Why do some men commit rape?

The Black Oil

I’ve been trying to remember the first time I heard the word rape. It was probably in secondary school*, a news report, scandals about the church or a reconstruction or an episode of Crimeline, certainly before I ever used the internet in the late 1990s. It's likely there were references* to things like football team A raped team B, before Youtube comments, internet death threats and social media. Banter, 'banter', or 'rape culture'?

Clearly, rape something I regard as deeply disturbing. It's affront to everything I believe. This undoubtedly holds true for most people. I’ve never known anyone who has been brought before the courts in relation to this crime. I have spoken to one person who was affected by it and it instilled a fear in her I can’t imagine, for many years, and severe mental health issues. To be blunt, I don’t know how anyone gets an erection at the thought of doing it. Obviously some do. We know that sexual thoughts and impulses aren’t always easy to categorise, and out of this it's not surprising that some are more pathological in nature.

If we look at the CSI version of rape, it’s usually dealt with in 45 minutes. It’s a family member, a work colleague or maybe a popular school boy whose word most the town will take over the girl’s. Therefore it's not reported or dismissed as being her fault. Occasionally, it’s a man down the dark alley. Or the serial off the wall weirdo teased out over a couple of episodes in a more high quality show. Infrequently in popular culture is the full extent of the reality of rape depicted accurately, I suspect.

With the tabloid media, the headlines often appear to for a 'depraved monster', type approach. I don't think this is particularly helpful when you consider that many attacks have been carried out by those in positions of trust. This is not to say the tabloids don't go into that aspect, I'm sure they do, but I think outing someone as a monster doesn't particularly remind people that some attacks are likely carried out by 'ordinary' men, not CSI psychopaths.

There's the 'it's about power' perspective which tends to get thrown around. I've never fully understood this because it seems to be just left at that. Power in the moment, physical or psychological power? Something else?

I've just finished Asking for It by Louise O’ Neill which is a rather unflinching look at rape. Some of Louise's response to the recent UCD situation and her rise in prominence in the world of Irish feminism had me concerned she's cut from the same cloth of as Una Mullally in that hyperfocused way of making every other thing about gender. The book is good, though. At its heart is the local and wider response to rape - blame, blame, blame. Hence the title. In turn, the experience of victim is that of racing thoughts, the self-doubt, self-blame. It's set in current times with the impact of social media underpinning the level of judgement and a disproportionately negative response to the main character, Emma. The author also has a couple of things to say about the low conviction rate and how the judicial system is tilted more towards the accused. I should also say that the attackers in the book appear to be entitled dickheads who can fall back on their community reputation as part of their denial. Handy thing, that.

To get back to the title of this post, why do some men rape? Well, I had a look on ye old Google. This led me to an Australian website/rape and sexual assault service, which states:

There is strong evidence to show that a significant proportion of men - and some women - honestly believe that it is alright for a man to force a woman to have sex, whether she wants to or not.

Three research projects have been carried out in different areas of South Australia, involving over 1000 young men. About one third of them could identify situations in which they believe that it is OK for a man to force a woman to have sex. (The word 'force' is actually used in the question.)

The circumstances include

• they have had sex together before
• she has had sex with other men before
• she has let him touch her 'above the waist'
• she has let him touch her 'below the waist'
• he has spent a lot of money on her

People who hold these beliefs do not think of 'forcing a woman to have sex' as being wrong. They probably do not think of it as being rape.

The article also addresses power, violence, feminist interpretations of rape and responsibility as regards victims. Note that this page has a copyright for 2005 and says the last update was in April 2010. One might attack the somewhat vague stats here ('about one third', vague demographics, etc), but it's interesting that some women appear to hold these beliefs too. I would interpret the 5 bullet points as the following:

1) It's happened before, therefore I get a free pass, fcuk consent
2) She's experienced, easy. She's horny like me, all the time.
3) She's open to it, actually communicating she wants the ride.
4) As above
5) Entitlement, expecting something back, mememe syndrome.

