When Is It Okay To Rape A Woman?
I think I'm supposed to put up a *PTSD triggers* warning, so consider yourself warned.
I.
On the Ron and Fez show, an male intern asked: if you could rape a girl, but then give her this magic drug that left her with no memory of the rape, would you do it?
Such hypotheticals are often argued over beers and best settled over rum, but the real learning isn't in the answer but in the asking of the question.
His argument was that since there's no evidence that it happened and she can't remember it, then she can't possibly suffer the consequences of it. So, no harm done. And the response to this is that there's a reality outside of perception, and whether she suffers or remembers doesn't much excuse the act. Rape is rape. End of story.
But it's right about there that the question gets more interesting.
II.
Without even answering the question, it's important to understand what the intern did: he assumed that most of the (male) population would (want to) do the same. He didn't think men would all rush out and do it-- and he was protected from finding out because such a magic pill doesn't exist-- he believed that in men's hearts, when they consider the world of fantasy and what they wish they could get away with, men would want to get away with this. We all wish we could just bang that girl and then erase her memory.
A caller incorrectly identified this as the consensus fallacy. A consensus fallacy is the assumption that since lots of people believe it, it must be true. But in our case the intern's mistake was in assuming that lots of people agree, which is false. The actual fallacy is called the false consensus bias, in which one assumes others share the same beliefs as you do.
I make this distinction explicit because it should be evident that two different kinds of people will be prone to either error. Some will hold, as their premise, what many already believe; and others will PROJECT what they believe onto others.
Importantly, no amount of data or solid evidence will convince the latter-- the false consensus bias guy-- that he is wrong. That's because it's not a belief, it is a maneuver, it is an act to protect the self, an act that they will take as far as they need to. "No, they're lying, they're just not willing to admit it." When you hear that-- "I speak for others who are too frightened"-- run; because if they had a gun, they would speak for you.
III.
In physics, you typically solve an equation by getting it into the form of a different equation that's already been solved. So the Rape question is of the form "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Solve for x: duh.
Not so fast, Sir Charles, technically, the answer is no. The question doesn't ask if the tree fell or not, but if it made a sound. The felled tree generates (real) air pressure waves that we call sound waves, and these pressure waves hit the ear machine and are interpreted as sound. The tree doesn't make a sound, we interpret what it makes as sound. A creature with no ears might experience these waves differently, Beethovening them as vibrations on it's body.
So now our rape question is, if a penis goes inside a vagina, but no one's around to remember it, is it still rape?
The intern says that as long as she never finds out, she can't judge it as rape. He's arguing that moral questions ("this is rape/ this isn't rape") are different than technical questions ("I penetrated her/ I didn't penetrate her.") There's no such thing as objective morality, society merely agrees on some rules-- and since she can't remember, she can't judge it.
Fine; but he is a person, and he remembers it, and he was there. So it is still rape. He might try and rationalize that he doesn't think it's rape, but then he'd be lying: the question he asked used the word rape.
One of the biggest mistakes we make when arguing with dummies is that we don't take their own words at face value-- we allow them pretend that their initial move was meaningless in comparison to the revisions, like a bank robber who says to the police, "yeah, but I'm giving it back right now." The initial volley is always the most relevant: everything afterwards is defense.
IV.
But there are some of you who will agree with the intern. Some of you will wish you could-- not that you'd ever do it, but boy oh boy wouldn't it be great. It's to them I'm writing.
The intern, and you, don't even need to have performed this rape; simply by answering the question in the affirmative, your lives have veered sharply to the left, you have made connecting with another person substantially more difficult. By which I mean impossible.
V.
If you could rape a girl, and then give her a magic drug that would leave her with no memory of the rape, would you do it?
In responding to the intern, Ron (the host) made an obvious point, and before I make it I want you to clear your mind and imagine yourself acting out this scenario. You're a man, on top of the woman, finishing, pulling out, and then giving her the drug. She blinks, looks at you like she forgot what she was going to say, and goes back to ringing up your order.
Got that image? She doesn't remember anything. She's perfectly happy, no harm done at all. The point Ron made was, "so if a couple of my boys from the west village rape you in the ass, and inject you with the drug, that's ok?" He used the word "fucking" to modify every noun in that sentence, but I'm paraphrasing.
Some of you are right now experiencing a weird disconnection. Like the intern, that obvious thought simply hadn't occurred to you. And it wakes you up to the reality of the rape, of course this rape is wrong. Forcing you to imagine yourself as the victim makes the scenario more real, more vivid.
But why it didn't occur to you? Are you a bad person? Selfish? Homophobic? Why is imaging yourself as the victim more real than imagining yourself as the raper, even though that was the intended fantasy?
Because picturing yourself exerting power is fantasy; imagining yourself as victim is easy. Which is why you brought this all up. You spend a lot of your waking life creating elaborate fantasies of power that contain their own self-justifying logic, and those fantasies are so numerous that added together they actually take up a real portion of your day. A portion you're not spending on something else. If I saw a Tardis, then I would know how to pilot it. If such a drug existed, then my sexual problems would all disappear.
What you don't see is that this logic isn't even self-justifying, it is self-destructing. Not "since I have sexual problems, I wish I had the drug"; but, "since I wish I had the drug, I have sexual problems." Since I wish I had the drug, two hours have already gone by. I'm staying in tonight.
VI.
How could you live with yourself? Guilt without shame, that's how. Guilt without shame, for you, is no guilt, because what you did isn't who you are. You're a good person. How do I know? You told me yourself.
You can imagine yourself getting raped by the West Village guys, and that's really vividly bad. Imagining what she must feel when you do it to her-- that's really vaguely good. How easy is it to empathize? Easy. How easy is it to sympathize? Not so easy.
VII.
No one can hear us. So level with me: just because it's wrong, doesn't mean you wouldn't still do it. Right?
The intern, in a pseudo-devotion to his premise, said that the west village ass raping scenario is a go under his logic. Maybe, maybe not, but what he was really thinking was, "I know it's wrong, I don't want it happening to me, but if I could do it to someone else, I might still take the chance." Stealing is wrong but if the leprechaun is off dancing a jig you're going to shimmy down indigo and make off with his Lucky Charms.
In your defense, violating a rule is much healthier than thinking the rules don't exist. So you're not lost, you can still change your life. But it's lonely. There's no one else in it.
VIII.
"If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?"
The question itself is explicitly a question about sound, but we wield it to make a point about objective reality. We want it to be about reality, fine, but that's because the objective reality question seems open to debate while the scientific one is not, and so we alter the question's intent to get to where we want to go.
So the way we choose to hear the question says a lot about what we believe to be true or important, even without answering the question.
Let's re-run the scenario. On her, in her, out of her, drug her. She blinks her eyes, smiles, and goes back to cheerleading practice none the wiser. End scene. That about right? Okay, question: was she crying?
The scenario is about a magic drug that makes her forget. But how on earth do you plan on getting your penis inside her before that? How are you going to get an erection strong enough to penetrate a woman who is crying in terror, not to mention resisting? The reason you're even imagining this is because you feel like you can't get her through seduction, so you still have the mechanical problem to contend with.
I agree that a dangerous minority want this fantasy to be about violent rape, and I agree that it's easy to spot those guys because they all have mustaches. BUT the majority are imagining... come on, think hard, get into the scene, you are imagining that she likes it. Maybe you imagine her partially drugged (though that wasn't part of the premise, was it?) but by the end of it, she's into it.
That's what makes this premise so bizarre and so revealing. If she enjoyed it, you wouldn't bother with the forgetting drug. What he is imagining is that she'll want to have sex with him and then forget; but what he said-- what we've run through for several paragraphs-- is that he wants a drug to make her forget.
Squirm, wildman, squirm. "No, what I meant was..." And it starts, the minor adjustments to the original question, e.g. "well, the drug could be for the times when you know you could totally bang your wife's sister but who needs all the drama later?" Fine, but admit you just made that up now. That wasn't what you were imagining.
And so on, a million of these amendments and appendments and defendments to the original question that you say are clarifications, but they're all defensive, they are post hoc rationalizations, they are diversions. The true form of the question you are asking is, "does the ability to give a girl a forgetting pill afterwards give you the courage to try and hook up with her?" Which simplifies to: "can you live with rejection?" Solve for x: duh.
IX.
The argument here is that you would rape her as long as she wouldn't remember it or suffer, but it reveals how little you are able to perceive the complete existence of others that you would even consider using them as a prop. I can confidently predict a gargantuan amount of rage in you, which you will assume is completely unrelated. You'd be wrong. They are the same force.
The interesting thing about where you have found yourself is that it is easy to fix, but as usual the focus has been backwards, on you and not on what you do. While the question reveals a lot about you, it also causes you to think and behave a certain way. Though it's a fantasy that a pill can solve your problems, your mind includes it in weighing your next real moves. You are less likely to approach that girl at the DMV because your mind has found a safer way (for you) to handle it. That "less likely" may only be a dyne of force, but it is not nothing.
Now think about how many fantasies and scenarios you're actively running every day about a million things, and think about how many of those things you're actually attempting in real life. I know the popsicleogists will say you're running the scenarios to make yourself feel better, but they are what's holding you back. Those thoughts, in the absence of any action, have defined you. Just because no one else can see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
---
You might also like:
Did The NPR Chief Have A Liberal Bias?
Ready To Go, Even For Nonconsensual Sex?
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
March 15, 2011 11:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"But why it didn't occur to you? Are you a bad person? Selfish? Homophobic?"
I would like to point out it is because I AM A WOMAN. Something that Ron and Fez didn't even consider; that there is an "I" in this argument who doesn't have a dick.
Score: 80 (128 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 12:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The question the host asked is what came to mind early in the article, minus the F bombs.
My guess is some of these guys are also the guys that are nice to you, not because that is who they are, but because they want something. And then get angry with you because you didn't give it to them. Too cowardly to make their deal overt. Or actually be kind without expectation. Heartless Bitches has a great article about this called "Nice Guys"
And then of course, aside from this guy, are the guys who are rapists, that don't think they are rapists. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/11/12/rapists-who-dont-think-theyre-rapists/
Fortunately, all of these examples are the minority of men I interact with.
Reality acceptance, acknowledging reality without making things up about it. So easy to say, so hard to do given our culture-wide conditioning.
Score: 30 (48 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 1:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
May I ask how most of the shows responders answered the intern's question? I really hope, for the sake of all males and females, that he had to resort to back-peddling question alterations to make his query seem not completely vile.
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 1:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm glad I thought about the victim and said "no" when the rape question was first posed.
I would've felt like a real asshole if I had said yes after your psychological beatdown. Great work, Alone. I always learn something interesting here.
Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 1:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Man, I wish I was a psychiatrist. It's awesome to be able to group people into neat categories for condemnation-much like I imagine Cotton Mather felt. Rapists to the left of me, narcissists to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.
So, riddle me this, shrink: what about women who have rape fantasies? What about when you get asked to play the rapist? How come that whole gig doesn't enter your discourse? Is it because women are always a passive prop for your endless analysis of narcissistic men?
Score: -80 (138 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You've missed the point. Wanting to rape and wanting to be raped are completely different.
If you had actually been with a woman who had rape fantasies you would know that the fantasy is really about a loss of control. The violence (the true brutality that would occur in a real attack) is not a part of it and the rapist is often an unknown, faceless person. Submitting to force is not the same as ignoring the screams and cries of someone as you pin them down and tear their clothes off.
But you haven't actually been with a woman who has admitted she has rape fantasies -- you've just read about those types of girls. And it bothers you. And you brood. That's the rage Alone was talking about.
Score: 118 (132 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 2:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You got it all completely right of course. But what I really like is the last bit--because I believe it has been shown that the more time people spend daydreaming (fantasizing), the less happy they are. Now there is both a cart/horse and correlation/causation argument to be made there, but I think what you've written shows this to be true:
If you spend your time living in a fantasy world, the real world is going to suck.
Now in my case I spend my time thinking about the things I would be doing if I wasn't stuck in fucking traffic, or forced to stay late at work, but the result is the same. I get very unhappy with my current situation. The life lesson is to learn to accept what you can't change, gather courage to change what you can blah blah blah.
And as for rape: I think a lot of what you say about being able to empathize also applies to other kinds of 'sex' acts guys like that intern are likely to engage in. That is, prostitution and strippers, not to mention pornography. I've always thought the only way a guy could get any pleasure from a prostitute or strip club was to be able to completely block out what the woman who is servicing them is feeling. And what pleasure is there in that?
