|
|
|
froydnslp
New Member
22 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2001 : 00:53:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So if a man is not erect and isn't going to ejaculate and is using a bottle to rape a woman, where does the sex come in?
quote:
There is much controversy over the legal definition, which varies from state to state. I admit I was working from an older, English common law tradition which originally defined the term in our culture, before the scope of the legal definition was greatly broadened:
You still have not answered my question. Instead you have redifined your definition that you asserted to argue your opinion.
quote:
As for rape in the animal kingdom, males mount other males (and sometimes females) as a show of dominance. Mounting is sometimes about sex and sometimes about dominance. And these acts are mutually exclusive.
quote:
Prove it. I've seen both at work in canines simultaneously.
Really? prove it. So now, not only do you know what motivates rapists...you know what motivates dogs? Again, prove it.
quote:
As for date rape, and whatever expectation the guy had, once the woman said no, it is probable that the rape occurred, again, as an act of dominance because his ego was hurt and he was angry at being rejected. While he might have wanted to get laid earlier in the evening, it is now about getting even.
quote:
You know this how? Sounds completely speculative to me.
When working in a group that included rapists (convicted and self-identified, non-reported) and rape survivors, I learned a lot about motivation. The date-rapists, in the bunch, said that they felt angry at the woman. They stated that they felt that she thought she was too good for them. And that she said "no" because of some stigma, ie; reputation, but she really meant "yes," and needed "that extra push." When they gave the extra push and she still said no...they said, repeatedly, that it made them angrier, "that it was time for some payback."
Seems to me that so many folks on this forum have offered all kinds of statistics and evidence. And each time, you disregard anything that they offer with accustions of "assertions" or "opinions." When are you going to back up your own assertions and opinions? Back up or back off.
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 09:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Trish,
When we date, dont we look for a certain type of person that we want to go out with? For instance, some women like to go out with men who work out..others like men who are in certain professions. We also are attracked to certain physical traits, more than others. I know a girl at work who would never date anyone under 6'. Well, I suspect this is true of everyone. A man picks a woman to date based on certain traits as well. Statistics show that a rapist will choose someone he believes he can dominate. This is also true in date-rape. A man will choose someone who he believes he can dominate and will set circumstances up to be in a favorable situation for the attack. Now, I dont know about you, but when I was single and dating, I went on a few blind dates. I also went on dates with men that I may have met at a friends. I dont really
know him, but he seemed nice, so I agreed to go out with him. This is so common. I met my husband through a friend. When I think back on all the virtual stranges I went out with....
But isnt that why we date? To see if we like this person, and perhaps have some kind of future with them?
The rapist makes his choice of who to date based on different factors than a man who is dating you, to get to know you better. In this day and age, its so easy to find a woman who will have sex with you, why would he need to look for one he has to force?
Make your vote count. Become a supreme court justice......Peny
Peny, the particular instance I am referring to is the first date I'd ever been on. I had never dated in HS and this guy was a friend of a friend. I learned quick, I always drive my own car on a first date and subsequent dates. This was 15 years ago, not *so* in this day and age. At the time, date rape was considered he said/she said and generally not viewed as a rape, i.e. she let herself get into the situation (which was something I had overheard when trying to report it).
What constitutes rape has changed in the past 15 years. Any rape is a traumatic experience for the victim (man or woman).
Kil, as for the income thing, I must admit it threw me. I agree that rape is an act of violence and dominance. Despite that, date rape is sometimes also ignorance on the part of the assailant. They seriously believe that there was no coersion, not even in threatening to leave someone in a bad part of town to walk home. This is an education issue that has been exposed in the last few years, and will hopefully reach more and more young men, that this type of behavior is not accepted.
In the case of date rapes, some of it is ignorance of what constitute coersion and some of it is revenge or dominance or violence.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 16:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Someone asserted above that rape is primarily about dominance, rather than sex, and then a few people provided some quotes from authors who happen to hold the same opinion. I've yet to see any evidence to support the claim itself. Large sample interviews of randomly sampled rapists would be ideal. Anyone have access to this information?
