Is There Really a Rape Culture?

[Des-Bal]

I don't think it's an awful comparison. A crime of passion is a crime of passion. I would argue that she suffered less than say someone who was crippled for life in a drunk driving collision or who lost a loved one to murder that took place in a fit of rage or as part of a violent assault. This does not mean that she did not suffer, but those things are worse and harder to recover from. Yet we can accept that they might have been caused by passion and selfish foolishness than out of an actual cold blooded desire to commit the crime.

The difference is there's absolutely no difference between a rape he decided on committing when she passed out and one he decided on committing a minute or two before she passed out. Your definition of "crime of passion" seems to be "not premeditated." Premeditation requires time to reflect on ones actions and I cannot imagine the amount of time in question would satisfy that.

[New Edom]

I don't think it's an awful comparison. A crime of passion is a crime of passion. I would argue that she suffered less than say someone who was crippled for life in a drunk driving collision or who lost a loved one to murder that took place in a fit of rage or as part of a violent assault. This does not mean that she did not suffer, but those things are worse and harder to recover from. Yet we can accept that they might have been caused by passion and selfish foolishness than out of an actual cold blooded desire to commit the crime.

The difference is there's absolutely no difference between a rape he decided on committing when she passed out and one he decided on committing a minute or two before she passed out. Your definition of "crime of passion" seems to be "not premeditated." Premeditation requires time to reflect on ones actions and I cannot imagine the amount of time in question would satisfy that.

Because most criminals are frankly stupid and selfish to one degree or another. A smaller number are sociopaths who prey on the rest of the community. There's a difference between them. The fist category--consequences could scare them into behaving better in future and undersrtanding the magnitutde of their crime. The second category, that may not work, ever, they just might be afraid of the consequences and try to become smarter about doing what they want to do. I suspect Brock Turner to be in the former category.

Part of the problem here seems to be that people have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea that the first category--the typical criminal--could rape someone, have it be a crime, and yet have them not necessarily be a rapist by any natural inclination, and that they could nevertheless be just as responsible for their crime as someone who injured someone while driving drunk. Any of you who have ever heard a grieving person speaking of the regret of a drunk driver who injured their loved one will hear a common refrain "You should have been paying attention! You shouldn't have been driving and drinking!" And they're right. Neglect, selfishness and foolishness lead to injury as much as cold hearted planning, but it's different when you consider why the person did it, what their reasoning was.

[The Great state of Atlantis]

Rape culture..... mmmmm.... I thought that was a term coined by Anita "Let's make a video!" Scamkeesian, Zoe "Videogame" Crywolf and Chanty "Shut the fuck up!" Bigred. Nope, it exists in the more benighted parts of the world but in the enlightened parts... nah.

Rape culture came into focus because of radical feminists. I find it fascinating that modern mainstream '3rd Wave Intersectional' feminists fail often to recognize their own radical origins and assume that radicals are more extreme than they are--it has become normalized.

One of my serious issues with the term is the people who wrote books and made films about it. Mary Daly, Susan Brownmiller, Margaret Lazarus and others. This movement has had as its central notion the idea that men are basically hostile towards women. What's interesting is that in spite of this position it captured so much imagination and became canon for the modern era. Now people hardly question these ideas at all, yet they are not based on scholarly research that was seriously peer reviewed by people outside of the movement. It has simply become 'true'.

So in the present century, the majority of feminists as far as I can tell accept their ideas, and many who support women's rights do as well. This is a revolutionary thing; it is the equivalent to the Nicene Creed for feminism. However the genius of the 3rd Wave is that they have put it in the terms that are popular for the 21st Century: it's softened, sentimental and reduced to a series of sound bytes. So an old fashioned 2nd Wave radfem like say Chessmistress around here sounds jarring to them--she is blatantly adversarial towards masculinity and and old fashioned enemy of patriarchy. They have created a pretence that fighting rape culture doesn't really involve anything adversarial and combative.

