Why do some men commit rape?

Lemming

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So why do men rape? Any number of reasons. And each case of a person raping another will be due to one, or a combination, of those reasons. So when someone tells you „It is about power“ or some other sound bite answer they are simply wrong from the outset.

So you're going to argue against criminal psychology now? From what I understand, the overwhelming majority of convicted rapists carried out rape as a means of asserting power over their victims; be it power for the its own end and gratification, out and out gender-hatred, or whatever. Rape - it would seem - is rarely a means for sexual gratification in itself, but a tool used to achieve some other perceived level of control over a victim.

There will always be some who are actually in it for sexual gratification, but again as I understand it, the numbers are not there to show that rape for sex is a notable motivator in the majority of cases.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lemming wrote: »

So you're going to argue against criminal psychology now?

If you say so. I certainly did not. From what I understand of my own words the exact opposite is true in that what I said INCLUDES the things you might (but do not appear to have) quote from criminal psychology.

Nothing I said is about what the "majority" do either. Or the minority. Again quite the opposite in that I am pointing out a number of motivators and causes of rape, without suggesting any one is, or is not, the majority or dominant factor.

I would not be so fast to rule out sexual gratification as a motivator though. It has been shown for example that rapists respond stronger to rape pornography as you would expect, but rapists AND "normal" people BOTH respond BETTER to consensual pornography. And some researchers in fact do argue that gratification is often a stronger motivation than either Anger motivators, Hate motivators or Power motivation.

While other writers on the subject suggest "Masculine Identity" as a strong motivator, or as I put it in my post above, a messed up view of what it is to be a man.

So no, I do not see myself at odds with the realm of criminal psychology at all, whether you deign to quote or cite any of it or not. What I am at odds with is anyone who thinks rape as a diverse and complex human behavior can be summarized in a single catch all sound bite such as "It is all about power".

The Black Oil

The Black Oil wrote: »

Certainly true. The reasons for those 3 are at some level (imo) more identifiable than explanations for rape. They range from domestic, pre-meditated to criminality. Drugs, money, selfishness to political instability and religious ideology can be linked to points two and three..

However, there's no one writing about 'murder culture' in this country is there?* Apart from maybe gangland, which is a very specific. Perhaps Paul Williams is the Mullally of his world, then.

*Or gendering the bejaysus out of it.

We had decades of murder with The Troubles on this island. Maybe that was a murder culture.

But that might have noting to do with rape per say it could just that most public discourses about a whole range of topics is moving to the fringe element of what ever the issue is. A lot of public discourse is pandering and not comment and its pandering to the worst elements.

Its good to remember that the vast majority of people wont commit rape or wont be raped.

The Black Oil

Wonder if this'll pop up online.

https://twitter.com/UCDWelfare/status/703207416452657152

Cosmicfox

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

The Black Oil

Here's the consent video form TCD SU. I was expecting something along the lines of what the Road Safety Authority put out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-q363omSQ

Wibbs

Cosmicfox wrote: »

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

Rape in war seems to be another side to this crime. As you say it went on in pretty much every war to some degree or other. Your evolutionary psychologist types might say it's a primal thing based on war being a resources grab and the women of the opposing side are one of the biggest "resources" there are. That on a visceral level as well as taking the enemy's land, you're also taking his genetic heritage. In primitive societies where land is not considered as something a tribe owns as such, women are usually the primary target for acquisition in local wars.

It can vary and can depend on cultural forces too. EG World war two shows quite different attitudes and levels of it depending on the side involved. In the European theatre the Soviet forces were the worst offenders. Vanishingly few German women from children to grandmothers who fell under their influence weren't raped. Officially it was punishable by death, but blind eyes were turned. French forces though not nearly as bad as Soviet weren't exactly safe either. For a German woman being in the US or British sphere of influence was significantly safer. The conduct of German soldiers varied and it very much depended on where they were and how they viewed the "locals". In places like France it was a limited enough issue, in Russia it was far more in play. The more the population was seen as less than human/Aryan, the more likely rapes were to happen. In the Eastern theatre the Japanese were the most appalling. Barely human animals really. What they did to local populations as a matter of official practice beggars belief.

