for bad behavior, so sociopaths are just like everybody else. Except that you choose to abstract from the kind of so-called bad behavior: The diabetics only hurt themselves when they eat too much sugar. They don't hurt anybody else.

Quote:

Humans behave badly and come up with rationalizations/justifications to assuage anxiety and guilt. Again, this is basic psychology -the defense mechanism. Weinstein could be a sociopath -more properly, suffer from anti-social personality disorder- or he could just be a normal dude who got too carried away with his power. I am not attempting to diagnose anyone, just pointing out that bad behavior does not always stem from mental illness.

No, he couldn't. He's not a normal dude, and a normal dude doesn't get "too carried away with his power."

Quote:

:confused: How are these women analogous to food? It couldn't be anything I said because I wasn't making an analogy. I was providing an example of a minor instance of a bad behavior most of us can relate to in order to illustrate the idea that we rationalize/justify bad behavior. If you understand that minor instance of rationalization, you can get a better idea of the thinking process behind rationalizing more egregious forms of bad behavior.

Yes, you weren't making an analogy, you were making an analogy. Why? Again in order to illustrate your favorite idea: rape is bad behavior, people who behave badly rationalize, so rationalizing isn't sociopathic since everybody does it, thus Weinstein is not (or at least not necessarily) a sociopath.
However, the problem with this line of thought is that nobody has claimed that Weinstein's crime is that he rationalizes. You're the only one who's obsessed with this idea. His apparent crime is that he sexually abuses women, which, by the way he seems to confess in the rationalizations that you provided us with.
The really weird thing about your diabetic is that he doesn't even behave badly! He doesn't hurt anybody but himself so he can't be accused of not being empathic!

Quote:

That was a very tortured response to an argument I never made.

No, that was a very tortured response to an argument you're still making.

calebprime 30th November 2017 04:42 AM

Have you, sir, never rued your lusts and strange impulses? Never immediately post-orgasm, as if a switch were being thrown?

Have you, sir, never begun to rationalize something?

Have you, sir, never been aware that you are, hideously, constantly learning, learning, changing, even in minor perversities, willful blindnesses, cherished darlings, secret precioussss treasures, quid pro quos, understandings, arrangements, addictions, bad habits? No, sir, none of those?

You are young and perfect in every way, no corruption waiting in the wings?

Never been so emotionally desperate for some reason that you begin to believe in impossible things against your better judgment?

Maybe your baby done made some other plans.

Consider how the sexual impulse, rootlike, finds a way to topple anything.

Consider the demented old people masturbating in the nursing homes. Sex prevails, even as the mind is lost.

It's almost a vision out of __Nausea__. Rootlike proliferation. Cronenberg.

I agree with conservatives that human nature isn't perfectible, but disagree with religious ideals because they are unrealistic and unattainable.

Heh.

As for this thread, I figure the old joke applies to my post. Couldn't hurt.

Distracted1 30th November 2017 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12091360)
This s the kind of (alleged) mistake that you shouldn't make if you're an employer, a teacher, a film producer or somehow able to decide somebody's career: Maybe that's the reason why they don't say "NO!!!". They don't want to hurt your feelings (and their own careers)! And some of these men appear to be so vain that they don't even suspect that this might be the case … Really?! I find it hard to believe.

Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, is'nt it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?

I don't expect to be considered a potential murderer, not because I have never expressed anger, but because I have never threatened it [murder],nor have I ever behaved in such a manner (IMO) that would give someone that impression about me.
If someone were to make the claim that at some time in the past they had been afraid that I was going to murder them, I would be shocked. And would probably apologies in some manner that equated to " I am sorry I gave you that impression ".

More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?
Has no one here missed out on the opportunity to have a physical relationship with someone they desired because of an expectation that the object of that desire was not " in to you ", only to find out later that they actually were- and you had missed the signals?

Delvo 30th November 2017 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 12095916)
Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, is'nt it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?

Being someone else's boss is enough to make them think you might use that to retaliate even if you don't explicitly threaten to; the threat could just be what comes next if you're rejected, or the implied/inferred action could follow without a threat even being spoken. It's up to the boss to not create a situation where an employee even has to think of this stuff at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 12095916)
More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?

This is where a line needs to be drawn between the more newsworthy reports and other cases that involve less radical methods of "making interest clear". One can state one's intentions without walking around naked in front of someone else or grabbing one's favorite parts of someone else's body. (I've been told that I should do either of the latter two, but only rarely compared to how often I've been told that I should do the former.)

dann 30th November 2017 08:39 AM

I totally agree!

dann 30th November 2017 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 12095916)
Is there any evidence that Rose ever did anything to hurt the careers of someone who did not respond to his advances?
If not, isn't it possible that he did not expect to be thought of as a person who would do something that he had never done?


You should at least be aware that you put your subordinates in an awkward position if you make an unwanted pass at them. Even if a subordinate came on to you, you'd be stupid to think that it wouldn't be a way of influencing your attitude to employment, promotion, grades (whatever).