As to proving that rape is motivated primarily by sex, I do not need to do this. I'm not the one here making the positive claim. I am only asking that the "dominance" school of thought back up their claims. Considering that rape typically consists of sexual arousal and a sex act, the claim that it is "not about" sex seems rather bold and in need of serious support. Thus far, not a single shred of evindence has been put forth, merely opinion and some irrelevant stats about victimization rates. Please, let us forgo the emotionalisms and stick to the facts.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 16:43:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As to proving that rape is motivated primarily by sex, I do not need to do this. I'm not the one here making the positive claim. I am only asking that the "dominance" school of thought back up their claims. Considering that rape typically consists of sexual arousal and a sex act, the claim that it is "not about" sex seems rather bold and in need of serious support. Thus far, not a single shred of evindence has been put forth, merely opinion and some irrelevant stats about victimization rates. Please, let us forgo the emotionalisms and stick to the facts.
You're the one making the claim against accepted studies. Not the other way round as you imply.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 09/02/2001 16:43:59 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 17:43:42 [Permalink]
|
Accepted studies? Which ones? I was really hoping it would not come to this, but despite my repeated attempts to cajole the “dominance” school of thought to provide their sources and evidence, little has yet materialized except a few quotes of authorial opinion without evidential or argumentative support. Accordingly, I'm going to switch sides of the debate for just a little bit to get things started towards making this a genuine debate.
Here are the primary sources and arguments for the feminist (dominance) theory of rape:
(1) Rape is typically a crime of men upon women, and usually men have more physical and political power than women. These facts are generally true cross culturally. Brownmiller and Schwendinger are generally credited with first establishing this view. I own and have read Brownmiller's classic work Against Our Will: Men Women and Rape, if anyone cares to cite this source in argument.
(2) Studies show that rape is more prevalent in (sub)cultures which condone interpersonal violence and male dominance. The classic studies here are Amir's study of American subculture (Patterns pp. 327-331) and Peggy Sanday's seminal work on the comparative cross-cultural anthropology of rape, entitled The Sociocultural Context of Rape. This latter work is widely available, I myself own several copies in various anthologies.
(3) According to the power theory of deviant behavior (pioneered by Alex Thio) the more powerful members of society are more likely to commit crimes (such as rape) without being punished.
Brownmiller herself seems to support this view, stating that most rapes are acquaintance rapes and noting that:
quote:
...the [acquaintance] who presses his advantage, who uses his position of authority, who forces his attentions, who will not take “No” for an answer, who assumes that sexual access is his right-of-way and physical aggression his right-on expression of masculinity, conquest and power is no less of a rapist -- yet the chance that this man will be brought to justice, even under the best of circumstances, is comparatively small.
The argument here is that if rape were an expression of power, we would expect to see it more frequently committed by those with the will to power. There is some experiment evidence in support of this theory, including the fact that the socially powerful tend to commit acquaintance rapes far more frequently than the socially powerless.
(4) Convicted rapists are frequently diagnosed with psychological problems, which fit the general pattern of sexual inadequacy. Castration anxiety, homophobia, and Oedipal complex are primary indications. See Murray Cohen, Raplh Garafalo, Richard Boucher's work in the psychology of rape and Norman Goldner's
Rape as a Heinous but Understudies Offense.
I know there is far more evidence to be had, and perhaps there are even other basic arguments to be made, but this is what I have at my fingertips. You are more than welcome to provide more evidence and arguments in support of the claim that rape is usually motivated by dominance rather than sex. Naturally, I would not be making your argument for you unless I already knew the counterarguments, so be prepared.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 18:17:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're the one making the claim against accepted studies. Not the other way round as you imply.
The burden of evidence is always on the one making a positive claim, regardless of what the authorities might happen to say.
I'm frankly rather amazed that a self-identified skeptic would make such a statement as that you make above. How is it at all skeptical to simply accept the established scientific view of the times without questioning the evidence and methodology which lead to dogma in the first place? The idea that we ought not question the establishment or expect them to provide evidence and reasoning in support of their claims strikes me as incredibly credulous at best, downright irrational at worst.
Moreover, appeals to authority are dialetically useless. When someone questions a scientific theory that I support, e.g. increasing biodiversity due to mutation and natural selection, I give them evidence and argument, rather than appeals to authority, which have little if any persuasive value to someone who is questioning the establishment in the first place.
