International Skeptics Forum

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

dann 7th December 2017 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12104718)
As long as you understand that such "categories" are artificial and incomplete. Each rapist is, basically a category unto themselves.


We've heard that one several times already, and it only gets worse: Each little bunny rabbit is also "a category unto itself," but that doesn't stop science from categorizing all the little rabbits as a rabbits and distinguishing them from rats, squirrels and other rodents, and distinguishing rodents from …
You (and all the others who love this argument) are arguing that science on rapists is impossible because every rapist is so wonderfully unique, "a category unto themselves"but, no, they're not. Not where it counts. Being a rapist is still something that every little rapist has in common with all the other little rapists. And exclusively with them.

Quote:

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. But not all rapists fit into the neat categories researchers create. That's why they use words like, "typical."

Yes! Congratulations! You seem to have made a new discovery! Scientists use the word "typical." Now all you need to do is realize why:

Quote:

[typology
tʌɪˈpɒlədʒi
noun
1.
a classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences.
"a typology of Saxon cremation vessels"

Isn't science wonderful?

Quote:

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.' "

Not any insight at all? None whatsoever? I'm sorry, but "listening to the victims" telling us about rapist behavior already did - and it is especially enlightening when you have already read the NYT article about the smug rapists.

Quote:

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.

No, not all rape is explained by anti-social personality disorder, but it seems to be a majority of cases. Your imaginary "situationally callous" rapist, however, is one that you have made up based on nothing but your own eagerness to see rapists as empathic, which they're not, so "there has to be" no such thing. It's a figment of your imagination.

dann 7th December 2017 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porch (Post 12104395)
If we exclude rapists that feel empathy from the discussion, then it is true that rapists lack empathy. What was the question again?


If we exclude rapists that feel empathy, we haven't significantly reduced the group of rapists, so please go ahead and exclude them. That is, if you can actually find any. I've tried googling "compassionate rapists" without finding anything useful.
This thread is #5 on the list! :)

dann 7th December 2017 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12102272)
Which is what, exactly? I said that the mere fact that they raped someone (even multiple someones)

No, you did not say: ”even multiple someones.”
Quote:

is not enough to draw a conclusion about their mental state or level of empathy. Quibbling over the word "someone" is pointless.

Since the NYT article, which you conveniently forget now, stressed that repeat offenders are much more likely to lack empathy, it is not at all pointless to maintain that they weren’t ’once-in-a-lifetime’ rapists, but actually raped at least a couple of someones.

Quote:

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.

You would have had an insight if you'd read the NYT article carefully and maybe even taken notes. The article is full of insights into the mind of a rapist.

Quote:

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who insisted that the "rush" explained all of human behavior? - maybe combined with "rationalization", in particular in the case of rapists … What you don't seem to get is that these guys aren't poor victims of a brain gone haywire, which is why the law treats them as sane, accountable for their own actions, and sentences them to jail instead of having them committed.

Quote:

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.

Lack of empathy, i.e. narcissism, sociopathy, psychopathy, anti-social personality disorder, seems to explain the behavior of most rapists. The ones who are committed are an insignificant number of cases.

Quote:

And you are like the guy with hammer; everything's a nail!

No, you don't even seem to get that idea. A psedo-explanation like the "rush" is a hammer. It can be used everywhere about everything and consequently explains nothing. My careful analysis and criticism of your false arguments and claims are not a hammer.

Quote:

Pure straw. I have never mentioned a "compassionate rapist."

No, you haven't used that term. Instead you have been adamant about your chimera of the empathic rapist struggling to overcome his repulsion at raping by means of rationalizations, i.e. the compassionate rapist (which is always a contradiction in terms no matter how you put it).

Quote:

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?

No, the regular, average, empathic guy doesn't want to rape anybody. The regular, average, empathic, situationally callous rapist, however, does, but that is only because he’s a figment of your imagination.

Quote:

Hammer. Nail. For you, all people who commit rape just don't have enough empathy OR are stupid and misled.
Please quote the article where it says anything about a threshold of empathy or being stupid or misled.

I added the more or less hypothetical guys who are stupid and misled for your benefit because I don't want to exclude the possibility that such guys exist. What the article says, however, is that the more lacking in empathy you are, the more likely it is that you will rape, and in particular do it over and over again. (Unlike the hypothetical stupid guy who believed the stories about women wanting to be coerced - and only found out that it wasn't true when he saw his victim’s reaction.

Quote:

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?

You're the one who's obsessed with mental illness. I've warned you from the beginning against the false abstraction from the disorders characterized by a lack of empathy: sociopathy, narcissism.

Quote:

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?

Why should they? Have you found any mention of your new chimera, "situational callousness" during your frantic internet search for abstracts that seemed to support your ideas? If you have, please let us know, let us see your links.

Quote:

Why not? You acknowledge this kind of situational callousness in people who don't rape. It does say it. You've quoted it repeatedly.

Then it should be extremely easy for you to find the quotation. Let us know when you do!

Quote:

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.

Good! Now all you need to understand is that ”perceived slights, insults, provocations, seductions, etc.” is very different from actual crimes (like rape) and atrocities (like the genocide of the Nazis), which is what made your imaginary 'cases' become 'situationally callous'. You seem to be completely unaware that your words actually describe narcissists:

Quote:

Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard notes that some introverted narcissists are “exquisitely sensitive”. They tend to be affronted by any signs of real or perceived slights, and handle criticism poorly. Seven signs of a Covert, Introvert Narcissist (Psychology Today, Jan. 10, 2016)
Quote:

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."

