News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Erm... thank you for the article, I found it very informative. But did you read it? From the conclusion:
The article is from 1988, so not the latest, and didn't conduct its own research so much as pointed out flaws in other research, but it did so quite effectively. Remember the claim I replied to:
If that were the case, then why did Groth (cited as 1979a) find multiple quotes which he attributed to power but which explicitly expressed a sexual motivation, for instance:
(There's a more graphic quote as well which is more convincing but which I won't reproduce here). In examining the use of violence in rape, Geis (1977) reported that 78% of the rapists in the study "wanted the victim to cooperate", and similarly the Queen's Bench Foundation (1978) reported that 71.2% in their study "stated that they were hoping the victim would comply", 61.7% said "they had not intended to use violence."
The author cites a couple of instances of an argument that rape is about power and/or violence because it uses the vulnerability of the victim, which explains why the elderly are raped in spite of their assumed lack of physical sexual attractiveness, which would appear to contradict a sexual motivation. Yet the author points out that the age distribution of rape victims is inversely proportional to vulnerability, with young women being far more likely to be victims than are the elderly or children.
The most concrete counter-argument is that about recidivism rates amongst rapists who are castrated. If rape is simply a violent crime performed in a sexual way, then we would expect that castrating a rapist, while it might prevent future sexual violence, would not prevent the one-time rapist from enacting their violent tendencies in other ways. But the paper cites a Danish study which found that violent recidivism rates among rapists, once sexual crimes were removed, were 8.8% among those castrated, and 21% among those who weren't. It was a small study and was not recent when the paper you linked was published, but it is still quite powerful because it doesn't rely on reports by rapists nor on indirect evidence like demographic data.
Certainly - though this conversation has been crucial in understanding the depth of this aspect. But remember, I argued back against the claim that "sex crimes are almost always about power and not about sexual gratification."
I would say in light of the article you linked I am more certain now that that statement was wrong.
No,i did not read it, I just threw in the very first thing to find. Obviously, that was not very helpful in my argument.
I don't know why this distinction is so important to you. I hope it's just scientific obsession with data and facts.
Anyhow, I'd argue that the majority of rapists are from the spectrum of personality disorders in the range of NPD and the classical ASPDs. All those need to be in control. By definition. So even if one say "I just wanted to fuck her", doesn't really mean it's just for sexual gratification. If you had ever worked with victims you'd know that sex is the byproduct of control for those.
And anyone who JUST needs instant sexual gratification right now, and hence rapes ONLY for the sole reason because the woman doesn't want to (and would have the exact same."fun" with clear consent) is clearly antisocial anyway (and/or of some archaicly weird (religious) belief, like women were not people but property). Which then circles back to the aforementioned.
The broader topic is important and emotive, but I also generally find it fascinating when people consider something that I find completely counter-intuitive to be taken as read, and so clearly true as to not even require argument (see other replies). I assume I find it interesting and important for the same reason as the author of the article you linked.
Clearly anyone who commits rape is anti-social on some level. (Perhaps via a repressive culture which normalises marital rape - it's anti-social on some level even though the culture in question finds it normal). But I don't think from that you can "circle back" to personality disorders and thereby declare that sex is merely a byproduct of control. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "circle back" though.
I do wonder if there is is something going on here though, where on some level people feel that if you allow that rapists partly or wholly rape out of sexual motives, then that brings rape within a more normal scope than if you insist that almost all rape is entirely the product of deviant motives for power or anger. And I wonder if that is why you ask "why this distinction is so important to you" - because you're worried that my position is an attempt (maybe subconscious, maybe only on a small scale) to normalise rape and therefore to excuse it.
Certainly that's not the case; rape for mainly sexual motives is not in any way excusable. I'd be interested to know if that was where your question was aimed, and how you think that links back to your understanding of rape motives; do you feel any push to believe what you do because to believe otherwise might in some way diminish the crime's severity?
I'd say, that's anti-social on every level. Just because everyone does it and it was always "normal" before (culture...), doesn't make it any less anti-social or wrong. At least in my book. And yes, that is indeed the circle-back. As in that all of those personality disorders show a serious obsession with control. Besides that the act itself is pure control by force. Sure, there will be many examples where sheer animal lust ranks higher than the lust for control, but it's a spectrum and rarely just on the "just horny!"-side but probably often far to the control-side.
That seems to be the case indeed. The notion that it seems so, not that it actually is.
As a misanthropist dealing daily with victims of abuse, how could I not? (besides it being anecdotal evidence: 100% of every of those stories resolves around control, sex is just ONE of the things)
Totally not. Doesn't even matter how I see it or not, even my motivation would not matter in the end. It's simply wrong/evil in an absolute way without any added layers of society/religion/belief/group-dynamics/whatever. In my worldview at least, which is usually not the same as most people's. The layers explain, but not excuse. I can understand/empathise with sociopaths or religious nutjobs. I see how they could end up with such a conclusion. But not excuse. In the end, we're all capable of reflection. Some more, some less. We don't just do, we rationalize.
absolutely ridiculous
Is it my job to educate? I don't like work, Do your own research.