Well, that's not true. Activists opposed to rape culture are generally opposed to due process, democracy and freedom of expression, but the modern ones are really good at making it seem like they're just concerned for a good cause. Their main targets are people who know next to nothing about feminism but want to be good to women and LGBTQ whatever people.

In other words: both the term itself as well as what it implies are complete bogus made up fantasy, which exists solely in the minds of said "feminists". I have to admit I never met any of them IRL but what I find somewhat disturbing is the fact that I have heard of such people and their delusions. It's a sad fact that such delusions are being preached in this day and age. Why can't they take their delusional and distorted views and export them to the more backward parts of the world? I'm pretty sure the dunegoons would listen and instantaneously become converts.

---

Atheist
Pro second amendment.

[Kravanica]

I find false rape accusations of the Lena Dunham variety to be more of an issue than so-called "rape culture".

[Gravlen]

My point is that there's a lack of empirical evidence linking a person's choice of attire to sexual assault, so I think you're incorrect to use it as a factor to paint someone as a potential victim. It's alos wrong to use the word "provoke" for the reasons I've explained above, namely that it implies fault in the victim and implies a loss of control that the perpetrator couldn't help (mitigating or excusing the assault).


If you're going to talk about reasons a victim is selected I think you'll be better served by going to scientific studies than fictional stories.


You say that "provocative clothing will get you noticed more", but when we're talking about rape that's not necessarily true. In fact, as I've said above, there's no empirically demonstrated causal link between the way you're dressed and rape. Sexual assault victims come from all walks of life, they dress in all kinds of clothes, and there's few things in common between them. There's a few groups we can identify, though: Particularly voulnerable people are one important one, and includes disabled people, people who're socially isolated, drug addicts and prostitutes. Another group is the relationship assaults: The victim and the perpetrator has been in a relationship - marriage, partners etc. May also include other family members - parent-child relationship, sibling relationship. Yet another group is attacks by strangers: These are linked by the randomness, the victim often being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A fourth group is date rapes / assaults at parties. High levels of intoxication, drug- and alcohol use tend to be the case here.

We can't find a significant link to clothing, "provocative" or otherwise, in any of these groups.

First, I appreciate what you said before about language. That is a concern. I appreciate that you see that I am not trying to blame victims but rather talking about factors.

You say this here, and yet...

Part of the issue here is that the overwhelming conversation about rape is about date rape or what I'd call party rape. The majority of rapes, where the victim knows the attacker, don't fall into this category. Brock Turner, Steubenville and other infamous cases seem to have been rapists who had at most a very brief acquaintance with their victims.

I also think it needs to be undersrtood that I don't think that provocation, when it is not illegal, is any form of justification. Yet provocation it remains. Let's try this out though and see if we find ourselves on the same apge.

...here you continue to insist that it's a provocation. It is not, and continuing to describe clothing as a provocation is, as I said above, playing straight into the mentality of victim blaming. I do not accept the idea that clothing provokes a person into sexual assault, and I do not accept the idea that a person could have avoided sexual assault by dressing differently as there is still no empirical evidence linking a person's choice of attire to sexual assault.

What's more likely to be sexually intriguing?

Let me ask you this: Do you think the person dressed the most sexually intriguing is most likely to suffer sexual assault?

This? or This? Would you not agree that when women want to be seen as sexy they are more likely to dress in a way that provokes interest?

That depends on the circumstances and the context, what kind of interest they seek, from whom, and how they feel sexy. And on the flip side, what "provokes interest" among other people varies as well.

Also as far as fiction goes, I don't agree with you.

Seriously? You really believe that going by popular media is the best way to determine reasons why a person is victimized? That's... disappointing.

Feminists cannot have it both ways

Why are you suddenly talking about Feminists^TM?

[--intensely scrutinizing what popular fiction, movies, television and video games mean and then expect to not have people analyze what they mean from another direction. Either it's significant or it's not.