Yes, it does matter what the ”rapists think these women did”. If they exhibit the kind of thinking that characterizes narcissists, then it’s probably because they are narcissist. (Is it still necessary for me to remind you that narcissists lack empathy?)

Quote:

I won't tell you because I can't. I am not into the victim blaming game.
No, instead you are into the compassionate-rapist game, so I’ll have to remind you that your wonderful idea “situational callousness” in otherwise empathic people was based on a comparison with people who had actual grievances with the people (rapists and Nazis) that they treated (albeit fictitiously) with ‘situational callousness’.

Quote:

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.

It doesn’t have to be very descriptive if it is correct. You have an immense difficulty with abstractions. I really don’t think that you understand what they are. What you definitely don’t get is that sociopathy and narcissism are much more specific than the abstraction from them as mental illnesses or disorders. They are indeed ”labels”, and very helpful ones when you want to understand rapists, which is why researchers use them – also in the NYT article.

Quote:

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.

Man, I’m about ripe to become situationally callous!

When I use the words sociopathy or narcissist in the context of rape, instead of the one that you would now prefer, mental illness, I do so because they are obviously relevant when talking about the mind of the rapist. That is the reason why the NYT article mentions narcissism a couple of times instead of mental illness. Over the years many words have been used for approximately the same thing: narcissist, psychopath, sociopath, anti-social personality disorder, and nowadays: borderline. Narcissism has usually been described as the milder form, sociopathy as worse, and psychopathy as the worst of the three ‘old’ words. However, all three of them are characterized by lack of empathy, which is also what makes the distinction between them difficult.
But if you want to switch to either anti-social personality disorder or borderline, it’s fine by me since this is not a professional discussion.

Delvo 7th December 2017 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII (Post 12105045)
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.

Examples for people who might be about to get into similar situations in the present to think about

dann 8th December 2017 03:11 AM

Absolutely right. It will impede the pathetic Weinstein excuse: "That was the culture then."

xjx388 8th December 2017 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12105786)
We've heard that one several times already, and it only gets worse: Each little bunny rabbit is also "a category unto itself," but that doesn't stop science from categorizing all the little rabbits as a rabbits and distinguishing them from rats, squirrels and other rodents, and distinguishing rodents from …
You (and all the others who love this argument) are arguing that science on rapists is impossible because every rapist is so wonderfully unique, "a category unto themselves"but, no, they're not. Not where it counts. Being a rapist is still something that every little rapist has in common with all the other little rapists. And exclusively with them.

Sure they have something in common: they are rapists.

No one has said science on rapists is impossible. Honestly, I really don't think that much more discussion with you is going to be fruitful. You very much want to pigeonhole all perpetrators of rape into a nice, neat category -sociopathic/narcissistic- so that you can have a nice, neat answer to your simplistic and naive question. All I and others are trying to tell you is that there are no nice, neat answers. I challenge you to find scholarly articles that support your position; you won't find them.


Quote:

Yes! Congratulations! You seem to have made a new discovery! Scientists use the word "typical." Now all you need to do is realize why:
:rolleyes: . . . that's quite a stretch of the word, "typical." The typical rapist is male, yes? Are all rapists male? No. Not all rapists fit into "typical."

As for typologies, there are all kinds of rapist typologies out there. Scientists categorize rapists on any number of factors but there is no accepted standard model of rapist typology. But let's pretend there is, for argument's sake; in fact, let's use your own typology: the anti-social personality. You can argue that the typical rapist is anti-social and I won't disagree with you. However, not all people with anti-social personalities rape. IOW, you are still stuck with your OP question: What made THAT particular anti-social person want to have sex with an unwilling partner?

People aren't bunnies, dann.

Quote:

Isn't science wonderful?
It absolutely is; however, science does not have all the answers to your question and it probably never will.

Quote:

Not any insight at all? None whatsoever? I'm sorry, but "listening to the victims" telling us about rapist behavior already did - and it is especially enlightening when you have already read the NYT article about the smug rapists.
Nope, no insight at all as to what made THAT particular rapist want to rape them.

Quote:

No, not all rape is explained by anti-social personality disorder, but it seems to be a majority of cases.
Does it?
Quote:

Your imaginary "situationally callous" rapist, however, is one that you have made up based on nothing but your own eagerness to see rapists as empathic, which they're not, so "there has to be" no such thing. It's a figment of your imagination.
Says you. Look, it's obvious we disagree on this and we really aren't getting anywhere. You see things in a very simplistic way, IMHO and I think rapist psychology is way too complex to give a satisfactory answer to your OP.

xjx388 8th December 2017 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12105824)
No, you did not say: ”even multiple someones.”

No, dann, I didn't. I assumed that when I said "when a person rapes someone," that you would understand that I was talking about all rapists in general whether one-time-only or multiple. The distinction is totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Quote:

Since the NYT article, which you conveniently forget now, stressed that repeat offenders are much more likely to lack empathy, it is not at all pointless to maintain that they weren’t ’once-in-a-lifetime’ rapists, but actually raped at least a couple of someones.
Yeah, it kind of is pointless if we are trying to get at an explanation for why some people rape. Is your OP question restricted to only serial rapists?