For the Irish context, I had a look on Rape Crisis Centre website and didn't really find a webpage directly comparable to the above. There is the 2002 SAVI report, which is almost 400 pages long.

The prevalence of sexual violence in Ireland is unknown. Incomplete evidence from crime statistics, previous research reports and service uptake figures is insufficient to understand the nature and extent of the problem and to plan and evaluate services and preventive interventions.

~

A survey assessing the prevalence of sexual violence was conducted by anonymous telephone interviews with randomly selected participants from the general population in Ireland. They were interviewed at home telephone numbers in the period March to June 2001.

Prevalence of Sexual Violence
Child Sexual Abuse (defined as sexual abuse of children and adolescents under age 17 years)

Girls: One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In over a quarter of cases of contact abuse (i.e. 5.6 per cent of all girls), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either vaginal, anal or oral sex.

Boys: One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in fourteen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In one of every six cases of contact abuse (i.e. 2.7 per cent of all boys), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either anal or oral sex.

~

In sum, in four-fifths of cases of child sexual abuse, the perpetrator was known to the abused person. The perpetrator was another child or adolescent (17 years old or younger) in one out of every four cases.

The report also discusses the experience of adults. More recently, the RCC's 2014 annual report it says that 23.5% of over 9,000 counselling calls it received were from males.

I see that the RCC has teamed up with the Union of Students in Ireland with its 'ask consent', campaign.

Maybe you’re a little unsure about what consent is – and what it isn’t? You may have heard the idea that “no means no,” but this doesn’t really cover it because it puts the responsibility on one person to resist or accept, rather than both of you being responsible for taking things to the next level. It also makes consent about what a partner doesn’t want, instead of about being able to openly express what they do want. Consent should be freely given, and an enthusiastic, clearly communicated and ongoing yes. Never assume consent.

Yes, I'm unsure about being a human being, unsure about the other person's sobriety, ability to communicate, basic decency. Unsure and assuming the other person is open to stuff 24/7. #angrywhitemanoninternetzbasheskeyboard

Despite all of this, I feel as though I could spend days researching and even with some of the attitudes on display, I don't think I'd be any wiser about why rape occurs, pathologically. Maybe that's a job for Google Scholar. I know I've not addressed pornography, either. Finally, let me briefly repeat what I said in another thread, if we (Irish society: broadcast and print media) are to have a productive discourse on rape, it should be victim centred, not Una "yet every group of guys has a buddy who is a little wayward, and whose behaviour towards women is dubious" Mullally leading the charge.

Over to you, tGC.

Wibbs

Interesting opener alright. May need a night to sleep on my reply.

Faith+1

The question I'd like to ask is how women can falsely accuse a man of raping her and avoid a custodial sentence. That pisses me off

Eircom_Sucks

for sex ?

Cookie_Monster

why do some men murder
why to some steal
why to some commit terrorism

you'll no more understand the reason behind rape than you would any of the above IMO. to put it very simply, some people are just 'despicable excuses for humanity'

Canadel

The Black Oil wrote: »

There's the 'it's about power' perspective which tends to get thrown around. I've never fully understood this because it seems to be just left at that. Power in the moment, physical or psychological power? Something else?

That's because it is about power. Power and sexual repression.

And I'm also going to add a lack of sexual education in schools. You hear lots of people complaining that young people are learning about sex from what they see in porn, yet a lot of the time these very same people will oppose sex education in schools and instead argue that it's a parent's job. Well guess what? A lot of parents aren't doing their job. A lot are incapable of doing it. A lot are victims of the sexual repression I already mentioned. Sex education should be a core part of the secondary school curriculum. Kids should know as much about sex, sexual health and sexual responsibility by the time they leave school as they do about their other subjects. They may struggle with Maths, English and Irish, but teach them about sex correctly, by which I mean in a healthy, responsible and scientific way, and they will thrive and develop. It will be the most important stuff they ever learn.

uck51js9zml2yt

When I saw the length of your op I gave up.