I can't see how this is relevant to what we were talking about.

[Gravlen]

No, the police should assume that everyone may be telling falsehoods, which is the mindset that leads them closest to the truth. You have to choose: either the police picks sides; or they don't. I prefer a good legal system that doesn't discriminate.

Sounds a lot like "trust but verify," which is a reasonable approach in most walks of life.

A phrase which is either ambiguous or meaningless: If you trust, you won’t insist on verifying, whereas if you insist on verifying, clearly you don’t trust.

[Kravanica]

Sounds a lot like "trust but verify," which is a reasonable approach in most walks of life.

A phrase which is either ambiguous or meaningless: If you trust, you won’t insist on verifying, whereas if you insist on verifying, clearly you don’t trust.

Hm. Not bad.

[Aelex]

A phrase which is either ambiguous or meaningless: If you trust, you won’t insist on verifying, whereas if you insist on verifying, clearly you don’t trust.

Why this stance of "either you trust them totally or you believe they're lying"? There are plenty of shades and nuances to trust, not just "blind acceptation" and "total refusal" you know?

[Des-Bal]

Because most criminals are frankly stupid and selfish to one degree or another. A smaller number are sociopaths who prey on the rest of the community. There's a difference between them. The fist category--consequences could scare them into behaving better in future and undersrtanding the magnitutde of their crime. The second category, that may not work, ever, they just might be afraid of the consequences and try to become smarter about doing what they want to do. I suspect Brock Turner to be in the former category.

Part of the problem here seems to be that people have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea that the first category--the typical criminal--could rape someone, have it be a crime, and yet have them not necessarily be a rapist by any natural inclination, and that they could nevertheless be just as responsible for their crime as someone who injured someone while driving drunk. Any of you who have ever heard a grieving person speaking of the regret of a drunk driver who injured their loved one will hear a common refrain "You should have been paying attention! You shouldn't have been driving and drinking!" And they're right. Neglect, selfishness and foolishness lead to injury as much as cold hearted planning, but it's different when you consider why the person did it, what their reasoning was.

Again, you have conceded that Brock Turner knew what he was doing was illegal, that he intended to commit rape. The categories you've constructed are irrelevant- this is a person who by your judgement intended to rape a woman. Stop bringing up drunk driving, this is not about accidentally hurting someone while doing something irresponsible- it is about a deliberate criminal act. The crime is identical whether he decided "I want to rape this woman" when she was intoxicated or when she was unconscious- he decided to rape a woman.

[Hirota]

A phrase which is either ambiguous or meaningless: If you trust, you won’t insist on verifying, whereas if you insist on verifying, clearly you don’t trust.

Why this stance of "either you trust them totally or you believe they're lying"? There are plenty of shades and nuances to trust, not just "blind acceptation" and "total refusal" you know?

Penguins only perceive in binary apparently.

[Gravlen]

Why this stance of "either you trust them totally or you believe they're lying"? There are plenty of shades and nuances to trust, not just "blind acceptation" and "total refusal" you know?

Penguins only perceive in binary apparently.

Penguins don't live by phrases which sound cool but are meaningless.

[Hirota]

Penguins only perceive in binary apparently.

Penguins don't live by phrases which sound cool but are meaningless.

It's nice you think I sound cool. I hope to one day reciprocate and compliment you on your paragraphs having the gravitas you aspire towards.

I'm sure you'll get there eventually.

[Gravlen]

To a certain degree, it is. They have to register the complain as if it was true, and they have to listen to the accuser as if he or she is telling the truth, unless something disputes that assumption.

No, the police should assume that everyone may be telling falsehoods, which is the mindset that leads them closest to the truth. You have to choose: either the police picks sides; or they don't. I prefer a good legal system that doesn't discriminate.

