Why do some men commit rape?

NI24

smash wrote: »

This story and this thread in now way 'proves' why some men commit rape. Any justification for the events that you've witnessed on this thread are a direct result of 2 things:

• His version of the events
• Her admittance that she wanted to have sex and states that she was not raped.

Your arguments completely dismiss these two points and focus solely on her version of events, for which she still states; she was not raped. But you don't care about that part.

You have offered no presumption of innocence to the man involved and you're running around in circles with your arguments.

Her interpretation is of less importance than what happened or what she described happened. If she wanted to have sex the first time she wouldn't have told him no. I would say her first no would be a pretty big clue. He could have easily offered the condom on the first no but he didn't. Everybody believed her version when it exonerated him so I'm assuming they believe her version now that it doesn't. Your last comment (about running around) perfectly describes everyone else's argument, except maguined's.

NI24

Lemming wrote: »

Wow. That single sentence has to be one of THE most alarmist, melodramatic, barbarian-horde-at-the-gates and patently dishonest pieces of absolute drivel I've ever read on this site - and I include AH in that. Way to go implying that we're all rapists, or support rape because we disagree with your interpretation.

In any case you're grossly simplifying this discussion into a black & white "you're either with me or against me" mantra. Which is the last refuge of those trying to drive their own biased agenda.

What this thread DOES demonstrate is two things:

1. That those driving the current "feminist" (I wrap that in quotes because I'm not convinced that those driving the agenda aren't simply hiding behind feminism) agenda are incapable of having an honest debate on the matter because it is framed in hysterics and emotion. This subject would be far better served for society if it were being framed by medical & criminal psychology professionals, not Jane Doe who once read a blog entry about how terrible sexual assault is.

2. Why the law is vague on exactly where the lines blur between outright criminality & the intricacies of intimate human relationships. Each case has to be taken on its own set of details, its own merits (or demerits as the case may or may not be). There is a reason why such cases are absolute mine-fields in a courtroom; simply applying a blanket application against all (outside of the basic common sense of where the law defines any absolutes) is why Title IX, for example, is currently being abused by those driving what I can only describe at best as a deeply flawed and misguided agenda, and at worst outright mysandry.

You had to edit your post to make it even more dramatic and alarmist and you're chastising my post for those reasons? Jesus Christ, you need a mirror and a good hard look in it. Listen, I fully agree with your no.2, there's no excuse for ignoring constitutional rights and you may be right about the discussion needing to be framed by professionals, however this is a forum, if you want to hear a professional then go to a criminal professional website or whatever. And at no point was I implying that anybody here was a rapist, so save your histrionics for oprah.

Okay I'm editing to say I don't fully agree with your no.2, but most of it. Your misandry thing is nothing more than melodrama.

smash

NI24 wrote: »

Her interpretation is of less importance than what happened or what she described happened.

These are two different things. You fail to see that.

The saying goes there's 3 sides to every story. Her side, his side and the truth. You've decided that one of these equals the other without any basis other than you appear to not like men.

Her outright admittance that she was not raped, nor does she feel that any wrong happened are what need to be considered by you. Your attitude is quite frankly, dangerous. You want this girl to feel that she was raped and that her boyfriend is a rapist!

Lemming

NI24 wrote: »

You had to edit your post to make it even more dramatic and alarmist and you're chastising my post for those reasons? Jesus Christ, you need a mirror and a good hard look in it. Listen, I fully agree with your no.2, there's no excuse for ignoring constitutional rights and you may be right about the discussion needing to be framed by professionals, however this is a forum, if you want to hear a professional then go to a criminal professional website or whatever. And at no point was I implying that anybody here was a rapist, so save your histrionics for oprah.

I edited quite a few things in my post as a matter of fact, from grammar, to formatting, to a comment on why such cases are difficult to deal with in law by their very nature, and the fact that yes, what you wrote was alarmist f*cking tripe.

NI24

smash wrote: »

These are two different things. You fail to see that.

The saying goes there's 3 sides to every story. Her side, his side and the truth. You've decided that one of these equals the other without any basis other than you appear to not like men.

Her outright admittance that she was not raped, nor does she feel that any wrong happened are what need to be considered by you. Your attitude is quite frankly, dangerous. You want this girl to feel that she was raped and that her boyfriend is a rapist!

I've said from the beginning that they tell different stories. In fact, I was the first person to point out that they had different stories. You don't get that the point I am making is that everybody believes her story completely when it proves his innocence, but when it proves his guilt all of a sudden there's two sides, it's he said/she said, etc. etc. It's picking evidence and deciding the veracity of said evidence when it suits an agenda. As for your comment about not liking men, you are resorting to typical MRA tactics which further proves how much they are incapable of thinking independently. Do you realize you are repeating the same arguments and using the same phrases almost word for word as those that comment on MRA and red pill sites? It's bizarre.

