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)

xjx388 1st December 2017 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12098318)
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.

I know you are aware they do weird things and nobody here thinks that you "can't believe this!" You started this thread because you want to know WHY they do weird things. What I and many others are actually trying to tell you is that there really is no explanation that will help you Understand. You struggle to understand exactly why people want to have sex with unwilling partners . . . as if you want an insight into their thought processes that you can grok and give you an AHA! moment of deeper understanding of your fellow man. Well, you just aren't going to get that.

This very recent from the NYT attempts to shed some light on the subject and I think you will find that it largely agrees with what I and others have been trying to say.

Quote:

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."
Do I really have to think that through? It seems obvious on it's face. That's why people skydive, have sex in public, enjoy golden showers, voyeurism, etc.
Quote:

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.
Well, now that you've brought it up . . . have you ever heard of corpophilia? These are people who get sexual pleasure from defecating on others or watching others defecate. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't understand one thing about this particular sexual fetish. I don't understand the thought processes behind it or why anyone would ever want this. Yet some people do indeed enjoy this! I chalk it up to humans being creatures whose behavior is driven by only few primitive drives which are in turn mediated by brain function as well as social and cultural conditioning. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, I really don't care what they do nor do I care to cognitively empathize with them.

Quote:

(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.
You don't seem to have the answer yourself. Neither do experts in the field. I think I've laid out the only explanation we have at the moment.

Quote:

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

Quote:

The industry apparently does enable his behavior, which doesn't make it any less wrong even though you seem to think so.
I don't think it makes it less wrong. I think it makes it less wrong from his point of view. If one 'comes of age' in an environment where a certain behavior is tolerated and even expected, should we be surprised when that person engages in such behavior themselves?

Quote:

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's your view. He may very well care to some extent but comes up with reasons why he can disregard that care.
Quote:

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.
Maybe they do. But then again, maybe they don't. Again, you aren't a mind reader. Have you NEVER engaged in a behavior that you knew was going to hurt someone but you did it anyway? In my misspent youth, I often went against what my parents taught me. I sometimes blew off a girlfriend to have a guy's night out. One of my deepest shames is that I took a girl out who liked me only to get to her friend; I took advantage of her and I felt horrible about it afterwards . . . but I still did it! If you say you have never done such a thing, I'll believe you, but then you are an angel amongst us mortals.
Quote:

Suddenly you seem to have forgotten all about your adrenaline rush due to taboo and fear, but you didn't notice that, did you?!
LOL, no, I didn't forget about it. Overcoming the objections of the victim is the rush and taboo. Rationalizing about it afterwards is the way to assuage the guilt and remorse.

Quote:

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.'
Please don't saddle me with your own inventions.

They know their behavior is wrong. The cliché is that show business is a dirty business. Stuff goes on that outsiders would never understand. So yes, they don't talk about it. They have contracts that insulate them from the consequences. The threat of a ruined career is enough to keep people quiet. People who enter the business know the score. And thus, the dirty business continues.

Ron_Tomkins 1st December 2017 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12096771)
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.

And that alone pretty much sums up the whole thread. The bolded part is the key, chiefly because it's irrelevant. If you seriously, honestly want an objective answer, then your own individual preferences are completely irrelevant, since the question is not "What does Dann like?". So to you it's a complete turn off to hire a woman who only has sex for you in exchange for money, therefore you can't understand how others would be turned on by that. That's what I'm referring to when I said it's an issue of having imagination and empathy to try to "put yourself in someone else's shoes" or "play devil's advocate". Again, you don't need to like the person, nor like what they do, to use a bit of mental exercise to extrapolate why, in their view, they would like to do such an act that to you, is not a turn on at all.

And again, there is no such thing as a single Universal answer to why someone would like to do something that you don't. Whether it's have sex with prostitutes, defecate on someone, eat a certain type of food you don't like, go on a really high roller coaster, etc. There's an infinite number of reasons, since each individual is different. Your whole thread reads less like an attempt to figure out an empiric answer to a scientific question, and more like someone saying "I can't possibly imagine how someone would like the taste of Mayo. To me it just tastes icky! Who in their right mind would want to eat that?? Someone please explain it to me cuz I just can't see it!". Which in my opinion, is nothing but a form of judgment, disguised as a curiosity. There's a difference between someone who honestly wants to understand why a person likes something, and someone who judges the person by making statements like "I can't understand how someone could be attracted to something like that!"

I'm gonna make a very easy prediction, and feel free to mock it (because I know you will): You will never obtain a satisfactory answer to your question.

dann 1st December 2017 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096844)
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.


That you don't understand the question doesn't make it meaningless, and you gave me no "real answer" at all, but you may be right about one thing: Maybe "linguistic confusion" does explain why you can't grasp the concept of rationalization. If you look it up, you'll notice that it isn't the explanation for any human behavior:

Quote:

verb (used with object), rationalized, rationalizing.
1.
to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
(…)
verb (used without object), rationalized, rationalizing.
7.
to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes:
He tried to prove that he was not at fault, but he was obviously rationalizing.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rationalization

It's the bad excuse for your behavior and not what causes it!
That is what you can learn, not from "the entirety of human experience," (sometimes people are honest and to the point and don't need to rationalize), but from a good part of it.

Quote:

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.

Yes, one of the rationalizations used by Nazis was that "they were afraid of the consequences of not participating," but even in this case you seem to believe them because you don't know what rationalizations are.

dann 1st December 2017 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12098440)
This very recent from the NYT attempts to shed some light on the subject and I think you will find that it largely agrees with what I and others have been trying to say.


Thank you for the link! Excellent article that I can recommend to everybody who's interested in this theme. It describes the progress that's been made in the studies of rapists, and somehow it manages to do so without the use of "rush" as an explanation for anything at all!
And it has a very good example of the role that rationalization plays in the minds of rapists:

Quote:

Most subjects in these studies freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex — but that does not mean they consider it real rape. Researchers encounter this contradiction again and again.

Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes. Asked if he did “something like rape,” the answer is almost always no.

Studies of incarcerated rapists — even men who admit to keeping sex slaves in conflict zones — find a similar disconnect. It’s not that they deny sexual assault happens; it’s just that the crime is committed by the monster over there.

And this is not a sign that the respondents are psychopaths, said Dr. Hamby, the journal editor. It’s a sign that they are human. “No one thinks they are a bad guy,” she said.

Indeed, experts note one last trait shared by men who have raped: they do not believe they are the problem.

It seems as if rapists too suffer from linguistic confusion: They rape, they know that they rape, but they just don't like the word!
A weird thing about this is that the journal editor also seems to accept the idea that, since they don't think of themselves as rapists, i.e. they choose other words to describe themselves and their sexual assaults, they aren't psychopaths! As if the definition of a psychopath were: 'a person who never justifies or rationalizes his behavior!'

Roboramma 1st December 2017 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12098493)
That you don't understand the question doesn't make it meaningless, and you gave me no "real answer" at all, but you may be right about one thing: Maybe "linguistic confusion" does explain why you can't grasp the concept of rationalization. If you look it up, you'll notice that it isn't the explanation for any human behavior:

I agree with you that rationalization doesn't explain any behaviour by itself. There has to be some motivation for the behaviour prior to the need to rationalize it. The rationalization is the explanation for how someone could bring themselves to do something that they would otherwise feel disgusted by.

For instance, having sex with someone that they are attracted to is generally something people want to do. Coercing someone into sex is generally something they would feel disgusted by. Rationalization can allow them to overcome the latter while still experiencing the former.

I think from your view there is an intrinsic connection between any value you find in sex and the mutual nature of it. Without that feeling of mutual enjoyment, there's nothing to enjoy, and so it's hard to understand how someone can want to have sex with someone who isn't enjoying the experience.

My reply to that is that while that might be 99% of what people enjoy about the experience, there is also just physically "getting off". As I evidence for that I offer the ubiquity of porn, which doesn't really offer a mutual experience at all.

The fact that there is something that these people enjoy, even if it is not remotely close to the full experience, is enough to explain why they want that aspect of the experience. The fact that they are ******** explains why they would be willing to cause others to suffer to get something that they want.

xjx388 1st December 2017 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12098547)
I agree with you that rationalization doesn't explain any behaviour by itself. There has to be some motivation for the behaviour prior to the need to rationalize it. The rationalization is the explanation for how someone could bring themselves to do something that they would otherwise feel disgusted by.