The job of the police is more nuanced than you allow for, and it can change as we go. First responders should assume that the information they recieve is correct and that the people reporting are giving their version of the truth. When it turns into the investigative phase, the police should be critical and explore all the options - but unless there's reason to, they shouldn't express disbelief. Their conclusions have to be based on evidence, not myths and assumptions.

To put it differently:

Rape investigations have changed a lot since Larkin joined the force 25 years ago. “A victim used to ring up and say, ‘I’ve been raped’. Previously, before we made a crime report, we would try and prove or disprove – in some cases, not believing the victim. Now we always believe the victim in the first instance. Sometimes, when investigating, we can prove that the victim has lied or misunderstood or whatever. But we start off by believing them.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/15/behind-the-scenes-at-a-police-rape-team-bbc-documentary

BTW. your belief that the police cannot act professionally to people that they disbelieve automatically means that you believe that they cannot threat suspects professionally. That belief provides a shield to police officers who use violence, abuse and engage in prejudicial treatment of suspects, so your beliefs are very much part of 'police abuse (sub)culture.'

No. There's a difference between believing that the accuser is telling the truth - or rather, his or her version of the truth - and not doing your job, which is what you're doing when you're seeking to prove an accusation. As you said above, your job as a cop is to gather evidence, not to prove an accusation.

If they are gathering evidence, including evidence that may prove the accuser wrong, then they are not assuming that the accuser is telling the truth.

Anyway, I'm getting rather confused at your statements, perhaps you define 'believing that the accuser is telling the truth' completely different from me and merely as neutrally gathering information. However, in that case, I think that you are using very unclear language.

Perhaps it was. I don't know, because I was originally talking about something specific, namely that there are cases where the police have failed to act professionally and failed to believe the victim due to reliance on myths and wrongful assumptions on how a victim is supposed to behave.

Or who can actually be a victim of a crime. If the police refuses to accept the report of a rape because the victim is a man, they fail in their duty. If they threaten to prosecute for wasting police time because of the gender of the rape victim, they fail in their duty. This has happened, and I find it unacceptable.

Masten said her supervisor told her not to tell anyone, because no one would believe her.

Margie Shapiro was 19 and working in a doughnut shop in Santa Monica when she met Cosby, who was shooting a film nearby. She alleges in a March 27, 2015, news conference that Cosby invited her to the Playboy Mansion and got her to take a pill for losing a game of pinball. She said she then woke up to Cosby having sex with her. She told her family but not the police. "I was confused and at a loss because I could not believe that anyone would believe me over Bill Cosby," she said.

Jewel Allison tells the Washington Post that Cosby sexually assaulted her in the late 1980s in Las Vegas after he gave her wine "that tasted awful." “I didn't tell because I didn't want to let black America down,” Allison wrote. “It took me two decades to gain the courage to reveal it publicly.”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-bill-cosby-timeline-htmlstory.html

This, especially the last one, indicates reluctance because of his status.

I was talking more about having an actual authority protect him. The last two situations are both cases where the victim herself made the choice not to go to the police. The first case was also a situation where Masten could have gone to/called the police herself, although she might have been fired, so there is a case for coercion there (although there no indication that the supervisor said this because of his fame, rather than because he was a guest and the supervisor wanted to avoid bad publicity).

There is a distinction between being untouchable and being believed to be so. I believe it is important to keep that in mind, because the solution is way different (reforming the system vs education people to trust the system). IMO, rape culture rhetoric tends to greatly exaggerate the former and thereby actually causes people to mistrust authorities way more than is reasonable, which in turns protects perpetrators, as victims avoid the legal system. We see this in the parallel 'courts' that are set up by rape culture advocates in colleges, which makes victims avoid the police more.

And for a decade afterwards.

I'm confused. AFAIK, a decent group of victims only found each other in 2014.

Tamara Green spoke to Matt Lauer on the “Today” show in 2005 about her alleged experiences and in February to Newsweek. In 2004, Andrea Constand filed suit against Cosby for battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that Cosby had drugged and raped her. Thirteen women came forward with their own allegations and agreed to testify as witnesses if the suit went to trial.