Quote:

You would have had an insight if you'd read the NYT article carefully and maybe even taken notes. The article is full of insights into the mind of a rapist.
No, it really isn't. That's why I cited it.

Quote:

<snipped things I see no point in responding to anymore>
Man, I’m about ripe to become situationally callous!
I think that ship has sailed . . .

Quote:

When I use the words sociopathy or narcissist in the context of rape, instead of the one that you would now prefer, mental illness, I do so because they are obviously relevant when talking about the mind of the rapist.
Some rapists. Not all.
Quote:

That is the reason why the NYT article mentions narcissism a couple of times instead of mental illness. Over the years many words have been used for approximately the same thing: narcissist, psychopath, sociopath, anti-social personality disorder, and nowadays: borderline.
Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

Narcissism has usually been described as the milder form, sociopathy as worse, and psychopathy as the worst of the three ‘old’ words. However, all three of them are characterized by lack of empathy, which is also what makes the distinction between them difficult.
Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

But if you want to switch to either anti-social personality disorder or borderline, it’s fine by me since this is not a professional discussion.
No, you go ahead . . . I have participated in this fruitless discussion about as much as I wish to.

dann 8th December 2017 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12107157)
No, dann, I didn't. I assumed that when I said "when a person rapes someone," that you would understand that I was talking about all rapists in general whether one-time-only or multiple. The distinction is totally irrelevant to the point I was making.


No, the distinction was totally relevant to the point that you were making, which was:
Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12101666)
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.


Trying to prove your chimera of the compassionate rapists, "sorry for their behavior", driven by the "rush" and overcome by another figment of your imagination, "situational callousness", which is so much more unlikely when you are dealing with repeat offenders, because not only do rapists tend to lack empathy, but repeat offenders do so much more so, to the extent that it is highly unlikely that such a creature as the compassionate rapist of more than one woman exists outside of your contrived hypothesis. That the both stupid, ignorant and misled rapist, not completely devoid of empathy may exist is something we've taken for granted - at least hypothetically.
But I'm starting to wonder why this mythical creature is so important to you.

Quote:

Yeah, it kind of is pointless if we are trying to get at an explanation for why some people rape. Is your OP question restricted to only serial rapists?

No, it wasn't, but it isn't very hard to imagine what goes on inside the imaginary minds of your mythical creatures, the rapists with a conscience, who are "sorry about their behavior", the rapists with empathy, that I've named "compassionate rapists": They are misled by (what might even be well-meaning and female) friends and by the cultural myth of women who say no but mean yes, and in addition to this they are unable to read the signals of a woman (or man) who obviously (to normal, empathic men) doesn't consent to and definitely doesn't enjoy what he's doing to her, and so it comes as a shock to him when he discovers what he has done: forced a woman (or man) to have sex with him, penetrated without consent, raped!
Highly unlikely, but let us not rule out this highly unlikely scenario. However, as unlikely as he is, he isn't very interesting
However, we actually know that even men who watch rape porn tend not to rape if they have empathy and even less so when they rape more than once, and they were the ones that I was talking about in my opening post, which you keep referring to, but apparently without knowing (or remembering) what I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069131)
But the sadists are different from sexual offenders like Spacey: They seem to want their partners to be consensual, they want them not only to like but to desire what is going all: their role-playing games.
The Spaceys, the Cosbys, the Weinsteins, the O'Reillys etc. don't really seem to care about this, and they may even be turned on by the unwillingness of their partners.

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

But how can anybody enjoy to have sex with an unwilling partner?!

That was the question I asked in the OP! I know, not what you're talking about. I've had to deal with your attempt at digression for an awfully long time now.

Quote:

No, it really isn't. That's why I cited it.
Man, you are just so disingenuous, and now you don't even care how much you contradict yourself! You were the one who referenced the NYT article because you thought that it backed up your ideas, but when I now point out that the "article is full of insights into the mind of a rapist," you simply claim that it isn't and that you cited it because it isn't.
Unbelievable!

Quote:

I think that ship has sailed . . .

Some rapists. Not all. Nope. Not even close. Nope. Not even close.

No, you go ahead . . . I have participated in this fruitless discussion about as much as I wish to.
I, for one, would be happy to see you drop out of it with your unsubstantiated claims, which have only been an attempt at derailing the discussion from the very beginning.

dann 9th December 2017 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12107146)
Sure they have something in common: they are rapists.

No one has said science on rapists is impossible. Honestly, I really don't think that much more discussion with you is going to be fruitful. You very much want to pigeonhole all perpetrators of rape into a nice, neat category -sociopathic/narcissistic- so that you can have a nice, neat answer to your simplistic and naive question. All I and others are trying to tell you is that there are no nice, neat answers. I challenge you to find scholarly articles that support your position; you won't find them.


I've found enough already, whereas you have found only references that contradict your claim, so please find just one single article that supports your ideas of:
1) the rush
2) situational callousness
the figments of your imagination, based on your wish to render it likely that your rapists with empathy exist in a number large enough to make them relevant.

Quote:

:rolleyes: . . . that's quite a stretch of the word, "typical." The typical rapist is male, yes? Are all rapists male? No. Not all rapists fit into "typical."

Go ahead. See if it helps your search for the compassionate rapists if you look for them among female rapists:
The understudied female predator

Quote:

As for typologies, there are all kinds of rapist typologies out there. Scientists categorize rapists on any number of factors but there is no accepted standard model of rapist typology.