Exactly. Rationalization is not the cause of the behavior; it’s the mechanism people use to assuage guilt over having done something wrong. I think dann wants to understand WHY but I don’t think that’s something most people ever could understand.

dann 1st December 2017 10:47 PM

Well, at least you seem to have given up on the idea that
Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096844)
Justification/rationalization is the explanation for all bad human behavior

And about time too. That you (and, most recently, Ron Tompkins: "You will never obtain a satisfactory answer to your question.") think that my question is unanswerable doesn't worry me much. The link that you provided us with shows that researchers are making progress in this field.

xjx388 1st December 2017 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12098830)
Well, at least you seem to have given up on the idea that

Oh, no; I still think that! More precisely, R/J is the mental process that allows us to fight off “our better angels,” when we really want to do something we know is wrong.



Quote:

And about time too. That you (and, most recently, Ron Tompkins: "You will never obtain a satisfactory answer to your question.") think that my question is unanswerable doesn't worry me much. The link that you provided us with shows that researchers are making progress in this field.
And so does any of that research help you “cognitively empathize,” with people who want to rape? Researchers may be able to identify risk factors and such but they will never be able to explain exactly WHAT makes someone want to rape other people. In fact, the answer doesn’t even matter. What matters is identifying what interventions might help prevent rape in the future.

dann 1st December 2017 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12098547)
I agree with you that rationalization doesn't explain any behaviour by itself. There has to be some motivation for the behaviour prior to the need to rationalize it. The rationalization is the explanation for how someone could bring themselves to do something that they would otherwise feel disgusted by.

For instance, having sex with someone that they are attracted to is generally something people want to do. Coercing someone into sex is generally something they would feel disgusted by. Rationalization can allow them to overcome the latter while still experiencing the former.


THANK YOU! I was beginning to worry that only rape apologists were left in the thread because tldr had driven away everybody else.
However, I don't think that most rapists need to overcome any feelings of disgust: They are not disgusted at all. On the contrary, they are attracted to the exact same thing that most of us are disgusted by, and their rationalizations are pretence, bad excuses, hypocrisy.

Quote:

I think from your view there is an intrinsic connection between any value you find in sex and the mutual nature of it. Without that feeling of mutual enjoyment, there's nothing to enjoy, and so it's hard to understand how someone can want to have sex with someone who isn't enjoying the experience.

Yes, that sums up my attitude.

Quote:

My reply to that is that while that might be 99% of what people enjoy about the experience, there is also just physically "getting off".

I don't think that "physically "getting off"" gets only 1%, but ...

Quote:

As I evidence for that I offer the ubiquity of porn, which doesn't really offer a mutual experience at all.

You are right, of course, that the experience of porn doesn't offer a mutual experience. However, what it does offer is the illuson/fantasy of a mutual experience, sometimes very explicitly so: POV porn where the actress even appears to be talking to the masturbator, giving him (or her) the illusion of (more than) consent.
So even when we move into the fantasy realm, i.e. porn, we seem to find that most men are actually turned on by reciprocity, by consent. I can imagine that it probably doesn't require much research to find POV rape porn of a kind where the actress plays unconsenting, but it is comforting to know that this it's unlikely to be the first kind of porn that a clueless teenage boy might stumble upon.
As it is, there appears to be an awful lot of what I would describe as blackmail/extortion porn where the actress is somehow pressured into a kind of consent only to discover that she is enjoying the experience. I find the latter part of it comforting to know, in as far as the appeal still seems to be that the woman enjoys the experience too, but the first part of is worries me because the combination of the two things may lead very clueless teenagers to believe in the old myth, which has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times, that as a rule the woman has to be reluctant at first, but if the man is pushy enough, she will eventually end up enjoying it, thus contributing to creating inadvertent rapists.

Quote:

The fact that there is something that these people enjoy, even if it is not remotely close to the full experience, is enough to explain why they want that aspect of the experience. The fact that they are ******** explains why they would be willing to cause others to suffer to get something that they want.

If by "these people" you mean rapists, then I don't think so. Then there would be much easier and not nearly as risky (for the perpetrator) ways of getting off: prostitution.


PS A very long time ago, I came across a piece of feminist criticism of porn where it was claimed that porn was intrinsically misogynistic because women were portrayed as perpetually horny and always willing. My first thought was that the author should praise herself lucky if she found a copy of a porn magazine (Yes, that's how long ago this was!) under her teenage son's mattress with photos of women who seemed to enjoy having sex since that would imply that this was the kind of sex that he was turned on by: the consensual kind! :)

dann 2nd December 2017 12:29 AM

You are unable to see the difference between:
Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12098857)
R/J is the mental process that allows us to fight off “our better angels,” when we really want to do something we know is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096844)
Justification/rationalization is the explanation for all bad human behavior


Well, that can't be helped, then. You seem to be blind to this very important part of Roboramma's post:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12098547)
There has to be some motivation for the behavior prior to the need to rationalize it.


That is, you treat it as if rationalizations are an indispensable prerequisite for rape, as if they didn't often appear only after the crime, post festum.

Quote:

And so does any of that research help you “cognitively empathize,” with people who want to rape? Researchers may be able to identify risk factors and such but they will never be able to explain exactly WHAT makes someone want to rape other people. In fact, the answer doesn’t even matter. What matters is identifying what interventions might help prevent rape in the future.

Another contradiction in terms since "identifying what interventions might help" depends on knowing "WHAT makes someone want to rape other people," which the researchers are well aware of. Your "exactly" is disingenuous. It only serves the purpose of prolonging your insistence on the obviously wrong idea that "they will never be able to explain" ... even when they actually are explaining.
They're getting there!

dann 2nd December 2017 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12096844)
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.


The only thing I agree with is that, yes, a fairly normal person may become so enraged by having a member of his family raped or killed that he resorts to vigilante behavior. So, yes, somebody with normal empathy may, in a very special situation, treat a perpetrator without any empathy or compassion. But this example is pretty contrived if you compare it with the (apparent) repeat offender Weinstein. Nothing seems to indicate that these women had harmed him in any way that would make him long for revenge.

Quote:

How have I done that exactly? Because that's a pretty weird interpretation of what I'm saying.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.

I know why you "gave that scenario": You wanted to compare the Weinstein case(s) with an imaginary example that had absolutely nothing to do with his specific behavior, in order to make it seem likely that he's an ordinary, compassionate person. But the problem is that the two scenarios are totally different, so your imaginary one doesn't really make your attempt to equip him with (fictitious) empathy any more probable. It is just as contrived as your diabetic!


Quote:

#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.

Sociopaths don't usually have therapists. They are not the ones who suffer most from their sociopathy. And they are able to come up with rationalizations without the aid of therapy.

Quote:

So, by your logic there, if I commit suicide, I'm only hurting myself and not my wife and kids?

Once again your example is extremely contrived: Unless you're and total ******* that they're better off without, you're hurting your wife and kids if you get yourself run over and killed or seriously maimed by a car. When we are talking about sociopaths or psychopaths, intention is important: Did your father want to harm his family by smoking? Did he smoke in order to hurt them? Or was he misled by a combination of tobacco propaganda and his own addiction into thinking that it probably wouldn't hurt him (and consequently his family)?
I don't know why you want to commit suicide ...

Quote:

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!

Man, this is futile! Has anybody in this thread claimed that sociopaths are "a different species of human"?! Not as far as I recall! Are you even familiar with the concept of the strawman argument?
They actually "are just like me and you"if you neglect to consider the one thing that makes them sociopaths: "certain defects in their thinking processes." You can do the same exercise with everything and everybody: Billionaires, for instance, are just like you and me, albeit with stuff worth at least a billion dollars in their portfolio.
See how easy your little game is?! A billionaire is not a billionaire if you take away the thing that makes him one. The same thing goes for sociopaths, obviously.
And, no, that is not the definition of mental illness.

Quote:

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. From your link:

I'm sorry, but even if he is fond of his dog, that wouldn't make him any less of a psycho.

Quote:

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.