Score: 60 (66 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 2:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
At first I was turned off by the subject but I'm glad I continued to read because it's an excellent article that applies to everything, like cheating, lying, stealing, adultery...
Score: 20 (22 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 2:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"My guess is some of these guys are also the guys that are nice to you, not because that is who they are, but because they want something. And then get angry with you because you didn't give it to them. Too cowardly to make their deal overt. Or actually be kind without expectation. Heartless Bitches has a great article about this called "Nice Guys""
I have a problem with this narrative, because it's bitten me in the ass before. There have been numerous times that I did not like a girl when I first met her but only liked her later after I got to know her better. Sometimes this process was as long as say 3 to 6 months. Now from an outsider's point of view it would look like your narrative applied to me - that I was being nice as a trick. The niceness wasn't a trick, I just didn't have feelings for the girl yet.
The other part of the narrative that breaks is getting angry at the girl. Crushed yes, angry no.
As an aside, don't tell a man "don't get angry" because that will make him angry. He'll get angry because you're trying to tell him how to feel and to control him. There are plenty of times a man won't be angry - until someone keeps telling him not to be. "Well I wasn't angry until you told me for the thirty-second time today to not get angry."
Score: -10 (74 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 2:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because TLP did not aim this piece at you.
"But there are some of you will agree with the intern. Some of you will wish you could-- not that you'd ever do it, but boy oh boy wouldn't it be great. It's to them I'm writing."
Is that you? I thought not.
Score: 21 (23 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 4:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Somebody explain to me the "Not so fast, Sir Charles," statement? I'm thinkin' Sir Charles Barkley for the rape accusations (which seems a pretty spurious reference) and I'm thinkin' Charles' Law of gases wherein volume and temp vary directly, and neither of those make a bit of sense.
This post makes me think of abuse of people with Korsakov's syndrome, or the more likely Alzheimer's (but nobody typically thinks of people with Alzheimer's as rapeable, because they are old). Rape them and they'd experience it, and then forget, and the drug they're using is a busted brain.
It also reminds me of homeless people. I give them money, and people say stuff like "Oh don't give those homeless people money, they're gonna buy alcohol with it," or "Don't give those homeless people money, they have a lot they're just scamming you." And I recognize, in these statements, the intent: they're people who have this good, virtuous, "give to the poor" thing, but they don't wanna because giving money away hurts and goes against everything else the society tells 'em when the prosocial values' backs are turned.
And you can say to that, "well it's their problem if they misspend it," because you doing the right thing or not isn't dependent on whether other people appreciate it. Other people appreciating (or, in this case, being traumatized by it) doesn't make it wrong or right, what matters is you doing the right thing by your own conscience.
In TLP-as-spiritual-guide, I gotta ask whether this is narcissistic. I don't think it is- narcissism is all about LOOK AT ME and VALIDATE ME and HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO ME. Asking the question "does that make me narcissistic?" is probably more narcissistic than the actual behavior itself.
But to bring it back to the point- it seems like the intern, and those like him, are guilty of Santa-Claus/Jesus morality. Morality entirely based on the consequences and who saw you, rather than your own spiritual compass. Maybe it's a better morality, pinned tightly to the practical, while mine is narcissistic and self-obsessed. I think it's an inferior morality... because I can't imagine not knowing who I am, not having a code of ethics and clear moral decisions. I feel like I would have to give up pride (and status, and testosterone-sources) if I were constantly altering my behavior with reference to other people's expectations. I feel like I'd be the world's bitch. And I wouldn't like that.
This is probably an unusually selfish justification for giving money to homeless people, but it makes sense to me.
Score: 9 (15 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Using your gender to point out why something in this piece doesn't apply is missing the point-- this type of magic pill hypothetical promises to remove the consequences of any action that is harmful to someone else.
These two shock jocks may not have considered the gender of half their audience, but you are ignoring all of the situations this type of thinking connects to. Casually blowing it off as being something males have to worry about is doing yourself an injustice.
Score: 19 (39 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 4:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yeah, it's me. f*ck. :-(
my whole world view just shifted a bit, thanks for potentially saving my life.
now opening a real bottle of 80 proof magical drug.
Score: 5 (15 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 4:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just emailed the last paragraph of this article to myself for tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that
Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Did nobody ever mention the physical damage that may have come from a rape? Or say, pregnancy? The magical memory drug wouldn't eliminate those.
Score: 21 (49 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 5:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I have a problem with this narrative, because it's bitten me in the ass before. There have been numerous times that I did not like a girl when I first met her but only liked her later after I got to know her better. Sometimes this process was as long as say 3 to 6 months."
That's clearly not what she was talking about. I also have had occasions when feelings for the other person took a while to surface. The difference is that in those cases, the relationship starts with genuine - and mutual - intentions to be friends.
The Nice Guys she described are not being honest. The feelings are always there on his side, but rather than taking a risk and maybe getting shot down, he tries to "befriend" her, and hang about her in the hopes that he can worm his way into her affections.
It's sneaky and manipulative (and actually very stalker-y), as he's not really being a friend. It gives male friends a bad name, and I can see how it would make you antsy, but I don't think she was directing it at the kind of people who maybe take longer to want a serious relationship with someone.
Score: 40 (50 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 6:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should have stopped reading at the PTSD warning.
Either that or you need to go back and actually read Parts II - IX.
Score: -19 (27 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 6:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm glad I can answer that question with a resounding hell no. I've gone through periods of doubt when I wonder how much I can really relate to people. From reading you blog, your vision of narcissism occurred to me and made me worry from time to time. How horrible you made it sound, not really being able to connect... But this post clarifies that this particular issue isn't my own.
That being said, I still think I can gain something practical with your last two paragraphs. I think that may help a little. Thank you.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 6:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
>You've missed the point. Wanting to rape and wanting to be raped are completely different.
No, neck-beard, you've missed the point. It takes two to tango. For every guy out there with rape fantasies, there's a girl out there with rape fantasies.
>If you had actually been with a woman who had rape fantasies you would know that the fantasy is really about a loss of control. The violence (the true brutality that would occur in a real attack) is not a part of it and the rapist is often an unknown, faceless person.
But you haven't actually been with a woman who has admitted she has rape fantasies -- you've just read about those types of girls. And it bothers you. And you brood. That's the rage Alone was talking about.
Oh, word? Let me go check my bed. Yep, I've got a hot (dudes stare, chicks stare with hatred when we roll in) half-naked chick postcoitally slumbering in there. And yeah, she likes all that rough stuff-rape, choking, slapping, you name it. And nope, she's not the first one I've met. How does that work, Professor Jackass? Run it by your Women's Studies major girlfriend's manly chin if you're still confused.
I've never met a woman with fantasies of being raped by some anonymous creep. It's always a guy she would have given it up to willingly, but who is so powerful and manly that he just TAKES it. If you're afraid to ask man-chin, just sneak a read at her stash of romance novels.
Score: -77 (101 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 7:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can't even consider indulging anybody's rape fantasies, myself. But then I'm "mentally ill."
Score: 15 (21 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 7:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If I'm understanding this article: "Those who would rape if there are no long-term consequences to the other party (and by extension, themselves)" = "The perpetrator is afraid of rejection"?
So, if person A drugs person B (benzo + alcohol), has semi-lucid sex with them, leaves no obvious trauma and then high tails it before the next morning - that can all be avoided by having person A watch a few DVDs of "The Pick Up Artist?"
I don't think your equations match quite as well as you state.
I would imagine most people who answered in the affirmative would have also answered yes if the scenario meant no consequences for just the rapist (eg: she'll never know who you are,can't call the police etc.) The problem is likely deeper than just a fear of rejection.
Now, if we assume people are able to answer affirmatively because of an underlying narcissism (ie: it's their world and everyone is a means to an end), then that raises an interesting question: where do we draw the line on who is and isn't a narcissist? A rapist without remorse, a rapist with remorse, a 'theoretical' rapist such as the intern in question, a groper on a subway in a non-confrontational culture, a man having sex with his wife; who is clearly not in the mood, a voyeur in the bushes, someone watching a stripper, someone watching voyeuristic videos online, someone reading a Hustler. Are they all narcissists because they all use other people as props for some sort of sexual gain?
Score: 0 (24 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 7:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One I noticed was how different this article is from a feminist-blog-type response to the intern's question, and at the same time how deeply feminist it is. The former might be of the form,
[Outrage at how deeply entrenched the rape culture is in our society] + [disbelief that most people deny the existence of said rape culture] + [interesting point about how the magic drug actually exists, it's called Roofies, and therefore the intern is trying to justify date rape] + [and so on].
By contrast, from TLP we get the post above, which, if you're anything like me, you won't be able to get out of your head for weeks, if ever.
The difference between the way TLP and typical feminist blogs handle this argument might be likened to the difference between the two possible ways the military has of fighting terrorism. Say you find out about a major terrorist base in a village in Whateverstan. One option is to nuke it from orbit; this is like the feminist response to the intern. ("You are evil, rape is rape, he should be fired," etc).
This is certainly a valid response; the terrorists are dead, the argument is refuted. But at the same time, it doesn't stop terrorism, because the other group over in Someotherstan is ready to continue the good fight. Similarly, the feminist response does nothing to stop the false consensus bias Alone talks about in Section II -- "Well, yeah, of course they're going to say that, but bro, you got to admit..." And nothing changes.
By contrast, in this essay TLP goes into my head and rearranges my view of the world so that my answer to the intern's question goes from "not that I'd ever do it, but boy oh boy wouldn't it be great" to "No. Obviously no."
Back to terrorism. TLP is Marine unit doing counterinsurgency. He patrols the village every day, grows a beard, gets to know the local leaders, has tea with everybody, and builds a school for girls. It takes a huge amount of work, and they loose some good men, but in the end they get the terrorist leaders to flip on their superiors in the Taliban and hand over the plans to blow up Connecticut. Mission accomplished.
This is all by way of saying... thought it was a good post.
Score: 25 (47 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 7:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This drug does exist - it's called Scopolamine. Check out the following for an interesting insight into it and some people's experiences with it on both sides:
http://www.vbs.tv/en-ca/watch/vbs-news/colombian-devil-s-breath-1-of-2
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 8:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"That's clearly not what she was talking about. I also have had occasions when feelings for the other person took a while to surface. The difference is that in those cases, the relationship starts with genuine - and mutual - intentions to be friends."
That's clearly not what I was talking about. If you had read further than that one quote you would have seen that I said "FROM AN OUTSIDER'S POINT OF VIEW" my actions would have been indistinguishable from the Nice Guy who is being manipulative.
"I can see how it would make you antsy, but I don't think she was directing it at the kind of people who maybe take longer to want a serious relationship with someone."
But the woman can't know that because she can't read my mind. Because we live in a misandrist culture that always tells women stories about how evil men are, many women will default to assume the worst. Hell the only place anyone can even point this kind of thing out is semi-anon on the interwebs. Don't dare do it IRL.
Score: -18 (40 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 8:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Aside from the question of whether she remembers and the actual fact of the physical assault are other sticking points.
The rapist will remember it, he will know that he is a rapist, he will know that in a straight choice between right and wrong he chose wrong. Consequently he will either have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life or rationalise the rape, justifying it as not really wrong.
The damage to himself and the increased risk to society that he and his views will then pose ought to give us all pause for thought
Score: 19 (23 votes cast)
March 15, 2011 9:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Concerning rape you are obviously correct, politically correct indeed. Still, I consider it a pseudo case or literary figure. Only if one guy from weird American show poses this question doesn't necessarily mean that most of your readers/people would do/answer the same.
The idea is far more interesting in political terms. Idea that you can do harm and make the victim forget about it is ultimate application of „will to power“ and we are all experiencing it every day within our politics/democracy/corporative system. The question is: why the victim is so willing to be raped, again and again? Because she/he loses memory each time?
On the other hand, notion of - no one's gonna hear nothing – can be a deliberating notion for one-self in some cases. Mostly in destructive terms, though.
Score: -13 (17 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As an aside, don't tell a man "don't get angry" because that will make him angry. He'll get angry because you're trying to tell him how to feel and to control him. There are plenty of times a man won't be angry - until someone keeps telling him not to be. "Well I wasn't angry until you told me for the thirty-second time today to not get angry."