Finally, it is not the case that any particular view has prevailed in this matter. We're talking about psychology and sociology here, not kinematics. At the moment, there remain at least three aggressively competing schools of thought, and even a few attempts at fusing or synthesizing these into a coherent and comprehensive view.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 09:36:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here are the primary sources and arguments for the feminist (dominance) theory of rape:
Question: Why is it a feminist theory of rape? Why bring feminism into it or are you purporting here, by inference, it's just boys being boys? Which by contrast (yes I know bifurcation) would imply this train of thought.
quote:
I'm frankly rather amazed that a self-identified skeptic would make such a statement as that you make above. How is it at all skeptical to simply accept the established scientific view of the times without questioning the evidence and methodology which lead to dogma in the first place? The idea that we ought not question the establishment or expect them to provide evidence and reasoning in support of their claims strikes me as incredibly credulous at best, downright irrational at worst.
quote:
When working in a group that included rapists (convicted and self-identified, non-reported) and rape survivors, I learned a lot about motivation. The date-rapists, in the bunch, said that they felt angry at the woman. They stated that they felt that she thought she was too good for them. And that she said "no" because of some stigma, ie; reputation, but she really meant "yes," and needed "that extra push." When they gave the extra push and she still said no...they said, repeatedly, that it made them angrier, "that it was time for some payback."
Seems to me that so many folks on this forum have offered all kinds of statistics and evidence. And each time, you disregard anything that they offer with accustions of "assertions" or "opinions." When are you going to back up your own assertions and opinions? Back up or back off.
I took the quote from froydnslp since it appears the person has had some experience in this field.
Now I understand your disagreement with the statistics and numbers that say rape is underreported. However, when you are sitting there and listening to the police/district attorney talking and overhear them stating that it's basically your fault because you let yourself get into the situation it's damned hard to sit there and continue to complete the report. Also, to hear that there really is going to be no attempt at prosecution because it is a he said/she said situation is enough to deter even the most self-confident of women. Remember, when a woman is raped she begins to question herself and her judgement. There is also the question of 'Was it my fault, was there something I could have done differently?' You want to know my reference for this - well it's the same thing that went round the room everytime a new member joined the support group (wings) I attended for a while after I was raped. It was consistent with these concepts.
Some of what was learned there and in psychology classes is what has to do with my views regarding the causes/affects of rape.
quote:
I'm frankly rather amazed that a self-identified skeptic would make such a statement as that you make above.
Lets not resort to ad hominems, I have never attacked you nor questioned your motives or methods.
You never offer support for any of your positions. I would like to see your supporting documentation for your statements so that I may study the information and form my own opinion and then have a base of reference from which to operate. So, again, where is your supporting evidence or is this merely your opinion?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 06:34:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Here are the primary sources and arguments for the feminist (dominance) theory of rape:
Question: Why is it a feminist theory of rape? Why bring feminism into it or are you purporting here, by inference, it's just boys being boys? Which by contrast (yes I know bifurcation) would imply this train of thought.
That is simply the way it is referred to in the literature, most likely because the pioneers of the "social inequality" theory of rape were outspokenly feminist activists, such as Brownmiller. As to the "boys being boys" this is yet another unfortunate non-sequitur, and one which moves us into the realm of morality, while we ought to focus exclusively on sociology.
quote:
I'm frankly rather amazed that a self-identified skeptic would make such a statement as that you make above. How is it at all skeptical to simply accept the established scientific view of the times without questioning the evidence and methodology which lead to dogma in the first place? The idea that we ought not question the establishment or expect them to provide evidence and reasoning in support of their claims strikes me as incredibly credulous at best, downright irrational at worst.
quote:
When working in a group that included rapists (convicted and self-identified, non-reported) and rape survivors, I learned a lot about motivation. The date-rapists, in the bunch, said that they felt angry at the woman. They stated that they felt that she thought she was too good for them. And that she said "no" because of some stigma, i.e.; reputation, but she really meant "yes," and needed "that extra push." When they gave the extra push and she still said no...they said, repeatedly, that it made them angrier, "that it was time for some payback."