This was public knowledge in 2005, but even with 14 people it wasn't sufficient to go forward.

I believe in telling the truth, and if we do have a criminal justice system with any broken parts, we should fix it as quickly as possible. That includes kicking out law enforcement officers who violate the law or fail to do their jobs.

And how do you feel about people that overstate how broken the system is?

Example?

[Gravlen]

Penguins don't live by phrases which sound cool but are meaningless.

It's nice you think I sound cool. I hope to one day reciprocate and compliment you on your paragraphs having the gravitas you aspire towards.

I'm sure you'll get there eventually.

Pfft. I neither hold out hope that you'll ever be able to do so, nor do I expect such a compliment to actually be worth anything.

But this is not on topic, I hope you understand.

[New Edom]

Because most criminals are frankly stupid and selfish to one degree or another. A smaller number are sociopaths who prey on the rest of the community. There's a difference between them. The fist category--consequences could scare them into behaving better in future and undersrtanding the magnitutde of their crime. The second category, that may not work, ever, they just might be afraid of the consequences and try to become smarter about doing what they want to do. I suspect Brock Turner to be in the former category.

Part of the problem here seems to be that people have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea that the first category--the typical criminal--could rape someone, have it be a crime, and yet have them not necessarily be a rapist by any natural inclination, and that they could nevertheless be just as responsible for their crime as someone who injured someone while driving drunk. Any of you who have ever heard a grieving person speaking of the regret of a drunk driver who injured their loved one will hear a common refrain "You should have been paying attention! You shouldn't have been driving and drinking!" And they're right. Neglect, selfishness and foolishness lead to injury as much as cold hearted planning, but it's different when you consider why the person did it, what their reasoning was.

Again, you have conceded that Brock Turner knew what he was doing was illegal, that he intended to commit rape. The categories you've constructed are irrelevant- this is a person who by your judgement intended to rape a woman. Stop bringing up drunk driving, this is not about accidentally hurting someone while doing something irresponsible- it is about a deliberate criminal act. The crime is identical whether he decided "I want to rape this woman" when she was intoxicated or when she was unconscious- he decided to rape a woman.

Most people seem to have fallen for the feminist idea that rape is about power and not about sex. Therefore they make no connection between sexual urges and rape. I don't know if you're one of those people but that is how this is coming across. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the hue and cry about Turner has basically said that he is an inherently terrible person. It is only that that I'm disputing. That is to say, I think that someone can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature or be likely to do the same crime again.

[New Edom]

First, I appreciate what you said before about language. That is a concern. I appreciate that you see that I am not trying to blame victims but rather talking about factors.

You say this here, and yet...

Part of the issue here is that the overwhelming conversation about rape is about date rape or what I'd call party rape. The majority of rapes, where the victim knows the attacker, don't fall into this category. Brock Turner, Steubenville and other infamous cases seem to have been rapists who had at most a very brief acquaintance with their victims.

I also think it needs to be undersrtood that I don't think that provocation, when it is not illegal, is any form of justification. Yet provocation it remains. Let's try this out though and see if we find ourselves on the same apge.

...here you continue to insist that it's a provocation. It is not, and continuing to describe clothing as a provocation is, as I said above, playing straight into the mentality of victim blaming. I do not accept the idea that clothing provokes a person into sexual assault, and I do not accept the idea that a person could have avoided sexual assault by dressing differently as there is still no empirical evidence linking a person's choice of attire to sexual assault.

What's more likely to be sexually intriguing?

Let me ask you this: Do you think the person dressed the most sexually intriguing is most likely to suffer sexual assault?

This? or This? Would you not agree that when women want to be seen as sexy they are more likely to dress in a way that provokes interest?

That depends on the circumstances and the context, what kind of interest they seek, from whom, and how they feel sexy. And on the flip side, what "provokes interest" among other people varies as well.