If they knew and understood the case and still "had no empathy for the victim" and even "displayed an extreme lack of empathy for the victim," then they are psychopaths. I'm a little surprised that you seem to consider that kind of behavior normal!
(That psychopaths are able to find each other much more efficiently these days of the social media is no surprise.)

Quote:

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.

Wow! Once again you are contradicting yourself blatantly! I thought that everybody engages in bad behaviors, and now you're telling us that some sociopaths don't?! I think that your diagnosis comes as a surprise to everybody, in particular, professional psychologists and psychiatrists, because that is one of the most absurd contradictions in terms I've ever come across: sociopaths who don't "engage in bad behaviors."
This is what happens when you stretch the concepts to the extent where they don't make any kind of sense anymore. I think that your line of reasoning goes like this: 1) rape is just another example of one of your favorite abstractions: "bad behavior", and 2) you may claim that everybody exhibits bad behavior, especially if you include all smokers and 'misbehaving' diabetics, and since 3) not all sociopaths rape, you conclude that not all sociopaths engage in bad behavior.
The irony here is that you are the one who has now excluded (some of) these guys from the rest of humanity, and only because you are so fond of them that you can't allow them to be criticized! :)

Quote:

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?

Because unlike the diabetic and your father, they know that they are hurting people, and they don't care. Maybe you should tell your mother that story!

Quote:

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.

You've only managed to demonstrate your own confusion.

Quote:

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.

No, it doesn't. A schizophrenic, a borderliner and a manic-depressive go into a bar … to have beer. Most of the time these guys are in possession of a lot of rational sense. You, however, are inventing another crazy definition of mental illness that makes no sense at all.

Quote:

Evidently, you make a distinction between a sociopath and a mentally ill person. There is no distinction and hence, your conclusions are all wrong.

There are many differences between different mental disorders. Look it up if you never heard! Sociopaths are as different from bipolars as from the rest of us. Again you seem to be unable to juggle the concept of abstractions.

xjx388 2nd December 2017 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12098901)
You are unable to see the difference between:









Well, that can't be helped, then. You seem to be blind to this very important part of Roboramma's post:





That is, you treat it as if rationalizations are an indispensable prerequisite for rape, as if they didn't often appear only after the crime, post festum.

If the perpetrator didn’t come up with some reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person, then the act would never have occurred. Sometimes, there is nothing to overcome; the perpetrator is simply mentally ill and lacks empathy. But when someone who isn’t mentally ill is the perpetrator, then there had to be some r/j before the act. And, of course, after the act.









Quote:

Another contradiction in terms since "identifying what interventions might help" depends on knowing "WHAT makes someone want to rape other people," which the researchers are well aware of. Your "exactly" is disingenuous. It only serves the purpose of prolonging your insistence on the obviously wrong idea that "they will never be able to explain" ... even when they actually are explaining.

They're getting there!
Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.

dann 2nd December 2017 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099214)
If the perpetrator didn’t come up with some reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person, then the act would never have occurred. Sometimes, there is nothing to overcome; the perpetrator is simply mentally ill and lacks empathy. But when someone who isn’t mentally ill is the perpetrator, then there had to be some r/j before the act. And, of course, after the act.


Oh boy, oh boy, I don't know how to get this through to you. I've tried, and Roboramma has tried:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12098547)
I agree with you that rationalization doesn't explain any behaviour by itself. There has to be some motivation for the behavior prior to the need to rationalize it.


And now I try again:
The sociopath doesn't need any "reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person", because he hasn't got any aversion, natural or artificial. He actually enjoys it so much more. And, yes, that's makes him a sexual predator, a sociopath, somebody who 'suffers from' a mental disorder (a very specific one!), but he's not the one who does the actual suffering in the case of this very particular disorder. His victims are!
When somebody who is not a sociopath - and please stop using the term "mentally ill" because most of the other categories of mental illness would do no such thing - we are probably dealing with a person who is so retarded that he is unable to read and understand the signals of a distressed woman. And that also doesn't seem to be the case with any of the celebrities who have been mentioned so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099214)
Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.


Yes, those are among the things that they have learned, and only some of the researchers thought that “few generalizations could be made.” The rest were busy categorizing. All of this is mentioned in the article, and you might notice this yourself if you stopped cherry picking. One important thing is the one I've already mentioned: They actually do know that they are forcing unconsenting women to have sex! They are fully aware of the fact that they are. They just don't like the word rape! (Probably because they know that this word is connected with repercussions for themselves!)

xjx388 2nd December 2017 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12099318)
Oh boy, oh boy, I don't know how to get this through to you. I've tried, and Roboramma has tried:



And now I try again:

The sociopath doesn't need any "reason/justification to overcome the natural aversion to hurting another person", because he hasn't got any aversion, natural or artificial. He actually enjoys it so much more.

Indeed. I said exactly that. I go further and point out that sociopathy is only part of the story for some perpetrators.
Quote:

And, yes, that's makes him a sexual predator, a sociopath, somebody who 'suffers from' a mental disorder (a very specific one!), but he's not the one who does the actual suffering in the case of this very particular disorder. His victims are!

When somebody who is not a sociopath - and please stop using the term "mentally ill" because most of the other categories of mental illness would do no such thing - we are probably dealing with a person who is so retarded that he is unable to read and understand the signals of a distressed woman. And that also doesn't seem to be the case with any of the celebrities who have been mentioned so far.
. You seem to have no room in your world view for the idea that a person who is NOT mentally ill -that is, to be clear, NOT a sociopath or “retarded” as you describe it-can indeed want to have sex with unwilling partners and act on that desire. I cannot help you achieve this understanding except to point out that yes, people who are not mentally ill can and do rape people.

A first step for you is to grok that “sociopath,” and “mentally ill” are the same thing in that sociopathy -what psychiatry labels as Anti-social Personality Disorder these days- is a mental illness.



Even if you don’t agree with that basic psychology, your world view is apparently complete: Rapists are sociopaths and so they don’t care about other people. I think this view is naive and simplistic; however, it seems to me like you already have your answer. Coupled with your rejection of other, more nuanced, viewpoints... I am not sure why you asked the OP question.


Quote:

Yes, those are among the things that they have learned, and only some of the researchers thought that “few generalizations could be made.” The rest were busy categorizing.
Ok. Now what exactly are they categorizing?

dann 2nd December 2017 01:03 PM

You sum up the article in the following way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099214)
Where they are getting is to place where they can identify risk factors and prevention strategies. As they have learned, rapists come from a variety of backgrounds, and as the article notes, “few generalizations could be made.” What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,” to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape.


You are being very disingenuous again. The article doesn't note that “few generalizations could be made.”
Instead it mentions that one (!) guy, Dr. Smithyman, "concluded that few generalizations could be made." And only six lines later, the article tells us:

Quote:

But more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults.

Not exactly the same thing, is it?! How do you rationalize that?!

You also claim that "What they have learned doesn’t really touch on “what makes people want,”to rape as much as it does, what are some commonalities in experience that might predispose one to rape."

Well, how do you account for this, then?
Quote:

Antonia Abbey, a social psychologist at Wayne State University, has found that young men who expressed remorse were less likely to offend the following year, while those who blamed their victim were more likely to do it again.
One repeat offender put it this way: “I felt I was repaying her for sexually arousing me.”

I can't quote the whole article so I recommend that everybody following this thread reads it themselves. It isn't very long.

I'll end with this quotation for those of you who proclaim that understanding what goes on in the mind of a rapist is not only impossible, but also irrelevant:

Quote:

Clarifying these and other patterns, many researchers say, is the most realistic path toward curtailing behaviors that cause so much pain.
“If you don’t really understand perpetrators, you’re never going to understand sexual violence,” said Sherry Hamby, editor of the journal Psychology of Violence.

dann 2nd December 2017 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099385)
Ok. Now what exactly are they categorizing?


Rapists! Read the article again. You were too busy cherry picking the first time to notice what it actually said!
(You do know what "commonalities" are, don't you?!)

xjx388 2nd December 2017 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12099408)
Rapists! Read the article again. You were too busy cherry picking the first time to notice what it actually said!
(You do know what "commonalities" are, don't you?!)