This is pretty much the same argument my abusive father used/uses. If someone is begging you not to be angry, it's because you've given them a reason to fear your anger in the past. For example, I don't particularly fear the anger of my boss, so if I do something that might incite his anger, I will just apologize and move on. If the same happens with my father, I will be begging and pleading with him not to be mad, because as a child that was the only defense I had. I can trust that my boss is not going to hurt me or cause me further pain; I never could be sure with my father.
If you feel like that is an attempt to control you, maybe you should ask yourself why your anger is so out of control that others need to control it for you. It's obvious from the way you set this up that you meant women shouldn't tell men not to be angry. What have you done to make the women in your life fear your anger that much? It doesn't have to be hitting; yelling, threats, storming out, excessively snide and hurtful remarks--these can all inspire fear that would make someone try to head off your anger in any way they could.
Score: 51 (61 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 12:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We don't necessarily live in a misandrist culture, we just live in a culture in which relationships are complicated and subtle things. Because of that, you're right, it's easy to confuse a Nice Guy from a guy who develops romantic feelings at some point in a friendship that started out honestly platonic.
But there is a difference that's visible from the outside to a sufficiently careful observer -- what you do at that point. If you're a Nice Guy, you continue the friendship while creepily trying to get closer without making any overtly romantic overtures. If you're a nice guy (no caps) you're above board -- you confess your feelings and make a pitch.
This is just a special case of the general fact that there's a difference between being deceitful without telling a lie, and being honest. The difference is subtle but quite real.
Score: 29 (33 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 12:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP,
I know men in general like to promote this idea that MOST men would not rape if given a comfortable situation where rape could be committed (e.g.: victim is drugged/ victim does not attack you /victim does not cry/ victim does not press charges/ laws permit you to do this and will not punish you).
I've been trollin' the interwebs long enough to realize this: men HATE being confronted with the fact that men commit rape. Men HATE being reminded that many women are raped by many different men. Real life rape doesn't necessarily involve extreme violence because rapists often target women who they know won't put up a huge fight. Many people are raped as children, setting them up to accept sexual assault later in life as well. Men do not like to accept that a part of their nature involves violence and sexual aggression, because it's just not nice to think about.
Men, at all costs, will deny that they have a nature which drives them to rape, and continue to promote a myth that it is very, very few men who would ever commit rape.
*But that's simply not true.* It defies common sense and observable reality.
Going to college, reading of socially demolished parts of the world both past and present, and listening to the way your average slob of a man will talk, and how they talk of women makes it very clear that a whole lot of men would do whatever they wanted to a girl, IF they could get away with it, and IF the consequences weren't too high.
College is pretty much a date rape factory. The nature of socializing between adult males and females in college guarantees this (in dark rooms, with strange men, while girls are drinking alcohol and taking drugs). The nature of men is such, and when you put them around temporarily mentally incapacitated young women in such an evolutionarily abnormal environment, don't be surprised what happens. If you set up a frat party between mice and cats I don't think that would turn out well either.
One of the consistent observations in war or social upheaval is that children, old people, and men are murdered while girls and young women are raped and kept. If it is true that so few men would *ever dare* rape a woman, how is it possible for soldiers to systematically rape villages full of them?
Observe the animal kingdom. In nature, male animals (sperm producing, genetic promote mating with as many partners as possible) will do whatever they can to get it on with anything that is remotely fertile looking. Elephant seals beat each other up all day and spend the rest of it forcing themselves on females who are like 1/10th their size, sometimes killing them in the process.
It seems to me that natural male sexual behavior inclines the organism to have sex at any costs - consent is not all that important. This issue, question, is simply not relevant to females, because males are so sexually aggressive that they are never without a potential partner. The female prerogative is to select the most genetically fit male to reproduce with, while simultaneously being taken care of and protected.
What we are socialized to do is often different than what we instinctually would do. I would not pee in public or strut naked down the block, but these are perfectly natural behaviors for a person to do. If things got bad enough I might do them in the right circumstances.
So, when "most men" say they would never ever find sexual release in an unconscious woman's body (guaranteed mind wipe after, no risk of any consequences ever)... I find that hard to believe. Perhaps some wouldn't, but I truly think most would.
The only difference between men who admit this, and men who deny it, is socialization and social skills. The less socialized, loser males would be the first to admit they would want to do this (and the first to actually do it given the opportunity, probably). It is extremely antisocial and suggests one is isolated or mentally ill to admit or fantasize about having the freedom to rape people. It also suggests that individual goes about their life trying to restrain themselves from antisocial impulses to sexually attack women.
As for men who go around actively committing violent rape, without freaking out about it... they're antisocials, deviants. They don't feel fear, they don't recognize fear in others, they do whatever they want like clockwork orange, minimal inhibition, no capacity to recognize consequences or feel/care about consequences for others.
Given how men at war behave, I suspect it is possible to bring out the antisocial in many otherwise social men if they are trained enough, if exposed to enough chaos.
Score: 12 (62 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 12:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Regarding the intern daydreaming about this wonder drug which allows him to have any woman he sees on the train, or the street, or in a store... I suspect his fantasy drug had some kind of immobility component. Like, she would be semiconscious and would not resist him. Rohypnol basically, but even *BETTAR*.
It really is such an odd question to ask. I am familiar with shock radio tactics: the idea is to think of the most outrageous thing you can and then say it, like a manic person with an audience... but this question doesn't seem entirely fabricated from a desire for attention. It's as if this guy was thinking about it and had this idea before. Like, he says this as a genius might spit out some great idea he has been contemplating for a long time, or like a schizophrenic would stand up and say "what if words have no meaning???" as if this were a piece of insight, some brilliance to explain it all.
This wasn't just some day dream random weirdness. He's thought about this a lot, I bet.
I wonder if he has date raped people in the past (drugged women to semiconsciousness and then had fun with their bodies like some kind of necrophiliac perv).
Score: 4 (14 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This is my third post, phew. I am sorry I find this topic interesting.
As an addendum to the above (not the second, the first)...
As a female, I have the vantage point of observing how men look at women... and if there were no consequences I do suspect many men would resort to animal like behavior. Not all, maybe not even most, but a VERY SIGNIFICANT percentage. Some men are extremely fucking creepy. You want to just turn to them and be like, dude, are you really acting like this right now? Do you think I'm not aware of what you are thinking, or is that part of the fun for you? You are fucking disgusting. Please behave like a human being in human society, as opposed to a dog or some other animal. Some men are just fucking creepy as hell. Many men actually.
It would be great if all men could spend a week living in the body of a woman who isn't too old or too fat/ugly. Just like, you know, walk around town, go to work, et cetera.
I think after this experience men would completely change their minds about what most men would or would not do if there were no consequences. Seriously, I would love it if guys could just be women for a week or for a month. Deal with men in that body.
When one experiences this, and then watches the news where "hundreds of women are raped in x country by gangs of roving males", and when one reads of the natural behavior of male animals toward female animals, and when one hears of stories where raping unconscious college girls at frat parties is something to brag about and is considered almost normal ... all of these pieces fit together in a puzzle that makes total fucking sense.
Then you take your personal experience, and these anecdotes, and you compare them to what MEN SAY:
"Very few men would EVER rape a girl, ever, under any circumstances".
Well. You reach the conclusion that statement is false. It seems most men are unable to accept the reality of their nature and simply say pleasant sounding words to avoid it. Even the men who DO rape women seem unable to even accept that is what they did/are doing. They will admit to raping a woman if the words don't say rape, but once you bring up that word, no one is honest anymore.
I'm sure some men would never ever rape.
Perhaps most men would never rape.
But a very significant percentage would. Otherwise, what goes on at war could not happen. Frat houses of date rapists could not happen.
Score: 11 (51 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yet another article that made me pause and go "OH FUCK THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING". Many thanks, alone!
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, B, the difference between a woman who has a rape fantasy, and a man who is a rapist (such as yourself I would venture to guess) is that a rape fantasy doesn't hurt anyone, and a rape fantasy does not represent real rape. Many women have rape fantasies but this is different than real rape. Real rape is not sexy for the rape victim, because this guy is forcing me to do this and he is probably going to kill me, and I might contract HIV or get pregnant, and I really really really don't want this and I hope I don't die.
Rape fantasies are more about a fantasy of power and control (in a partner you have CHOSEN, who you are ATTRACTED TO AND WANT to have sex with). Very few rape fantasies involve some disgusting random guy who you find abhorrent. It's usually someone, or a representation of someone, who turns that woman on. The turn on for the woman is that he is powerful, in control, and/or that he really wants her, plus it's kinky, etc etc etc. Whatever.
Are you really trying to sell us the idea that women having rape fantasies somehow justifies men who rape women? Really?
A new york 20 something vegan hippy with a daytime corporate job has a fantasy of quitting his job, going to india to learn about baba and buddah, or living life possessionless, altruistic, philanthropically. He thinks about this a lot, you know. "Maybe I should choose to go to some other country and just live life as a free spirit, wandering observing and learning... or giving building and teaching".
The next day our hipster friend is axed from his job.
The next week his home is robbed, most of his possessions are taken from him.
Eventually he is evicted because he can't pay the bills. He crawls home to mom, broken with nothing.
That's sort of like rape fantasies vs real life rape.
Score: 52 (60 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you guys are both saying the same thing. You said:
"No, neck-beard, you've missed the point. It takes two to tango. For every guy out there with rape fantasies, there's a girl out there with rape fantasies."
And then you describe how your girlfriend has rape fantasies herself. Okay, awesome. But rape fantasies are not fantasies about actually getting raped, any more than the "lesbians" in porn are not very similar, in looks or behavior, to the average actual lesbian. The words mean two almost completely different things. And just as I am not sexually attracted to my lesbian women's studies professor but will happily fantasize about Megan Fox making out with Olivia Wilde, so too does your girlfriend enjoy role playing rape with you, but would consider actually being raped to be pretty much the worst thing that could ever happen to her.
That was what "Anonymous" who you replied to was getting at. He or she said,
"You've missed the point. Wanting to rape and wanting to be raped are completely different."
Which I think you would agree with. It follows that the fact that some women have rape fantasies doesn't mitigate the fact that rape is a horrible crime, one of the worst things you can possibly do to another person. Are we agreed?
Score: 20 (24 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a good point.
I was thinking that earlier but didn't bother expanding on it in my phonebook of posts above.
I think one of the reasons the guy cringed at the idea of a bunch of guys using the drug on him, is because he was imagining the state of his body afterward. Speaking as a female, one who lives in a female body, the state of your body after rape is an obvious concern. A male one would never think of it unless someone asked them to imagine what it would be like in a body in the aftermath of rape (as in the case of this guy who was asked for a split second to imagine being gang raped by men).
That's not pleasant, I would imagine. Pain, damage, infection, and (if female) pregnancy.
Score: 17 (19 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Trolling at its finest, sir.
I don't know if anything you just said was based in even a grain of truth, but either way, move over charlie sheen because you're our new manic wunderbar who is a winning warlock with adonis dna etc.
One thing I like/hate about myself is how easily I am amused. All it takes is a crazy guy standing up and saying crazy things and I am chuckling away.
Score: 13 (15 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 1:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
After all that writing I bet you would still commit date rape if you had the opportunity.
TLP can't cure rape, anymore than he can cure bears hibernating for the winter. It is part of being stereotypically male and young to be oversexed, exclusively toward females, violent, and aggressive. Society and good breeding raises human males to be reasonable and prosocial and to not do these things. Most of the time everything works out and most men never rape women.
On the other hand, don't be female in the middle of a war.
Score: -18 (26 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I guess I was carried away with how awesome this post was, and got a little hyperbolic. Philosophy by itself, no matter how interesting it is, won't end rape culture, I agree. Maybe this post will get some people to reexamine their attitudes, and start to change -- but they have to change themselves, one great blog post won't do it for them.
As for me, all I can tell you is that I have never raped, assaulted, or groped anyone, never tried to, never fantasized about it now that I think about it. Would I, given a chance, with no possible consequences? Honestly I don't think I would, but obviously we can't know for sure. I think that's about all anyone can say.
Score: 7 (13 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Way to miss the point.
He's not asking, "If you could find a woman who had rape fantasies, wouldn't it be fun to negotiate a rape scene with her?"
