Why do some men commit rape?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The fact he still didn't really understand what he did wrong is a travesty.

Lacks empathy more than not understanding imo which is why he needs a much longer sentence.

Colour me surprised BlackOil at the content you've linked to. I'm getting fed up of the bullsh*te that friends & peopel that I *know* know better have been peddling on social media of late.

"Can we stop with the #NotAllMen crap because you're all guilty". Dry your eyes out princess and sit down whilst I tell you the sorry news that yes, in fact, #NotAllMen, because it's .. wait for it .... NOT ALL MEN. Look your father/brother/husband/son/cousin/friend in the eye and tell them that they're supporters of rape, that they're guilty of rape by association of gender, and see how far you get. If you can even do it because you know it's f*cking absurd, and utterly, roundly insulting. Say that to my face and you aren't no friend/child/family-member/partner of mine because it's so insulting as that's how I was raised by society to view rape. Just like most other people.

Tasden wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't see the problem with those tweets, they seem to say what most people know- that rapists aren't always a scary man hiding in the bushes with a shifty look on their face, they are people's friends, family and colleagues.
Maybe im missing something but I don't think they are insinuating that people are choosing to remain friends with rapists willingly.

The tweets are "correct" (other than the hysterical claim that everyone knows a rapist if taken to the conclusion of what it implies) until the very last one where it tries to associate the reality that most rapists are known to their victims with dubious notion of "rape culture". It's crap. Agenda-motivated crap.

The Black Oil wrote: »

Well, sorry, I'm not friends with any rapists.

https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/741334217368309760

https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/741334924783845376

Ah this old bag of nonsense. The idea that rape is so prevalent that somehow on every room of people there's at least one rapist. Another brick in the culture of fear wall. I'm sure there are rapists and indeed other criminals of all types who appear normal and 'fit in'. However the reported rates would make the statement pretty much an impossibility (I'm rather lazily using Wikipedia as my source here)- note we're talking about reported rates, not conviction rates, so legally a significant number of the incidents don't refer to a rapist.

Now we could also look at extrapolating to non -
reported, except we now have the problem of what exactly should be counted in that number. What the heck, let's try for example an 85k figure per annum for the uk. Let's assume every single man involved was legally guilty here and acquittals can occur purely because of the patriarchy and its evil ways. If we extrapolate to a 40 year rate we would finally get to the about:1 in 16 for the UK for example that would be required to make the statement remotely true.

Oh that's of course ignoring the well acknowledged fact that offenders for this crime commit multiple instances.

Wow that's a lot of mental gymnastics- probably safer to just conclude the statement is basically bollocks

Tasden wrote: »

But "rape culture" doesn't just refer to harmless jokes.

Never said it did. But then again nobody is able to give a concise definition of what entails the idea that shows "rape culture" exists. Because they can't, and it doesn't [edit: in the western world at any rate]

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd be surprised how people you trust and consider good humans can actually be anything but

I would be, but only because I don't assume that by default every man is a rapist, nor would I assume that by default, every feminist agrees with the fearmongering, hateful crap that woman is spouting, which does nothing to address the issue of rape.

Tasden wrote: »

Exactly.

I don't see the problem with those tweets, they seem to say what most people know- that rapists aren't always a scary man hiding in the bushes with a shifty look on their face, they are people's friends, family and colleagues.
Maybe im missing something but I don't think they are insinuating that people are choosing to remain friends with rapists willingly.

They're insinuating that men are rapists and their friends and family just don't know it. The claim that feminists have been telling people this for years is a load of crap. I've never known any woman in my life who identified as feminist, to have ever come out with such crap. Plenty of women I know who identify as feminist would be embarrassed by her nonsense. Plenty more just wouldn't give her crap recognition it doesn't deserve as they know better than entertaining that sort of warped, divisive mentality.

Tasden wrote: »

It's not saying every man is a potential rapist. From what i gather it is saying that not every rapist is a strange men lurking in alley ways, it is the men that seem perfectly respectable and charming and nice, that you would never know could do such a thing. To use a recent example, a popular all american straight A student who swims well. Not the loner with nothing going for him and no friends.
That is not the same as saying every man is a potential rapist. It is well known that most sexual assaults and sexual abuse is carried out by a person close to the victim, a lot of the time by someone trusted by the victim and their family. Not some stranger with a knife who jumps them in the street. And acknowledging that you could very well be friends with a rapist and not realise it is not the same as saying every man you are friends with is a possible rapist.

Ok, even if I were to agree with your interpretation of that series of tweets (which I don't, but I'll explain why in a minute), what does even acknowledging that supposition actually do to address the issue of rape? How does suggesting that everyone knows someone who is a rapist, but they don't actually know they're a rapist, actually do anything other than fester fearmongering and suspicion of people who are their family, their friends, people they trust? What purpose is served by telling people that they should be suspicious of people whom they trust? I would consider that a paranoia fuelled mentality which has nothing to do with rape, let alone anything to do with feminism. It's a warped mentality which has no place in society.