Quote:

I don't expect to be considered a potential murderer, not because I have never expressed anger, but because I have never threatened it [murder],nor have I ever behaved in such a manner (IMO) that would give someone that impression about me.
If someone were to make the claim that at some time in the past they had been afraid that I was going to murder them, I would be shocked. And would probably apologize in some manner that equated to " I am sorry I gave you that impression ".

I don't think you'll find the kind of ambiguity in that context that you are bound to find in flirting! :)

Quote:

More on topic, how does one know for certain that a potential sex partner is disinterested, if one does not make clear their own interest?

At one point, if you're in doubt about the signals you're receiving, I'd recommend asking the person you're interested in if you're both on the same page. Only if the signals have become obvious, is it OK to go proceed without asking.

Quote:

Has no one here missed out on the opportunity to have a physical relationship with someone they desired because of an expectation that the object of that desire was not " in to you ", only to find out later that they actually were- and you had missed the signals?

Yes, I have missed out. In high school. She told me thirty years later at a high-school reunion.
If I'd never gotten laid and had wasted the one opportunity of of a lifetime, I might have regretted it, but as things worked out, I'm still quite happy with my decision at the time not to be more 'pushy'. :)

Ron_Tomkins 30th November 2017 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12095801)
No, I don't want to have sex with an unwilling partner, and I don’t know what it feels like.

I don't either. But that doesn't stop me from using my imagination and a bit of logical reasoning to imagine why/how someone else would be attracted to that. In fact, you don't even have to go that far to see examples in consensual scenarios. Lots of people in consensual relationships do get turned on by different variations of "forced sex". Some couples have "rape role playing" and maybe they may tie each other up, where one of the partners can't "fight back". So it's not that hard to imagine how some people would be turned on by actual forced sex.

I think it's basically the "high" they get from the adrenaline rush. No different than kleptomaniacs, who steal things, not because they need the objects they steal, but because of the adrenaline rush of not getting caught. Of course, there may be much more variables to this, and it's different with each individual. But even though I'm not a kleptomaniac nor a rapist, it's not that hard for me to imagine why someone would be addicted to the adrenaline rush of those actions. In short: You don't have to like the thing someone else likes, to understand why they would like it. It's perhaps the most basic form of empathy.

dann 30th November 2017 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12096214)
I don't either. But that doesn't stop me from using my imagination and a bit of logical reasoning to imagine why/how someone else would be attracted to that. In fact, you don't even have to go that far to see examples in consensual scenarios. Lots of people in consensual relationships do get turned on by different variations of "forced sex". Some couples have "rape role playing" and maybe they may tie each other up, where one of the partners can't "fight back". So it's not that hard to imagine how some people would be turned on by actual forced sex.


I don't find it difficult to imagine. But in spite of the superficial similarity between the two things, SM and actual sexual coercion, it only presents you with yet another thing that needs to be explained. The obvious difference is that SM is based on consensuality (consensualness?): they live out the contradiction in therms that the masochist agrees to be 'forced' (to whatever turns the person on) whereas the whole point of (at least some of the many cases of sexual coercion seems to be to subjugate an actually unwilling victim.

Quote:

I think it's basically the "high" they get from the adrenaline rush. No different than kleptomaniacs, who steal things, not because they need the objects they steal, but because of the adrenaline rush of not getting caught. Of course, there may be much more variables to this, and it's different with each individual. But even though I'm not a kleptomaniac nor a rapist, it's not that hard for me to imagine why someone would be addicted to the adrenaline rush of those actions. In short: You don't have to like the thing someone else likes, to understand why they would like it. It's perhaps the most basic form of empathy.

Unfortunately the "high" explains nothing at all. Kleptomaniacs may get high on stealing, but it doesn't explain how or why they get high on that, why and how that specific behavior turns them on.
Again we are back to, in principle, 'people get high on all sorts of stuff, so why not …'

I think that most of us get 'high' during the flirt when we realize that, yes, my attraction to her (him) seems to be reciprocated! She (he) feels the same way, finds me attractive too, so let's get a room!
In the case of the guys we're discussing here, the rush seems to be: yes, she (he) doesn't reciprocate, doesn't find me desirable, but I'll go ahead anyway because her (his) consent doesn't count, I don't have to care about that.

xjx388 30th November 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12095835)
If what you're saying is that sociopaths also, for instance, use language to communicate, then, yes, that's a kind of behavior that ordinary people use for the same purpose.

How can you get that from what I said? I said that all humans behave badly and then rationalize such behavior.
Quote:

If you are saying that ordinary people, i.e. people who aren't sociopaths, rape, then, no, you are wrong.
So you believe that all rapists suffer from anti-social personality disorder? Interesting. Wrong, but it does reveal a very naive and unrealistic worldview. I understand that it's easier to believe that only someone who pathologically lacks empathy or is otherwise mentally ill would ever rape someone, but this is just not the case.