Also as far as fiction goes, I don't agree with you.

Seriously? You really believe that going by popular media is the best way to determine reasons why a person is victimized? That's... disappointing.

Feminists cannot have it both ways

Why are you suddenly talking about Feminists^TM?

[--intensely scrutinizing what popular fiction, movies, television and video games mean and then expect to not have people analyze what they mean from another direction. Either it's significant or it's not.

I can't see how this is relevant to what we were talking about.

1. About clothing: of course it can be. It can be one of several combined factors that make it possible. I'm speaking mostly about date rape here, not intimate partner rape, incest related rape and so on. Contrary to what some like to insist, rape is motivated by lust not by power fantasies; the latter only come into play in some cases where the person realizes "Hey, I can do what I like with this person".

What does it matter? I've made it very clear that what a person was wearing is not a factor in whether or not a perpetrator should be blamed for the actions they chose to take, so who cares? I'm talking about clothing merely as one of several factors that people might want to be cautious about in some circumstances.

I'd liken clothing to bacon, really. Bacon sizzling in a pan in a person's home is perfectly ahrmless as long as you don't burn yourself or something. If you bring bacon into some wilderness areas it may provoke a bear into attacking you. If the bear attacks you, what you did was foolish but it doesn't mean you should not get medical attention or that the bear should not be prevented from harming you or others. It's the same thing really.

So women who dress provocatively can certainly do so--I think it's sometimes a selfish, ugly thing to do that promotes promiscuity but I wouldn't outlaw it. However if they were going to do it I'd advise them to keep their eyes open.

If you accept the feminist idea that rape has literally nothign to do with the victim--that they're chosen for esoteric reasons about power games--I can't do much about that.

2. About literature: feminists are constantly insisting that the arts contribute to rape culture, and that the arts influence how people feel about other people. So either this is a general principle and people can discuss it, or they can't and it's irrelevant when feminists bring it up as well. So I advise you to pick a position, either ignore feminists when they complain about objectification in the arts or accept that analysis from other points of view may be valid.

[Gravlen]

Again, you have conceded that Brock Turner knew what he was doing was illegal, that he intended to commit rape. The categories you've constructed are irrelevant- this is a person who by your judgement intended to rape a woman. Stop bringing up drunk driving, this is not about accidentally hurting someone while doing something irresponsible- it is about a deliberate criminal act. The crime is identical whether he decided "I want to rape this woman" when she was intoxicated or when she was unconscious- he decided to rape a woman.

Most people seem to have fallen for the feminist idea that rape is about power and not about sex.

Is that really a feminist idea?

I can mention that David Lisak, whom you've referenced before, also claim that convicted rapists are measurably more angry at women and more motivated by a desire to dominate and control them than non-rapists.

To quote from Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence where he states that on page 6, he also has this to say on page 3:

Motivations and Taxonomies
One of the most important contributions made by the study of incarcerated sex offenders was the clarification of the role of sexuality in the perpetration of rape. Since rape involves sexual behavior, it was long believed to be primarily motivated by sexual impulse; deviant sexual impulse, but sexual impulse nonetheless. This confusion of context with motivation was clarified mainly by the work of Nicholas Groth, who published a typology of rapists in the 1970’s. Groth labeled each type based on the principle motivation manifested by the rapists in that group.

The two primary and numerically largest types identified by Groth were the “power” rapist and the “anger” rapist. The power rapist was motivated by his need to control and dominate his victim, and inversely, to avoid being controlled by her. The anger rapist was motivated by resentment and a general hostility towards women, and was more prone to inflicting gratuitous violence in the course of a rape. Not surprisingly, these types were rarely found in pure form. Most rapists were actually blends of power and anger motivations; however, a predominance of one or the other was often discernible.