Oh, I noticed exactly what it said which is why I posted it. Now don’t evade the question; the answer is in the article. The researchers are categorizing rapists according to what, exactly? You said part of the answer, “commonalities,” but you are missing something...

dann 2nd December 2017 02:07 PM

I have left out most of the bits that either xjx388 or I myself have already mentioned or quoted:

Unlike what you said, the article didn't note that “few generalizations could be made.” Instead, after mentioning that one single researcher thought so, it went on to say that "more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults."
So generalizations can be made, the idea that some people in this thread have advocated is wrong: Rapists actually do have certain things in common! "patterns have emerged: these men begin early, studies find. They may associate with others who also commit sexual violence. They usually deny that they have raped women even as they admit to nonconsensual sex.

(And these things that they have in common are things that make them different from ordinary guys (something that ought be obvious to everybody: ordinary guys don't rape!).)

These guys know that they rape. Like I said above: They just don't like to hear or say the word! "The focus of most sexual aggression research is acknowledged (!) nonconsensual (!) sexual behavior."

After having delved into the psychology of the sex offender (see my quotations in earlier posts), the article finally deals with "risk factors":
"Heavy drinking, perceived pressure to have sex, a belief in “rape myths” — such as the idea that no means yes", using hostile language to describe women, being aroused by rape porn, and narcissism (mentioned a couple of times).
And an important counteracting factor is, no surprise there, empathy!

Another important thing they have in common: "they do not believe they are the problem."
And since they enjoy nonconsensual sex and are fine with it: Why would they? The only problem they see is probably their own incarceration.

xjx388 2nd December 2017 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12099468)
I have left out most of the bits that either xjx388 or I myself have already mentioned or quoted:

Unlike what you said, the article didn't note that “few generalizations could be made.” Instead, after mentioning that one single researcher thought so, it went on to say that "more recent research suggests that there are some commonalities. In the decades since his paper, scientists have been gradually filling out a picture of men who commit sexual assaults."
So generalizations can be made, the idea that some people in this thread have advocated is wrong: Rapists actually do have certain things in common! "patterns have emerged: these men begin early, studies find. They may associate with others who also commit sexual violence. They usually deny that they have raped women even as they admit to nonconsensual sex.

(And these things that they have in common are things that make them different from ordinary guys (something that ought be obvious to everybody: ordinary guys don't rape!).)

These guys know that they rape. Like I said above: They just don't like to hear or say the word! "The focus of most sexual aggression research is acknowledged (!) nonconsensual (!) sexual behavior."

After having delved into the psychology of the sex offender (see my quotations in earlier posts), the article finally deals with "risk factors":
"Heavy drinking, perceived pressure to have sex, a belief in “rape myths” — such as the idea that no means yes", using hostile language to describe women, being aroused by rape porn, and narcissism (mentioned a couple of times).
And an important counteracting factor is, no surprise there, empathy!

Another important thing they have in common: "they do not believe they are the problem."
And since they enjoy nonconsensual sex and are fine with it: Why would they? The only problem they see is probably their own incarceration.


Rapists with empathy tend not to repeat the behavior...what does that tell you?

They don’t believe they are raping anyone even though they admit to non-consensual sex. What does that tell you?

Some people are aroused by rape porn. What does that tell you?

dann 2nd December 2017 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099477)
Rapists with empathy tend not to repeat the behavior...what does that tell you?


That Cosby and Weinstein don't belong in that category. What does that tell you?

Quote:

They don’t believe they are raping anyone even though they admit to non-consensual sex. What does that tell you?

That you completely miss the point no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you: They admit to the concept of rape, i.e. non-consensual sex (even to the point of: "Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes. Asked if he did “something (!) like (!) rape,” the answer is almost always no.").
I.e. they just don't admit to the word.
What does that tell you?

Quote:

Some people are aroused by rape porn. What does that tell you?

That some people are aroused by rape porn. What the article tells us is that being highly aroused by rape porn is one of the risk factors - in particular in people who lack empathy:

Quote:

Men who are highly aroused by rape porn — another risk factor — are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy, Dr. Malamuth has found.

What does that tell you?

xjx388 2nd December 2017 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12099516)
That Cosby and Weinstein don't belong in that category. What does that tell you?









That you completely miss the point no matter how many times I've tried to explain it to you: They admit to the concept of rape, i.e. non-consensual sex (even to the point of: "Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes. Asked if he did “something (!) like (!) rape,” the answer is almost always no.").

I.e. they just don't admit to the word.

What does that tell you?









That some people are aroused by rape porn. What the article tells us is that being highly aroused by rape porn is one of the risk factors - in particular in people who lack empathy:









What does that tell you?



What all that tells me is that there are people who do not lack empathy who rape. That there are people who know they lack consent from their victim but find ways in their minds to make it “not rape.” You see, a sociopath doesn’t care about hurting his victims and doesn’t need to find ways in their minds to make it not rape.

dann 2nd December 2017 03:10 PM

They don't "make it "not rape."" Lacking consent from your victim, penetrating against your victim's consent, is the definition of rape:
"According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."
Ask any lawyer! These guys don't care about hurting their victims, they just don't want to go to jail, and they know that this is what happens if you are a condemned rapist!

You appear to be in as much denial about this concept as the rapists!

xjx388 2nd December 2017 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12099570)
They don't "make it "not rape.""

Oh, but they did...in their own heads.
Quote:

Lacking consent from your victim, penetrating against your victim's consent, is the definition of rape:

"According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."
Aside from the woefully incomplete definition of rape you quoted...do you really think I’m saying that the perpetrators literally and legally make it not rape?

Quote:

Ask any lawyer! These guys don't care about hurting their victims, they just don't want to go to jail, and they know that this is what happens if you are a condemned rapist!
That applies to perpetrators who lack empathy. But the article says that rapists who have empathy are less likely to rape again. So those rapists do care about hurting other people so there must be something that allows them to overcome their aversion to hurting others...



Quote:

You appear to be in as much denial about this concept as the rapists!
I’ll be charitable and assume that you are simply misunderstanding.

dann 3rd December 2017 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12099840)
Oh, but they did...in their own heads.


No, they didn't and they don't. They know very well that they what they're doing is rape, but they did't want to use the word rape.
From the article in the New York Times, the one you thought proved your point:
Quote:

Asked “if they had penetrated against their consent,” said Dr. Koss, the subject will say yes.
They don't rationalize, they admit it outright!
And let me (again) give you the one, unequivocal definition that everybody agrees on because it's not statutory, it's not one thing in one state and another one in a different state, this is what constitutes rape everywhere: "According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."
So these guys know, "in their own heads" and unequivocally, that this is what they're doing!

They just don't want to use the right word for it:
Quote:

Asked if he did “something like rape,” the answer is almost always no.
which you insist on treating as a sign of empathy!

So what else are you in denial about?

Quote:

Aside from the woefully incomplete definition of rape you quoted...do you really think I’m saying that the perpetrators literally and legally make it not rape?

Absolutely nothing is incomplete about the definition of rape I presented you with. The only thing that's woeful is your denial of the fact. On the one hand, you are aware of this, but on the other hand, you are hellbent on rationalizing in order to make it seem as if these confirmed rapists don't know what they're doing, merely because they won't accept the use of the one word that the rest of the world knows is the proper one to describe their crime.

Quote:

That applies to perpetrators who lack empathy. But the article says that rapists who have empathy are less likely to rape again.

No, that's not what the article says! This is what the article says:

Quote:

Men who are highly aroused by rape porn — another risk factor — are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy, Dr. Malamuth has found.

So the group of people that the article talks about aren't rapists. It talks about "Men who are highly aroused by rape porn," which is a "risk factor" of becoming a rapist, but if you are a highly empathic human being it is very unlikely that you will turn into a rapist from watching rape porn. But if you don't have empathy, it's much more likely that it will. Please notice that this also is not about repeat offenders, which you seem to think: "less likely to rape again." It doesn't describe a group of rapists; it describes a group of rape-porn watchers, most of which (the ones with empathy and compassion) will probably never rape anybody!

But you continue, based on your completely wrong assumption:
Quote:

So those rapists do care about hurting other people so there must be something that allows them to overcome their aversion to hurting others...

As you can see, you got it completely wrong: those rapists, your imaginary rapists with empathy, weren't and aren't rapists. They watch rape porn, but they don't rape, they don't hurt others, so they also don't have to come up with rationalizations for the rape that they don't commit!


Quote:

I’ll be charitable and assume that you are simply misunderstanding.