Quote:

Both sociopaths and ordinary people go to the bathroom, too. If you're saying that ordinary people rationalize what you describe as "bad behavior", then you are also right.
And that is what you're saying:
I am saying that all humans rationalize bad behavior, mentally ill or not.
Quote:

Not all sociopaths are rapists, but most rapists are probably sociopaths, in particular the repeat offenders. I can't rule out the guy in Delvo's example who is clueless and receiving bad advice from friends about the 'nature of women' (whatever), but he would still have to be rather unempathic if he insists on having sex with a woman who exhibits all of the obvious (to most people) signs of not consenting.
One can lack empathy without being mentally ill. This is normal human behavior; we lack empathy for those we see as not deserving of our empathy. I can tell you right now, I would have absolutely no empathy for someone who raped or murdered one of my loved ones. Or better put, I might have some basic human empathy for them, but if I were alone in a room with them it would not stop me from attempting to tear them apart limb by limb. I would probably feel remorse after but the deed would be done. I would then justify and rationalize it: he deserved it. This is no different from an otherwise normal person who, like Weinstein let's say, came of age in a culture and industry where sexual harassment was just the way things were done. He may very well have some empathy for his victims but rationalizes his behavior as "the way our industry works."


Quote:

That is what you were doing, and you're still doing it: You go from sociopathic behavior and find something that is analogous to this behavior in people with empathy, and then you generalize: Everybody comes up with bad excuses for bad behavior, so sociopaths are just like everybody else. Except that you choose to abstract from the kind of so-called bad behavior: The diabetics only hurt themselves when they eat too much sugar. They don't hurt anybody else.
They hurt their families and society by being sick and dying young. You can argue my father was only hurting himself by being a smoker despite having heart disease but I can assure you, he hurt us too and he cost the veteran's health system a lot of money. His behavior hurt other people and yet he persisted? Why? Was he a sociopath in your view? I don't think so; he was just a normal guy who justified/rationalized his behavior.

In any case, you are going to have to accept the fact that sociopaths are indeed just like everyone else albeit with a few deficits that cause them problems. Again, you don't have to be a sociopath to behave badly. Were all those kids, the perps and the ones who tweeted horrible things about the victim, in the Steubenville HS rape case sociopaths? I don't think so; maybe, but certainly not all of them.

Quote:

No, he couldn't. He's not a normal dude, and a normal dude doesn't get "too carried away with his power."
The evidence is mounting that you are just plain wrong.

Quote:

Yes, you weren't making an analogy, you were making an analogy. Why? Again in order to illustrate your favorite idea: rape is bad behavior, people who behave badly rationalize, so rationalizing isn't sociopathic since everybody does it, thus Weinstein is not (or at least not necessarily) a sociopath.
My "favorite idea" is simply the truth. If you want to understand why "people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'" then you all you have to understand is that people behave badly and then rationalize/justify.

Your "favorite idea" seems to be that only a mentally ill person could possibly rape someone else. If that's the case, then you already understand why people want to have sex with unwilling victims; they are just mentally ill. I think that's an extremely naive view but if it makes you feel better then have at it. I prefer to see things a little more realistically: humans act badly towards each other for a wide variety of reasons inclusive and exclusive of mental illness.

Quote:

However, the problem with this line of thought is that nobody has claimed that Weinstein's crime is that he rationalizes. You're the only one who's obsessed with this idea. His apparent crime is that he sexually abuses women, which, by the way he seems to confess in the rationalizations that you provided us with.
You are right, nobody has claimed that his crime was rationalization, including me! His crime was obviously sexual abuse. You started this thread because you claimed to want to know why people like him engage in sexual abuse. But you seem to have already made up your mind: they are just mentally ill. You seem unable to accept that people who aren't mentally ill can sexually abuse people and then rationalize/justify to assuage their feelings of guilt and remorse.

Quote:

The really weird thing about your diabetic is that he doesn't even behave badly! He doesn't hurt anybody but himself so he can't be accused of not being empathic!
You'll have to tell my mom, then, that she shouldn't feel hurt by the fact that she lost her husband and best friend at such a young age because he was only hurting himself. :rolleyes:

xjx388 30th November 2017 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096257)
I don't find it difficult to imagine. But in spite of the superficial similarity between the two things, SM and actual sexual coercion, it only presents you with yet another thing that needs to be explained. The obvious difference is that SM is based on consensuality (consensualness?): they live out the contradiction in therms that the masochist agrees to be 'forced' (to whatever turns the person on) whereas the whole point of (at least some) of the many cases of sexual coercion seems to be to subjugate an actually unwilling victim.

"At least some," what about the others?

Quote:

Unfortunately the "high" explains nothing at all. Kleptomaniacs may get high on stealing, but it doesn't explain how or why they get high on that, why and how that specific behavior turns them on.
Again we are back to, in principle, 'people get high on all sorts of stuff, so why not …'
And what's wrong with that principle? People do indeed enjoy feeling good whether it be from a substance, from getting away with theft or from having someone under their thumb. This is also a decent, if simple, explanation of human behavior.