This is anecdotal evidence to which we have no public access. When people provide such firsthand accounts on the UFO board, they are lambasted for doing so. Please cite a study (preferably a rigorous one with a decent sampling) which came up with similar evidence. Then, be explicit as to how the evidence leads to a given conclusion about rapist motivation.
quote:
Now I understand your disagreement with the statistics and numbers that say rape is underreported. However, when you are sitting there and listening to the police/district attorney talking and overhear them stating that it's basically your fault because you let yourself get into the situation it's damned hard to sit there and continue to complete the report. Also, to hear that there really is going to be no attempt at prosecution because it is a he said/she said situation is enough to deter even the most self-confident of women. Remember, when a woman is raped she begins to question herself and her judgment. There is also the question of 'Was it my fault, was there something I could have done differently?' You want to know my reference for this - well it's the same thing that went round the room every time a new member joined the support group (wings) I attended for a while after I was raped. It was consistent with these concepts.
Again, it is indeed tragic to consider the state of thee victim but it still tells us nothing about the state of the perpetrator. I thought we were discussing the particular question of whether or not rape was motivated by sexual urges, not its effects on the victim.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/04/2001 07:21:21 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 06:42:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You never offer support for any of your positions. I would like to see your supporting documentation for your statements so that I may study the information and form my own opinion and then have a base of reference from which to operate. So, again, where is your supporting evidence or is this merely your opinion?
If there is a particular claim that I've made lacking in evidential support, please let me know which one it is and I'll dig up some documentation.
Once again, however, my position is not at issue. I've not even definitively stated my position one way or the other, and indeed I am not all certain as to the motivation of most rapists, or even if most of them might even be classified together into a “typical” group (Perhaps there are two or more distinct types of rapists with relatively little gradient in between).
What is in question here, though, is the positive claim that "rape is not about sex." I have questioned that claim, as any skeptic ought, and I've yet to see any support (evidence AND argument) for said claim, aside from that which I've posted from my personal textbook stash. Does anyone care to actually make the case in support of this claim, without resorting to ad ignorantium or appeals to authority (without supporting evidence)?
Although it is unnecessary for the sake of questioning said claim, I could take a positive position that rape is typically motivated by sex (at least partially) and indeed I did this for the sake of argument in the earlier thread about Thornhill's book. I will do so once again if that is what you ask, but we must endeavor to calmly discuss the issues, evidence, and argumentation without resorting to any further appeals to emotion. I'll try to keep the ugly provocativisms (e.g. “PC claptrap”) under my hat as well.
As to ad hominem, I'm sorry if I came across that way. I meant only to question your skeptical methodology.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2001 : 21:55:08 [Permalink]
|
What is the supporting documentation for your position. I have this habit of studying both sides of an issue. I would like to know the sources/references for your position as regards the opinion that the rapists wants sex, the end goal of rape is sex and therefore that is the only reason rapists rape.
That is your position is it not? Or have I missed something?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2001 : 07:58:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What is the supporting documentation for your position? I have this habit of studying both sides of an issue. I would like to know the sources/references for your position as regards the opinion that the rapists wants sex, the end goal of rape is sex and therefore that is the only reason rapists rape.
That is your position is it not? Or have I missed something?
Indeed you have. I have said in the course of this thread that my position is that rape is an act of dominance and sex, and is most probably motivated by a desire for (expectation of) both. Also, I've admitted that there is a wide variation in the concept and nature of rape, and that the motivations of rapists probably vary rather widely as well.
Bearing the above two points in mind (dual and varied motivation) I have certainly never made the claim that "the end goal of rape is sex and therefore that is the only reason rapists rape." That is just plain silly. I think it equally silly, however, to claim that "the end goal of rape is dominance and therefore that is the only reason rapists rape." In this thread, I have been attempting only to call into question this latter claim.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/07/2001 08:00:09 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2001 : 21:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Before I go into the counter-arguments to the above arguments presented regarding the "dominance" school of rape, I would like to ask if anyone has any evidence or arguments to add. Also, I would like to hear what people think would count as evidence that *most* rapists are motivated *primarily* by either sexual desires or the will to dominate. Any thoughts?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2001 : 17:37:49 [Permalink]
|
I voted that the first rape was God vs. mary. I don't remember seeing her compliance.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2001 : 14:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I voted that the first rape was God vs. mary. I don't remember seeing her compliance.
You must have missed her consent in Luke 1:38.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 19:11:13 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree with Penyprity, I think any time someone feel that they are threaten into having sex it should be considerede rape. I think that rape is pretty cut and dry, if you have sex with someone who doesn't want to it is rape.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