Just a thought, but maybe those men who rape in peacetime, the "classic" predatory rapist of the common mind lurking in bushes, is the minority who channel this "war program" in peacetime? Like the minority hyper aggressive violent type who might make a helluva soldier in war, but are a danger to society of a normal Friday night. Ordinary men(and some women) can kill in war and then go back to living perfectly normal average decent lives. They can switch that on or off, but maybe for some those switches remain on?

As for the reasons for rape? Personally I would see rape and sexual assault like cancer; we think of it as one disease that needs curing, but it's actually a whole suite of diseases with different causes and treatments. So for example consent education will "treat" one type of sexual assault, but is unlikely to treat another. EG for the "classic" rapist, consent means jack. That's the point. It's the lack of the victim's consent that turns them on.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

It can vary and can depend on cultural forces too. EG World war two shows quite different attitudes and levels of it depending on the side involved. In the European theatre the Soviet forces were the worst offenders. Vanishingly few German women from children to grandmothers who fell under their influence weren't raped. Officially it was punishable by death, but blind eyes were turned. French forces though not nearly as bad as Soviet weren't exactly safe either. For a German woman being in the US or British sphere of influence was significantly safer. The conduct of German soldiers varied and it very much depended on where they were and how they viewed the "locals". In places like France it was a limited enough issue, in Russia it was far more in play. The more the population was seen as less than human/Aryan, the more likely rapes were to happen. In the Eastern theatre the Japanese were the most appalling. Barely human animals really. What they did to local populations as a matter of official practice beggars belief.

According to Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, Stalin's regime put out a huge amount of propaganda stating that Nazi soldiers were raping Russian women en masse in order to persuade young men to join the Red Army. As you might expect, this worked and no doubt when they reached Germany they thought they were giving the Germans their comeuppance.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, Stalin's regime put out a huge amount of propaganda stating that Nazi soldiers were raping Russian women en masse in order to persuade young men to join the Red Army.

Yep, that's a very popular propaganda tactic that has been used for centuries by many nations. The "while you're at the front fighting and dying your women are being raped back home".

Emme

Cosmicfox wrote: »

One thing I've been reading a little about lately is rape in wartime. Not any particular war but most of what I've been reading is about rape in WW2 and African conflicts.

What makes a man (or men, in many of these cases), even with all the horrors war, decide to rape a 12 year old girl? Even if she is one of the 'enemy'. Where does that come from?. It's not the same as killing an enemy soldier.

These are also men who at home probably had wives and daughters, perhaps even of the same age. Or went on to have families of their own.

Some transcripts of recordings taken of POWS in Britain in WW2 have men laughing and joking about grabbing women off the side of the road and raping them, often killing them afterwards.

Rape is about power. War is about power. You don't have to look very far to see situations which apparently aren't war but where men are behaving exactly like rapacious invaders. I think there might be a primal instinct driving rape in war - after rape the conquered females are theoretically likely to bear the children of the invader.

Rape is pretty well documented as a weapon of war, using sexual violence for particular ends:

Ethnic cleansing
Resource control
Assertion of dominance and control through fear
Humiliation
To gain information and for propaganda purposes

The interesting questions don't really pertain as to why it's done, imo. The question that really interests me is how ordinary soldiers cross the line from law-abiding Regular Guy, to a perpetrator of obscenely brutal acts of sexual violence and torture. I imagine the answer lies in the dehumanising and brutalising nature of war itself and the nature of the human character, although it can never excuse crimes against humanity, like mass rape.

silverharp

Candie wrote: »

Rape is pretty well documented as a weapon of war, using sexual violence for particular ends:

Ethnic cleansing
Resource control
Assertion of dominance and control through fear
Humiliation
To gain information and for propaganda purposes