Quote:

I think that most of us get 'high' during the flirt when we realize that, yes, my attraction to her (him) seems to be reciprocated! She (he) feels the same way, finds me attractive too, so let's get a room!
In the case of the guys we're discussing here, the rush seems to be: yes, she (he) doesn't reciprocate, doesn't find me desirable, but I'll go ahead anyway because her (his) consent doesn't count, I don't have to care about that.
I think it's more like: She says no, but she means yes. She wants me because I am a powerful figure but she has to put up a front. So I will ignore her denials and give her what we both really want . . . and in return I will help her with her career. If she still refuses, then she's a tease and I can crush her career. The rush is the power they have over women and they express that power sexually because the sexuality is an even bigger rush.

And in this he was also enabled. His company gave him a contract that agreed to pay hush money to his victims! Hollywood knew about him and his behavior and turned a blind eye! All because of one thing: the money this dude generated for the industry.

Ron_Tomkins 30th November 2017 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096257)
Unfortunately the "high" explains nothing at all. Kleptomaniacs may get high on stealing, but it doesn't explain how or why they get high on that, why and how that specific behavior turns them on.

It seems to me, the "how" is a question that pertains more to neuroscience. Like: What are the parts of the brain that activate in the subject when they are exposed to a certain stimuli? How does the process occur inside the subject's brain, when exposed to the stimuli?

The "why" is such a problematic and general question that I think it's almost useless of a question, as each individual has his/her own individual reasons to why they like something. Their upbringing, their individual mental wiring, etc. In other words, you will not find a single universal answer for "why" every single individual likes to have sex with unwilling partners, no more that you will find a universal answer for any other personal inclination/desire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096257)
In the case of the guys we're discussing here, the rush seems to be: yes, she (he) doesn't reciprocate, doesn't find me desirable, but I'll go ahead anyway because her (his) consent doesn't count, I don't have to care about that.

Exactly. That's what I was saying. That's the "rush" for them.

dann 30th November 2017 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096326)
How can you get that from what I said? I said that all humans behave badly and then rationalize such behavior. So you believe that all rapists suffer from anti-social personality disorder? Interesting. Wrong, but it does reveal a very naive and unrealistic worldview. I understand that it's easier to believe that only someone who pathologically lacks empathy or is otherwise mentally ill would ever rape someone, but this is just not the case.

I am saying that all humans rationalize bad behavior, mentally ill or not.


Maybe you don't remember what this thread is about, but the point was a discussion of what goes on in the head of somebody who abuses women (or men) sexually. For some reason you seem to be interested in a very different theme: rationalizations and justifications.
I've already pointed out the absurdity of this discussion in the Men-behaving-badly post above, so please start another thread where you can discuss rationalizations and justifications because they are completely irrelevant here.

Quote:

One can lack empathy without being mentally ill. This is normal human behavior; we lack empathy for those we see as not deserving of our empathy. I can tell you right now, I would have absolutely no empathy for someone who raped or murdered one of my loved ones. Or better put, I might have some basic human empathy for them, but if I were alone in a room with them it would not stop me from attempting to tear them apart limb by limb. I would probably feel remorse after but the deed would be done. I would then justify and rationalize it: he deserved it. This is no different from an otherwise normal person who, like Weinstein let's say, came of age in a culture and industry where sexual harassment was just the way things were done. He may very well have some empathy for his victims but rationalizes his behavior as "the way our industry works."

No, one can't "lack empathy without being mentally ill" (depending on your definition of mental illness) and it is also not "normal human behavior." It's sociopathic behavior. You are talking about not empathizing with a particular human being in a particular situation. Not the same thing.
You have already proven that you empathize with Weinstein. What I'd like to hear is the relevance of the imaginary rape of your loved ones to this discussion. Unless, of course, you mean to say that Weinstein abused his victims because they had raped members of his family. It would surprise me very much if that turned out to be the case, but please present us with the evidence.
You seem to be so compassionate about Weinstein that you even want to completely reverse the order of things in his case: "He may very well have some empathy for his victims but rationalizes his behavior as "the way our industry works.""
If he felt empathy for his victims, he wouldn't coerce them into having sex with him, and then he wouldn't need to rationalize his behavior. As it is, he appears to have sexually abused a number of women, and now he rationalizes his behavior as a very bad excuse:
"This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"
No sign of empathy whatsoever. Instead he portrays himself as a victim of his environment.


Quote:

They hurt their families and society by being sick and dying young. You can argue my father was only hurting himself by being a smoker despite having heart disease but I can assure you, he hurt us too and he cost the veteran's health system a lot of money. His behavior hurt other people and yet he persisted? Why? Was he a sociopath in your view? I don't think so; he was just a normal guy who justified/rationalized his behavior.
Based on your description, he appears to have been a normal smoker. If he exposed you to the risks of passive smoking and wasn't well-aware of the fact, there's no reason to assume that he was a sociopath. However, he may have been ill-informed by sociopaths in the tobacco industry, who harmed him as well as you.