He's not even asking, "If you could find a woman who had rape fantasies, wouldn't it be fun to rape her?"
As Alone points out, he's not even thinking it through -- how's he going to stick his dick in her while she protests and screams and not injure her? She's not going to notice the bruises and vaginal pain afterwards?
Nope. He's wanting to stick his dick in a woman *without having to speak to her at all.* That's kinda what "rape" and "drug" imply.
He's not getting into the idea of negotiating a rape scene -- hello, he can't even figure out how to ask a girl out and get her out of her panties for vanilla.
Score: 25 (29 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh, you've got a girl who likes rough sex?
Well then your real problem is reading comprehension. This article is NOT about guys and girls who like rough sex, idiot. It's about some moron who can't even figure out how to say hi to a girl, much less get one into the sack.
Read the damn writing. Sloowwwly. It's really good stuff, if you're smart enough to get it.
Score: 28 (32 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Like Dasha said... if someone is asking you not to get angry it is probalby because you are abusive and threatening.
No one is asking you not to feel hurt or upset. They are asking you NOT TO BE ANGRY. Angry is very specific. Anger in this case means threatening, violent, loud, and controlling. Your threats and violent posturing is attempting to manipulate and control the person you are directing them toward.
Basically what you are asking is for the victims of your violent, selfish ranting and posturing to shut up and take it. To refuse to do so is to control you. You are a prick.
Everything you wrote reads just like a self centered abusive manipulative person. You sound precisely like a stereotypical "nice guy".
Score: 25 (29 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pemulus, don't try to explain it to him. If he can't comprehend the article, he's not going to comprehend the comments. Funny that he thinks the article is insulting him when it has nothing to do with him. Then he thinks comments that agree with his POV are also attacks.
Glad you're working out all that confusion and rage with a consensual partner, B!
Score: 15 (15 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To the anonymous with the three posts (and maybe more comments, I think).
I encourage you to read Alone's post here:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html
It adresses some of the evidence I think you are citing - the evolutionary arguements. Essentially, the fact that certain male animals behave in some fashion does not really imply with any necessity that a "significant percentage" of human males would do the same. Many male animals do not 'rape' - does this offer evidence that no human males should not rape either?
Also, reading your post(s) I came to notice that much of the evidence you cite - news stories and war incidents - are directed through the media and are thus pretty biased. That does not mean they are untrue, but that you should think of them critically. What do the authors want to be true, as Alone reminds us. Generally, many other posts on this site are critical of media coverage and I think they might provide you food for thought. This is a suggestion:
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/08/do_cougars_exist.html
Also, Alone's post about Rape, that you are commenting upon, does not deny that some men will commit rape. And that many might consider doing it, without ever admitting it. Whether that is 'a significant percentage' or not is never really discussed.
But, as I understand, Alone's point is exactly that whatever percentage it may be, it has very little to do with the inherent male sex drive or evolutionary behaviorism that you seem to be advocating. You wish that men could walk a week in a woman's body: Well Alone's point is exactly the same as yours. These men who might/might not rape are not ability to sympathize with the women. It is this factor that is decisive. And it is not inherent from nature. It is because they are lying to themselves about the cause of their probelms. Themselves.
I hope that was understandable.
Best regards.
Score: 23 (27 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This article is fantastic.
The intern can't empathize with a woman at all, to the point where rape, what a rape actually is, is incomprehensible.
And that is why he can't connect with women.
And that is why he fantasizes about rape.
This is precisely what rape is actually about, for a lot of guys. Some are crazy sadistic monsters who would rape even the willing just to inflict suffering. But a lot of them are just too dumb to figure out the mating dance, so have to resort to force (or fantasy about force. At least this kid *understands* that there are consequences.). That's what a lot of non-human primate rape is about. (If you're a biologist, like me, you've read entirely too much about baboon, chimp, and orangatan rape...)
Score: 24 (30 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 3:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Given how men at war behave, I suspect it is possible to bring out the antisocial in many otherwise social men if they are trained enough, if exposed to enough chaos."
You are assuming that men who sign up for war without being forced to are going to be representatives of the normal and\or mentally adjusted individuals. I think a significant part of them is not going to be.
If you draft a normal citizen, train him and send him to war, chances are he is not going to rape or kill civilians or commit other atrocities.
Score: 4 (26 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 3:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I love how when it's some dude with fantasies of rape, all you feminists and sympathizers race to condemn him as a terrible, creepy, horrible loser monster rapist, but when it's a chick, oh, shit, NOW we have to make a distinction between fantasy and reality. Yeah, no kidding, when faced with the actual logistics of rape (screaming, crying, police reports, HIV testing,) neither would actually find it very appealing, but when it's just a fantasy, it makes a man bad, but is OK for a woman.
I don't even know why I'm explaining the stupidity of this line of thought, except that I find your screeching outraged chorus amusing.
Score: -29 (43 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anonymous 3:26,
This is a valid point, one I have made at other times actually. I do think people who sign up for war are fucked up in the head. This is probably why mental dysfunction is so high in military vets.
However, it does not mitigate the larger point - being that a whole lot of men, enough to cause / facilitate a war, are into killing murdering and raping people. Look at humans all over the world, throughout and before history history. You see lots of young men willing to kill other men and rape women.
Even if it is true that normal people could never deal with war, kill, or rape anyone... it doesn't change the fact that a lot of men seem able to do this. War could not happen without men, a lot of them at one time being ready to kill and rape.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
B,
You are a man who fantasizes about raping women. Right?
Well as long as it stays a fantasy (or a consensual sex act between you and your partner) than you have nothing to worry about. People who can distinguish between reality and fantasy are not the people we are talking about. If there are men who get off on control and acting out nonconsensual sex I do not see that as a problem... as long as in their mind they make a firm distinction between REAL rape vs FANTASY rape. All women with rape fantasies who are not mentally ill distinguish between their fantasies and reality. NO WOMAN wanders about at 3 am in a bad neighborhood wearing a low cut dress hoping to make her dreams a reality. That does not happen. Women never, ever want to be raped ever. Rape fantasies are actually consensual, because in a rape fantasy the woman has selected her partner and wants this to happen. The rape is mostly an illusion, the turn on is her partner's power and force and that he wants her. This is obvious.
Have you ever heard of women trolling for rape, the same way men drug women or abduct them, or hold them down?
Now, the difference with men who have so called "rape fantasies" is that they aren't really fantasies. In this case, the man is almost inviting us to speculate that drugging a woman and having sex with her really doesn't hurt her. This invites thought to turn into action. He isn't saying "it would be awesome if I could find a girl who is into acting out rape scenes where I could overpower her as a part of consensual sex". He's saying "I wish I could just drug and have sex with an unconscious cheerleader, or any woman I see for that matter...that would be so great".
If you can't differentiate between these two lines of thought, I can't freaking help you.
OH and by the way, life isn't fucking fair. Maybe there is a real double standard and maybe their should be. It's okay if women have rape fantasies because rarely do women actually consider these fantasies to be the same as real rape (i.e. they will not troll the streets hoping to be dragged into a car by some disgusting gross guy). Even if women REALLY DID secretly want to be raped as in real life rape (scary and possibly fatal and infectious and painful)... it still would be okay because they would only be hurting themselves and they wouldn't be violating anyone's rights.
On the other hand, a man who is into real life rape (drugging girls or overpowering them) is hurting other people. Those girls don't want him, don't want what he is doing to them, it is a crime.
Life isn't fair. Women have to have to deal with child birth, women have to be the victims of sexual assault, women have to deal with way worse aging prospects, women live in a world controlled by men. SOmetimes men don't always have things equal or in their favor, get over it. This is one of those times. Male sexual drive is not as social as female sexuality. Oh well. Accept it and move on. Think about that when you don't have to give birth and when you can have a wildly successful career while also having children as well (because, as a man, your wife will sacrifice most of her career to raise your children). Think about that when you are 45 and able to bang your 20 year old secretary meanwhile your wife has lost all of her sexual value at 40, and has to either put up with you or get a divorce.
Life isn't fair. Deal.
Score: 21 (37 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
>You are a man who fantasizes about raping women. Right?
I am?
>Have you ever heard of women trolling for rape, the same way men drug women or abduct them, or hold them down?
A lot of the behavior I see college-aged females exhibiting in my town come 11 at night and later can't be reasonably interpreted as anything BUT trolling for rape.
Sorry I don't have the time to answer the rest.
Score: -37 (47 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 5:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Anonymous 3:26,
This is a valid point, one I have made at other times actually. I do think people who sign up for war are fucked up in the head. This is probably why mental dysfunction is so high in military vets."
You have sources for this assertion? And you're able to account for the fact that those who have seen combat are overwhelmingly male, and did so while young? Because comparing 18-25 y/o males with the population at large is not fair.
Otherwise, this doesn't work. You can't say that an entire group is effed up in the head, without evidence. (I disagree with the wars also, but I don't think the soldiers are inherently messed up.)
Score: 7 (13 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 7:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Importantly, no amount of data or solid evidence will convince the latter-- the false consensus bias guy-- that he is wrong. That's because it's not a belief, it is a maneuver, it is an act to protect the self, an act that they will take as far as they need to. "No, they're lying, they're just not willing to admit it." When you hear that-- "I speak for others who are too frightened"-- run; because if they had a gun, they would speak for you."
I'd tell you to read this bit again but I'd be wasting my time. I'm just hoping you don't have a gun.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 8:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's no shortage of people on the internet willing to make wild assumptions about you and then proceed to argue* for how you should live your life based on those assumptions.
*Insofar as making multiple assertions in each sentence and proceeding to argue as if these premises were indisputable facts.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 9:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why do people always delve way too deeply into rape with these posts (Just like the “How Not to Meet Women” post)?
The real question he seems to be asking is why aren’t you pursuing your fantasies and dreams? (And no, the intern (you) wasn’t fantasizing about raping her, as the TLP touched on, in your scenario she enjoyed it, remember? It has and always has been about the fantasy of hooking up with her.)
Now, back to the millions of fantasies and scenarios running through your head everyday:
What is holding you back?
Why?
And what are you going to do about that?
Change it so there is action towards pursuing these dreams so they are no longer some form of mental masturbation.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 10:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In response to B's original post, Anonymous said: "The violence (the true brutality that would occur in a real attack) is not a part of [rape fantasies] and the rapist is often an unknown, faceless person."
Actually, the rapist is often an acquaintance or family member (classmate, sibling's friend, stepbrother, etc.) If the wished-for magic pill existed, the typical rapist would still have to interact with the raped. Likely, the rapist would shun the (magically drugged) raped person, and s/he would be confused about and/or hurt by the change in behavior.
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 12:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think it is any the more healthy or productive (in the sense Alone put in the last part of the article) for a woman to have rape fantasies than it is for a man. I particularly believe (and have a hunch that TLP would agree) that the mental, spiritual, or whatever-you-call-it results are equally bad, and worse if you get to enact those fantasies in real life (in a consensual situation). Also, men and women's rape fantasies are not exactly about the same thing, though they can be complementary. I believe women fantasize rape because they narcisistically don't feel like they can voluntarily surrender to a man (even if they like him) because they are "too good".
Now, the premise situation in the article said nothing about the woman wanting it (not even subconsciously). And you must agree that at least SOME women who do get raped do not want to EVER, right? (wow, look at this sentence. I could almost be a Taliban.)
This is mostly to show how I do not really understand where you are trying to get at. TLP never said anything in the article that implied women do not have horrible fantasies. Actually, for me the article was not about rape at all, but about detachment from reality and how it can ruin your life.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
By your logic all men are predisposed to rape women. It's in our animal roots and exists all over the planet. OK, so maybe the right answer, by your logic, is that we should tell women to accept it? If it so ingrained in the Y-chromosome then why the hell are we fighting it?
This is all contrary to the fact that humans are social animals and have sought to reduce violence as much as possible. What I'm getting out of this article is not that men are born with a natural inclination towards rape. Rape isn't even the central issue here. TLP is commenting on the fact that the fantasy world inside one's head can distract someone from living in the real world. The intern who proposed the question may in fact go on to rape a woman... but he probably won't. What he probably will do is fuck up his life and a bunch of other lives by being so self absorbed he doesn't realize that other people really exist. Think about that person in a relationship and raising a family. What that produces is a clusterfuck that is much more likely to happen than a rape and will certainly be damaging.