Ezra Wibberley

Canadel wrote:

And I say this as a rapist myself.

Excuse me? Care to elaborate??

Canadel

Ezra Wibberley wrote: »

Excuse me?

Excused.

Care to elaborate??

Not really. Do you?

ivytwine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why do some men murder
why to some steal
why to some commit terrorism

you'll no more understand the reason behind rape than you would any of the above IMO. to put it very simply, some people are just 'despicable excuses for humanity'

People murder for all sorts of reasons. Most murders are fights that go too far, or moments of white hot rage, or even self defence.

Stealing is probably the easiest crime of all to understand.

Terrorism is also relatively easy to understand, if you've ever had a firmly held belief, you can see how people can be influenced and brainwashed to kill for political purposes.

I'm female so hope it's ok to post here. I've not read Asking For It yet, I follow Louise O'Neill on Facebook and I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about what she posts. I work and interact with a lot of guys and I don't see what herself and Una Mullaly see. I see that if a guy *is* behaving inappropriately on a night out or whatever I've seen him being steered away by his mates. That does happen. Una was trying to make a gender thing out of being verbally abused by some of Dublin's more feral inhabitants... I've male friends who've been mugged and abused by these types, absolutely not gender-based.

In answer to your question OP, why do men rape? They're not the only ones that do. There are female paedophiles and female rapists too. There are women all over the world who abet abuse, either by turning a blind eye or by actively procuring victims. The men here who are not rapists cannot give you an insight into their minds any more than I can tell you what an earth a grown woman wants from an 11 year old boy.

I do think it comes from a place of dehumanising, rather than a sexual desire as such. But you could say the same of all crimes. Also Ireland's national pastime of getting blackout drunk doesn't help with the blurring of lines either.

I find the shutting down of any common sense advice towards women incredibly irritating too. In an ideal world, yes, we could do whatever we want, but we can't. I'd advise male friends not to go around certain areas of Dublin at night- same as women. Basic Internet safety states if you don't want your mum or boss to see it, don't have it on a big cloud server in California. It's not empowering for anyone to send nudes anyway. It's ****ing stupid. You can still feel sympathy for women who find themselves in that situation while ensuring it doesn't happen to you.

Just on a note on the Aussie survey, I lived there and found it a far more sexist society than Ireland. I think Irish men actually have much more respect for women.

ivytwine

Ezra Wibberley wrote: »

Excuse me? Care to elaborate??

Presume it's gallows humour on the "all men are rapists" line. I hope anyway!

Ezra Wibberley

Canadel wrote:

Not really. Do you?

I've not said anything to elaborate on. You threw out a bit of a grenade. I won't ask further questions as it appears you're not open to follow-ups.

Ezra Wibberley

ivytwine wrote:

Presume it's gallows humour on the "all men are rapists" line. I hope anyway!

Hopefully.

Canadel

Ezra Wibberley wrote: »

I've not said anything to elaborate on.

Exactly. I'll elaborate if you do.

You threw out a bit of a grenade. I won't ask further questions as it appears you're not open to follow-ups.

Did I? I am open to follow up. It's just interesting how you ignored the rest of my post to find out more about me personally on an anonymous forum. Why not discuss the thread topic instead and the argument I made?

Canadel

ivytwine wrote: »

Presume it's gallows humour on the "all men are rapists" line. I hope anyway!

Well, we're all potential rapists, but it was just humour. For the most part.

salamanca22

Why are some women rapists?

I hate the fact that some people choose to label all men as potential rapists. That is very far from the fact.

The definition of potential is as follows:

having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Now I don't know about you but I definitely do not fit that description. I may have the physical ability to do it, I am larger than most women but I definitely do not have the mental capacity to do it. The potential for my brain to tell my body to do something so heinous is not there so therefore no, I am not a potential rapist and would appreciate it if society would stop telling people that I am.