The interesting questions don't really pertain as to why it's done, imo. The question that really interests me is how ordinary soldiers cross the line from law-abiding Regular Guy, to a perpetrator of obscenely brutal acts of sexual violence and torture. I imagine the answer lies in the dehumanising and brutalising nature of war itself and the nature of the human character, although it can never excuse crimes against humanity, like mass rape.

it depends, looking at the present you are not going to see a modern 1st world army do what Russian troops did in 45. In fact it got to absurdity where an academic trying to do a gotcha on the israeli army in palestinian areas couldnt find any recorded sexual attacks by Israeli troops and concluded that the Israelis were racist :eek:
Peel back civilisation and everything reverts to stealing or trying to hold on to resources.

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

The interesting questions don't really pertain as to why it's done, imo. The question that really interests me is how ordinary soldiers cross the line from law-abiding Regular Guy, to a perpetrator of obscenely brutal acts of sexual violence and torture. I imagine the answer lies in the dehumanising and brutalising nature of war itself and the nature of the human character, although it can never excuse crimes against humanity, like mass rape.

As I mentioned above, I would put this down to the dehumanising effect of propaganda on how citizens' see the people of other nations. There's no competing narrative so, after a period of time there's nothing but hatred for these foreigners. This hatred can be a very powerful driver of behaviour and leads to people seeing others as less than human and therefore, certain acts such as rape and murder are no longer rape and murder due to the victim being an object of hatred.

Maguined

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As I mentioned above, I would put this down to the dehumanising effect of propaganda on how citizens' see the people of other nations. There's no competing narrative so, after a period of time there's nothing but hatred for these foreigners. This hatred can be a very powerful driver of behaviour and leads to people seeing others as less than human and therefore, certain acts such as rape and murder are no longer rape and murder due to the victim being an object of hatred.

I wish I had saved it but I read a great article years ago about an internal report in the US army about the "kill rate". It was a study on how to train their soldiers to be more willing to shoot and kill the enemy. It started by looking at the US civil war and how at the start of the war many soliders did not want to shoot the enemy as the identified them as their own people. Sometimes it could literally be brothers on opposing sides so frequently many soldiers would purposefully miss their shots to avoid any guilt of killing and hoping their fellows would do the killing. The longer the war went on and the more atrocities that happened on both sides the less the soldier identifies with the opposition and the more they are willing to shoot and kill. This went on and on with all their subsequent wars and the army developed better ways to train their soliders to be willing to kill.

The trope of the yelling dehumanising drill seargent is exactly the training they want to instill in young soldiers. Obey orders and instinctively kill rather than the nervous delay in pulling the trigger. The more they could dehumanise and demonise the enemy the better. Even the slang terms the soldiers had for the enemy helps them not to view them as people, you are just killing Charlie or towel heads etc.

The problem is it is working too well, young boys join the army out of a sense of duty but they are trained too well to become instinctive killers and this leads to atrocities they are willing to perform on local populace even when they are supposedly there to help them.

silverharp

@mag. , not systemic though? Remember the debacle recently in Afghanistan where the local military have a culture of raping young boys, the US troops were appalled but had their hands tied and weren't allowed intervene. If they were emotionally broken automatons , they wouldn't care right?

The Black Oil

There's also the odd solider who slips through the cracks and it turns out he has anti-social personality disorder, which I think is on the same spectrum as sociopathy or psychopathy. Or may share some similarities. Their cases sometimes come to attention because they have gone on to commit a massacre in Iraq or Afghanistan. Whether their disorder becomes more apparent primarily because of their military service and training, or was present prior to their joining the military, I don't know.

I was passing a shop recently, 5-6 youngsters of no more than 14 years of age, I'd say. I heard one of the boys say 'her tits were hanging out'. It's hard to say much knowing the full context or details of what they were talking about. I'm sure this situation is repeated across the country every day. So...is this banter, rape culture, immaturity? Is it an indicator those boys disrespect their their female peers? Will these boys go onto talk and think like this as they get older and into adulthood? This group was a mix of girls and boys, btw. It didn't seem like the boys were disrespecting the girls who were there. Who knows, maybe in this situation the girls could, if the remarks were personalised, give the boys a good dose of STFU.