I think that I've now made it clear to the rest of the world that you are the one who is adamant about misunderstanding this question. The only thing you've managed is to present us with your own striking example of rationalization and denial.
:k:
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

xjx388 3rd December 2017 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12100014)
No, they didn't and they don't. They know very well that they what they're doing is rape, but they did't want to use the word rape.

From the article in the New York Times, the one you thought proved your point:

They don't rationalize, they admit it outright!

And let me (again) give you the one, unequivocal definition that everybody agrees on because it's not statutory, it's not one thing in one state and another one in a different state, this is what constitutes rape everywhere: "According to the law, rape occurs when one person penetrates another with their penis without the consent of the person being penetrated."

So these guys know, "in their own heads" and unequivocally, that this is what they're doing!



They just don't want to use the right word for it:



which you insist on treating as a sign of empathy!



So what else are you in denial about?









Absolutely nothing is incomplete about the definition of rape I presented you with. The only thing that's woeful is your denial of the fact. On the one hand, you are aware of this, but on the other hand, you are hellbent on rationalizing in order to make it seem as if these confirmed rapists don't know what they're doing, merely because they won't accept the use of the one word that the rest of the world knows is the proper one to describe their crime.









No, that's not what the article says! This is what the article says:









So the group of people that the article talks about aren't rapists. It talks about "Men who are highly aroused by rape porn," which is a "risk factor" of becoming a rapist, but if you are a highly empathic human being it is very unlikely that you will turn into a rapist from watching rape porn. But if you don't have empathy, it's much more likely that it will. Please notice that this also is not about repeat offenders, which you seem to think: "less likely to rape again." It doesn't describe a group of rapists; it describes a group of rape-porn watchers, most of which (the ones with empathy and compassion) will probably never rape anybody!



But you continue, based on your completely wrong assumption:







As you can see, you got it completely wrong: those rapists, your imaginary rapists with empathy, weren't and aren't rapists. They watch rape porn, but they don't rape, they don't hurt others, so they also don't have to come up with rationalizations for the rape that they don't commit!











I think that I've now made it clear to the rest of the world that you are the one who is adamant about misunderstanding this question. The only thing you've managed is to present us with your own striking example of rationalization and denial.

:k:
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



It seems quite obvious to me that, while you may have read the article, you are only getting out of it what you want. You may have read the words of my arguments but you don’t seem to get what I’m saying. Your representations of my arguments here are straw men.

I’ll simply respond with two quotes from the article:

“Antonia Abbey, a social psychologist at Wayne State University, has found that young men who expressed remorse were less likely to offend the following year, while those who blamed their victim were more likely to do it again.”

“Most subjects in these studies freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex — but that does not mean they consider it real rape. Researchers encounter this contradiction again and again.”

But you know, again, you already have your answer, naive and simplistic as it may be.

dann 3rd December 2017 09:42 AM

The only thing that's simplistic is your interpretation of the article. Probably because you have a problem with the word "contradiction" not unlike the problems that rapists have with the word rape:

Quote:

Most subjects in these studies freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex — but that does not mean they consider it real rape. Researchers encounter this contradiction again and again.

The rapists "freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex", i.e. having sex with women who don't want to have sex with them, forcing their victims to have sex, the definition of rape. There is no sensible way of interpreting this as if they don't know what they are doing, as if they pity, empathize with or feel compassion for their victims. They just don't like the connotations of the word rape = an atrocious disregard for other people's feelings and well-being, something that you are punished for.

They are absolutely fine with raping but they're just too sensitive to use the correct word for the crime.
That is their one and only concern. It hurts their vanity (cf. narcissism) and has nothing at all to do with empathy.

Contradiction solved!

xjx388 3rd December 2017 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12100274)
The rapists "freely acknowledge nonconsensual sex", i.e. having sex with women who don't want to have sex with them, forcing their victims to have sex,

Yes. This is what the article says.
Quote:

the definition of rape.
Ok, this is true but irrelevant. It’s about what the perpetrators internally think about what they did. We are, after all, discussing what makes someone want to rape. If one can rationalize themselves out of thinking of it as rape, then one is not a rapist in their own eyes.
Quote:

There is no sensible way of interpreting this as if they don't know what they are doing, as if they pity, empathize with or feel compassion for their victims.
This is does not reflect anything in the cited research. This is your own argument from incredulity. You personally can’t think of a sensible way, therefore, nobody can.
Quote:

They just don't like the connotations of the word rape = an atrocious disregard for other people's feelings and well-being, something that you are punished for.



They are absolutely fine with raping but they're just too sensitive to use the correct word for the crime.

That is their one and only concern. It hurts their vanity (cf. narcissism) and has nothing at all to do with empathy.



Contradiction solved!
This is 100% pure speculation on your part and does not reflect anything in the research cited. You see the word “narcissism” and immediately jump to NPD. This is not what the article said.

dann 3rd December 2017 11:25 PM

Having mentioned Dr. Malamud’s findings that men who watch rape porn
Quote:

are less likely to attempt sexual assault if they score highly on measures of empathy
- unlike narcissists where one of the defining traits is “Difficulty with empathy” (another one is: "Using other people without considering the cost of doing so"), the article continues:
Quote:

Narcissism seems to work in the other direction, magnifying odds that men will commit sexual assault and rape.
(…)
Dr. Malamuth has noticed that repeat offenders often tell similar stories of rejection in high school and of looking on as “jocks and the football players got all the attractive women.”
As these once-unpopular, often narcissistic men become more successful, he suspects that “getting back at these women, having power over them, seems to have become a source of arousal.”
What Experts Know about Men Who Rape (New York Times, Oct. 30, 2017)

It’s also interesting that in spite of the sensitivity of rapists to the word rape:
Quote:

Asked if he did “something like rape,” the answer is almost always no.
the article nevertheless begins with the ad that Smithyman placed in newspapers in 1976:
Quote:

Are you a rapist?
Researcher interviewing anonymously by phone to protect your identity. Call 213/ …
resulting in the 200 calls and 50 interviews that got him started on his dissertation.

Cheetah 4th December 2017 11:12 AM

An exercise for you.
There must be something you really like, really enjoy, you might even be willing to spend money on it. It could be anything, food or drink, a hobby or a sport or some or other game, music, sex or just an idea, whatever.
Now realize you are part of the bell curve, there are probably people, lots of them, out there who are even MORE enthusiastic, much more (some are even fanatical) than you, about their THING. Some things you might find totally arbitrary might be very important to someone else, tastes differ.
Now to evolution, self preservation and procreation are the two most important drives in all animals. That explains the HUGE income generated by the sex trade and porn industry, in general people are obsessed with sex.
We are also supremely social animals and status and 'power' are very important and directly related to reproductive success.
Being the Boss or having power over people did a great deal for the number of offspring produced during our evolutionary history.
Evolution also does not care about the means, just about the end result, offspring.
It might make you just LOVE babies, or it might make you fall head over heels in love, or it might make you really crave sex or give you mind blowing orgasms, bell curve.

No wonder some people are obsessed with sex and power and dominance, its just the bell curve.
Empathy as well, not something some have and some don't, bell curve.

Now imagine if your THING involves sex and power and dominance and it is (maybe only sometimes) stronger than your empathy. You might do things you later regret and are honestly sorry about. Does not mean you might not do it again, but you could really be sorry, happens all the time.

dann 4th December 2017 11:34 AM

You seem to have missed the entire discussion and in particular what the NYT article discussed on this page tells us about rape and narcissism. See my post above yours.
Does it seem to you as if the Weinsteins or the Cosbys "are honestly sorry about" anything?
The point seems to be that if your alleged "THING" involving "power and dominance" is so much "stronger than your empathy," it's probably because you never had much of the latter in the first place.
Evoluton doesn't explain rape. See difference between chimps and bonobos.
Bonobos and empathy.

xjx388 4th December 2017 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12101576)
You seem to have missed the entire discussion and in particular what the NYT article discussed on this page tells us about rape and narcissism. See my post above yours.