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am a popsicleogist. I agree that devoting great portions of your time on earth to these fantasies is holding you back from actually having a real life.
Do I have my brackets yet?
No. I don't "follow" sports, I play sports.
Just Do It.
When I trained in career counseling, I was taught a great question for those who have no direction.
"What would you do if you had only one life to live?"
OK, now go do it. I am. That question helps keep me moving.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because, natural does not mean good. Natural things are not always social things.
It is also natural for women to take their infants and throw them off of a cliff if they don't think they can raise the child. This is infanticide and it is abhorrent in our society. All those teenage girls you see / hear about leaving their children with their parents, on doorsteps, in toilets? That's normal behavior when a female cannot have the resources to take care of an infant.
Natural is not good, natural is not acceptable. Many aspects of male sexuality are unacceptable or socially frowned upon. Rape is totally unacceptable and should remain punishable by law.
Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Actually my logic does not say "all men are predisposed to rape all women". I specified it is probably a substantial percentage of men, but by no means all men. I also specified it is a substantial percentage of females but not all females, the targets of rape are usually very young or young adults.
Sorry if this clashes with your view of how things ought to be. But hey, look at frat houses, and look at countries torn by war. Rape rape rape.
Big myth: You have to be evil to rape. Very few men are evil, therefore very few men will rape.
No, you just have to be not very nice and apathetic to what other people feel, prioritizing your needs and wants first.
Score: 3 (9 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 4:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As a man who likes raping women, you probably interpret the behavior of young girls differently than other men might. Though I am not a man, when I see/hear of girls out partying I think they are having fun albeit being very stupid because they are making themselves vulnerable to assault. The biggest risk factors for sexual assault are being alone with men, while drinking alcohol/taking drugs. The reasons why are obvious.
Its possible for people to do stupid or foolish things without being able to appreciate the consequences. If you see young girls staggering about dressed up, they really don't want you to rape them. Sorry if you think they do. Stick to your girlfriend(s) who like acting out consensual rape scenes okay?
Score: 14 (18 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Would I [rape], given a chance, with no possible consequences? Honestly I don't think I would, but obviously we can't know for sure. I think that's about all anyone can say."
This is like one of the most common and obnoxious psychological defense mechanisms in existence. You try to convince yourself that nobody can know what they'd do in that situation, so therefore you don't have to feel bad about not knowing yourself.
Well, go fuck yourself. I know I wouldn't do it under any circumstances. Don't try to drag me into your psychological problems.
If all the websites I've visited are any indication, Western men are not troubled by rape at all. They think that to rape or to not rape is a simple matter of opinion, a personal preference. And everyone's opinions must be respected. Morality is not relevant.
I honestly have no idea how our societies are able to function without African levels of mass rape.
Score: 9 (23 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 9:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh please. It's funny to see the "stop fantasizing and go live your life" line coming, of all people, from a blogger.
Blogging is the new fantasizing, i.e. a valve where you, instead of living, express your wishes and paints the world as you think it should be. The only difference is that when you fantasize, only you are aware - as opposed to blogging, where the whole world can share your fantasy. For someone so fixated on narcissism, TLP is, well, pretty narcissistic.
You could rewrite the last paragraph to read "Now think about how many fantasies and scenarios you're actively writing about, and think about how many of those things you're actually attempting in real life. I know the popsicleogists will say you're writing to make yourself feel better, but it's what's holding you back. Those writings, in the absence of any action, have defined you. Just because everyone else can see it, doesn't mean it happened.
Score: -3 (15 votes cast)
March 16, 2011 9:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This post is not really about rape and rapists. This post is about the danger of fantasizing, no matter what it is.
I have an active imagination and I would never put someone down for it. But creating an image of yourself and the fantasy things you'd do can be a substitute for actually taking action. The internet has only exacerbated this problem, as it provides everything you need to feed a rich fantasy life and to get away from doing anything in reality.
How easy is it to empathize? Easy. How easy is it to sympathize? Not so easy.
Hmm, to some extent, empathy is about yourself and your own desires, and that's how you connect to others. The problem is when you start with your own feelings and feel outwards, rather than starting with the feelings of others and experiencing that inwards. Then the false consensus bias comes in, because it is easy to "see" how other people "feel the same way you do" and probably think the same way you do as well. So you're fine, and you don't need to examine yourself and actually change anything because you've worked it all out already.
Now think about how many fantasies and scenarios you're actively running every day about a million things, and think about how many of those things you're actually attempting in real life. I know the popsicleogists will say you're running the scenarios to make yourself feel better, but they are what's holding you back. Those thoughts, in the absence of any action, have defined you. Just because no one else can see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I think this is why integrity is so important. I think shame can be a good thing, if it is that awareness of the distance between who you truly ought to be and who you are. Shame lets you know that there is a lack of integrity. That distance is created by action (or lack of action). Stifling shame, having fantasy "guilt without shame", none of that really changes anything for the better because fantasies have an affect on you and build who you are.
As a lifelong fantasist, I have perfected the thought: "I'm not the sort of person who..":
is bold enough to get on stage and perform
asks people out
would kill anyone
takes revenge
etc.
But I fantasize about all of it, often. I think I have realized that I actually am the sort of person who'd do all of those things and more. Feeding rage, ambition, desire into a fantasy does not make it less me.
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 12:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never thought I would agree with someone, but holy crap.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 12:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Fantasizing in of itself is a good thing. The point of fantasy and daydreams is to tease out possible actions or creations you might engage in.
Why are we assuming the intern is exclusively fantasizing? That is TLP's interpretation of events. I personally think it is highly likely this douchebag has committed rape before. The odds of someone like that man getting a girl really drunk and coercing her to have sex (even when she clearly cannot fight him off, stay fully awake, or give consent)... I"m sure he's done it before.
Anyone who would have the balls to say something like that clearly thinks it's normal to have non-consensual sex. This guy *KLEEEEEARLY* is not a stranger to date rape.
Remember that episode of "Friends" when Chandler was sharing his sexual issues with Ross, and he said "Don't you hate it when your mom pops into your head while you're having sex, and you can't possibly think about anything else?" and Ross was just like "OMG you're a freak". This is just like that.
Can you imagine a man who has never date raped anyone saying something like this? "Wouldn't it be great if you could just drug any woman you see and have sex with her, but she wouldn't remember it so you couldn't get arrested?" Clearly he wasn't thinking about her (the victim's) emotional/physical health, because the drug would not prevent pregnancy, physical damage, or infection. The only benefit of this drug is that it would make it *so fucking easy* to rape, with very little ability to get caught. This is the only thing a rapist cares about.
I choose not to discuss the topic TLP has presented (the dangers of fantasizing) because instinctively I know this kind of guy asking this kind of question is already a rapist. He probably doesn't think he is, but I"m sure he's raped girls before.
Score: 3 (11 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 1:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's exactly right.
I need to rethink some things.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 9:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wowee am I glad you got the "I'm writing to the people who agreed with the intern" caveat in there before you went off on that group, otherwise this would've been confusing/frustrating as each sentence I'd go "BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM".
B's remarks about "women who fantasize about rape, usually from a control/masculinity standpoint" being the same as "men who cannot experience the empathy necessary to understand what they are doing is wrong because they can't bridge the span between their desires and their actions" are revealing, namely revealing that he can't actually make distinctions---especially if he is one of the groups in question.
Another conversation of sorts I've seen on here is the "if you're being told not to be angry, you must be abusive/out of control" versus "if you tell me not to be angry I will likely be angry because you're being controlling". I really don't see how these opinions are mutually exclusive.
There's an old adage that you don't tell a girl to calm down, because that will just make her less calm. The same is true of men, really. Some of the comments above get into the diction and syntax of "what we mean by 'angry' as defined in this situation" but then you're being too narrow in your frame. If you tell a man, who is angry about something, angry to him may mean 'justifiably upset', so telling him not to be encases his emotion, out-of-control or not.
That said, at the same time the empathy factor discussed in Alone's own post (not to mention a number of others) is to comprehend what your actions do to others. When she (or he) asks you not to be angry, is it with teary eyes and shaking voice? Is it backed away or ready to run? Then you've got a problem, mate.
The problem with assuming (1) my anger and what I do while angey can't possibly be unjustified, or (2) your anger is unjustified and needs to be adjusted to my demands, is that either one lacks empathy, and does nothing to actually alleviate the problem in the first place: why are you angry?
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 10:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"On her, in her, out of her, drug her."
"...a million of these amendments and appendments and defendments..."
It seems TLP stands for The Last Poet.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 11:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rape is bad. We get it. Unfortunately you've missed every other piece of information that has been offered in this post in lieu of regurgitating the lecture on the rape culture from your women's studies class.
There's a point that has been made that I'm inclined to say is subtle, because you flew right past it. But it's not subtle. Apparently any discussion that contains the word "rape" requires lengthy diatribes about how men are inclined to rape. I'm not even going to get into a discussion about what's natural and what isn't.
I honestly believe that a guy like this (the intern mentioned in the post) could possibly commit rape. But without change or personal growth he will almost certainly be a wrecking ball through the lives of the people closest to him. Here's a guy who has trouble with understanding that other people exist. How will his family turn out?
Score: 2 (16 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 2:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Emphasis mine.
"They think that to rape or to not rape is a simple matter of opinion, a personal preference. And everyone's opinions must be respected. Morality is not relevant."
I acknowledge opinions that I do not respect. Some opinions are not worthy of honor; but to belittle or ignore them would be irresponsible and/or delusional.
Each opinion has physics behind it and the trick is to "solve for x". Or, to be direct, "Where did one start, what has or hasn't knocked into one as s/he rolls along, and what path did one travel to arrive here?". One might very well help someone become respectable by delving a bit deeper.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I forgot to put my monicker to that post on my deficient fantasy life.
To that I also want to add that the more frustrated I get with "male-female relations" the more I want to simply withdraw from any involvement. Except that I've noticed Internet porn is getting more and more aesthetically and ethically repugnant: porn is not inherently degrading to anybody, but sejaculating into somebody's eye for the camera hardly elevates anybody. (And that's just a mild example of captions for the videos that I don't click on.)
Men are socially trained to be repulsive and exploitative; I wonder why any woman would cooperate. Are their drug problems THAT bad?
As for "if it's ever okay to rape," this is one example of why I'm afraid that Anarchism will never work in real life: contrary to what a bandana-wearing teenboy might think, anarchy does NOT mean "everybody for themselves doing whatever they want." Rather anarchy, because there would be no cops and judges to run to and because "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," would require each of us to develop and practice very strict self-control of our own behavior toward others.
Of course getting anywhere close to that would put an awful lot of cops, "lawmakers," judges, prison guards and forensic psychiatrists out of work, which is a big part why our current American society encourages people to be so ugly and evil. Part of this is that stronger Designated Others get selected for rape and murder, weaker ones for drug addiction and prostitution.
Old suckiness: all the world's a stage. New suckiness: the whole world is San Quentin.
Of course I fall short of my own moral standards and have plenty of room for improvement; it's not that I'm better than most people, it's that I see more clearly what "better" must be. (And by the way, Nietzsche was wrong about as often he was right: e.g., he was great at diagnosis but his prescriptions often sucked.)
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 3:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This discussion is somewhat applicable to the Ring of Gyges, as discussed in Plato's Republic:
"Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.
Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 4:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"We may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity..."
This is something I'd love to either educate people out of -- to teach that goodness is its own reward, that one should take pleasure and pride in being a good person even when the circumstances would allow you not to be -- or else inculcate the prohibition so deeply that everyone would regard goodness as necessary.
Being the kind of species we are I doubt either is really possible though, that the best we're going to get is teaching people that goodness is usually more practical and efficient -- and set up our utopia so that it actually is.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Can we agree that theft is bad (or, if you like, not beneficial for society)? ...Rape, I contend, is a sub-set of theft. What is stolen? One's ~will and sovereignty over their own person.~
Power is, by definition, the bending of others' wills to another's own. Rape, through, ~breaks~ the wills of others by disallowing rejection. (One can't really say yes if they aren't also given the opportunity to say no.)
Rape (aka will-theft) is about power, not sex. Rape is psychology, not biology.
If rape was merely a biologic response to stimuli, rapists would recoil upon feeling that the target is on her period, seeing that the target has a STD, etc. and rub one out instead.