Quote:

In any case, you are going to have to accept the fact that sociopaths are indeed just like everyone else albeit with a few deficits that cause them problems. Again, you don't have to be a sociopath to behave badly. Were all those kids, the perps and the ones who tweeted horrible things about the victim, in the Steubenville HS rape case sociopaths? I don't think so; maybe, but certainly not all of them.

Sociopaths are not "just like everyone else" (that's why they've been identified as a particular segment of the population different from the rest of us) and their "deficits", as you call them, sometimes don't "cause them problems" at all - unlike most other mental disorders. Instead they cause their victims a lot of problems.
The rape case in Steubenville appears to have been committed by boys who were utterly devoid of empathy and compassion with their victim. I don't really see why you would want to include "the ones who tweeted horrible things about the victims," but it's not unlikely that some of them were too. Others may have been mislead by the lies being told about the victim. They weren't there, they didn't witness the crime.


Quote:

The evidence is mounting that you are just plain wrong.

My "favorite idea" is simply the truth. If you want to understand why "people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'" then you all you have to understand is that people behave badly and then rationalize/justify.

You appear to be so fond of your delusion that it is impossible for you to give it up! You don't seem to be able to understand that sociopathy can always be described as bad behavior, but bad behavior very rarely as sociopathy. In your father's case it wasn't even what people usually associate with the term bad behavior, but rather a bad habit, but please don't use it in your crusade to make each and every sociopath appear to be just one of us regular guys.


Quote:

Your "favorite idea" seems to be that only a mentally ill person could possibly rape someone else. If that's the case, then you already understand why people want to have sex with unwilling victims; they are just mentally ill. I think that's an extremely naive view but if it makes you feel better then have at it. I prefer to see things a little more realistically: humans act badly towards each other for a wide variety of reasons inclusive and exclusive of mental illness.

I think that you are trying to slip in another one of your misleading generalizations, so just for the record: You're the one who prefers to call them "mentally ill." I preferred it when you called them sociopaths. And there's also no such thing as "just mentally ill."
(And yet again your 'human beings and their bad behavior.' Well, at least the candy-eating diabetic doesn't expose his children to passive mellitus …)


Quote:

You are right, nobody has claimed that his crime was rationalization, including me! His crime was obviously sexual abuse. You started this thread because you claimed to want to know why people like him engage in sexual abuse. But you seem to have already made up your mind: they are just mentally ill. You seem unable to accept that people who aren't mentally ill can sexually abuse people and then rationalize/justify to assuage their feelings of guilt and remorse.

No, you're the one who has come up with the "just mentally ill" diagnosis. And the problem with the guys that we're talking about isn't how they manage their "feelings of guilt and remorse." In their case feelings of guilt and remorse would be an improvement! Much too late to really benefit their victims, but still an improvement.
(A hint: Somebody who blames society, the industry and age for his predatory tendencies probably doesn't feel any guilt or remorse at all! He's just annoyed at being busted!)

Quote:

You'll have to tell my mom, then, that she shouldn't feel hurt by the fact that she lost her husband and best friend at such a young age because he was only hurting himself. :rolleyes:

Why the hell would I tell your mother a stupid thing like that?! Unlike you, I'm able to tell the difference between a rapist and your dad! You're the one who has been mislead by your own abstractions to the point where they seem to be one and the same thing to you!
Bad behavior, indeed!

dann 30th November 2017 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12096605)
It seems to me, the "how" is a question that pertains more to neuroscience. Like: What are the parts of the brain that activate in the subject when they are exposed to a certain stimuli? How does the process occur inside the subject's brain, when exposed to the stimuli?


How do these guys manage to get turned on by being with somebody who doesn't want to be with them? I even have a problem with understanding men who are able to have sex with prostitutes. It would be a complete turn off for me to know that I was having sex with a woman who wasn't (really!) into having sex with me. (But so far Delphic Oracle has been the only one to express similar sentiments.) Weinstein's own excuse is very similar to what happens between a prostitute and a john - if that was an actual quotation: "They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win."


Quote:

The "why" is such a problematic and general question that I think it's almost useless of a question, as each individual has his/her own individual reasons to why they like something. Their upbringing, their individual mental wiring, etc. In other words, you will not find a single universal answer for "why" every single individual likes to have sex with unwilling partners, no more that you will find a universal answer for any other personal inclination/desire.

When we're talking about human behavior, there's bound to be individual differences in everything, but still you are usually able to make people fit into pretty neat categories, which also seems to be the case when we are talking about subgroups of sexual predators.


Quote:

Exactly. That's what I was saying. That's the "rush" for them.

I know that's what you were saying, but it doesn't explain anything. (Or rather: it 'explains' everything and thus nothing.)
Why does he go mountain climbing? It gives him a rush! Why does she steal? It gives her a rush! Why does he abuse children? … You can go on, ad nauseam, but that people get a "rush" out of doing the things they like to do doesn't explain why they like to do them. If they didn't like to do them, these activities wouldn't give them a rush.
A mountain climber is usually able to explain what he finds fascinating about his favorite leisure activity, and so are some kleptomaniacs and some child abusers, I guess, but they'll probably find it harder to be honest to themselves as well as to others.

dann 30th November 2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096340)
"At least some," what about the others?