NI24

Lemming wrote: »

I edited quite a few things in my post as a matter of fact, from grammar, to formatting, to a comment on why such cases are difficult to deal with in law by their very nature, and the fact that yes, what you wrote was alarmist f*cking tripe.

What alarmist tripe are you referring to? The comment you made about implying all men are rapists? Get a clue, Lemming. The point I was making, which seemed to whoosh over your head at light speed, is that when a rape occurs, instead of dealing with it or punishing it accordingly, people make excuses and justify it. Take Maguined's example for instance--oh they got caught up in the moment (not a direct quote). Well, that's T.S. if they did. Perhaps if society nipped these things in the bud then it wouldn't ever get to a later stage.

smash

NI24 wrote: »

I've said from the beginning that they tell different stories. In fact, I was the first person to point out that they had different stories. You don't get that the point I am making is that everybody believes her story completely when it proves his innocence, but when it proves his guilt all of a sudden there's two sides, it's he said/she said, etc. etc. It's picking evidence and deciding the veracity of said evidence when it suits an agenda. As for your comment about not liking men, you are resorting to typical MRA tactics which further proves how much they are incapable of thinking independently. Do you realize you are repeating the same arguments and using the same phrases almost word for word as those that comment on MRA and red pill sites? It's bizarre.

I don't know what those sites are, but here's a few questions for you. Only yes or no answers please.

Was she raped?

Does her belief that she wasn't raped matter to you?

Is he a rapist?

Should he be convicted?

NI24

smash wrote: »

I don't know what those sites are, but here's a few questions for you. Only yes or no answers please.

Was she raped?

Does her belief that she wasn't raped matter to you?

Is he a rapist?

Should he be convicted?

You've been on this site a lot longer than I have and I've seen what threads you contribute to so I don't believe for a nanosecond you don't know those sites. And I'm sorry, I didn't like true/false, multiple choice questions when I was a kid and I don't like them now. Perhaps if you elaborate I might answer them, but then maybe not. If it's going to be one of those "have you stopped abusing your spouse" type questions, where the answer will never be the right answer, then don't bother.

smash

NI24 wrote: »

You've been on this site a lot longer than I have and I've seen what threads you contribute to so I don't believe for a nanosecond you don't know those sites.

Believe what you want, but I don't know those sites and trawling through my account history wont change that.

NI24 wrote: »

And I'm sorry, I didn't like true/false, multiple choice questions when I was a kid and I don't like them now. Perhaps if you elaborate I might answer them, but then maybe not.

There's nothing to elaborate. They're simple questions.

NI24 wrote: »

If it's going to be one of those "have you stopped abusing your spouse" type questions, where the answer will never be the right answer, then don't bother.

At this point I've no idea where you're going with your posts.

NI24

smash wrote: »

Believe what you want, but I don't know those sites and trawling through my account history wont change that.


There's nothing to elaborate. They're simple questions.


At this point I've no idea where you're going with your posts.

I've been reading this site for over ten years and I know many poster's histories backwards and forwards. You want to play your little truth or dare game then play it with someone else. I know and you know these aren't "simple little questions" so unless you have something else to point out about that article then it's over.

smash

NI24 wrote: »

I've been reading this site for over ten years and I know many poster's histories backwards and forwards. You want to play your little truth or dare game then play it with someone else. I know and you know these aren't "simple little questions" so unless you have something else to point out about that article then it's over.

Bye bye then. You've made it clear that a discussion forum is not for you.

NI24

smash wrote: »

Bye bye then. You've made it clear that a discussion forum is not for you.

You're not discussing, you're baiting. There's a difference.

Lemming

NI24, you are the one that tried to simplify the nuances of a not-so-straight-forward case into simple yes/no soundbites. You have been challenged to answer simple yes/no questions (re: Smash's questions - and this bit is an edit fyi) regards the very case that you have tried to break down to simple yes/no reasoning. If you wish to live by that particular sword whilst making all sorts of veiled insults to the rest of us, I would suggest that you pony up and take your own medicine.

ancapailldorcha

NI24, you've had plenty of warnings at this stage. Do not post in this thread again.

Electric Sex Pants

I think I have the answer why some men commit rape - because some men are just evil SOBs. Women commit rape too as do trans people, there are bad people in this world, its as simple as that.

armaghlad

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I think I have the answer why some men commit rape - because some men are just evil SOBs. Women commit rape too as do trans people, there are bad people in this world, its as simple as that.