Power, on the other hand, requires mastery over another. (The rapist says "Period? Great, no chance of kids! STD? Fine, I'll cum on your face, whore." The mammal says in both cases, "Erm, never mind.")
The question, then, is this: who implied that you are powerless? Where did that lie come from? Who/whatever it was, they/it are no friend of yours and aren't worth listening to.
Score: 0 (10 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 6:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
P.S. Negotiation trumps the will-bending of power and the will-breaking of rape, *every time*.
Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 7:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I disagree. Of course rape is 'psychology' but psychology is also biology. The desire for power (if that's all that rapists feel) is biology.
Rape is a part of our evolutionary history, and can be seen in many non-human animals, including other primates.
Don't think I am trying to say rape is somehow acceptable because it is 'natural' but it does have a long history as a way for inadequate male genes to continue into the next generation.
Score: -1 (11 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
THANK YOU. that's all i could think this whole time. i could i even be homophobic if i have a vagina? in general practices the pronoun 'he' is used when the gender of the individual is not known, or there is a generic ideal. This doesn't apply to slang directed at men!
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 9:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"I'm nearly 80 years old. I'm about to depart.
"Looking back at my past, I can see that in my early youth, I chose a bad path which led me to ruin myself.
"My behavior was influenced by print, mass-media and bad examples which are followed by the majority of young people without even thinking. And I did the same. I was not worried.
"There were a lot of generous and devoted people who surrounded me, but I paid no attention to them because a violent force blinded me and pushed me toward a wrong way of life.
"When I was 20 years-old, I committed a crime of passion. Now, that memory represents something horrible for me. Maria Goretti, now a Saint, was my good Angel, sent to me through Providence to guide and save me. I still have impressed upon my heart her words of rebuke and of pardon. She prayed for me, she interceded for her murderer. Thirty years of prison followed.
"If I had been of age, I would have spent all my life in prison. I accepted to be condemned because it was my own fault.
"Little Maria was really my light, my protectress; with her help, I behaved well during the 27 years of prison and tried to live honestly when I was again accepted among the members of society. The Brothers of St. Francis, Capuchins from Marche, welcomed me with angelic charity into their monastery as a brother, not as a servant. I've been living with their community for 24 years, and now I am serenely waiting to witness the vision of God, to hug my loved ones again, and to be next to my Guardian Angel and her dear mother, Assunta.
"I hope this letter that I wrote can teach others the happy lesson of avoiding evil and of always following the right path, like little children. I feel that religion with its precepts is not something we can live without, but rather it is the real comfort, the real strength in life and the only safe way in every circumstance, even the most painful ones of life."
Signature, Alessandro Serenelli
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 10:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not only must such opinions be belittled, but the people who utter them should be repeatedly punched in the face.
AMSL: "Rape (aka will-theft) is about power, not sex. Rape is psychology, not biology."
It's all four.
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
March 17, 2011 11:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@someone - I'm confused. What opinions should be belittled and who should get repeatedly punched in the face? And how can you respect [consider worthy of honor] an opinion you feel compelled to belittle?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 2:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This was one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
Do you think animals "recoil from a period"? Hell fucking no. Male animals mount females when they are available; the only thing which affects how voraciously they attempt to do this is whether or not the female is releasing pheromones signifying she is in heat (if the female is in heat, which is chemically indicated by pheromones, then you cannot keep the males off of her - they will fight and come around crazed. Anyone who has ever had a female animal in heat knows this is true.
All animals avoid other animals with visible signs of illness. Many STDs are not readily apparent, which is why the rapist would not stop at that. However, if you took a female who was obviously diseased and dangerous to be near, I'm sure most every potential rapist would avoid her. There would be no point, it would mean death.
However, most diseases are not extremely obvious - evolution makes sure that viruses and bacteria have a good long while leaving the host somewhat symptom free, so they can replicate and spread during that time. Once your host is incapacitated, the chances of spreading that virus dramatically is reduced. All animals avoid sick animals, it's only natural.
In short, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Rapists are motivated by biology, humans are not so much above animals that our males rape for complex psychological reasons only (but baboons and chimps rape purely for biology, duh). The psychological theories of rape are a bunch of psycho/socio ivy tower bullshit. Both women and men hate to accept the fact, rape is biological and natural (no it is NOT GOOD OR ACCEPTABLE, BUT it is biologically natural).
Score: -5 (9 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 4:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From SNAFU:
"I honestly believe that a guy like this (the intern mentioned in the post) could possibly commit rape."
...
"How will his family turn out?"
I supposed to care how the intern's family will turn out? I'm still stuck on wondering how many rape victims he might have out there ... You didn't even start to wonder about how his possible victim's life turned out before thinking about his family (i.e. his life). It's a little like you forgot that a women who suffered through a crime exists at all in YOUR OWN argument.
Empathy for the rape victim was a large (subtle?) part of the post and yet, you flew right past it.
"There's a point that has been made that I'm inclined to say is subtle, because you flew right past it."
Um, yeah.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 9:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> Rape (aka will-theft) is about power, not sex. Rape is psychology, not biology.
As they say over Wikipedia, [Citation needed]. I know absolutely nothing about this, other than having had consensual "rough" (handcuffs, that sort of thing) sex with very specific predetermined rules over things that will not go on, and, most importantly, safeword -- words which when spoken stop the whole game. SSC power exchange between adults can be very erotic and satisfying, particularly when partners get to know each others' triggers and desires. I'm just disclaiming this so I don't get branded as a rapist somehow.
But I'm bothered by this comment, because it's a common catchphrase -- common enough to become memetic, to be repeated without being questioned. And the way you modified it exposes the broken logic behind it.
You first redefined a phenomenological entity -- something that happens in the real world -- to be a relationship between two mental constructs: theft of will. "Will" is more or less defined, but isn't any form of sedation -- even antipsychotics in a hospital-level dose -- a blockage of will? And what's"theft" anyway? Does the rapist go away with his victim's will when he's done and goes away?
This is akin to what austrian economists do when they define "inflation" as "increase in the money supply". And then make monetary economics vanish as a discipline by the magic wand of facetious renaming.
Second of all, [citation needed] indeed. Is there significant evidence in the scientific literature that would point out to rape occurrences not being correlated to unsatisfied sex drive? I'm not saying someone being horny and frustrated justifies rape, I'm just saying it isn't clear in my mind that excess sex drive is completely unrelated to rape, particularly because violence can be erotic to some. (Again, my experience is strictly SSC, and I've had good scenes interrupted because a woman in tears turns me off).
Do we even have correlative evidence saying that, for example, dopamine levels correlate better with rape than testosterone levels? Or some other specific hypothesis formulated in specific terms to support "rape is more about power than sex"? If there is such a literature, then my whole position on the subject may be reversed.
This is very important, because if you're right, the correct treatment for rapists (other than the criminal punishment society may will to exert) may be antipsychotics and aversion therapy, not the more common chemical castration. Actually, the latter only makes sense if rape *is* about sex.
My personal take, at least when I try to put myself in the shoes of a rapist, is that it's the result of an excessively high, not fully sated sex drive, combined with a psychotic disorder that scrambles self-control and an appreciation of the fact that others are individuals too, and have a right not to partake in acts that the rapist may be craving. I have no reason to believe otherwise, so far. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 10:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"If all the websites I've visited are any indication, Western men are not troubled by rape at all. They think that to rape or to not rape is a simple matter of opinion, a personal preference. And everyone's opinions must be respected. Morality is not relevant.
I honestly have no idea how our societies are able to function without African levels of mass rape."
Have you considered the possibility that the reason you have "no idea" about this is because you're a fucking idiot?
Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"My personal take, at least when I try to put myself in the shoes of a rapist, is that it's the result of an excessively high, not fully sated sex drive, combined with a psychotic disorder that scrambles self-control and an appreciation of the fact that others are individuals too, and have a right not to partake in acts that the rapist may be craving. I have no reason to believe otherwise, so far."
Considering you understand the sexual arousal that often comes out of violence "nonconsent", power plays etc--- I'm suprised you wouldn't consider that is probably a big part of it for some people. I think when guy realize the idea of hurting someone makes them really horny they often think bad of themselves and don't realize they could create a purposeful power play with someone who wants it. But if for them the turn on is knowing they are forcing pain/pleasure/arousal/broken will/fear/submission and a whole world of emotions on a person who CAN'T handle it--- then consensual play won't cut it.
Some people don't have any desire to stop at tears. That's where the fun begins. I recognize this post is directed more toward people who "wouldn't rape like that" but just like the idea of getting away with it. I'm glad the idea that a lot of guys would stop at crying.
I always thought the point of sex was to cause unbearable pain and get off watching that in someone. I hope my perception is grossly off. It's very hard to not suspect that deep down that's what all guys want whether they acknowledge it in themselves or not. Maybe it's not what all guys want, that would be very nice for the world. Beause it seemed to be in all the guys I cared about I just gave up and accepted that was what guys really want. And if it was what guys really want, I just forgave them for having that.
While I am CERTAIN it's not part of some guys make up--- for myself I just have no idea how you could ever know. And I've seen to many people that I think THOUGHT they were going to be good people and messed up. I don't want to give any more "good people" the opportunity to mess up.
I like this piece though because it's possible that a lot of guys don't even realize that rape fanatsies might involve a lot of crying and screaming and unbearable sorrow and things that you would hope no one would want to cause another person to go through. I like to think most people couldn't really do that seeing someone being in a lot of pain. But I wonder if the scenario were: Someone else tied a chick up and left her there in the middle of nowhere and you're walking by. How many guys would have their way with her before rescuing her if they knew she wouldn't know who did it?
I have so little faith in humanity.
A LOT of people think violence and violation and domination are hot. Both BDSM folks and people who just like a little extra excitement in the bedroom. If you're going to say rape is just about "power" then you have to realize that our sexual urges also inherently involve power play.
Will she submitt? How to I get her to submitt. She's a little scared, but I can tell she's horny, where I can I push her so she'll break.
Breaking someone's will is often part of sexual interactions. They aren't finely cut and seperate.
Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 12:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"...I AM A WOMAN."
I'm not sure what's worse: that you personalized this wildly hypothetical situation or that you were that offended by not being included as the imaginary victim.
The point was victimization, which is why the counter-argument was about assault on a male (specifically the intern of the radio show). Most women who read this didn't have the same reaction you did.
Conversely, I am deeply disturbed by the tree-falling-in-the-woods analogy, because I AM A TREE.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 12:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don’t know. This got me thinking. I know this post is partly to do with the dangers of fantasy influencing perceptions and actions (and inactions). And partly to do with narcissism - the lack of seeing a woman as anything other than a prop fuels the rape fantasy. Because in the fantasy, for most, it isn’t a rape but a way of making her accept/enjoy you without risk of rejection. I think one of the points made is that many fantasies include this type of misperception that makes it more difficult for the fantasizer to relate to real life and more importantly, to other real people in their lives.
However, the issue that TLP chose to communicate his points was rape. This is a topic that stirs up strong emotions. Is rape about power? Is it about sex? Control? Anger? Vengeance? Victory? What are most fantasies about, anyway? Can’t the same principals apply to a lot of them? And if we live in our own heads long enough without the stabilizing influence of other human beings and real life, do we start to think the real world should reflect the leading role we’ve created in our own minds? And that other people are as empty as the characters we manipulate there?
I like the lesson in sympathy/empathy. The majority of fantasies will not include violating a victim; they are about getting the girl. If the person having the fantasy is unable to admit to that difference in his own head and understand why his fantasy differs from the reality of rape then there is a problem. What would help me understand this better is if you answered this: Are these people more dangerous because maybe they find a girl who is too intoxicated to say no – after all, no chance of rejection, no fighting, no screaming. Or maybe one day those years of fantasy have changed their perceptions so much that once the rage gets loose they think that the crying and the fighting are normal precursors to her liking it at the end – after all, she’s not really a person anyway. Or is this person less dangerous because they won’t ever have the power/drive to act in reality?
I know that what I think - and how much time I spend thinking it rather than doing -informs who I am. No, it's not always pretty. This helps me see the things I need to work on. Thanks for helping me, TLP.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 12:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I also do think it would seem strange to give women a complete pass on having rape fantasies and seeing men as evil for having them. If they are so common for men and women, then, what is up with that?