This is rich! When you claim that rapists can't be categorized because they're all so different and that it's impossible to find something typical because they're all so individual, and I then show you that researchers both categorized and typologize, you come up with: "there are all kinds of rapist typologies."
And yes, there are! Researchers use them to do research! But please go ahead, take it to the next level and complain that categories can't be categorized …

Quote:

But let's pretend there is, for argument's sake; in fact, let's use your own typology: the anti-social personality. You can argue that the typical rapist is anti-social and I won't disagree with you. However, not all people with anti-social personalities rape. IOW, you are still stuck with your OP question: What made THAT particular anti-social person want to have sex with an unwilling partner?

That was never my OP question. I really think that you should go back and read the whole thing again. You have managed to confuse yourself so much by now that you seem to think I asked the question that you want to prove can't be answered.

Quote:

People aren't bunnies, dann.

No, and rapists aren't empathic.

Quote:

It absolutely is; however, science does not have all the answers to your question and it probably never will.

I really enjoy when you pretend to know what the science has all the answers to.

Quote:

Nope, no insight at all as to what made THAT particular rapist want to rape them.

I gotta say, when you make up a strawman, you know how to recycle it, and you really seem to think that if there's one rapist out there whose behavior can't be explained, then my OP question can't be answered. Again: Go back and read it!

Quote:

Does it?Says you. Look, it's obvious we disagree on this and we really aren't getting anywhere. You see things in a very simplistic way, IMHO and I think rapist psychology is way too complex to give a satisfactory answer to your OP.

Yes, you do think so. And you also think that your idea of empathic rapists with situational callousness, rationalizations and rush exists in the real world and is not at all simplistic.

xjx388 9th December 2017 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12107445)
<snipped for sanity>
I, for one, would be happy to see you drop out of it with your unsubstantiated claims, which have only been an attempt at derailing the discussion from the very beginning.


:rolleyes: Don’t worry, you get your wish. Before I go, I’ll just reiterate something very wise that Ron Tomkins said early on when he had the good sense to drop out of this thread:

Knock yourself out... I'm sure you're gonna crack this case sooner or later.

Roboramma 9th December 2017 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12105754)
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.

Would you give similar advice to a rape victim?

dann 9th December 2017 05:59 AM

Somebody who was raped a very long time ago and still has emotional scars from the experience? Yes, probably.
The thing about bullying is that it usually goes on and on and on. It rarely is just one incident so even though each little incident may seem insignificant, it builds up over time and may leave much deeper scars. I have met rape victims who did not seem to be deeply traumatized by the experience. I have not heard of victims of bullying who were not affected for the rest of their lives.
But I am no expert so I would definitely recommend the discussion with a professional.

Roboramma 9th December 2017 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12107611)
Somebody who was raped a very long time ago and still has emotional scars from the experience? Yes, probably.
The thing about bullying is that it usually goes on and on and on. It rarely is just one incident so even though each little incident may seem insignificant, it builds up over time and may leave much deeper scars. I have met rape victims who did not seem to be deeply traumatized by the experience. I have not heard of victims of bullying who were not affected for the rest of their lives.
But I am no expert so I would definitely recommend the discussion with a professional.

That sounds pretty reasonable.

I remember a kid in my 6th grade class who was bullied relentlessly and I've always felt guilty for not helping him. I didn't participate, but it was the only time that I was too intimidated to try to step in and stop it. I also went through some bullying myself which gave me some understanding, but it was nothing like what that kid had to endure. It was mostly non-physical but the psychological torture on a daily basis was in many ways worse than physical bullying. It's actually hard to understand that in much the same way as you are asking about rapists. Those bullies were kids I grew up with and while some were worse than others they were generally just normal kids. What drove them to treat him like that, and even derive pleasure from it? I really couldn't understand it at the time. Now I can see it as related to status seeking on a social hierarchy, or something like that.

Anyway this is a bit of a derail.

tinribmancer 9th December 2017 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12105754)
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)

This CRP thing that is being mentioned in said article, is this deadly or does this go away after sometime? This is a serious question, since I had to look up what CRP meant.

dann 9th December 2017 03:32 PM

Deadly is a pretty strong word, but there seems to be a lingering effect several years later, and since inflammation is one the things that tends to age us, there is probably reason to suspect that it may shorten the lifespan of victims.
The article seems to be based on some of these studies:

Apr. 2013: Adult Psychiatric Outcomes of Bullying and Being Bullied by Peers in Childhood and Adolescence

Aug. 2013: Impact of Bullying in Childhood on Adult Health, Wealth, Crime, and Social Outcomes

2013/2014: Adult Health Outcomes of Childhood Bullying Victimization: Evidence From a Five-Decade Longitudinal British Birth Cohort

Sep. 2015: Does childhood bullying predict eating disorder symptoms? A prospective, longitudinal analysis

Mar. 2016: Psychiatric outcomes of bullying victimization: a study of discordant monozygotic twins

dann 10th December 2017 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12107611)
I have met rape victims who did not seem to be deeply traumatized by the experience.


However, that doesn't mean that I want to downplay the long-term effect of rape on many other victims.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12108597)
However, that doesn't mean that I want to downplay the long-term effect of rape on many other victims.

I never thought you were. Actually I misread your original comment that I replied to and thought you were downplaying the long term effects of bullying.

