#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[woolfe9998]

Oh gawd YES!! :thumbsup:

Now if only more people would subscribe to this simple, effective logic. Unfortunately, certain crowds have a vested interest in avoiding it. To them, warning others of danger is to somehow shame those who failed to avoid that danger. It also absolves that group of any responsibility to even try to avoid that danger, and accept no responsibility for the consequences.

It's the classic "lock your door to avoid a thief" example. Do what you can to avoid what you can - don't be a squishy easy target begging to be taken advantage of by leaving your door unlocked AND obviously ajar. Bad things happen to everyone, not just those who claim eternal victimhood, but they'll happen more often to those who refuse to do anything to avoid it.

The confusion lies in conflating the notion of moral blame, which has to do with what's right and wrong, with the concept of fault which could be described as negligently subjecting oneself or others to a risk. With rape, the moral blame is entirely on the rapist, but it's possible for the victim to have been careless. The two have nothing whatever to do with one another, and the presence of the one does not diminish the presence of the other. The victim has no moral blame whatsoever, but depending on circumstances, one might fairly observe that the victim could have been more cautious.

I disagree with Spungo's suggestion that "blame" is not 100% one way or another, but can be shared between attacker and victim. They are different kinds of "blame" entirely and are not shared at all. Some people think if you observe that the victim could have been more careful, you are trying to lessen the moral culpability of the rapist, but that is not necessarily the case. Carelessness on the part of the victim doesn't make the perpetrator one iota less morally culpable. Only if someone suggests that it is OK to target a careless victim is it objectionable. Avoiding this confusion can alleviate some of the rancor and controversy over these kinds of issues.

 

[jackstar7]

The confusion lies in conflating the notion of moral blame, which has to do with what's right and wrong, with the concept of fault which could be described as negligently subjecting oneself or others to a risk. With rape, the moral blame is entirely on the rapist, but it's possible for the victim to have been careless. The two have nothing whatever to do with one another, and the presence of the one does not diminish the presence of the other. The victim has no moral blame whatsoever, but depending on circumstances, one might fairly observe that the victim could have been more cautious.

I disagree with Spungo's suggestion that "blame" is not 100% one way or another, but can be shared between attacker and victim. They are different kinds of "blame" entirely and are not shared at all. Some people think if you observe that the victim could have been more careful, you are trying to lessen the moral culpability of the rapist, but that is not necessarily the case. Carelessness on the part of the victim doesn't make the perpetrator one ioto less morally culpable. Only if someone suggests that it is OK to target a careless victim is it objectionable. Avoiding this confusion can alleviate some of the rancor and controversy over these kinds of issues.

Excellent post.

 

[Blue_Max]

I disagree with Spungo's suggestion that "blame" is not 100% one way or another, but can be shared between attacker and victim.

I don't think that's quite what he was going for... maybe it came across that way because neither of us were specific about it.

They are different kinds of "blame" entirely and are not shared at all. Some people think if you observe that the victim could have been more careful, you are trying to lessen the moral culpability of the rapist, but that is not necessarily the case. Carelessness on the part of the victim doesn't make the perpetrator one iota less morally culpable. Only if someone suggests that it is OK to target a careless victim is it objectionable.

Agreed - no problem with this at all. :thumbsup:
[EDIT] In fact, I think the more a victim does to detract & fight back a criminal - it makes the perpetrator MORE culpable!
In my earlier example of breaking into a home. If the door is unlocked and ajar, the criminal gets a little empathy for how easy the victim made the crime - almost inviting it. If the door is locked and the criminal smashes his way in, it's no longer just a crime of opportunity, it's with full intent and is looked at with more severity. The first victim also won't receive as much sympathy as the second. That's just the nature of it all. The criminal is still the criminal, the victim is still a victim... but they're viewed juuuuust a little differently. Not night and day - but just a little, and that lends itself to how harshly the criminal will be punished.

The femi-SJW crowd wants to make it so the first victim receives all the sympathy (and none of the blame) like the second receives, which is a little off-balance.

Avoiding this confusion can alleviate some of the rancor and controversy over these kinds of issues.

I wish. Unfortunately, the mere suggestion of how one can try to avoid bad situations (not JUST rape, which is a LOT rarer than they say it is) will cause the zealots to rage. I remember this same zealotry when discussing some girls being abducted into the sex trade by being tricked onto an airplane for a "modeling career" by a nice-sounding woman. Despite it being a female-run slave trade, the usual zealots still blamed men from top to bottom. I tried to discuss the wisdom of getting on a plane without even checking out the offer in question is dangerously foolish and others should exercise a little more caution to avoid being a hapless victim. (You can imagine how I was blasted for "victim-shaming" there.)