I think the same questions that are posed here for men who think they have rape fantasies but are actually fantasizing about consensual sex they are afraid to seek would apply to women have the same fantasies. If you want to be over powered why? Do you really want to be hurt or do you want to be loved and to trust in someone elses power and feel safe?
If you want to be hurt, I think women would have the same ethical responsability to choose voluntary "nonconsent" roleplay that men who want to hurt have (or whatever gender either role is in).
If a woman really does "go out to be raped" on purpose and then doesn't push charges and acts like she likes it or whatever then what does that teach that rapist about the next victim? And how is it ethical to purposefully enable a rapist doing something that causes great pain? Is that ok?
I really don't have answers, this subject confuses me to no end. But it seems like there has to be a way to get to the heart of what these fantasies are about and empowering people to seek what they REALLY want--- and to remain ethical to their fellow human beings while doing so, without badgering everyone for having fantasies that are apparently very wide spread in both men and women.
I think the original post here is a step in the right direction with that.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
> Will she submitt? How to I get her to submitt. She's a little scared, but I can tell she's horny, where I can I push her so she'll break.
First of all, sexual power play isn't really about power -- it's about role playing, about letting oneself loose from the identities we play day to day. That's why so many people into sexual power play are "switches" -- that is, they enjoy playing both as submissives as dominants.
Besides, a good deal of the thrill in such games is in the very idea that someone is willing to engage you on those terms. For me, playing with a submissive is in part a form of getting a deep sense of approval. Hell, just flirting across a crowded room (like I'm doing right now) and making playful eye contact is a form of getting and giving tokens of approval.
A rational person doesn't get that from forcing someone into getting your way – the rape victim will be screaming her non-approval out loud. But the rapist will be deluded enough to think that she didn't push him back hard enough.
There was a song with a title like "I wanna be adored". If I was ever to produce a "Law and Order: SVU" episode with a rape scene, I'd use that song.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 11:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
AHEM
Can't we agree that regardless of the sexes of the perpetrator and victim, regardless of where the desire to rape comes from, regardless of how things are done among four-footed mammals, regardless of whether it's a matter of "slave morality" or of "property rights," rape is wrong and one should not do it?
Hillel's negative formulation is easier to practice: "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."
All those people who won't mind being raped raise your virtual hands.
See? There's nothing complicated about it.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wouldn't mind being raped.
Score: 0 (12 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 11:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"That's clearly not what I was talking about. If you had read further than that one quote you would have seen that I said "FROM AN OUTSIDER'S POINT OF VIEW" my actions would have been indistinguishable from the Nice Guy who is being manipulative.
"I can see how it would make you antsy, but I don't think she was directing it at the kind of people who maybe take longer to want a serious relationship with someone."
But the woman can't know that because she can't read my mind. Because we live in a misandrist culture that always tells women stories about how evil men are, many women will default to assume the worst. Hell the only place anyone can even point this kind of thing out is semi-anon on the interwebs. Don't dare do it IRL."
You said before that you don't get angry when a girl you've known rejects you (or whatever, doesn't do what you wanted, doesn't reward your niceness), you said you get crushed. Crushed is anger turned inwards against yourself. You hope she will see how dejected she's made you and (realising how much you care for her) reconsider her rejection.
In either case, what you say now reads like you've switched from crushed to angry. If you're crushed OR angry then that reads "my expectations have been violated" or in more details "I was a nice guy to her, she owes me." That's passive aggressive.
Now, for a guy who (by his judgement) is being the epitome of a decent bloke it is almost unthinkable that you're wrong in doing this. You probably tell yourself that women are crazy, they just want assholes who treat them rough. They'll learn one day, you'll be popular with women once they get over those asshole guys and grow up. Once they learn what really counts. But you've probably been thinking that for years, and how old are you now?
Women don't want assholes, they're not stupid. But they don't want sycophants. They (just like you) are attracted to particular types of personalities and interests and all the things that define men as unique individuals. Stop focussing on being nice to her (focusing on what defines her and building that up) and walk through the world being yourself and focusing with a balance between yourself and others, neither an asshole or a nice guy, but just being you.
I know because I'm a reformed nice guy. Have the balls to admit it and you'll be much healthier and happy for it.
TLP: Best article on narcissism yet. Highlighted the source of dysfunction nicely, awesome read (even if it does ring a little close to home at times).
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
March 18, 2011 11:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, you are indeed a fucking idiot. Admitting the problem is the first step towards recovery.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
March 19, 2011 9:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
>The point Ron made was, "so if a couple of my boys from the west village rape you in the ass, and inject you with the drug, that's ok?"
This is the only point of substance in the entire exerciseAnd it can be adressed quite simply.
I would personally not be okay to that scenario because in considering it I cannot help but have knowledge of it.
The integral precept of this scenario is "if you wouldn't remember it afterwards" but just posing that scenario to someone forces them to take it from teh point of view that they DID infact remember that they had been raped, or otherwise have received knowledge that they have been raped.
If it were possible to actually consider what it would be like to be ignorant then one should be indifferent.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
March 20, 2011 12:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Fantasy is Fantasy. Rape is RAPE! Is there really anyone who does not understand the difference?
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
March 21, 2011 11:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Saying, "if you could rape a girl, but then give her this magic drug that left her with no memory of the rape, would you do it?" does not equal rape. There is no crime. There is no victim. Those are words. Instead of mourning hypothetical victims think about the real people.
"It's a little like you forgot that a women who suffered through a crime exists at all in YOUR OWN argument."
NO ONE WAS RAPED!
Rapes occur every day, but no one was raped here. This is about a shallow guy, who said something moronic on the radio. You assume because he said the word rape that he is a rapist. If you are so concerned for the non-existent victim then I'd like to know what you did for her. Did you call the radio station and find out his name and report him to the police? If you did not do that then you are worse than everyone else commenting here. You believe an actual crime took place and have enough evidence to back it up. But you do nothing except volley idiocy across the internet.
The point of this post was not about rape, the evils of rape, the people who commit rape, rape victims, sympathy for the victims, and especially not about sympathy for a rapist. And few people could conceive that it was. It's about a guy who could conceivably, possibly rape a woman. Nothing in this shows that he did rape someone or that he definitely will. But this guy (the intern) is likely the kind of self-centered monster that will ruin the lives of others. The lives of the people in his family are not his life. They are individuals who exist apart from him.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
March 22, 2011 5:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I know the popsicleogists will say you're running the scenarios to make yourself feel better, but they are what's holding you back.
I'd like to know how you can seriously believe having a fantasy about raping a woman is the same as a fantasy of controlling the Tardis?
Isn't that a consensus fallacy, too? Where is the evidence that a "bad fantasy" is equal to a "good fantasy"? Where is the evidence that fantasy is somehow less important than reality, or vice versa?
The "science" certainly doesn't support that position. For every article about the negative aspects of fantasy, there's a positive one, so if anything, psychology/psychiatry is ambivalent towards fantasy.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 24, 2011 8:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Would I? To be honest. I don't know, because I have no such pill. I mean I do fantasize about things and feel things. It's like porn, it's instanced. *Click* the instance is on, *click* the instance is gone.
I have found a number of things in my life that I have thought of doing that I haven't when I've had the chance. So no, I can't be sure that I would. I have to admit, most of the time see strange women as instances. I start thinking it's a shame I propably will never have sex with them. Why? First off, there's the mother of my child, who I really love - as much as it is possible for me. I find myself thinking all the time if I would cheat on her if I had the chance. I'm being proactive, I don't get myself in to those situations that could lead to anything.
I understand, how the instanced differs from the reality. There's nothing instanced in the real world. One would like to think like that if he / she wants something bad enough, and people really lie themselves into believing it. Just one drink. Just one smoke. Just one fuck. Most of the time there's no such thing as "just one". Not for me atleast.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 27, 2011 1:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Serious question: So, I know I'm missing something, but this "popsicleogist" thing has me fascinated. Alas, it seems to be an invention in this blog post? I'm decent with the Google but can't find much reference besides the posting and medsvstherapy's comment. But something about this fantasy world is interesting... would like to understand it more. Where can I get a better handle on the phenomenon?
The fact that TLP invented a word and it's been used/riffed on by others tells me it's common enough... and the fact that I still have trouble grasping it tells me it's significant.
Thank you. Seriously.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2011 1:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
popsicleologist is a play on the phrase pop psychology. It is particularly clever because a popsicle is something you give a child to placate it and soothe its hurt feelings and keep it from having a meltdown... this is similar to the way a pop psychology book tells you fluffy things which may ultimately prevent you from maturing or taking difficult actions/responsibility.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2011 5:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd just like to point out a minor flaw in your analogy. It doesn't change the point you were making, but the mechanical pressure wave that's created -is- sound. Sound isn't produced in our ears in response to the pressure waves, sound itself is the pressure waves.
-=Pedantic rant to follow=-
The philosophical question of a tree falling in a forest with no observers doesn't hold up to modern science, actually. If you ask 'does it make a sound' the answer is undeniably yes, because two bodies impacting will produce sound, even in a vacuum (the sound waves will be confined to the bodies themselves, but still there). It does not produce auditory sensation, but that's not the same as sound.
The only way I could see that it stands up to scrutiny is if you say that without an observer, it cannot be conclusively shown that the PARTICULAR tree in question does or does not make a sound. This is true... kind of: it relies upon a loophole in the scientific method in that things that are not observed cannot have been stated to be true, which is technically correct... if your only experience with falling trees was the singular tree in question. As it is, there has never (to my knowledge) been an example of a tree that was not observed to make a sound when it fell, therefore I can safely assume that under all known conditions, the tree would in fact produce soundwaves as it fell, regardless of the presence or non-presence of an observer.
-=End pedantic rant=-
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
March 31, 2011 6:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"The true form of the question you are asking is, "does the ability to give a girl a forgetting pill afterwards give you the courage to try and hook up with her?" Which simplifies to: "can you live with rejection?" Solve for x: duh. "
Is there an implcation here that if you don't have much courage with the ladies you must be harboring rape fantasies ? Weird.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
April 28, 2011 7:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Men rape on a large scale only in societies where women rule the roost. In civilized countries, men in general rape very little-and women go on multi-page character assassinations of the civilized men who won't rape them by conflating them with the uncivilized men who do. Oh, and 'civilized' is a far better and more descriptive word than 'socialized,' which is probably why so few feminists ever use it. All sex is rape, there are no gray areas, a woman never changes her mind based on social situation and dontcha know.
And you all haven't even gotten to the converse-what if you raped her and no one but her cared?
Think that's obviously not a real-world possibility? Fine, but if a guy raped another guy in your thought experiment, I guarantee you that the real-world result would resemble that situation in the majority of cases. No one, or very few, would care, and unless the rapist was part of a Designated Oppressor group like Catholic priests, few to none would help you. Except of course for those evil racist prison gangs.
That's not me indulging in power fantasies. That's every guy in prison who isn't the Rape King.
'Society' is misandrist and bad for all men and women but the very few. It rules our land. Civilization is misogynist in theory but good for women and men in practice. And it is resisted by society at every opportunity.
And I can't say anything more in support of civilization than this: I would allow my own castration if in exchange women could no longer vote, serve on juries, or frivolously divorce their husbands. This world is systemically wasting its gifts, and I would see a better one before I die.
Score: -14 (16 votes cast)
April 28, 2011 7:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Too fucked up to deconstruct.
I would like to but its so crazy my troll-dar is sounding too loudly for me to concentrate.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
August 23, 2011 2:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
sav: That argument is what's been called "the standard argument", as all it is is arguing over a definition : http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
August 23, 2011 2:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
sav: That argument is what's been called "the standard argument", as all it is is arguing over a definition : http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 23, 2011 6:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
have you never considered, that some people may simply be evil and would use the pill to escape a prison sentence?
Maybe many men would, why not? Not everybody is trapped in society made guilt.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 4, 2012 2:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You clearly do not understand the enormous difference between rough sex/fantasies of being dominated and rape.
The fact that you're mixing these up in your comment is truly terrifying.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 4, 2012 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You clearly do not understand the enormous difference between rough sex/fantasies of being dominated and rape.