What others?! I thought everybody was the same, and that's "just the way people are." :)

Quote:

And what's wrong with that principle? People do indeed enjoy feeling good whether it be from a substance, from getting away with theft or from having someone under their thumb. This is also a decent, if simple, explanation of human behavior.

It's definitely simple, but it's not decent.

Quote:

I think it's more like: She says no, but she means yes. She wants me because I am a powerful figure but she has to put up a front. So I will ignore her denials and give her what we both really want . . . and in return I will help her with her career. If she still refuses, then she's a tease and I can crush her career. The rush is the power they have over women and they express that power sexually because the sexuality is an even bigger rush.

Not at all unlikely, but I think that you don't notice when you go from conceited/delusional: "She wants me because …" to quid pro quo: "and in return" to downright sociopathic: "I can crush her career". It's important that at one point even these guys are disillusioned and realize that, no, she actually doesn't want me and never did! The next step would be: 'I'll **** her anyway, and if she threatens to tell …' which would then be followed by the: "I can crush her career."


Quote:

And in this he was also enabled. His company gave him a contract that agreed to pay hush money to his victims! Hollywood knew about him and his behavior and turned a blind eye! All because of one thing: the money this dude generated for the industry.

I didn't hear about that before, but enabling seems to fit the description.

xjx388 30th November 2017 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096731)
Maybe you don't remember what this thread is about, but the point was a discussion of what goes on in the head of somebody who abuses women (or men) sexually. For some reason you seem to be interested in a very different theme: rationalizations and justifications.
I've already pointed out the absurdity of this discussion in the Men-behaving-badly post above, so please start another thread where you can discuss rationalizations and justifications because they are completely irrelevant here.

OK, now I'm really confused . . . You started this thread to get some insight on why people want to rape other people. Aside from the fact that it's kind of a stupid question, I gave you about the only real answer there is to give. Justification/rationalization is the explanation for all bad human behavior, mental illness or not. You may not understand WHY people do it (and nobody really understands WHY people do horrible things) but the entirety of human experience has proven the concept adequately.

Take Nazi Germany as an extreme example. Is it your position that everybody who participated in the slaughter of the Jews was a sociopath? That almost the entire population of Germany, who stood by and did very little to help the Jews, were sociopaths? I don't think so. I think there were various justifications and rationalizations that people used to get through those atrocities. They were afraid of the consequences of not participating, for one big one.

Quote:

No, one can't "lack empathy without being mentally ill" (depending on your definition of mental illness) and it is also not "normal human behavior." It's sociopathic behavior. You are talking about not empathizing with a particular human being in a particular situation. Not the same thing.
No, I'm talking about having empathy in general but allowing a justification or rationalization to override that empathy in a particular case. You agree that this is possible in the scenario I described but you don't seem to agree that someone like Weinstein could force women to have sex with him while at the same time having some empathy for them. I mean, maybe he is a sociopath -I'm not ruling that out but at the same time it's possible to understand his behavior without involving mental illness.

Quote:

You have already proven that you empathize with Weinstein.
How have I done that exactly? Because that's a pretty weird interpretation of what I'm saying.
Quote:

What I'd like to hear is the relevance of the imaginary rape of your loved ones to this discussion. Unless, of course, you mean to say that Weinstein abused his victims because they had raped members of his family. It would surprise me very much if that turned out to be the case, but please present us with the evidence.
You really do come up with some weird stuff . . . You are totally misinterpreting why I gave that scenario. The "imaginary rape" of my loved ones was presented to demonstrate a scenario in which a person who is not mentally ill can do something horrible to another human being. Mental illness is not a prerequisite to bad behavior -and make no mistake, dismembering someone who raped my loved one would be bad behavior.

Quote:

You seem to be so compassionate about Weinstein that you even want to completely reverse the order of things in his case: "He may very well have some empathy for his victims but rationalizes his behavior as "the way our industry works.""
If he felt empathy for his victims, he wouldn't coerce them into having sex with him, and then he wouldn't need to rationalize his behavior. As it is, he appears to have sexually abused a number of women, and now he rationalizes his behavior as a very bad excuse:
"This is the way our business has always worked. They want me because I'm powerful and even though they say "no" I know they really want to because women are attracted to power. They give me what I want and I give them what they want; win-win. Now the rules are different but how can I be expected to change at my age?"
No sign of empathy whatsoever. Instead he portrays himself as a victim of his environment.
#1, that wasn't a direct quote of Weinstein (although it was based off of his public statement), it was an example of how he might rationalize what he did. Do you know whether or not he feels any guilt or remorse? You can't possibly know that because you can't read his mind and you aren't his therapist.