Rape is a very serious issue, muddying the waters with weak arguments and in the case of some people watering the meaning down ala "He is raping me by not taking my side of the argument" that some 'feminazis' these days like to throw out. The feminist movement once stood for something great, and indeed still does but views like this just damage it.

frostyjacks

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

Canadel

ivytwine wrote: »

It's not empowering for anyone to send nudes anyway. It's ****ing stupid.

Well, that's not entirely true. While I don't consider it altogether empowering to send nudes, others do, and I do believe that those people who embrace nudity and have no hiccups about nudity are engaging in a kind of empowerment. The naked body is the most natural thing in the world and yet only a few months ago the internet went into hysteria over the leaked nude photos of a few famous people. Nothing wrong with nudity, or public nudity, which is a class issue for the most part.

Halloween Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

You really don't get it at all do you. Going back to someone's hotel room does not imply consent AT ALL. There is no distinction between the scenarios you present, if sex happens without consent its rape, be it in an alleyway or a marital bed.

Tasden

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

Being violated is being violated, whether it's a stranger in the bushes or someone you trusted enough to go back to a hotel room with. One may be more of a grey area but they are both rape.

Enjoying dominant/rough/any other type of consensual sex is not wanting someone to force themselves upon you without your consent. That is not "wanting it both ways".

frostyjacks

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You really don't get it at all do you. Going back to someone's hotel room does not imply consent AT ALL. There is no distinction between the scenarios you present, if sex happens without consent its rape, be it in an alleyway or a marital bed.

There clearly is a distinction. A woman walking home alone at night does not expect to be pounced on. A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

Lu Tze

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

lazybones32

Lu Tze wrote: »

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Speedy reporting of the crime. If a person waits weeks or months to report a crime of this nature, a lot of it comes down to one person's word against another's. Having physical evidence will go a long way to securing a conviction.

A_Sober_Paddy

Well, Op....

In most countries men are the only persons able to commit the act of rape(legally speaking).

Pawwed Rig

Canadel wrote: »

And I say this as a rapist myself.

Canadel wrote: »

Well, we're all potential rapists, but it was just humour. For the most part.

Mod note:
Less of the attention seeking please

Halloween Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

There clearly is a distinction. A woman walking home alone at night does not expect to be pounced on. A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

It's nothing to do with what you consider people's reasonable expectations are. It's about consent, and the absence of that, regardless of the circumstances, is rape. If you can't grasp that I'm not willing to engage with you in further discussion

ivytwine

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

If you're using that logic then you think marital rape is just fine and dandy. Which it isn't. Even if you have sex once with someone, that doesn't mean consent is given forevermore. This applies to men and women of all orientations.

RE Fifty Shades, it's a dreadful book and the relationship is very unhealthy, but he gets her to sign a contract to issue her consent. Can you have clearer consent than that? I don't think so. I actually feel quite sorry for your clear lack of sexual imagination if you can't get that powerplays can be fun, when both parties want it- and men do enjoy domination too.

Canadel wrote: »

Well, that's not entirely true. While I don't consider it altogether empowering to send nudes, others do, and I do believe that those people who embrace nudity and have no hiccups about nudity are engaging in a kind of empowerment. The naked body is the most natural thing in the world and yet only a few months ago the internet went into hysteria over the leaked nude photos of a few famous people. Nothing wrong with nudity, or public nudity, which is a class issue for the most part.

I do agree to a certain extent, but we don't live in a society mature enough to think that way. Instead it's just "lol bewbs".

Lu Tze wrote: »

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Speedy reporting of the crime. If a person waits weeks or months to report a crime of this nature, a lot of it comes down to one person's word against another's. Having physical evidence will go a long way to securing a conviction.

Reducing the burden of proof would be very, very dangerous. As it stands, being accused of any sexual impropriety is one of the most damaging thing that can happen to a man in our society. The conviction rate is low because you cannot convict a man of this crime if you're not sure. There are women who falsely accuse. These women should be prosecuted.