There was a rape quite close to me in the last fortnight. It occurred in a popular country park in broad daylight. A harrowing experience for the victim; she gave a description of the attacker and the police caught him within a day or two.

Turns out her attacker has an IQ of 44. While this crime is heinous and he deserves punishment, does he deserve the same as someone who doesn't have the mental age of a child?

Reports state that the victim soon caught on pretty promptly that her attacker was not "normal" for want of a better phrase. She changed her tone accordingly and even asked his name.

I'm just curious as to how this will/should be dealt with; often rape motives surround depraved men wanting to dominate and overpower women, is someone with an IQ of 44 capable of such? Is his mental age a mitigating factor?

The Black Oil

His likely diminished mental/intellectual capacity would probably be taken into account by the courts.

Potatoeman

armaghlad wrote: »

There was a rape quite close to me in the last fortnight. It occurred in a popular country park in broad daylight. A harrowing experience for the victim; she gave a description of the attacker and the police caught him within a day or two.

Turns out her attacker has an IQ of 44. While this crime is heinous and he deserves punishment, does he deserve the same as someone who doesn't have the mental age of a child?

Reports state that the victim soon caught on pretty promptly that her attacker was not "normal" for want of a better phrase. She changed her tone accordingly and even asked his name.

I'm just curious as to how this will/should be dealt with; often rape motives surround depraved men wanting to dominate and overpower women, is someone with an IQ of 44 capable of such? Is his mental age a mitigating factor?

Would it matter to you? You might understand the reason but probably not the result.

If you look at violent rapists childhoods there is usually abuse. You can ask why men commit rape but you can also ask why women raise rapists? It's the circle of abuse.

Electric Sex Pants

armaghlad wrote: »

There was a rape quite close to me in the last fortnight. It occurred in a popular country park in broad daylight. A harrowing experience for the victim; she gave a description of the attacker and the police caught him within a day or two.

Turns out her attacker has an IQ of 44. While this crime is heinous and he deserves punishment, does he deserve the same as someone who doesn't have the mental age of a child?

Reports state that the victim soon caught on pretty promptly that her attacker was not "normal" for want of a better phrase. She changed her tone accordingly and even asked his name.

I'm just curious as to how this will/should be dealt with; often rape motives surround depraved men wanting to dominate and overpower women, is someone with an IQ of 44 capable of such? Is his mental age a mitigating factor?

No in my opinion its not a mitigating factor, in fact it could be argued that it makes him more dangerous, as he has no concept of the ramifications of his actions. He should be locked up for the rest of his life, there is no rehabilitating him - he has proven that he is not capable of interacting with society in a normal way - so lock him up. The argument could be made for mental institution rather than prison but the main point is that he can never again be let into society freely.

Pawwed Rig

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

The argument could be made for mental institution rather than prison but the main point is that he can never again be let into society freely.

You are essentially saying that anyone with a low IQ can not be rehabilitated. I am not a mental health expert so wouldn't have the first clue but can you link to something that proves that?

armaghlad

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

No in my opinion its not a mitigating factor, in fact it could be argued that it makes him more dangerous, as he has no concept of the ramifications of his actions. He should be locked up for the rest of his life, there is no rehabilitating him - he has proven that he is not capable of interacting with society in a normal way - so lock him up. The argument could be made for mental institution rather than prison but the main point is that he can never again be let into society freely.

I should add that he was already living under the care of the local health trust. I agree he needs to be locked up. For the rest if his life though?

Electric Sex Pants

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You are essentially saying that anyone with a low IQ can not be rehabilitated. I am not a mental health expert so wouldn't have the first clue but can you link to something that proves that?

I am not a mental health expert either, this is just my opinion, however i am open to be proven wrong, but i just dont believe that the low IQ is a mitigating factor.

eviltwin

armaghlad wrote: »

There was a rape quite close to me in the last fortnight. It occurred in a popular country park in broad daylight. A harrowing experience for the victim; she gave a description of the attacker and the police caught him within a day or two.

Turns out her attacker has an IQ of 44. While this crime is heinous and he deserves punishment, does he deserve the same as someone who doesn't have the mental age of a child?

Reports state that the victim soon caught on pretty promptly that her attacker was not "normal" for want of a better phrase. She changed her tone accordingly and even asked his name.

I'm just curious as to how this will/should be dealt with; often rape motives surround depraved men wanting to dominate and overpower women, is someone with an IQ of 44 capable of such? Is his mental age a mitigating factor?

He might have the mental capacity of a child but he has the physicality and the sexual maturity of an adult. That's a dangerous combination.