I don't think anyone has missed anything, other people just see things differently than you do.
Quote:

Does it seem to you as if the Weinsteins or the Cosbys "are honestly sorry about" anything?
How would we know what they think? A few public statements are not sufficient to come to any conclusion regarding their psychological state. I think it's possible that they are sorry about their behavior. Of course, it's also possible that they are pathologically antisocial/narcissistic. The mere fact that they raped someone or engaged in sexual harassment/abuse is not enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.
Quote:

The point seems to be that if your alleged "THING" involving "power and dominance" is so much "stronger than your empathy," it's probably because you never had much of the latter in the first place.
I think it's likely that they had little, if any, empathy for their victims at least. Much like the average person probably has little empathy for a guy like Weinstein or Cosby. That is, lack of empathy for a particular person or group of people doesn't mean that the average person has a general lack of empathy.

When a rapist is convicted and sent to prison, you often hear people say, "I hope they get raped in prison to teach them a lesson." In the thread about the neo-Nazi who was profiled in the NYT, many posters have no problem expressing support for violence against neo-Nazis. Is this a sign of sociopathy? I don't think so. This mechanism, whereby we rationalize/justify violence against others in a way that allows us to overcome our innate empathy towards our fellow man is a natural human response. Of course, some people -psychiatry diagnoses them as having a personality disorder or other mental illness- have little to no innate empathy for anybody.


Quote:

Evoluton doesn't explain rape. See difference between chimps and bonobos.
Bonobos and empathy.
I'm afraid a comparison between bonobos and chimps does not account for the differences between those animals and the human animal. Human behavior is a little more complex than that.

xjx388 4th December 2017 01:22 PM

Let me just add this: Your arguments here sound a little like as if I had posted the following:

"Can someone explain what makes people want to kill other people? Killing people is murder! There is no reasonable way for a person who murdered another person to rationalize or justify their way out of a murder. So I don't understand it. Help me figure out what exactly makes someone want to murder."

You would be quite right to point out that such a view point is naive and simplistic. Yes, we all agree murder is wrong. Some people who murder are indeed flat out crazy. But this does not explain all murder. Some otherwise normal people do indeed find a way to rationalize/justify murder: religion, greed, passion, jealousy, perceived threat. That only makes them less wrong in their own eyes, not in the eyes of the law or in most other people.

theprestige 4th December 2017 01:38 PM

dann, if you will tell me why you enjoy sex at all, I will tell you why some people enjoy sex with unwilling partners.

dann 4th December 2017 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12101666)
I don't think anyone has missed anything, other people just see things differently than you do.
How would we know what they think? A few public statements are not sufficient to come to any conclusion regarding their psychological state. I think it's possible that they are sorry about their behavior. Of course, it's also possible that they are pathologically antisocial/narcissistic. The mere fact that they raped someone or engaged in sexual harassment/abuse is not enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.


They didn't rape someone! Why do you seem to pretend that they aren't repeat offenders? Do you see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out?

Quote:

I think it's likely that they had little, if any, empathy for their victims at least. Much like the average person probably has little empathy for a guy like Weinstein or Cosby. That is, lack of empathy for a particular person or group of people doesn't mean that the average person has a general lack of empathy.

I'm sorry, but even though I'm trying to be as empathic as I can right now, I just don't see how you get to "the average person." Nobody has claimed that "the average person has a general lack of empathy."
The NYT article points out the general lack of empathy in rapists - and it seems to be even more lacking in repeat offenders. Empathy is what seems to protect even rape porn consumers from becoming rapists.

Quote:

When a rapist is convicted and sent to prison, you often here people say, "I hope they get raped in prison to teach them a lesson."

I'm not one of them, and I don't think that it would teach them empathy. It would probably only inspire them, teach them new techniques to be used when they (hopefully never) are in control again.

Quote:

In the thread about the neo-Nazi who was profiled in the NYT, many posters have no problem expressing support for violence against neo-Nazis. Is this a sign of sociopathy? I don't think so.

Neither do I, and I've pointed out a couple of times that if there are enough AntiFas, the Nazis can be defeated without the use of violence. They take off their polos and run home to mom, and the AntiFas let them!

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
!

Quote:

This mechanism, whereby we rationalize/justify violence against others in a way that allows us to overcome our innate empathy towards our fellow man is a natural human response. Of course, some people -psychiatry diagnoses them as having a personality disorder or other mental illness- have little to no innate empathy for anybody.

Exactly! Rapists, for instance! But what has that got to do with Nazi bashing? You seem to have invented a new variation of your argument about people's feelings when somebody hurts (for instance rapes) a member of their family. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this idea at all, unless you're saying that sexual predators rape their victims to punish them for being Nazis.
Punishment seems to enter into the story of some rapist, but that story is very different:

Quote:

As these once-unpopular, often narcissistic men become more successful, he suspects that “getting back at these women, having power over them, seems to have become a source of arousal.” (NYT, Oct. 30, 2017)

I suppose that Dr. Malamuth has a reason for his suspicion and will do more research into it, but your attempts at creating the image of the compassionate rapist is just as far out and contrived as the many movies and TV series about compassionate serial killers who only kill bad guys!

Quote:

I'm afraid a comparison between bonobos and chimps does not account for the differences between those animals and the human animal. Human behavior is a little more complex than that.
No reason to be afraid. Human behavior is indeed much more complex than that, which is why I wrote:
Quote:

Evolution doesn't explain rape.

dann 4th December 2017 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12101778)
dann, if you will tell me why you enjoy sex at all, I will tell you why some people enjoy sex with unwilling partners.


I don't think you have a clue, but these guys actually do.

dann 4th December 2017 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12101754)
Let me just add this: Your arguments here sound a little like as if I had posted the following:

"Can someone explain what makes people want to kill other people? Killing people is murder! There is no reasonable way for a person who murdered another person to rationalize or justify their way out of a murder. So I don't understand it. Help me figure out what exactly makes someone want to murder."

You would be quite right to point out that such a view point is naive and simplistic. Yes, we all agree murder is wrong. Some people who murder are indeed flat out crazy. But this does not explain all murder. Some otherwise normal people do indeed find a way to rationalize/justify murder: religion, greed, passion, jealousy, perceived threat. That only makes them less wrong in their own eyes, not in the eyes of the law or in most other people.


Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you?
But what I'm actually going to point out is that in the majority of cases the purpose of murder isn't the act itself. The murderer may want to get rid of somebody for any number of reasons, but except for the (relatively) rare serial killer the point isn't usually to enjoy the activity, the process of killing, and unlike the act of sexual intercourse where most people exhibit empathy and want to achieve mutual satisfaction that is not the case when the murderers go about it. But I guess that's a subtle difference that never occurred to you ...

So this is just another one of your usual strawman arguments, contrived as always. All this wasted effort just to be able to cling to your chimera: the compassionate, repenting rapist, tormented by guilt, who just has to resort to rationalization to be able to live with himself.
But that's not the rapist that we meet in the NYT article!

xjx388 4th December 2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12101786)
They didn't rape someone! Why do you seem to pretend that they aren't repeat offenders?

What a pointless quibble. :rolleyes: A person who has raped someone may have indeed raped many someones. That distinction is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.
Quote:

Do you see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out?
I am not their psychiatrist so, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't sorry on some level. Just because you don't see it yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your thought process seems to be: "dann cannot conceive of any situation in which X is true; therefore, X must be false in all situations."
Quote:

I'm sorry, but even though I'm trying to be as empathic as I can right now, I just don't see how you get to "the average person." Nobody has claimed that "the average person has a general lack of empathy."
I didn't say that anybody had. I only said that the average person -humanity in general- exhibits lack of empathy for certain people or groups of people.
Quote:

The NYT article points out the general lack of empathy in rapists - and it seems to be even more lacking in repeat offenders.
Woah, stop right there! Go back and read what you wrote there: you basically just admitted that some rapists do indeed have empathy because some other rapists have even less empathy.
Quote:

Empathy is what seems to protect even rape porn consumers from becoming rapists.
But it doesn't stop ALL empathetic rape porn consumers.
Quote:

<snip>Exactly! Rapists, for instance!
Let's just be very clear here. Is it your position that every person who rapes another person (or persons :rolleyes:) is mentally ill? If so, you'll have to explain why the article cites research that contradicts that claim.
Quote:

But what has that got to do with Nazi bashing? You seem to have invented a new variation of your argument about people's feelings when somebody hurts (for instance rapes) a member of their family. I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of this idea at all, unless you're saying that sexual predators rape their victims to punish them for being Nazis.
Again, you make some weird leaps there. I'll simplify my argument: People who lack empathy for a specific group of people (neo-nazis were just an example of that) are not necessarily mentally ill. A rapist can have lower empathy for their victim but still not lack empathy for people in general. Thus, not all rapists are mentally ill. The research cited in the NYT article confirms this. So does this paper:

Quote:

The authors examined records of 239 individuals charged with sexual offenses and referred by the courts to a forensic service. Defendants charged with rape were typically under 30 with histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence. Major mental illness was rare in this group. Child molesters in the sample were of no particular age, usually had no history of violent behavior, and had a low incidence of psychosis. The most common secondary diagnosis in both groups was alcohol or drug abuse.
So, I think you'll have to rethink your, "all rapists are mentally ill," position. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

Quote:

<snip>...your attempts at creating the image of the compassionate rapist is just as far out and contrived
...as the straw man you just created right there.

dann 4th December 2017 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12101877)
What a pointless quibble. :rolleyes: A person who has raped someone may have indeed raped many someones. That distinction is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.