My fault, it's clear that you weren't.

dann 10th December 2017 05:03 AM

I never thought that you did! :)
I just wanted to make sure that nobody else did either.
Anyway, it's not a 'who's-more-vicitmized competition'.

calebprime 10th December 2017 06:12 AM

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017...st-the-pricks/

Just skimmed this piece in the N. Y. Review of Books by Laura Kipnis.

I like the musing tone.

last para:

Quote:

But it’s not exactly news that sexuality fractures self-coherence. We’re badly held together by social mores and the threat of punishment, which is how we become such good compartmentalizers. I suspect that anyone who wondered how Harvey Weinstein could have endowed the Gloria Steinem Chair in Media, Culture and Feminist Studies at Rutgers while serially assaulting aspiring actresses and assistants is someone who either lacks imagination or has never done a thorough moral inventory.

dann 10th December 2017 07:25 AM

"… someone who either lacks imagination or has never done a thorough moral inventory."


I would say both. A typically narcissistic attitude:
I deserve the honor for being able to keep up appearances, and I'm so clever that I'll never be found out.

I just wonder if nobody tipped them off at Rutgers, or if they just didn't care.


PS I guess this is why: Rutgers University: We Won't Return Donations from Harvey Weinstein (Oct. 16, 2017)

dann 18th December 2017 12:32 AM

Robert Sutton: Want to fix sexual harassment? Don't hire jerks (CNN, Dec. 15, 2017)

Even though Robert Sutton doesn't use the word, it's obvious what kind of personality disorder he describes.

dann 6th April 2018 10:43 PM

Quote:

'A big part of my sexual life and sexual fantasies has been informed by the attraction to the fantasy of an unwilling partner,' he says, adding: 'Vicious fantasies.
'Eventually you start asking questions about yourself,' he goes on. 'I don't know why I find something so genuinely distasteful in reality so appealing in fantasy. I can only presume it's about power.'
I’m attracted to the fantasy of an unwilling partner (Daily Mail, Jan. 26, 2016)

Another guy who is into much the same thing offers a kind of explanation for the power trip. However, he doesn’t elaborate:

Quote:

I had low self-esteem when I was younger.

That would tie in well with my idea in post 21 in this thread.

fuelair 7th April 2018 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12105795)
If we exclude rapists that feel empathy, we haven't significantly reduced the group of rapists, so please go ahead and exclude them. That is, if you can actually find any. I've tried googling "compassionate rapists" without finding anything useful.
This thread is #5 on the list! :)

Even if compassionate rapist is a real thing I am fine with it's execution in interesting ways that will leave it in pain and terror up to the point where it expires.

dann 7th April 2018 03:41 PM

Accused submarine murderer Peter Madsen claims that he is a "compassionate psychopath" (my translation from Danish of "kærlig psykopat").
However, the expert witnesses don't seem to buy his oxymoron.

fuelair 7th April 2018 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12248578)
Accused submarine murderer Peter Madsen claims that he is a "compassionate psychopath" (my translation from Danish of "kærlig psykopat").
However, the expert witnesses don't seem to buy his oxymoron.

I certainly buy the psychopath part. But do not care as far as court stuff.

Lambchops 7th April 2018 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12248578)
Accused submarine murderer Peter Madsen claims that he is a "compassionate psychopath" (my translation from Danish of "kærlig psykopat").
However, the expert witnesses don't seem to buy his oxymoron.

"En kærlig psykopat". What is that even supposed to mean? That article really is something.

dann 7th April 2018 11:45 PM

The idea is absurd, of course, but somehow it also seems to be comforting, not only to the psychopaths themselves but also to ordinary people. Otherwise I can't account for the phenomenon of the good serial killer in fiction: Dexter and Hannibal Lecter. In the novels, the latter evolves from a kind of super villain to the Dexter-kind of serial killer, who kills only bad guys - in the prequel mainly cannibalistic Nazis and other racists.

Madsen has described himself as both a psychopath and a sadist, but he still seems to think of himself as a good guy.

In this thread, I was the one who came up with the term "compassionate rapist" to describe xjx388's more or less imaginary subset of rapists with empathy, who rape in spite of their alleged empathy with the victims because they are somehow overcome by "situational callousness," a concept invented by xjx388.

xjx388 8th April 2018 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12248894)
The idea is absurd, of course, but somehow it also seems to be comforting, not only to the psychopaths themselves but also to ordinary people. Otherwise I can't account for the phenomenon of the good serial killer in fiction: Dexter and Hannibal Lecter. In the novels, the latter evolves from a kind of super villain to the Dexter-kind of serial killer, who kills only bad guys - in the prequel mainly cannibalistic Nazis and other racists.

Madsen has described himself as both a psychopath and a sadist, but he still seems to think of himself as a good guy.

In this thread, I was the one who came up with the term "compassionate rapist" to describe xjx388's more or less imaginary subset of rapists with empathy, who rape in spite of their alleged empathy with the victims because they are somehow overcome by "situational callousness," a concept invented by xjx388.

Lol, yes, I invented it. :rolleyes:

Oh wait...I cited sources who described it. Here’s another:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12616926/

Quote:

It was concluded from the present study that rapists may suppress empathy primarily toward their own victim rather than suffer from a generalized empathy deficit. It is suggested that empathy deficits in rapists might better be construed as cognitive distortions specific to their victims and should be addressed in that manner in treatment.
Guess I can’t take credit after all but thanks anyway.

zooterkin 9th April 2018 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12248894)
he still seems to think of himself as a good guy.