Quote:

Based on your description, he appears to have been a normal smoker. If he exposed you to the risks of passive smoking and wasn't well-aware of the fact, there's no reason to assume that he was a sociopath. However, he may have been ill-informed by sociopaths in the tobacco industry, who harmed him as well as you.
So, by your logic there, if I commit suicide, I'm only hurting myself and not my wife and kids?

Quote:

Sociopaths are not "just like everyone else" (that's why they've been identified as a particular segment of the population different from the rest of us) and their "deficits", as you call them, sometimes don't "cause them problems" at all - unlike most other mental disorders. Instead they cause their victims a lot of problems.
Sociopaths are not a different species of human, you know. They are just like me and you, albeit with certain defects in their thinking processes. And the way they treat people does indeed cause them problems -that's the very definition of mental illness!

Quote:

The rape case in Steubenville appears to have been committed by boys who were utterly devoid of empathy and compassion with their victim.
But "utterly devoid of empathy and compassion," in general? There's no evidence of that. That's what a sociopath is, someone who doesn't feel empathy for anyone but themselves.
Quote:

I don't really see why you would want to include "the ones who tweeted horrible things about the victims," but it's not unlikely that some of them were too. Others may have been mislead by the lies being told about the victim. They weren't there, they didn't witness the crime.
From your link:

Quote:

In a photograph posted on Instagram by Steubenville High football player Cody Saltsman, the victim was shown looking unresponsive, being carried by two teenage boys by her wrists and ankles. Former Steubenville baseball player Michael Nodianos, responding to hearsay of the event, tweeted "Some people deserve to be peed on," which was retweeted later by several people, including Mays. In a 12-minute video later posted to YouTube, Nodianos and others talk about the rapes, with Nodianos joking that "they raped her quicker than Mike Tyson raped that one girl" and "They peed on her. That's how you know she's dead, because someone pissed on her."
Pretty goddamn callous and evidence that these other kids had no empathy for the victim either, no? Anyone who shared pictures, video, texts, tweets, etc about what this poor girl went through displayed an extreme lack of empathy for the victim. Are they all sociopaths? I don't think so.

Quote:

You appear to be so fond of your delusion that it is impossible for you to give it up! You don't seem to be able to understand that sociopathy can always be described as bad behavior, but bad behavior very rarely as sociopathy.
No. Not all sociopaths engage in bad behaviors. But you got one part right, bad behavior is not always sociopathic in nature. If you understand that, then I'm not sure why you think rape must always be sociopathic in nature.

Quote:

In your father's case it wasn't even what people usually associate with the term bad behavior, but rather a bad habit, but please don't use it in your crusade to make each and every sociopath appear to be just one of us regular guys.
OK, so you DO understand that behaviors that hurt other people are not necessarily rooted in sociopathy or lack of empathy. If that's the case, then why do you think that rape is necessarily always due sociopathy?

Quote:

I think that you are trying to slip in another one of your misleading generalizations, so just for the record: You're the one who prefers to call them "mentally ill." I preferred it when you called them sociopaths.
AHA! Now we get to the root of your confusion here. Sociopathy IS mental illness. If one is a sociopath, then that means one is, by definition, mentally ill.

Quote:

And there's also no such thing as "just mentally ill."
If one's behavior is the result of mental illness, then that in itself explains the behavior. No need to cognitively empathize with something that makes no rational sense.

Quote:

No, you're the one who has come up with the "just mentally ill" diagnosis. And the problem with the guys that we're talking about isn't how they manage their "feelings of guilt and remorse." In their case feelings of guilt and remorse would be an improvement! Much too late to really benefit their victims, but still an improvement.
(A hint: Somebody who blames society, the industry and age for his predatory tendencies probably doesn't feel any guilt or remorse at all! He's just annoyed at being busted!)
Evidently, you make a distinction between a sociopath and a mentally ill person. There is no distinction and hence, your conclusions are all wrong.

xjx388 30th November 2017 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096771)
How do these guys manage to get turned on by being with somebody who doesn't want to be with them? I even have a problem with understanding men who are able to have sex with prostitutes. It would be a complete turn off for me to know that I was having sex with a woman who wasn't (really!) into having sex with me. (But so far Delphic Oracle has been the only one to express similar sentiments.)

And yet a not-insignificant number of men engage in this behavior that you don't understand every single day. What does that tell you? Maybe that the spectrum of normal human behavior encompasses some things that you don't personally understand. This is, basically, an argument from incredulity.