What could be positively done? More support for victims would be number one. The RCC has had its funding massively cut; victims are often forced to travel halfway across the country in the clothes they were raped in for medical tests. Honestly, would you blame a woman for not reporting it in that scenario?

Lisacatlover

Why do some people commit theft?

intheclouds

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

Wow. Its actually frightening to me that someone would think this.

You do understand that there is a difference between a rape FANTASY and rape right?

You also understand that in 50 Shades of Grey there was explicit consent right?

There are no different categories of rape. Its actually very simple. Either there is consent or there isnt. There may be consent at the start but he or she may withdraw consent during and say NO - at which point if things continue its rape.

Going back to a hotel room implies that she wants to go back to a hotel room, it does not imply consent and if you think this is true you really need to educate yourself.

Tasden

frostyjacks wrote: »

There clearly is a distinction. A woman walking home alone at night does not expect to be pounced on. A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

"Women should have a reasonable expectation that the man they are with will have sex with them"
"Women should not be viewing all men as potential rapists"

But women are the ones "wanting it both ways"???

lazybones32

ivytwine wrote: »

What could be positively done? More support for victims would be number one. The RCC has had its funding massively cut; victims are often forced to travel halfway across the country in the clothes they were raped in for medical tests. Honestly, would you blame a woman for not reporting it in that scenario?

There have been cuts across the whole board, so the Rape Crisis Centre isn't the only organisation to suffer. It's the price paid to make Ireland a great Country to do business in and the fastest growing economy in Europe:pac:

You mightn't like the process but there's little point in letting the woman go home, have a shower and wash her clothes, if in doing so, she removes the genetic material that can be used as evidence.
I don't blame men or women who react to being raped in whatever way they choose but I'd like them to know that the best procedure for 'justice' to be served, isn't to go home and make the complaint when you feel courageous enough.

Canadel

salamanca22 wrote: »

Why are some women rapists?

I hate the fact that some people choose to label all men as potential rapists. That is very far from the fact.

The definition of potential is as follows:

having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Now I don't know about you but I definitely do not fit that description. I may have the physical ability to do it, I am larger than most women but I definitely do not have the mental capacity to do it. The potential for my brain to tell my body to do something so heinous is not there so therefore no, I am not a potential rapist and would appreciate it if society would stop telling people that I am.

Every person is a potential rapist. Having the potential to rape does not necessarily mean you are ever going to show the capacity to rape or develop into a rapist. But the potential is still there. You have the ability to rape, and it could potentially occur at some time in your life. Just like every person has the potential to be a murderer, a child molester, a violent criminal etc. The potential is there, though most of us will never carry out any of those acts.

Oh, and if a mod thinks this post is attention seeking then they need to go outside and play with their friends while the adults talk.

cowboyBuilder

I used to think when I was a teenager - why the hell do some men rape?
Why can't they just put some money aside and go to a prostitute if they are so frustrated.

Obviously we all know now that it's a crime of violence against women,
simple as that, it's a misogynistic (to the extreme) violent act.

But I don't like that poster, I think it formalizes it to much like you need written permission - consent I think just as non consent is obvious.

I have never asked before, even the few one night stands I did have when I was single (too few ) it was going that way ...

ivytwine

lazybones32 wrote: »

There have been cuts across the whole board, so the Rape Crisis Centre isn't the only organisation to suffer. It's the price paid to make Ireland a great Country to do business in and the fastest growing economy in Europe:pac:

You mightn't like the process but there's little point in letting the woman go home, have a shower and wash her clothes, if in doing so, she removes the genetic material that can be used as evidence.
I don't blame men or women who react to being raped in whatever way they choose but I'd like them to know that the best procedure for 'justice' to be served, isn't to go home and make the complaint when you feel courageous enough.

I completely understand why they can't let someone go home and get changed. However if they could not have a woman from Donegal having to go down to Galway to be examined that'd be great.

Better training for guards, the ability for an exam to be done locally (cross border cooperation maybe?) would make a huge difference.