Doesn't everyone, though?

dann 9th April 2018 12:18 PM

Most of us, probably, but it's hard to tell with these guys, who often lie about everything. However, I have seen interviews with serial killers who don't claim to be good guys and say themselves that the only way to deal with them is to keep them locked up.

dann 9th April 2018 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12249800)
Lol, yes, I invented it. :rolleyes:
Oh wait...I cited sources who described it.


... without actually describing it.

Quote:

Here’s another:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12616926/
Quote:

It was concluded from the present study that rapists may suppress empathy primarily toward their own victim rather than suffer from a generalized empathy deficit. It is suggested that empathy deficits in rapists might better be construed as cognitive distortions specific to their victims and should be addressed in that manner in treatment.
Guess I can’t take credit after all but thanks anyway.

Oh yes, you can!
Even though both concepts seem nonsensical, victim-specific "cognitive distortions" are a far cry from situation-specific "callousness". In the first case, assuming that it's an actual thing, restraining orders would be in place: 'Don't go within a certain distance of the person who allegedly distorts your cognition to the extent where you find it appropriate to rape her (or him)!' On top of the list, of course, would be the people already raped by the recipient of the restraining order. Whereas in your own imaginary cases, the order of the day would be ... what? ... 'Don't ever put yourself and your potential victims in a situation that makes you callous enough to rape them!'???

I have to admit that I find it hard to believe in a study that seems to confirm typical psychopathic victim-blaming: 'Look what you, yes, I mean you specifically, made me do to you!'

It should also be mentioned that it's a study that compares two groups only, "27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders", none of whom can be expected to exhibit normal empathy.

xjx388 9th April 2018 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12250512)
... without actually describing it.




Oh yes, you can!
Even though both concepts seem nonsensical, victim-specific "cognitive distortions" are a far cry from situation-specific "callousness". In the first case, assuming that it's an actual thing, restraining orders would be in place: 'Don't go within a certain distance of the person who allegedly distorts your cognition to the extent where you find it appropriate to rape her (or him)!' On top of the list, of course, would be the people already raped by the recipient of the restraining order. Whereas in your own imaginary cases, the order of the day would be ... what? ... 'Don't ever put yourself and your potential victims in a situation that makes you callous enough to rape them!'???

I have to admit that I find it hard to believe in a study that seems to confirm typical psychopathic victim-blaming: 'Look what you, yes, I mean you specifically, made me do to you!'

It should also be mentioned that it's a study that compares two groups only, "27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders", none of whom can be expected to exhibit normal empathy.

I honestly don't know what you are on about in that response. . . it reads like pure gibberish.

As to your last sentence, you aren't grokking the basic idea: people can have empathy in general but not for their victims. Kind of blows the lid off your, "Every rapist is a sociopath," theory.

But please, consider my intrusion a temporary nuisance . . .carry on.

dann 27th April 2018 06:24 AM

To you many things seem to read like pure gibberish since you completely misunderstood the abstract that you linked to. Otherwise you wouldn't have imagined that it supported your concept of "situational callousness". There is nothing situational about it.
What you also don't seem to 'grok' is that psychopaths are very good at pretending to have "empathy in general but not for their victims," who always seem to deserve being abused by the psychopath, in the psychopath's opinion. That also appears to have been the case with our local sex monster Peter Madsen, for instance, and in my opinion it's very similar to the kind of glib 'empathy' that Donald Trump exhibits to his followers. It's pretence only, but some people fall for that, the glib charm of the predator.

dann 27th April 2018 06:30 AM

In the wake of the Kim Wall case in Denmark, Hanne Helth, a former social worker writes:

Quote:

I mine år som socialarbejder blandt prostituerede så jeg, hvordan mange mænd er i stand til at skille det gode fra det onde. Trangen til vold, ondskab og til at pine kvinder købte de pæne middelklassemænd og familiefædre sig til på gaden eller bordellerne.
Madsen er ikke en ener. For mange mænd hænger sex og vold sammen. "Madsen isn’t one of a kind. To many men sex and violence are connected" (Politiken, Apr. 25, 2018)

”In my years as a social worker working with prostitutes, I saw how many men are able to compartmentalize good and evil. In the street or in brothels, decent middle-class and family men bought (release for) their urge for violence and for tormenting women.”

I don't find it strange that she doesn’t understand why “some men feel the urge to hate, torment and dismember women” – in the OP I asked approximately the same question. What does surprise me, however, is the many comments to her article from men who see it as an attack on all men, even though she only talks about many and never says all men.
I mean, why feel threatened by the question? Instead of getting angry at her for asking the question, they could either answer it if they think they have an explanation, or they could share her bewilderment and try to at least contribute to an explanation.

dann 29th April 2018 03:25 AM

An article in the Guardian today about the widespread use of mysogynist terms in social media: Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet’s ‘incels’ (Apr. 29, 2018)

TragicMonkey 29th April 2018 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12275257)
An article in the Guardian today about the widespread use of mysogynist terms in social media: Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet’s ‘incels’ (Apr. 29, 2018)

I'm trying to read that, but I'm distracted by the photo of the "makeshift shrine".

dann 29th April 2018 07:49 AM

I didn't even notice it, but now that I do, yes, it's pretty bad: "You're in a better place."
I know it's people trying to come to terms with their grief, but it almost makes it sound as if the incel mass murder were something to be grateful for.