The fact that you're mixing these up in your comment is truly terrifying.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2012 6:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
what should be emphasized imo:
the "magic amnesia pill" is dealing only with the after-effects.
the rape itself, while happening is a timespan of pain, humiliation and other negative emotions. even if the rape victim is forgetting them afterwards, these emotions happened!
therefore the original question is not: "would you do it if nobody gets harmed?" but "would you do it if you could get away with it?".
i am mentioning this because i have the assumption that the question itself implies that only "remembered pain" is real pain.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 18, 2012 4:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So of course my answer to the question would be 'no, of course not, i'd never commit rape'. But i found it unfair you treated the fantasy the same as you treated the action. Being that this is the internet and there is an illusion of anonymity, i'll admit that i find fictional rape sexually stimulating. I consensually roleplay such situations with my girlfriend who enjoys it as much as i do. Even so, i am not a 'dangerous minority' because i know the difference between fantasy and reality, and have no desire to hurt anyone. I guess i just wish you'd clarify your definition of 'rape fantasy' better, because i think there are probably plenty of people with a rape fetish that would answer no to that question.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 3, 2012 11:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I would just like to point out that the tree does still make a noise. Noises to not nead to be heard to exist. Rape needs to be nonconsentual to be rape. Moden laws allow consent to be revoked after the fact - if the woman decides the next morning that she did not want sex, she can lay a charge of rape. If she forgets the event happened, she cannot lay the charge - but similarly she cannot give consent. The rape will still have occurred but there will be no consequence for the rapist. The consequences for society may be large.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 19, 2012 3:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
reading this the first time it made good sense to me, but I didn't think it applied much to me, since I would have never consciously accepted such a ridiculously morally-nihilistic idea. That, and feminism (specifically a sort of post-structuralist critical approach) has always seemed pretty clearly accurate based on the rest of my ethics. but I had no idea how much this article would end up relating to my life. all of that part of me was buried deep in my unconscious mind, repressed/suppressed for more than a decade.
re-reading this, a bit more in touch with the shadow after some digging, (makes me think of Tool's 'Forty-six and 2'). Fully aware that the rage is entirely linked to this...frankly, alien feeling. It feels like introject, and it makes me...sick. felt it all at once, hit me like a punch in the gut, not at all pleasant. this was all at first brought on by depression, which caused me to do this searching. aggression directed at the self; repressed aggression due to past trauma, became the picture.
but the realisation feels like the beginning of an opportunity to alchemically change that energy. lead into gold, 'let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded (fated anger) (anchor) into gold' (from their song 'The Grudge'). that is to say, alchemy in the sense it was meant, or at least re-interpreted by Jung. to cleanse the spirit, and unlock/unblock our potentialities to channel positivity into our intersubjective existences.
and as they said on 'Jambi', 'If wants and needs divide me, then I might as well be gone.'
taking these steps and stopping the denial of this is liberating in ways that cannot be fully explained in words. at least, I found this was the case, since these thoughts feel alien to me, and have always felt alien to me on some level the occasional times they have been hinted at in the past. some part of the self was split off in the past, due to some trauma, that I don't want to go into, and I don't yet fully understand. re-integrating that is not easy, but it is worth getting uncomfortable for. the first step towards liberating oneself from this sickness, this Wetiko psychosis, cannibal sickness, is to recognize how this darkness is not of our own making entirely, especially when we do not let it out into the world.
this is a spiritual disease with a physical vector, and many of us experience these kinds of ethical ambivalences which we manage to keep in repression (most of the time). perhaps we need to expunge this influence from our psyches in order to become truly mentally free. (see Jack D. Forbes' Text, 'Columbus and Other Cannibals', for an unusual critical perspective on evil in our world).
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 2, 2013 10:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just discovered your blog yesterday in am reading all those posts from way back.
I like your style. Although my opinion differs, I like how you frame your thoughts, it is engaging.
This post was special though. Because your whole point of view is psychological. That's tremendously fascinating. I will explain why.
See: The host's question, it is an old one. He's only a radio show host and not a philosopher, so he framed it too simple.
He made a serious error by saying the pill is to make her forget what happenend.
Why? Let me explain. When talking this way about doing wrong things, there are basically to interesting questions - those are the old ones:
1. If you where 100% sure that not only will no one hold you responsible but no one even know about it - would you do?
2. If you could do it, but in such a way, that all the negative consequences are deleted, that there is no victim, would you do it?
Now the pill that makes her forget, it's neither 1 nor 2. But which one did he mean? We don't know. The way he framed it, it's a little bit of both:
She can't remember,
- that's no 2, but not all the way, because she still suffers while its happening
- that's no 1, but not all the way, because someone could have watched or genetic proof could be found.
So I, the way I think and the way I argue would *always* want the host to claryfy what did he mean, 1 or 2. You instead take him at face value and argue his case, which is philisophically and morally totally uninteresting - of course it is wrong - and argue the little bit of both approach. Fascinating. And dangerous.
Because I think most people would instinctively do what I have done thinking about that question: Their minds would know that at face value that question is not a hard one, it is wrong to make others suffer and as far as they know themselves, they therefore would not do it. So their minds would assume that's obviously not what was meant and they will instead argue question no 2: If you could do something that under normal circumstances is against your moral code in such a way, that there is no victim or disadvantage to anyone (but you) would you do it? In this case: 'rape' - or more precisely: 'an act, that without the pill would be called rape'. Careful not to put those people in the "in your mind you're a rapist"-group!
[I give you a less emotional (and less absurd) example:
Euro bills (and I guess dollar also) are regulary printed new in exchange for old ones that are destroyed. If you could - without anyone noticing - take one hundred dollars out of the bills that are about to be destroyed, would you do it?]
As I said. Your reasoning is great to follow. Let me try your psychological way: Let's get back to 'the act, that without the pill would be called rape' and let's assume there is a pill. Not the show host's flawed pill, but one the completely 'unvictimizes' the 'entity otherwise called victim', like a combination of a drug that 'really makes her want and enjoy it' and has no sideeffects but her forgetting everything. It's no longer rape (no victim), it's not really sex (no partner in any sensible sense of the world) - it's basically like fucking a really realistic robot or puppet. it's masturbation or isn't it?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 3, 2013 10:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I know this is a crazy old post.... but I just found it and wanted to point out, your entire logic is flawed from start to finish.
Your argument actually unraveled the second you brought physics into it and I will easily explain to you why.
First of all you must realize that the word rape, is not just some black and white word with a single meaning.
I frequently hear things like "that video game just raped me" or "you paid how much for that? you got raped".
My reason for pointing this out is simple... use of the word rape does not imply "sex against someones will". The word has more meanings than that.... whether you like it or not.
Now lets use your argument
The intern says that as long as she never finds out, she can't judge it as rape. He's arguing that moral questions ("this is rape/ this isn't rape") are different than technical questions ("I penetrated her/ I didn't penetrate her.") There's no such thing as objective morality, society merely agrees on some rules-- and since she can't remember, she can't judge it.Fine; but he is a person, and he remembers it, and he was there. So it is still rape. He might try and rationalize that he doesn't think it's rape, but then he'd be lying: the question he asked used the word rape.
Rape as a violent sexual act - is actually something based entirely on perspective and can truly only be defined by the person on the receiving end of the rape.
Take the following example into consideration: A woman is tied up, she is beaten with a whip until she has cuts covering most of her body; she is screaming, crying and begging for it to end; she is forced to engage in intercourse; then she is released at which point she goes to the police and reports it.... as rape.
She perceived it as rape... and thus it is rape. Not because the guy involved believed it was rape... ONLY because she did....
Now lets look at the same example in a different light: A woman is tied up, she is beaten with a whip until she has cuts covering most of her body; she is screaming, crying, and begging for it to end; she is forced to engage in intercourse; then she is released at which point she looks up at her lover and says "thank you master".... she was in a consenting bdsm relationship.
The EXACT same two situations.... to the letter... one is rape... the other is not. Why? Because the "victim" decides what is rape and what is not.... NOT the acts of sex or violence.
In fact there is a common term in bdsm known as a "slave rape" in which a "slave" is taken sexually whether they like it or not... but because they accept it as part of their relationship and lifestyle it is NOT rape by any means.
So back to your original claim.... Actually you will find the intern entirely correct.... as long as she never finds out, she can't judge it as rape and if she can't judge it as rape.... its NOT rape.... its simply the perception there of.
Score: -5 (7 votes cast)
February 4, 2013 9:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well to start with, yes, the word "rape" DOES imply sex against someones will. It's right there in the dictionary, and the only definition I could find that might line up with your colloquial definition was "to violate, plunder, despoil, to abuse violently" which is actually kind of funny when you consider which idea that better describes.
Still, that's not actually the truth I'm here today to call notice to!
What I find interesting is the fact that you don't feel it 'counts' that the woman being raped is strongly opposed to it during the act. Instead it is only after the event that she is allowed to voice her displeasure, and that displeasure can be neatly invalidated by forcing her to swallow a pill that makes her forget.
But tell me, while a person is forcing themself on her, are they not acutely aware of how she feels?
This can't be written off as playful angry sex, nor as a BDSM session, both of those require intimate trust and understanding between the individuals involved. Not something you will find with a stranger on the street, or a platonic classmate.
No, once they've started, the instant she started to fight back or beg them to stop, they would have no choice to realize that what was going on is indeed rape. That she had instantly judged their actions as rape. So why would it be okay then for a pill to magically invalidate her previous judgment?
Well... I wonder if its because you think deep down, like a BDSM slave who has given herself up to a master, she wants it.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
February 5, 2013 12:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I know there are nice men, truly good and kind men, one of them is my husband. But I have also experienced the depredations of cruel men. One thing a lot of men fail to realize is how frightening they can be to women,to what degree can sometimes be affected by previous experience.
It hard for men and women to argue about tiny nuances involving hypothetical questions because of such different personal experiences.
When I read this blog my first feeling was fear. There are men who would say yes to that question. Whether the specific person described in the blog would or would not is moot. But there are also many others who would be revolted and horrified by such a question.
The idea that fantasies are preventing us from living our lives can be true depending on what degree we are talking about. Certainly fantasies that are preventing us from forming healthy, caring relationships are destructive.
To nice guy: when I say "don't get angry" it may not have anything specifically to do with you, I'm afraid of male anger because of previous experiences I have had. But even so nice guys who are patient and caring and kind do wind up in happy relationships. True kindness is hard to fake and if someone doesn't recognize that in you maybe they just aren't perceptive enough.
It's too bad arguments here seem to be tinged with anger. Everybody really knows what rape is. But there is still plenty of hope for the human race.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
April 1, 2013 7:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's the point if she doesn't remember?
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
June 22, 2013 1:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What YOU don't understand is how frightening women can be to men.
Rejection from women is the #1 fear of straight men, and that causes insecurities so strong they shape everything about how they act, sometimes causing them to act in ways that are frightening to women...
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
June 22, 2013 2:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have a friend who's so irrationally afraid of dogs she behaves in frightening ways. So what?
Being so irrationally afraid of rejection that you equate it with bodily harm and death, and demanding that everyone forgive your criminal behavior based on this phobia, is the equivalent of severe, impairing, dangerous-to-others, mental illness. It is not the definition of manhood. Grow the fuck up.
Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
June 22, 2013 2:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If what you are saying is that the #1 fear of straight men is rejection from women, then they are insecure to begin with. That fear does not *cause* insecurity; the insecurity OBVIOUSLY already existed.
"...sometimes causing them to act in ways that are frightening to women." Really? I would agree with ST - not sure WHAT that is, but it's not manhood. Maybe if you weren't okay with frightened women you wouldn't have to worry about women who reject you either.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 21, 2014 12:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If there was a pill to make rape victims forget, rape would still be wrong but rape jokes would suddenly become okay.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 21, 2014 6:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This isn't a hypothetical question. Rohypnol does exactly that, and as the empirical evidence shows, a frightening number of men will.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 4, 2014 1:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd like to give her this hypothetical pill for a very different reason; after a very different event - and, at least in this case, I'm almost certain I'm not Alone.
Seems to come a point when 'she' decides that he - 'I' - is suddenly and forever beyond romantic consideration, just like 'that'. Many call this 'getting friend-zoned'; though the term avoids mentioning or implying the apparently irrevocable nature of this moment, it is unerringly inferred.
It is at [or just prior to] this moment - the 'friend-zoning' - that I'd give her this pill (which is obviously NOT rohypnol for these purposes).
I don't want the pill so I can get away with doing anything wrong.
I want a 2nd chance to get things RIGHT.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Comments