FWIW, I don't like the word tits, tbh. Can I have a newspaper column now?

Canadel

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In the context of "Why do some men rape?" is there any merit to the point that everyone is a potential rapist? Does it say or do anything for the actual topic?

Yes, because some men who rape are still men. And they were once young men, and before that they were little boys. Rape is a male problem, just as racism in the US is a white problem. Both you and I are potential rapists, and depending on how differently our lives might have been, we could be actual rapists.

Wibbs wrote: »

As for the reasons for rape? Personally I would see rape and sexual assault like cancer; we think of it as one disease that needs curing, but it's actually a whole suite of diseases with different causes and treatments. So for example consent education will "treat" one type of sexual assault, but is unlikely to treat another. EG for the "classic" rapist, consent means jack. That's the point. It's the lack of the victim's consent that turns them on.

Which is why I believe early intervention in the form of sex education in schools is so crucial in tackling the dysfunctional nature of sexual interaction. Parents cannot, and should not, be relied upon to teach their children comprehensively about sex and all that it encompasses. It's simply too big an area. It's like asking ordinary parents to teach their kids honours maths in their own time. Of course some will be able to but the vast majority won't and will fail. I've said it already in this thread, but sex should be treated as a core subject in the school curriculum in my view, with almost equal time allocated to it from first year in secondary school as to subjects like maths, English, science and so on. Scrap Irish and give it that slot. It would be a worthwhile endeavour, the benefits of which would be witnessed by society in the long term imo.

silverharp

Canadel wrote: »

Which is why I believe early intervention in the form of sex education in schools is so crucial in tackling the dysfunctional nature of sexual interaction. Parents cannot, and should not, be relied upon to teach their children comprehensively about sex and all that it encompasses. It's simply too big an area. It's like asking ordinary parents to teach their kids honours maths in their own time. Of course some will be able to but the vast majority won't and will fail. I've said it already in this thread, but sex should be treated as a core subject in the school curriculum in my view, with almost equal time allocated to it from first year in secondary school as to subjects like maths, English, science and so on. Scrap Irish and give it that slot. It would be a worthwhile endeavour, the benefits of which would be witnessed by society in the long term imo.

and then the black kids could go off to their dont commit crime classes? there is certainly a role for practical information based on robust psychology but I wouldnt want a course designed by a bunch of "Laci Green" feminists, it could get value laden very quickly based on Ideology

Canadel

silverharp wrote: »

and then the black kids could go off to their dont commit crime classes?

Black people don't commit crime. Poor black people do. The black kids go to maths and science and sex ed class like everyone else.

there is certainly a role for practical information based on robust psychology but I wouldnt want a course designed by a bunch of "Laci Green" feminists, it could get value laden very quickly based on Ideology

Not ideology. I mean sexual education based on science. Sure you can discuss different ideologies and different waves of feminist as you progress but the basics should be instilled in students first.

ancapailldorcha

Canadel, you were told not to post on this thread again. Take a fortnight off.

nozzferrahhtoo

Canadel wrote: »

we could be actual rapists.

Note however I asked what the merit of stating the point, and stating the obvious is. In response you merely wrote a paragraph that restated it. So my question somewhat remains.

The issue is that pointing out people are potential rapists is so dilute it says nothing. Because all people are potential anythings. We are potential murderers or saints. It is simply a non-point you are making.

tritium

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Note however I asked what the merit of stating the point, and stating the obvious is. In response you merely wrote a paragraph that restated it. So my question somewhat remains.

The issue is that pointing out people are potential rapists is so dilute it says nothing. Because all people are potential anythings. We are potential murderers or saints. It is simply a non-point you are making.

The last few posts kind of hit on one of the problems I have with threads like this and also one of the reasons I'm slowly coming around to the what ( but not necessarily the how) of consent classes.