No, probably not, but it's relevant to the point I'm making.

Quote:

I am not their psychiatrist so, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't sorry on some level. Just because you don't see it yourself doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Your thought process seems to be: "dann cannot conceive of any situation in which X is true; therefore, X must be false in all situations."

Good!
So you don't "see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out". But still, I'm the one who is in the wrong. You're like the guy with the invisible unicorn in his garage!
Give us proof that your chimera exists, that the world is full of compassionate rapists - on whatever "level"! I've heard of compassionate conservatives, but rapists? No, never. (And as for the former: I've heard of them, never met one.)

Quote:

I didn't say that anybody had. I only said that the average person -humanity in general- exhibits lack of empathy for certain people or groups of people.
Woah, stop right there! Go back and read what you wrote there: you basically just admitted that some rapists do indeed have empathy because some other rapists have even less empathy. But it doesn't stop ALL empathetic rape porn consumers.

No need to go back. It may not stop all those lacking in empathy, it only stops the ones who've got enough - and aren't too stupid or misled to see that the women they're having sex with are unwilling, nonconsensual victims of rape.
No, surprise there, really. It's what the article says.

Quote:

Let's just be very clear here. Is it your position that every person who rapes another person (or persons :rolleyes:) is mentally ill?
:rolleyes: So now the distinction between repeat offenders and one-time-only rapists has become irrelevant? Why?
Quote:

If so, you'll have to explain why the article cites research that contradicts that claim. Again, you make some weird leaps there. I'll simplify my argument: People who lack empathy for a specific group of people (neo-nazis were just an example of that) are not necessarily mentally ill.

No, we've been through that several times already: People who lack empathy for people who rape members of their family and people who don't empathize with advocates of ethnic cleansing probably aren't mentally ill. (And you couldn't blame them for being depressed if they were!)

Quote:

A rapist can have lower empathy for their victim but still not lack empathy for people in general.
That is not very likely and for some reason not what the article says. And again I ask you: What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists? I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that? The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?
You won't tell us because the whole stupid exercise is to come up with your imaginary conclusion that:
Quote:

Thus, not all rapists are mentally ill. The research cited in the NYT article confirms this. So does this paper:
Quote:

The authors examined records of 239 individuals charged with sexual offenses and referred by the courts to a forensic service. Defendants charged with rape were typically under 30 with histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence. Major mental illness was rare in this group. Child molesters in the sample were of no particular age, usually had no history of violent behavior, and had a low incidence of psychosis. The most common secondary diagnosis in both groups was alcohol or drug abuse.


And what a wonderful paper it is: "histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence", the typical symptoms of sociopathy, but "Major mental illness was rare," and the child molesters usually weren't psychotic.
So thank you for proving my point again! Rapists are typically narcissists or sociopaths, not schizophrenics or mentally ill in any other way!

Quote:

So, I think you'll have to rethink your, "all rapists are mentally ill," position. It simply doesn't reflect reality.

...as the straw man you just created right there.

And could you please post a link to the post where I wrote that "all rapists are mentally ill"?! Your strawman doesn't get any better because you repeat it. That would be a nice touch, now that you are accusing me of strawman arguments.

dann 4th December 2017 04:27 PM

PS

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12101949)
What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists? I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that? The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?


Let me help you with this one! The NYT article already told us:

Quote:

… those who blamed their victim were more likely to do it again.
One repeat offender put it this way: “I felt I was repaying her for sexually arousing me.”
(…)
repeat offenders often tell similar stories of rejection in high school and of looking on as “jocks and the football players got all the attractive women.”
As these once-unpopular, often narcissistic men become more successful, he suspects that “getting back at these women, having power over them, seems to have become a source of arousal.”

That appears to be the crime that the rape victims are punished for: sexually arousing the rapists and rejecting the future rapists back in high school!

And now compare it to your favorite scenario of Nazi punchers and temporarily non-empathic relatives of rape victims. There isn't really any comparison, is there?!

xjx388 4th December 2017 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12101949)
No, probably not, but it's relevant to the point I'm making.

Which is what, exactly? I said that the mere fact that they raped someone (even multiple someones) is not enough to draw a conclusion about their mental state or level of empathy. Quibbling over the word "someone" is pointless.
Quote:

Good!
So you don't "see any signs at all that they are sorry about anything other than being found out".
More precisely, I have no insight into how they feel or what they are thinking. In Weinstein's specific case, all I have is what has been publicly reported.
Quote:

But still, I'm the one who is in the wrong.
It's not so much that you are "in the wrong." Your explanation is just too simple to suffice as explanation for a complex human behavior. Your view is correct for a certain portion of people; they are mentally ill, therefore their impulses to rape overcome what little empathy they have.
But that's only part of the story and it can't explain all rape. I assume that's why you asked your OP question, but I'm beginning to wonder.
Quote:

You're like the guy with the invisible unicorn in his garage!
And you are like the guy with hammer; everything's a nail!
Quote:

Give us proof that your chimera exists, that the world is full of compassionate rapists - on whatever "level"! I've heard of compassionate conservatives, but rapists? No, never. (And as for the former: I've heard of them, never met one.)
Pure straw. I have never mentioned a "compassionate rapist." But let me ask you a question: consider a regular average guy: no violent past, no antisocial behavior to speak of, no mental illness, average IQ, loves his wife and family . . . can that person commit rape?

Quote:

No need to go back. It may not stop all those lacking in empathy, it only stops the ones who've got enough - and aren't too stupid or misled to see that the women they're having sex with are unwilling, nonconsensual victims of rape.
Hammer. Nail. For you, all people who commit rape just don't have enough empathy OR are stupid and misled.
Quote:

No, surprise there, really. It's what the article says.
Please quote the article where it says anything about a threshold of empathy or being stupid or misled.

Quote:

:rolleyes: So now the distinction between repeat offenders and one-time-only rapists has become irrelevant? Why?
Don't dodge the question which I will expand for your benefit here. Is it your position that every person that has committed an act of rape is mentally ill? Is every person who commits multiple acts of rape mentally ill?

Quote:

No, we've been through that several times already: People who lack empathy for people who rape members of their family and people who don't empathize with advocates of ethnic cleansing probably aren't mentally ill. (And you couldn't blame them for being depressed if they were!)
Think on that a bit. . . You agree that people who lack empathy for Nazis and rapists are probably not mentally ill (at least as it relates to their lack of empathy). Let's call this "situational callousness" as a shorthand. Now, people with this situational callousness think it's ok to hurt a nazi or a rapist (or a nazi rapist, presumably!) because they deserve it, right? Those are bad people and hurting them is therefore justified. Yet you agree they are not mentally ill, sociopathic or whatever you want to call it... Now, why can't a person who is a rapist also have this kind of situational callousness?