TragicMonkey 29th April 2018 08:18 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12275378)
I didn't even notice it, but now that I do, yes, it's pretty bad: "You're in a better place."
I know it's people trying to come to terms with their grief, but it almost makes it sound as if the incel mass murder were something to be grateful for.

Not what I was referring to. It's a surprisingly common mistake in symbols.

dann 29th April 2018 11:15 AM

One more thing I didn't notice!
I hope the van used by the mass murderer wasn't a Mercedes!

dann 21st May 2018 05:48 AM

Poverty Is Sexist!

Damn straight, it is!
Sexual abuse of employees by employers, CEOs etc. wouldn't be possible without the financial superiority of the latter and the financial dependency of the former.

fuelair 21st May 2018 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12106116)
Examples for people who might be about to get into similar situations in the present to think about

This.

d4m10n 21st May 2018 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuelair (Post 12300051)
This.

That?

You think making a dramatic public example of, say, Krauss or Shermer or Carrier is going to convince younger men not to behave as they did? No more drunken hookups at conventions? No more polyamorous evangelism? No more arguably unsolicited sexual advances?

Skeptical dog is skeptical.

dann 23rd May 2018 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12300233)
No more drunken hookups at conventions? No more polyamorous evangelism? No more arguably unsolicited sexual advances?


Did anybody at all actually make those claims? How did you come up with these no mores?!


I find it interesting that interviews conducted with convicted rapists in India have at least one thing in common with the rapists mentioned in studies in this part of the world referred to in this thread above: denial and lack of empathy for the victims:

Quote:

In the interviews, many men made excuses or gave justifications for their actions. Many denied rape happened at all. “There were only three or four who said we are repenting. Others had found a way to put their actions into some justification, neutralize, or blame action onto the victim.”
A woman interviewed 100 convicted rapists in India. This is what she learned. (Washington Post, Sep. 11, 2017)

In my opinion, the woman doing the interviews exhibits too much compassion for the rapists.

Roboramma 23rd May 2018 09:31 AM

I think you'll find most people who do horrible things find justifications for their actions and blame some outside force (sometimes the victim).

Generally speaking people even find justifications for their minor faults.

xjx388 23rd May 2018 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12302821)
<snip>
I find it interesting that interviews conducted with convicted rapists in India have at least one thing in common with the rapists mentioned in studies in this part of the world referred to in this thread above: denial and lack of empathy for the victims:

The article you quote does not say anything at all about lack of empathy. I don't think you are understanding what it is really saying.

Quote:

In my opinion, the woman doing the interviews exhibits too much compassion for the rapists.
Wow, that's a really weird observation. Here's something else she said:

Quote:

When I went to research, I was convinced these men are monsters. But when you talk to them, you realize these are not extraordinary men, they are really ordinary. What they’ve done is because of upbringing and thought process.
She dares to think these men aren't just evil sociopaths? But dann is so convinced that they are! She concludes that they use rationalization/justification? Silly naive girl! :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12302853)
I think you'll find most people who do horrible things find justifications for their actions and blame some outside force (sometimes the victim).

Generally speaking people even find justifications for their minor faults.

Yes, this is such a well-understood facet of human psychology that I wonder how dann can argue so vehemently against it.

dann 23rd May 2018 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12302871)
The article you quote does not say anything at all about lack of empathy. I don't think you are understanding what it is really saying.


No surprise, really. I understand what it's saying, and some of the things it's saying are wrong.
That you apparently consider the following things empathic also doesn't surprise me:
1) "these men have the power to make you feel sorry for them." This is something that psychopaths are extremely good at.
2) "In my experience a lot of these men don’t realize that what they've done is rape. They don't understand what consent is." The American study mentioned that convicted rapists also in this part of the world readily admitted to having forced women to have sex. They just balked at the word rape.
3) I've already quoted that many of the convicted rapists denied having raped or blamed the victims.
4) A 49-year-old (apparently one of only three or four who expressed some kind of remorse) had raped a 5-year-old and wanted to make it up to her (and, I guess, her family) in this manner: "‘I would accept her, I will marry her when I come out of jail.’"

Quote:

Wow, that's a really weird observation.

Since your contribution to this thread primarily consists of your claim that rapists are compassionate, I'm not surprised that you find it weird that I disagree with somebody who is much too understanding when it comes to rapists.

Quote:

Here's something else she said:
Quote:

When I went to research, I was convinced these men are monsters. But when you talk to them, you realize these are not extraordinary men, they are really ordinary. What they’ve done is because of upbringing and thought process.


And that is the mistake she makes! Distinguishing between "monsters" (who would come up with an idea like that?) and men who have been turned into rapists by a misogynistic society, which she knows that India is!

Quote:

She dares to think these men aren't just evil sociopaths? But dann is so convinced that they are! She concludes that they use rationalization/justification? Silly naive girl! :rolleyes:

You can roll your eyes as much as you want. That they are misogynistic sociopaths is not disproved by pointing at the circumstances that made them misogynistic sociopaths. I never claimed that it was a question of nature rather than nurture.

Quote:

Yes, this is such a well-understood facet of human psychology that I wonder how dann can argue so vehemently against it.