First let's take the statement 'men rape'/ 'some men rape'/ ' just men rape'. Assuming we're not just taking violent predatory rape but rather all rape that's simply not true (I'll defer on the rather bizarre Irish legislative definition here).

For the violent abuse element its overwhelmingly male, but to understand the why it falls into the wider question of why about violent crime. For everything else the data gets interesting. The CDC surveyed this some years back. They got so many cases of women forcing men to have sex that they (go figure), created a brand new category for it 'made to penetrate'. Then they stuck it in the appendices somewhere (go figure again). It had a similar prevalence to male on female nonviolent rape reporting for the survey.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not looking to do a 'what about the menz' here. Rather I'm pointing out that the question in the op has two distinct parts. For the stereotype violent rape attacker there's a whole realm of psychology and criminology to be looked at, as with any violent crime. However for the rest there's also a wider discussion about how we interpret consent in society, preferably one that isn't hijacked by certain agendas. There's a lot of hard questions in that, for both genders, covering every element of our social interaction. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the groups driving the discussion at the moment have any interest in that fuller discussion.

The Black Oil

In view of the Asking for It's inaccuracies as identified by johnnyskeleton, I contacted to the Irish Law Society to ask if there was a framework or set of procedure that lawyers follow when dealing with rape and sexual assault in the courts. The reply told me to contact Citizens Information, which I've done, but am not expecting much of a response there, either. Is there any other body/source that might have insight into how lawyers are trained in relation to this matter?

Pawwed Rig

The Black Oil wrote: »

Is there any other body/source that might have insight into how lawyers are trained in relation to this matter?

Ask in the legal forum. They're a helpful bunch over there.

Ralf and Florian

I probably first became aware of rape through the covers of those true crime magazines and seeing them in news agents back in the early to mid 80s.I remember one that had a guy with his arm around a struggling womans neck and his other hand holding a gun up to her head and the magazine headline went something like "Have sex or die". Another one had this beardy fella in an anorak jumping out behind bushes to grab an unsuspecting woman walking along the street.

_Whimsical_

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned or not but there was a very interesting disturbing thread on reddit some years back that has since been the subject of research into rape and why men rape. The thread was called Ask a Rapist and was a call to anyone who had ever been the perpetrator of sexual assaults to explain what had happened. It's here https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/1t1r2z/the_ask_a_rapist_thread/

It made for both fascinating and chilling reading. It's a long time since I've read it but one of the points that stood out for me was how many men had perpetrated an assault without fully realising in the moment that was what was happening. Some men reported having been involved in sexual acts with women that they suddenly realised were terrified, when they saw an ashen frightened face, legs clapped together trembling or noticed the woman crying or shaking. Up until those moments they assumed the girl was just as into it as them. Some backed off once they really realised but others continued regardless as it was "too late" but regretted it years later.

I remember one guy saying how he had been with a girl in a bedroom at a friends house, he had taken her pants off and was giving her oral sex which she didn't really seem to be responding to when he looked up at her face and realised she was actually shaking and absolutely terrified. He left and went outside to the next room where he waited on the couch for an hour fully believing she had really been as into it as him and expecting that she would come out of the bedroom and ravage him.

What stuck out I suppose was the level of divorce between some of these men and the women they are with. They weren't even noticing basic things about them like how tense they must have been if they were lying there crying until they saw a face in distress. It sounded like the woman was just like a prop required for fulfilment of their pleasure, not a sentient being. It seemed for them that it was very much about just the sex rather than a recognition of what was happening and a desire to exert power and dominance as I'd always thought rape was really about.

It is a very complex subject that is only one small facet of a huge problem, but it was one that surprised me as I hadn't really previously believed so many men could be so very out of touch in such moments.

Obviously I'm not saying this is all men, this is a group of rapists but at the same time these people do exist and we probably have to look at reports from people who are wired like this to
understand why they do it and how to prevent women becoming their victims.

Tasden

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

It seemed for them that it was very much about just the sex rather than a recognition of what was happening and a desire to exert power and dominance as I'd always thought rape was really about.