The third and (thankfully) numerically far smaller type was the sadistic rapist. This rapist was motivated by the sexual gratification he experienced when he inflicted pain on his victim. The sadistic rapist has become a staple of the American media, but these, once again, extremely rare cases.

Groth’s identification of anger and power as the primary motivations behind rape has endured, and has become the basis for attempts at defining more refined taxonomies of rape. These efforts have largely yielded modest results, and have focused on identifying blends of power and anger motivations, and on distinguishing developmental antecedents for the various types. Not surprisingly, among those developmental antecedents, one of the most prominent is a history of childhood abuse. Sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect are all significantly more prevalent in the backgrounds of rapists than in the backgrounds of non-offending men.

Was Nicholas Groth, Ph.D. a clinical psychologist, also a feminist? Possibly. Does this make it a feminist idea? If so, how?

[New Edom]

Most people seem to have fallen for the feminist idea that rape is about power and not about sex.

Is that really a feminist idea?

I can mention that David Lisak, whom you've referenced before, also claim that convicted rapists are measurably more angry at women and more motivated by a desire to dominate and control them than non-rapists.

To quote from Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence where he states that on page 6, he also has this to say on page 3:

Motivations and Taxonomies
One of the most important contributions made by the study of incarcerated sex offenders was the clarification of the role of sexuality in the perpetration of rape. Since rape involves sexual behavior, it was long believed to be primarily motivated by sexual impulse; deviant sexual impulse, but sexual impulse nonetheless. This confusion of context with motivation was clarified mainly by the work of Nicholas Groth, who published a typology of rapists in the 1970’s. Groth labeled each type based on the principle motivation manifested by the rapists in that group.

The two primary and numerically largest types identified by Groth were the “power” rapist and the “anger” rapist. The power rapist was motivated by his need to control and dominate his victim, and inversely, to avoid being controlled by her. The anger rapist was motivated by resentment and a general hostility towards women, and was more prone to inflicting gratuitous violence in the course of a rape. Not surprisingly, these types were rarely found in pure form. Most rapists were actually blends of power and anger motivations; however, a predominance of one or the other was often discernible.

The third and (thankfully) numerically far smaller type was the sadistic rapist. This rapist was motivated by the sexual gratification he experienced when he inflicted pain on his victim. The sadistic rapist has become a staple of the American media, but these, once again, extremely rare cases.

Groth’s identification of anger and power as the primary motivations behind rape has endured, and has become the basis for attempts at defining more refined taxonomies of rape. These efforts have largely yielded modest results, and have focused on identifying blends of power and anger motivations, and on distinguishing developmental antecedents for the various types. Not surprisingly, among those developmental antecedents, one of the most prominent is a history of childhood abuse. Sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect are all significantly more prevalent in the backgrounds of rapists than in the backgrounds of non-offending men.

Was Nicholas Groth, Ph.D. a clinical psychologist, also a feminist? Possibly. Does this make it a feminist idea? If so, how?

I actually think there is merit in their work regarding some criminal subjects, but not all. I've been studying and reflecting on their work, and while I'm impressed at the same time I am skeptical about eleemnts of it. One is that psychology is a changing field. However all I'm saying about Turner is that this man, who as far as I can tell has not been diagnosed by anyone is being said by some who are angry with him to have the character of a rapist, as though ONLY such people could ever commit a rape. I'm just skeptical about that.

On the other hand, I actually wish that Lisak was taken more seriously when people are talking about this subject, as he's less inclined to focus on culture and more on the behaviour of habitual rapists, who RAINN argues commit most rapes.

[Des-Bal]

]Most people seem to have fallen for the feminist idea that rape is about power and not about sex. Therefore they make no connection between sexual urges and rape. I don't know if you're one of those people but that is how this is coming across. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the hue and cry about Turner has basically said that he is an inherently terrible person. It is only that that I'm disputing. That is to say, I think that someone can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature or be likely to do the same crime again.

I think there's merit to that idea and like any idea with merit it's handled in an unnecessarily broad way.