And where exactly did I argue against this "facet of human psychology"?!

dann 23rd May 2018 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12302853)
I think you'll find most people who do horrible things find justifications for their actions and blame some outside force (sometimes the victim).


Yes, they do. That is what characterizes psychopaths: They do horrible things and blames somebody else, very often the victim.

Quote:

Generally speaking people even find justifications for their minor faults.

Yes, ordinary people also have bad excuses for their minor fault, but they don't go around raping 5-year-olds. The difference is that they usually don't commit the horrible crimes that psychopaths do. (Unless ordered to do so by the state, which usually requires intensive training to remove their reluctance to harm fellow human beings.) One major difference between the ordinary people and psychopaths is that the latter lack remorse. No empathy, no remorse.

AlaskaBushPilot 25th May 2018 01:03 AM

Quote:

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

His argument is from personal incredulity. So despite not being an argument, he is still in charge of making it if he wants to.

Genghis Khan's DNA was, last time I looked, in 16 million people, something like 8% of the population over the land mass that was once the largest land empire on earth. He's the world record rapist. Nobody else even comes close. And he is also the world record replicator.

Statistically that's already conclusive, but he's just one example. The king of Swaziland, when I lived with a guy from there, had something like 86 children at the time. So another exampe of the 1:1 correlation with top rapist and top replicator.

And so on. Right now in primitive tribes worldwide, the remnants of earlier times for homo sapiens, it is common for the Chief to have five wives and they have no choice in the matter.

Droit du seigneur. The tradition goes back as far as the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's just thousands of years, all of written human history.

So genetically it's a proven replication "strategy", like #1 in recorded human history. We are complex creatures that, even when we have certain genes, can be either recessive or dominant depending on who our parents mated with. We all have contradictory impulses that are stronger in some, weaker in another.

The rapist/serial killer science is fascinating and is pretty conclusive that you have genetic and childhood upbringing both working to produce personality. A psychopath can become a surgeon and his psychopathy turns out to be socially beneficial.

You put another psychopath who is raised by a violent drunk grandfather introducing him to rape porn as a child, raising him with his mother as his sister, etc. then you get a Ted Bundy.

The rape fantasy is surprisingly high only because it's a taboo subject. It's higher for women, over 50%, than it is for men, under 50%. But hey, that's the data.

Likewise the Milgram experiment. Pretty much everyone is going to pull the switch that electrocutes someone if a guy in a lab coat tells us it's okay. The Stanford Prison Experiment. Same thing. What's new about any of this, just look at the history of lynchings.

Way more people are prone to what they claim themselves to be ghastly, sadistic behavior. It's pretty straightforward that most of us reason we aren't going to get away with it, so we suppress a pretty powerful genetic impulse until such time we think we can, lol.

That's why getting all sanctimonious about it is pretty silly.

AlaskaBushPilot 25th May 2018 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12250611)
people can have empathy in general but not for their victims. Kind of blows the lid off your, "Every rapist is a sociopath," theory.

Well for that matter we also don't even agree on what "rape" is when crossing state lines, international lines or even religious lines within a state or nation.

In my wife's country, Philippines, you have Sharia law operating alongside "Christian" law, or at least non-Sharia. So you have arranged marriages, multiple wives, huge difference in rape definitions in the very same city all over the country depending on whether you claim to be a muslim or not. You can marry a 9 year old against her will, no problem from what I understand.

Even in Europe in the immigration virtue-signalling disaster zones you are seeing rape ignored or forgiven in significant part because the rapists culture looks at it differently. When you teach men it's okay to rape an unescorted girl without a hajib, what do you expect to happen? She deserves it. That's what they are taught to believe.

When you hop across a border and the age of consent drops from 18 to 13 or even less, you go from calling someone sick to someone normal for the very same act. I was at an airport in Chile, and there was this guy about 35 making out with a girl who couldn't have been more than 12, really french kissing furiously. I thought wow, that's pretty crazy, looking around to see if anyone else was taking notice. Nope. That relationship would have gotten the guy life without parole in my own state.

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Wow, again that is potentially a life without parole offense if you did it now. Were they sociopaths? Not by the standards of their time and place. Their wives too, so genteel and proper at the lynchings. Don't give women a free pass on this sort of thing.

dann 25th May 2018 01:35 PM

So rape, harems, women having "no choice in the matter", are all part of a proud tradition and "a proven replication "strategy""; more than 50% of women have "rape fantasies", "But hey, that's the data."

No, it's not the data. Welcome to the 21st century!

Quote:

”I have fantasized about forcing someone to have sex.” 10.8% (women) 22.0% (men)
”I have fantasized about being forced to have sex.” 28.9% (women) 30.7% (men)
Her er de mest populære sexfantasier (Ekstra Bladet, Nov. 3, 2014)

"Likewise the Milgram experiment."

Likewise! Welcome to the 21st century: Social psychology textbooks ignore all modern criticisms of Milgram’s ”obedience experiments” (The British Psychological Society, Research Digest, Oct. 13, 2013)


And anyway, if people "are taught to believe something," they're really not to blame, in particular if they were founding fathers. Then even slavery becomes acceptable, at least "by the standards of their time and place."

So who are the only ones left to blame, then? The women, of course!

"Their wives too, so genteel and proper at the lynchings. Don't give women a free pass on this sort of thing."

Even though I'm pretty sure that they also exhibited nothing but totally acceptable behaviour "by the standards of their time and place" ...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 AM.

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