The reason I don't agree with your interpretation that her declarations are a benign message with no harmful intent is because she is promoting her ideas under the banners of feminism and rape culture. Rape culture as she would promote it is an idea that women are by and large the victims of a society which influences men who commit rape against women. Therefore she actually is suggesting that men, by virtue of their gender, are rapists, and there is no acknowledgement that her declarations do absolutely nothing to address the issue of rape, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, or the victim.

At best, her nonsense is the misguided ramblings of a paranoid narcissist. At worst, her nonsense is actually a dangerous and damaging message that is encouraging people to think of people they trust, as likely to rape them.

The Black Oil wrote: »

Demystifying is fine, I think. It's just Twitter is too compact a medium and echo chamber ish for such a complex topic, (says he who linked to it...) and tonally, a few too many rocks are being thrown around and feeding in effect, a siege mentality, imo.

This comes back to something I've said on a few occasions; this entire debate (not this forum) on gender behaviour, consent, sexual assault et al. would be better served by being led by medical & psychological behaviour professionals, not from tinder, twitter, and facebook. Social media is a great medium for throwing out quick sound-bites, but that's it. For such a complex and minefield of a topic it's simply not good enough and the net result to allow social media to take the lead has been greatly damaging and generated little but toxicicity and entrenchment with even less to show for it (except some impressive bank balances for a few #NotAllFeminists and a handful of MRA types & trolls)

Tasden wrote: »

But so many women are fearful walking home alone at night in case they are raped. People tell us not to wear revealing clothes to a club because we could be raped by some drunk guy. Cover your drinks so you wont be drugged by some creep at the bar lurking in the shadows waiting to rape you. Don't get in a taxi alone cause he might rape you. Yeah they all may very well happen but you are just as likely, if not more likely, to be raped by someone you trust. That you don't have a fear of.
In every case of rape that I personally know, not just read in the paper or heard from a friend of a friend, but I actually know the details of, it was a close friend or a boyfriend and in two cases their father/stepdad. Those girls needn't have worried about all the nights out or the clothes she was wearing or carried her key in her hand while walking home late because it was just on run of the mill days with someone she trusted. And that isn't fear mongering. And acknowledging it doesn't "do" anything. It is simply acknowledging a truth. It is not asking that women be suspicious of every man they trust in their life. Just like we shouldn't be fearful of every stranger we encounter on the street.

Then why is the popular narrative one of fear of the bogey-man? What does it serve? Apart from a few healthy bank balances for the cynical peddlers. The first few sentences that you said, about things like walking home alone at night, watching your drink, etc. are common sense. And apply to both sexes to varying degrees; men are statistically more likely to be assaulted whilst walking home at night than women are to be raped whilst walking home at night for example, whilst a spiked drink can be argued either way because the victim is rendered vulnerable to pretty much everything from theft to assault to sexual assault and murder.

If I were to be coldly analytical, on what you've said regards personal knowledge of rape victims, those girls who were raped by boyfriends, fathers, etc. had their guard down because of trust (or at least in part). Now, if the "QED" moment is to say "don't trust anybody" then one is in for a very long, lonely, and hasslesome life. And society is f*cked if we go down that path. So how does one combat something like that? The answer isn't consent classes * or "men, don't rape" articles because we have to think deeper than the banal for an answer. Neither this forum nor social media will yield an answer to that.


Edit: * regards consent classes; whilst I think the current approach is just a stupid exercise in box-ticking and hysteria, I do think that we need a better, more consistent and rounded approach to sex-education that doesnt' simply deal with the biological description of puberity and the lifecycle of a gestating foetus. But it needs to be applied to all children in their early teens. Uni student level is far too late, as is targetting one gender whilst giving the other a free pass.

Tasden wrote: »

That was exactly my point. Girls are always told to fear strangers and take all these precautions against "the rapists" when in actual fact they are more likely to be raped by people they know and trustwho they would never think of as "the rapists". They shouldn't be told to be in constant fear in either cases. Just take usual precautions that everybody would for their own personal safety. It's like stranger danger with kids, you need to teach them not to get in cars with people they don't know but you can't keep relaying this stranger danger fear and demonising every stranger because 1) every stranger is not a danger, and 2) the unfortunate truth is it is usually a person you know and trust that will harm a child. Acknowledging that truth is not the same as saying you shouldn't trust your sister in law or whoever to mind your child. Or that every family member is a possible child killer. It is pointing out that demonising random bogeyman serves no purpose when we are just as likely to know the bogeyman. And that imo is quite the opposite to "all men are rapists" I would've thought. Maybe thats my naivety though.

I personally don't think you're naive at all. I don't think that Wendy lady is naive either. I think she knows exactly what she's doing, and IMO appears to be more concerned with promoting her own warped views of feminism, and her own ideas about "rape culture", than actually having anyone examine why some people choose to commit rape.