I am not ignoring that fact, he is without question an inherently terrible person. The only point you're arguing in defense of him as something less than an inherently terrible person is that he decided to opportunistically rape a woman when she fell unconscious rather than deciding to opportunistically rape a woman when she was intoxicated but still on her feet. I am telling you there is no meaningful difference between the two. The decision is exactly the same. It is certainly possible that a person can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature and it is certainly possible that a lawbreaker can spend their life never again stepping out of line. Nothing you have said about Brock Turner is evidence in that regard.

[New Edom]

]Most people seem to have fallen for the feminist idea that rape is about power and not about sex. Therefore they make no connection between sexual urges and rape. I don't know if you're one of those people but that is how this is coming across. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the hue and cry about Turner has basically said that he is an inherently terrible person. It is only that that I'm disputing. That is to say, I think that someone can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature or be likely to do the same crime again.

I think there's merit to that idea and like any idea with merit it's handled in an unnecessarily broad way.

I am not ignoring that fact, he is without question an inherently terrible person. The only point you're arguing in defense of him as something less than an inherently terrible person is that he decided to opportunistically rape a woman when she fell unconscious rather than deciding to opportunistically rape a woman when she was intoxicated but still on her feet. I am telling you there is no meaningful difference between the two. The decision is exactly the same. It is certainly possible that a person can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature and it is certainly possible that a lawbreaker can spend their life never again stepping out of line. Nothing you have said about Brock Turner is evidence in that regard.

So are you convinced that he's an inherently terrible person?

[Alsheb]

You can't rape anyone out of foolishness, mate. Rape is by definition an act that is carried out consciously and deliberately.

Unbelievable.

Literally all I'm saying is that there's a difference to me between whether he intended to rape her from the moment he met her at the goddamned party and whether he got it in his head when she actually passed out. That's literally all I'm saying. I don't see why this is hard for people to grasp. Some outraged persons are saying that he ALWAYS intended to rape her from the moment he saw her.

However I've noticed most people cannot tell the difference, so frankly I couldn't care less. If you want to think I love the guy, go ahead. I'm done talking about this.

In what way, shape or form does that even matter? Rape is rape. Wether you decide to rape someone an hour before you do it, or just encounter a passed out woman and decide you want to rape her just for the lolz is completely irrelevant.

[Alsheb]

I think there's merit to that idea and like any idea with merit it's handled in an unnecessarily broad way.

I am not ignoring that fact, he is without question an inherently terrible person. The only point you're arguing in defense of him as something less than an inherently terrible person is that he decided to opportunistically rape a woman when she fell unconscious rather than deciding to opportunistically rape a woman when she was intoxicated but still on her feet. I am telling you there is no meaningful difference between the two. The decision is exactly the same. It is certainly possible that a person can do a criminal act without having a criminal nature and it is certainly possible that a lawbreaker can spend their life never again stepping out of line. Nothing you have said about Brock Turner is evidence in that regard.

So are you convinced that he's an inherently terrible person?

It doesn't matter. He committed one of the gravest crimes in the book, that makes him a felon. Whatever good deeds he may have done before are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[New Edom]

So are you convinced that he's an inherently terrible person?

It doesn't matter. He committed one of the gravest crimes in the book, that makes him a felon. Whatever good deeds he may have done before are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I see. So you believe he is beyond redemption? Should he be executed to put in jail for life?

[Alsheb]

It doesn't matter. He committed one of the gravest crimes in the book, that makes him a felon. Whatever good deeds he may have done before are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I see. So you believe he is beyond redemption? Should he be executed to put in jail for life?

I'd say ten to twenty years is about a good punishment.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

It doesn't matter. He committed one of the gravest crimes in the book, that makes him a felon. Whatever good deeds he may have done before are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

I see. So you believe he is beyond redemption? Should he be executed to put in jail for life?

He should be imprisoned for 7-15 years.