Quote:

I know that's what you were saying, but it doesn't explain anything. (Or rather: it 'explains' everything and thus nothing.)
Why does he go mountain climbing? It gives him a rush! Why does she steal? It gives her a rush! Why does he abuse children? … You can go on, ad nauseam, but that people get a "rush" out of doing the things they like to do doesn't explain why they like to do them. If they didn't like to do them, these activities wouldn't give them a rush.
A mountain climber is usually able to explain what he finds fascinating about his favorite leisure activity, and so are some kleptomaniacs and some child abusers, I guess, but they'll probably find it harder to be honest to themselves as well as to others.
The 'rush' explains a great deal of human behavior. It really is as simple as that. As to the highlighted: People get a rush out of (non-substance-related) things, basically, because they stimulate the release of endorphins and they have been conditioned out of their fear of doing those things. Doing something that is considered taboo, if you can overcome the fear, is pretty exciting. Generally speaking, one should NEVER jump out of a plane, but man, it sure is fun when you skydive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096822)
What others?! I thought everybody was the same, and that's "just the way people are." :)

The "others" that are not explained by mental illness/sociopathy.

Quote:

It's definitely simple, but it's not decent.
Perhaps English isn't your primary language* but when I used "decent" there, I didn't mean "acceptable by moral standards," I meant, "explains things adequately."

Quote:

I didn't hear about that before, but enabling seems to fit the description.
Therefore, if the industry and culture he exists in enables his behavior, he can easily come to see it as an acceptable behavior. It isn't a wrong behavior, IOW, because everyone helps him do it. He isn't hurting these women, in fact, he's helping them! That's the way the industry works.



*And I don't mean this as a veiled insult so please don't take it that way. This is an international forum, after all and linguistic confusion is not uncommon.

dann 1st December 2017 01:52 PM

Bad chemicals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096870)
And yet a not-insignificant number of men engage in this behavior that you don't understand every single day. What does that tell you? Maybe that the spectrum of normal human behavior encompasses some things that you don't personally understand. This is, basically, an argument from incredulity.


You've now managed to return to the lack of explanation of a particular kind of behavior that several posters have tried before: telling me that people obviously do many weird things, one of which I have a hard time understanding. But apparently, in spite of telling the posters again and again that I am fully aware that people do many weird things and think many weird thoughts, you (again!) invent the strawman that I'm denying the fact that they do so. I'm not! It was actually the starting point of this thread. I never said: "I can't believe that they actually do this!"
You appear to present your argument from deliberate ignorance.

Quote:

The 'rush' explains a great deal of human behavior. It really is as simple as that. As to the highlighted: People get a rush out of (non-substance-related) things, basically, because they stimulate the release of endorphins and they have been conditioned out of their fear of doing those things. Doing something that is considered taboo, if you can overcome the fear, is pretty exciting. Generally speaking, one should NEVER jump out of a plane, but man, it sure is fun when you skydive!

You seem to be extremely happy with your two substitutes for real explanations: adrenaline rush + rationalization. And you don't even think your explanations through, for instance: "Doing something (!) that is considered taboo, if you can overcome the fear, is pretty exciting."
I'm sorry, but taking a dump on the dining-room table, in spite of being taboo, isn't exciting at all for 99,9 % of the population in spite of the fear of what your in-laws will think. So even this is something that you would need to explain. (And skydivers don't usually find it difficult to explain their fascination with this activity, or why one activity appeals to them and another one doesn't.) Your variation of Kurt Vonnegut's (parody) bad chemicals explains exactly nothing because it can be (and is being) used to explain anything and everything.
Nowadays, by the way, this inane bio-chemical pseudo-explanation has moved on from adrenaline to dopamine and seratonin, but it still explains nothing at all.

Quote:

The "others" that are not explained by mental illness/sociopathy.

Let me guess: They also get a rush and rationalize?! Am I right?!

Quote:

Perhaps English isn't your primary language*...

It isn't.

[/quote]… but when I used "decent" there, I didn't mean "acceptable by moral standards," I meant, "explains things adequately." [/quote]


Yes, I know, and so did I. And I still do.

Quote:

Therefore, if the industry and culture he exists in enables his behavior, he can easily come to see it as an acceptable behavior. It isn't a wrong behavior, IOW, because everyone helps him do it. He isn't hurting these women, in fact, he's helping them! That's the way the industry works.

The industry apparently does enable his behavior, which doesn't make it any less wrong even though you seem to think so. Enabling a sociopath doesn't make him any less sociopathic, and his own bad excuses don't make him any more empathic. He doesn't care about the women he abuses. That the sociopath is able to come up with bad excuses for his crimes seems to confuse you to the point where you actually believe his lies.
But Weinstein & Co. don't abuse women because they think it's a way of helping them. They actually seem to enjoy hurting them - and getting away with it.
Suddenly you seem to have forgotten all about your adrenaline rush due to taboo and fear, but you didn't notice that, did you?!

You probably also conveniently forget that they never wanted this out in the open. If they'd actually held the beliefs that you claim that they do, they would have been much more open about it: 'Look at me! I deserve a medal. I help women in the movie industry by ******* them.' Or 'I helped this woman by slipping her a Mickey because she was obviously tired and needed to be unconscious while having sex with me.'

Quote:

*And I don't mean this as a veiled insult so please don't take it that way. This is an international forum, after all and linguistic confusion is not uncommon.

Yes, that may be so, but I'm afraid that your confusion has nothing to do with linguistics.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:26 AM.

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