Yeah I always see this thing about it being a power thing and not about sex. I think thats a very simplified view of it and it may be true in some cases but its definitely not the case all the time and sometimes it is just about the sex for them pure and simple.
Maybe by "power" people mean a sense of entitlement to sex and to do what they please with the woman's body and that's where the power and control thing comes into it, but in my experience it was purely just a guy who wanted to have sex and felt that was his entitlement.

_Whimsical_

Tasden wrote: »

Yeah I always see this thing about it being a power thing and not about sex. I think thats a very simplified view of it and it may be true in some cases but its definitely not the case all the time and sometimes it is just about the sex for them pure and simple.
Maybe by "power" people mean a sense of entitlement to sex and to do what they please with the woman's body and that's where the power and control thing comes into it, but in my experience it was purely just a guy who wanted to have sex and felt that was his entitlement.

I just want to say I'm very sorry if you've had any experience like this personally.:(

Yeah I know what you mean about that perspective on power and you could be right. The strange thing is a lot of those men recognised with hindsight that it was an assault and were sorry in retrospect,so it didn't seem like it was driven by an underlying worldview of women.

It sounded often like a serious problem with basic impulse control and a subconscious belief maybe that sex was about satisfying yourself and divorced from any expression of human intimacy. Maybe with so many men's first introduction to sex being porn and a solitary practice some people's sexuality develops like that? I just don't know.

I suppose realistically a lot of crime and the casual violence we see does come back to impulse control. It's not surprising it would be an issue in sexual assault too, although after years of believing it was all about power and not at all about sex it still came as a surprise to me.
Now of course, I do accept that it is a bigger issue too and this is just one facet of some assaults.

The Black Oil

I think Hollywood is somewhat guilty of dare I say romanticising the power aspect. Every other fictional detective has deep forensic insights into buttoned down or more off the wall offenders and I think there's a danger of that being a go to manual in TV/film writing.

Citizens Information told me to contact the Courts Service and DPP.

Potatoeman

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned or not but there was a very interesting disturbing thread on reddit some years back that has since been the subject of research into rape and why men rape. The thread was called Ask a Rapist and was a call to anyone who had ever been the perpetrator of sexual assaults to explain what had happened. It's here https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/1t1r2z/the_ask_a_rapist_thread/

It made for both fascinating and chilling reading. It's a long time since I've read it but one of the points that stood out for me was how many men had perpetrated an assault without fully realising in the moment that was what was happening. Some men reported having been involved in sexual acts with women that they suddenly realised were terrified, when they saw an ashen frightened face, legs clapped together trembling or noticed the woman crying or shaking. Up until those moments they assumed the girl was just as into it as them. Some backed off once they really realised but others continued regardless as it was "too late" but regretted it years later.

I remember one guy saying how he had been with a girl in a bedroom at a friends house, he had taken her pants off and was giving her oral sex which she didn't really seem to be responding to when he looked up at her face and realised she was actually shaking and absolutely terrified. He left and went outside to the next room where he waited on the couch for an hour fully believing she had really been as into it as him and expecting that she would come out of the bedroom and ravage him.

What stuck out I suppose was the level of divorce between some of these men and the women they are with. They weren't even noticing basic things about them like how tense they must have been if they were lying there crying until they saw a face in distress. It sounded like the woman was just like a prop required for fulfilment of their pleasure, not a sentient being. It seemed for them that it was very much about just the sex rather than a recognition of what was happening and a desire to exert power and dominance as I'd always thought rape was really about.

It is a very complex subject that is only one small facet of a huge problem, but it was one that surprised me as I hadn't really previously believed so many men could be so very out of touch in such moments.

Obviously I'm not saying this is all men, this is a group of rapists but at the same time these people do exist and we probably have to look at reports from people who are wired like this to
understand why they do it and how to prevent women becoming their victims.

That sounds like a combination of the guy not being able to read signals and the woman not being able to physically or verbally express her discomfort.

As for treating someone as a prop for sexual enjoyment, so is meeting a stranger outside a club at 3am and having sex with them.