Many people feel reporting it is pointless though.

AnonoBoy

frostyjacks wrote: »

There clearly is a distinction. A woman walking home alone at night does not expect to be pounced on. A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

And so..... that entitles someone to rape her? Or are you saying it's not rape because she should have known that the man would be expecting sex?

How on earth is that women "wanting it both ways" or is this one of your examples of a woman being "equally responsible in a lot of cases"?

A woman goes to a hotel room with a man, perhaps with the intention of sleeping with him. She decides not to but is raped. This makes her as responsible as the man?

That's a staggeringly backward view.

tritium

Lu Tze wrote: »

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

There seem to be so many factors behind the low conviction rate. For a start, low relative to what? The numbers being compared to are often flights of fantasy that squeeze in everything and anything as rape. Somewhat unfortunately its difficult to get agreement in many cases as to what a layperson considers rape. Then there's the possibility that the two parties may greatly differ on what has happened and if/how consent was given, (especially in social settings with alcohol involved).

Even if it gets to a trial stage its often a case of one persons word against another and who a jury believe so context becomes important, regardless if whether some advocates like it or not. And there's after all that the nature of the legal system and presumption of innocence which sets an incredibly high threshold for conviction, for obvious reasons, for any crime, not just rape. Again you can't make an exemption to burden of proof just because we don't like the way the numbers fall in some instances.

Unless you can counteract all of the above, without reducing the rights of an accused person then the figures will always seem controversial regardless of other factors (not to say we shouldn't address other factors like police and hospital training)

In terms of the original question, why do some men rape? A tiny percentage of men commit this crime. In spite of some intentionally inflated statistics there isn't actually a rapist lurking behind every corner. That's not to diminish the seriousness of the crime, just to give some context. Why they do it, or indeed why people (of both genders) commit sexual crimes- that likely has a range of reasons, spanning a spectrum from pure evil to the greyer areas of what consent is understood to be.

Wibbs

Canadel wrote: »

Oh, and if a mod thinks this post is attention seeking then they need to go outside and play with their friends while the adults talk.

Canadel, you've already been warned for silly posts, that one crosses the line. Do NOT post in this thread again or you will be banned from the forum. Thank you

Tipperary Fairy

intheclouds wrote: »

There are no different categories of rape. Its actually very simple.

No, it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally isn't that simple. Have you read about the Ched Evans case at all? What is frightening is that you could be charged with and convicted of rape when there's absolutely no evidence of rape, no complainant and no witnesses, when you're meant to just know that someone is too drunk to be able to consent, even when they seem perfectly fine.

Also it's considered rape technically in Sweden if your condom breaks and you don't tell your partner. (not that I'm saying that's ok, but it has got nothing to do with your 'simple' definition of rape)

newport2

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases.

Well done, worst opening line I've ever read on boards and that is saying something.

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

Aside from the fact that consent was given in Fifty Shades of Grey (key difference), it's possible to be turned on by the concept of doing something without actually wanting to do it. Just because some woman might be turned on thinking about 3 guys in bed with her does not mean she actually wants to do that in real life. That's why it's called a fantasy.

Wanderer78

I believe rape occurs due to complex mental health and behavioural problems

johnnyskeleton

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

Some women like men to be forceful and some don't. Unromantic as it sounds, if a woman is into fifty shades of grey stuff, she will probably say that in an open discussion as to what she is, and is not, into. If she doesn't say anything of the kind, you can safely assume that she is not into it.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

I don't think going back to someone's hotel room necessarily implies consent. Maybe she just wants to have another drink or have non-intercourse intimacy. In any event, she can always change her mind. In such a situation a jury can find, based on the evidence, whether there was consent, or whether the man reasonably believed there was consent, in which case he is entitled to be acquitted i.e. he is not guilty.

If the jury finds that she wasn't consenting and he knew, but did it anyway then yes, it is rape and yes, it's just as bad as the maniac lurking behind the bushes. Potentially worse, if the former involves a breach of trust.