Quote:

That is not very likely
Why not? You acknowledge this kind of situational callousness in people who don't rape.
Quote:

and for some reason not what the article says.
It does say it. You've quoted it repeatedly.
Quote:

And again I ask you: What did these women do to deserve the lack of empathy from the rapists?
Objectively from our point of view? Absolutely nothing. Subjectively from the eyes of the rapist? Any number of perceived slights, insults, provocations, seductions, etc. You did want insight as per your OP, yes? If so, then I don't see how pointing out the obvious -women are not to blame for rape- is helpful.
Quote:

I know what the rapists of family members did: They were rapists. I also know what the Nazis did. But what did these women do to the rapists that can compare with that?
You are approaching the question from the wrong side. The question should be (to keep it simple) "what do the rapists think these women did?" It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong in their thinking if you want insight into "what makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners."
Quote:

The people confronted with Nazis or rapists of their family were the two examples you invented to prove that people with empathy may not empathize with a particular person or group of people, so how does that compare with your invention of rapists with empathy who just happen to have "lower empathy for their victim"? What did these women do to deserved the contempt of the rapists?
You won't tell us because the whole stupid exercise is to come up with your imaginary conclusion that:
I won't tell you because I can't. I am not into the victim blaming game.

Quote:

And what a wonderful paper it is: "histories of antisocial behavior that included other types of violence", the typical symptoms of sociopathy, but "Major mental illness was rare," and the child molesters usually weren't psychotic.
So thank you for proving my point again! Rapists are typically narcissists or sociopaths, not schizophrenics or mentally ill in any other way!
I see what you are saying. Sociopathy and narcissism, in your view, are not mental illnesses. OK, let's go with that, for arguments sake. Your invocation of labels such as sociopathy and narcissism seems like one of those "explanations that explains everything so explains nothing," kind of things that you have complained about in this thread. If your goal is "cognitive empathy" and understanding "what makes some people" rape, such labels don't seem helpful.

What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners? Sociopathy. Not very descriptive and way too simplistic -not to mention a misuse of the plain meaning of the word.

Quote:

And could you please post a link to the post where I wrote that "all rapists are mentally ill"?! Your strawman doesn't get any better because you repeat it. That would be a nice touch, now that you are accusing me of strawman arguments.
Sure, just look at your previous paragraph.
You see where you use the word "sociopathy?" Sociopathy (see that -pathy at the end? That should be a clue.) is what psychiatrists now call Anti-Social Personality Disorder, which is indeed a major mental illness. You are apparently using it to mean something other than APD or mental illness, which is an incorrect usage of the word. I just assumed that when you use that word, you understand what you are saying. So it's not a strawman on my part; it's non-standard usage on your part.

dann 6th December 2017 06:41 AM

Somehow I can't find any trace of empathic rapists in these stories.

xjx388 6th December 2017 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12103923)
Somehow I can't find any trace of empathic rapists in these stories.

Why would you? Those stories are stories of victims in a popular magazine.

dann 6th December 2017 09:11 AM

Yes. Does the popularity of the magazine have anything to do with that?
I would love to see the magazine round up all the perpetrators and make and in-depth interview with them.
But maybe we can expect to see them interviewed by the the researchers mentioned in the NYT article, but then they'll probably be anonymized …

xjx388 6th December 2017 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12104093)
Yes. Does the popularity of the magazine have anything to do with that?

Time is not a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. While it's a great story that shines a light on a heretofore hidden problem, we shouldn't expect to gain any real insight on anything.
Quote:

I would love to see the magazine round up all the perpetrators and make and in-depth interview with them.
That really wouldn't accomplish much. If you look, there are plenty of popular outlets that publish interviews with rapists. I'm not sure that those interviews give us much insight, though. They could just be telling us what they think we want to hear.
Quote:

But maybe we can expect to see them interviewed by the the researchers mentioned in the NYT article, but then they'll probably be anonymized …
The research is where you will find more insight; however, I don't think that you will find your answer there, either. For each individual rapist, the "what makes" question will have a different answer.

JoeMorgue 6th December 2017 09:46 AM

Dann,

What exactly do you want to hear? There is no single 'magic bullet' cause for rape and sexual assault. Some people lack empathy, some people receive sexual satisfaction from the act of force, some live in macro or micro societies that don't place as much of a standard on sexual consent.

dann 6th December 2017 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12104100)
For each individual rapist, the "what makes" question will have a different answer.


So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.
That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way) did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.
It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.

porch 6th December 2017 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12104141)
So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.
That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way) did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.
It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.


If we exclude rapists that feel empathy from the discussion, then it is true that rapists lack empathy. What was the question again?

xjx388 6th December 2017 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12104141)
So we are back to that one again, are we?
Yes, we will have different answers from each individual rapist, which is kind of the idea when you interview people, but some of these answers will be very similar, which is what makes it possible to categorize them based on their answers.

As long as you understand that such "categories" are artificial and incomplete. Each rapist is, basically a category unto themselves.
Quote:

That is how the researchers mentioned in the NYT article (also not a "scholarly peer reviewed journal," by the way)
No, it's not. It is an article about researchers so it serves as a decent overview of current research as well as a springboard for more digging.
Quote:

did it, and that is how they discovered that typical rapists, and in particular those rapists who are repeat offenders, lack empathy.
But not all rapists fit into the neat categories researchers create. That's why they use words like, "typical."
Quote:

It gives you a lot of insight into the phenomenon of sexual coercion to get the victims' point of view. Time couldn't have made a better choice of Person(s) of the Year.
While I agree with you, I don't think that only listening to the victims will give you any insight into the question, "what makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners.' "

Quote:

I actually think that you might enjoy reading the interviews with rapists in the "popular outlets" that you mention. It is true that they "could probably just be telling us what they think we want to hear," because that is what narcissists and sociopaths do, but that is also what might make them seem to have the empathy that you've been hypothesizing.
You know, empathic guys who just fell victim of "situational callousness" … again and again.
I know you are being facetious, but yes. Not all rape is explained by Anti-Social Personality Disorder. This means that there has to be some rape perpetrated by men who are situationally callous.

Venom 7th December 2017 01:38 AM

I can definitely see how women can be coerced into sex, however I have to suspect a large number of these women coming out also just feel disappointed or generally disgusted of their affair when they were young and seek to bring down the man when he's in power.

I've often compared this to my being bullied constantly when I was in middle school. People underestimate the kind of psychological damage that can do to someone, particularly a child just about entering puberty. Now I know where my former bullies live and you have to ask: Is it worth it to break the news anymore? Is it worth it to dish some kind of long-arm revenge after all these years?

Course I don't want them to lose their jobs that they're supporting their families with. I don't see the point in making old ass men who bullied or coerced decades ago when they were young lose their jobs and lives now.

dann 7th December 2017 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII (Post 12105045)
I can definitely see how women can be coerced into sex, however I have to suspect a large number of these women coming out also just feel disappointed or generally disgusted of their affair when they were young and seek to bring down the man when he's in power.


There is ample reason to assume that some women will take advantage of the situation, but false rape accusations are not without consequences for the accuser - if they're found out. And it's up to the judicial system to find out, not us.

Quote:

I've often compared this to my being bullied constantly when I was in middle school. People underestimate the kind of psychological damage that can do to someone, particularly a child just about entering puberty. Now I know where my former bullies live and you have to ask: Is it worth it to break the news anymore? Is it worth it to dish some kind of long-arm revenge after all these years?

I'm sorry to hear that. I don't know what you might expect to get out of "some kind of long-arm revenge": Hurting them back? Or would you just like them to acknowledge what they did to you and apologize?

Quote:

Course I don't want them to lose their jobs that they're supporting their families with. I don't see the point in making old ass men who bullied or coerced decades ago when they were young lose their jobs and lives now.

An awful thing about bullying apart from the bullying itself is the long-term effect: Bullies Grow Up To Be Healthier Than Their Victims, New Research Shows (Huffington, May 14, 2014)

And sometimes bullies don't change much. Sometimes they grow up to become work-place bullies or bullying husbands and fathers. You're right, of course, in thinking of their families, but you might have a higher degree of empathy for the members of their family than the former (?) bullies do themselves.
I wouldn't worry too much about a sociopath losing his job or his family. Both colleagues and family might be better off without him (or her).
On the other hand, if they seem to have stopped bullying, it would seem futile to hurt them now.
I think the best course of action for you would be to discuss it with a reliable therapist: What will help you heal? What will give you closure? To engage in fighting the bullying that is happening right now might also bring some relief. You can't undo the bullying that you were exposed to, but maybe you can help stop the present-day bullies.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:37 AM.

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