His condition needs to be taken into account but ultimately women need to be protected. He shouldn't be in prison but he should be locked up in a secure unit that can meet his needs while also keeping him off the streets. That's as much for his own protection as that of any potential victims.

armaghlad

Here's a link to the case:

Peatlands Park, Dungannon: Rape victim feared she would be killed during attack - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36213350

mzungu

That poor woman :mad:

eviltwin wrote: »

He might have the mental capacity of a child but he has the physicality and the sexual maturity of an adult. That's a dangerous combination.

His condition needs to be taken into account but ultimately women need to be protected. He shouldn't be in prison but he should be locked up in a secure unit that can meet his needs while also keeping him off the streets. That's as much for his own protection as that of any potential victims.

I'd fully agree here, he is obviously a danger to society.

Some parts of that article:

She screamed and struggled with the man, but he put a hand over her mouth which stopped her breathing.

When arrested, he declined to provide intimate body samples and refused to take part in an identification process.

After being assessed by a psychiatrist as fit to be interviewed and charged, the accused refused to answer questions put to him.

Even though he has a low IQ, he seems to have to been very calculating in his actions. Would your average child on the street be able to do this?


I'm not really on board here with diminished responsibility as a mitigating circumstance in this case.

Either way, for the publics protection it is best he is incarcerated so he can't bring harm upon anybody else. Whether that be in a prison or secure unit.

Pawwed Rig

eviltwin wrote: »

He might have the mental capacity of a child but he has the physicality and the sexual maturity of an adult. That's a dangerous combination.

His condition needs to be taken into account but ultimately women need to be protected. He shouldn't be in prison but he should be locked up in a secure unit that can meet his needs while also keeping him off the streets. That's as much for his own protection as that of any potential victims.

Agreed but to lock him up for life for something that is not the most serious of crimes would be ridiculous. When you consider Anders Behring Breivik was only given 21 years!

It would be nice to think that people get locked up until they are rehabilitated but that rarely happens in Ireland where we allow all sorts of dangerous people back out on the streets to reoffend with virtual immunity.

armaghlad

mzungu wrote: »

That poor woman :mad:



I'd fully agree here, he is obviously a danger to society.

Some parts of that article:






Even though he has a low IQ, he seems to have to been very calculating in his actions. Would your average child on the street be able to do this?


I'm not really on board here with diminished responsibility as a mitigating circumstance in this case.

Either way, for the publics protection it is best he is incarcerated so he can't bring harm upon anybody else. Whether that be in a prison or secure unit.

I don't think he was very calculated at all. He lives about a mile or so from the scene and was arrested within days. He doesn't come across as a seasoned predator who would have maybe taken a bit more evasive action to avoid detection. This guy just went on home as if nothing happened.

I agree he needs locked up, but I get the impression some people think he is more of a risk of reoffending than say a man with a higher IQ?

mzungu

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Agreed but to lock him up for life for something that is not the most serious of crimes would be ridiculous.

I'd be of the opposite view here, sentences are far too lenient and I would consider rape to be right up there near the top in the serious crimes list.

Victims have a life sentence with these crimes, so softly softly approaches with perpetrators act as no deterrent.

When you consider Anders Behring Breivik was only given 21 years!

21 years, but will most likely (I bloody hope) be indefinitely extended. Plus, the fact he could only get 21 years officially, is taking the Michael completely.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/24/anders-behring-breivik-verdict-norway-utoya

It would be a brave PM or Justice Minister to sign that release form!

mzungu

armaghlad wrote: »

I don't think he was very calculated at all. He lives about a mile or so from the scene and was arrested within days. He doesn't come across as a seasoned predator who would have maybe taken a bit more evasive action to avoid detection.

It certainly wasn't Ted Bundy levels of premeditation, however he knew enough to try silence his victim and engage in evasive action with the authorities.

The fact he didn't have enough smarts to outwit the police and avoid being caught, can be levelled at many other rapists with higher IQs.

This guy just went on home as if nothing happened.

I don't think it says in the article what he did afterwards.

I agree he needs locked up, but I get the impression some people think he is more of a risk of reoffending than say a man with a higher IQ?

Studies show sexual offence recidivism has been found to be higher in those with a low IQ, and taking into consideration the figures for recidivism in those with a higher IQ are not exactly low either.

eviltwin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Agreed but to lock him up for life for something that is not the most serious of crimes would be ridiculous. When you consider Anders Behring Breivik was only given 21 years!

It would be nice to think that people get locked up until they are rehabilitated but that rarely happens in Ireland where we allow all sorts of dangerous people back out on the streets to reoffend with virtual immunity.

I don't think he should be locked up for life and certainly not in prison. He is a vulnerable adult and needs to be treated as such. Rape is a serious crime and the penalties need to reflect that.