Wibbs

ivytwine wrote: »

I work and interact with a lot of guys and I don't see what herself and Una Mullaly see.

Personally speaking Ivy when I see any opinion by Una Doolally I can assume the content to be scaling the heights of daft. The term "rape culture" another signpost that what follows is pushing industrial levels of daft.

The men here who are not rapists cannot give you an insight into their minds any more than I can tell you what an earth a grown woman wants from an 11 year old boy.

+1.

Ireland's national pastime of getting blackout drunk doesn't help with the blurring of lines either.

It really doesn't and all sorts of consent and agency and responsibility stuff comes along for the ride.

I find the shutting down of any common sense advice towards women incredibly irritating too. In an ideal world, yes, we could do whatever we want, but we can't. I'd advise male friends not to go around certain areas of Dublin at night- same as women. Basic Internet safety states if you don't want your mum or boss to see it, don't have it on a big cloud server in California. It's not empowering for anyone to send nudes anyway. It's ****ing stupid. You can still feel sympathy for women who find themselves in that situation while ensuring it doesn't happen to you.

Good God Ivy you can't be going around saying even the tiniest thought towards personal safety and responsibility is advised. This is NOT "victim blaming" either. If I leave my wallet on the table in a pub while I go to the bar and it gets stolen, the thief is still a scumbag thief and 100% responsible for being one, but I'm also an idiot. On the internet safety stuff, education starting young should be in place. It seems obvious to me that sending nudes to partners across the wires is probably not the best of plans, but might not be so obvious to a young teenager. We all made mistakes at that age, sadly such mistakes can go viral these days in ways they couldn't before. Though because people have such short attention spans the hullabaloo tends to die down very rapidly to be replaced by the next shiny object online.

Just on a note on the Aussie survey, I lived there and found it a far more sexist society than Ireland. I think Irish men actually have much more respect for women.

I'd generally agree with that. Ditto when comparing Italy, Spain with Ireland.

Alf Veedersane

frostyjacks wrote: »

You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent.

It doesn't imply consent to sex.

intheclouds

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

No, it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally isn't that simple. Have you read about the Ched Evans case at all? What is frightening is that you could be charged with and convicted of rape when there's absolutely no evidence of rape, no complainant and no witnesses, when you're meant to just know that someone is too drunk to be able to consent, even when they seem perfectly fine.

Also it's considered rape technically in Sweden if your condom breaks and you don't tell your partner. (not that I'm saying that's ok, but it has got nothing to do with your 'simple' definition of rape)

The difficulty in the Ched Evans case is around whether or not she was capable of giving consent.

Im not suggesting that circumstances are black and white btw, there may be many shades of grey (pardon the pun) in establishing whether or not consent was given. But the fact remains that if someone does NOT give consent then it is rape.

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

newport2

intheclouds wrote: »

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

And if a woman tells a man she is on the pill but isn't (or doesn't mention she forgot to take it the night before) then she has not obtained his consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Will she be held to the same standards and be prosecuted for rape?

intheclouds

newport2 wrote: »

And if a woman tells a man she is on the pill but isn't (or doesn't mention she forgot to take it the night before) then she has not obtained his consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Will she be held to the same standards and be prosecuted for rape?

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

newport2

intheclouds wrote: »

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

In most rape cases, any proof is very very difficult to obtain, usually one person's word against another. Doesn't mean it's a waste of time for a court to try and prove it.

intheclouds

newport2 wrote: »

In most rape cases, any proof is very very difficult to obtain, usually one person's word against another. Doesn't mean it's a waste of time for a court to try and prove it.

Yes. But I am speaking about the specific example you suggested. In THAT case I believe it would be absolutely impossible to prove that the woman either lied or otherwise about taking the pill and a waste of time by the courts.

Realistically the pill isnt 100% effective so regardless of lying about taking it, the guy is still agreeing to taking a small risk when he consents to sex with a woman on the pill.

Whereas a torn condom is obviously comparable to no condom which was not agreed to.

newport2

intheclouds wrote: »

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

intheclouds wrote: »

Yes. But I am speaking about the specific example you suggested. In THAT case I believe it would be absolutely impossible to prove that the woman either lied or otherwise about taking the pill and a waste of time by the courts.

But even if she had the torn condom, if the man said he did tell her, it would be absolutely impossible to prove that he didn't. So a waste of time in the courts too? Any case that comes down to one person's word against another's is impossible to prove.

I know this is a looping discussion, it's just you said the Swedish example as an example of how simple things are when it comes to rape. Either scenario is impossible to prove, yet only the man's case is a waste of time? Not so simple.

intheclouds

newport2 wrote: »

But even if she had the torn condom, if the man said he did tell her, it would be absolutely impossible to prove that he didn't. So a waste of time in the courts too? Any case that comes down to one person's word against another's is impossible to prove.

I know this is a looping discussion, it's just you said the Swedish example as an example of how simple things are when it comes to rape. Either scenario is impossible to prove, yet only the man's case is a waste of time? Not so simple.

We will have to agree to disagree.

orubiru

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You really don't get it at all do you. Going back to someone's hotel room does not imply consent AT ALL. There is no distinction between the scenarios you present, if sex happens without consent its rape, be it in an alleyway or a marital bed.

When we consider a scenario like that there needs to be a lot more education on how the law will deal with such cases.

Obviously you want to teach people that going back to someone's room is not consent. That's only one part of the puzzle though.

Let's say boy meets girl on a night out. Many people witness them all over each other, she gets in a taxi with him and the taxi driver overhears suggestive conversation going both ways, the hotel CCTV has footage of them all over each other. Once they go into that hotel room there is already enough evidence for any decent defense lawyer to show that consent was strongly implied.

We can all agree that if he has sex with her without consent then that is obviously wrong. However unless there is actual evidence of violence or a witness that can testify that she did not consent in a case like this there is basically no chance of a conviction.

There has to be some element of young people's education that points out the legal situation regarding consent, sexual assault and rape. Otherwise they are just going in to these situations totally blind.

So how do we untangle that mess? We can't advise girls to not go to hotel rooms with strange men because that's victim blaming. We can teach boys not to rape but that doesn't mean that they won't do it, despite knowing it's wrong.

The idea that we can condition people not to rape is certainly worth looking into but there is no guarantee that this will ever be 100% successful.

So we are sending vulnerable young people out into a society where a certain % of people are predators or rapists. At the same time we are making it almost taboo to give them advice on how to protect themselves.

Look at a statement like "asking for it". This is an obvious defense that the accused can use as a rebuttal to the accusation. People who support the accused, or who just don't want to believe they are guilty, will also employ this defense.

In a sensible conversation we would look at this and think of ways that we can educate young people to better protect themselves. If perpetrators are going to use the "asking for it" defense then we need to equip potential victims with the know how and awareness that will allow them to prove that they were absolutely not asking for it.

Instead we have people, apparently uneducated in relevant fields of study, who are trying to turn the use of the phrase "asking for it" into some kind of shameful taboo. This is not productive at all.

What if the result of a society wide taboo on valid rebuttals to accusations and the branding of valid, or at least well intentioned, advice as "victim blaming" is simply instilling a sense of invulnerability in vulnerable people.

Then, of course, you have the bloodsuckers who will come in and use the victims stories to push their agenda, further their own careers and line their own pockets.

Does anyone think that it's a major problem here that the people who are shouting loudest, dictating what conversations are allowed, and deciding which opinions are morally right and wrong, are basically not properly qualified to be commenting on such complex social issues?

We need to replace these leeches with professional, educated, people who can use research and rational thinking to propose solutions to this particular problem. We need to provide proper education and proper support for the next generation or the problem will never be solved.

As long as the public discussion of this issue is dominated by rhetoric and hyperbole then there will never be any real progress.