What the feminist crowds refuse to believe is that criminals are criminals and will be criminals. Nothing will stop that. It's not all the other stuff they've concocted about it; it's not MEN, it's not 'toxic masculinity', it's not 'learned behaviour'...

There's a (growing) handful of scummy people out there that are going to do terrible things no matter what the education system changes, posters and TV ads say men SHOULD be, etc. These are the murderers and rapists - not all men at large or patriarchy, etc.

There is no rape culture, just like there isn't a murder culture. We know it's wrong and it's punished severely. Some psychos are going to do it anyway. All we can do is try to avoid the worst of it by making some sensible choices, including fighting back when necessary.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think that's quite what he was going for... maybe it came across that way because neither of us were specific about it.


Agreed - no problem with this at all. :thumbsup:



I wish. Unfortunately, the mere suggestion of how one can try to avoid bad situations (not JUST rape, which is a LOT rarer than they say it is) will cause the zealots to rage. I remember this same zealotry when discussing some girls being abducted into the sex trade by being tricked onto an airplane for a "modeling career" by a nice-sounding woman. Despite it being a female-run slave trade, the usual zealots still blamed men from top to bottom. I tried to discuss the wisdom of getting on a plane without even checking out the offer in question is dangerously foolish and others should exercise a little more caution to avoid being a hapless victim. (You can imagine how I was blasted for "victim-shaming" there.)

For now I'm responding only to this part of your post. I may respond to the rest separately.

I think there's some problem on both sides here. While I clearly argued in my prior post that it isn't wrong to argue that a victim could have been more cautious, I think some times the way that point is made is responsible for some of the reaction. When I said that people are conflating moral blame with fault in the sense of carelessness, I meant that both sides are doing this in the way they express their opinions. Too often, when a rape case is discussed, people will chime in with "wow that victim was an idiot for doing x" without saying much else. Without clarifying the remarks, it sounds an awful lot like they are implying the victim had it coming to them even if that wasn't stated explicitly.

There are different ways to frame an argument which may cause differing reactions from listeners. One way is to generalize the issue by analogy. You might argue, for example, if a person's house is burglarized and it turns out they left all their doors and windows unlocked, that no one would consider it controversial to point out the carelessness of the victim because taking precautions against crime - any crime - is a matter of common sense. So why should it be any different because the crime is rape? Caution is caution. By framing it that way, and also pointing out that the rapist is no less morally wrong for targeting a careless victim, you avoid the inference that you are trying to justify the act.

On the other hand, I would agree that there are certain fringy people, such as the most radical feminists, who will still say you're trying to justify the act no matter how you frame your argument. The difference is in the degree of negative reaction and how many people are taking issue with what you're saying. You can never please the radicals and extremists of any ideological ilk, but if you take care in framing your argument in the clearest possible way, you may avoid misunderstandings with people who may have strong feelings on an issue but are nonetheless capable of being rational about it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wish. Unfortunately, the mere suggestion of how one can try to avoid bad situations (not JUST rape, which is a LOT rarer than they say it is) will cause the zealots to rage. I remember this same zealotry when discussing some girls being abducted into the sex trade by being tricked onto an airplane for a "modeling career" by a nice-sounding woman. Despite it being a female-run slave trade, the usual zealots still blamed men from top to bottom. I tried to discuss the wisdom of getting on a plane without even checking out the offer in question is dangerously foolish and others should exercise a little more caution to avoid being a hapless victim. (You can imagine how I was blasted for "victim-shaming" there.)

What the feminist crowds refuse to believe is that criminals are criminals and will be criminals. Nothing will stop that. It's not all the other stuff they've concocted about it; it's not MEN, it's not 'toxic masculinity', it's not 'learned behaviour'...

I don't disagree with all of this. However, I would point out a few things. First of all, with respect to rape, it IS men. Even where men are the victims, it's usually a male perpetrator. Female rapists are extremely rare. Differences in physical strength cannot explain all of this because a rapist can use a gun, restraints, etc. to perpetrate the act even if they are physically weaker than their victim. The truth should be self-evident, that men, for whatever reason, tend to have more of an impulse to rape than do women.

If there is any doubt about this, consider, for example, Japanese porn. It frequently depicts men raping or otherwise sexually dominating women. It almost never depicts the reverse. Since supply is really a function of demand, it stands to reason that the fantasy of raping people is more common to men than it is to women.

That I don't think should be controversial. More controversial is the reason for this. I tend to agree that it isn't a learned behavior because I think the male desire for sexual dominance of women is mainly biological and rooted in evolution. We may add certain "flavors" to the rape fantasy based on cultural experience, but the basic interest in this act of sexual dominance comes mainly from biology.

The feminists might counter that Japanese culture is known to be more chauvanistic than American culture so the fact that there is so much rape in their porn proves that rape is learned. The problem is that they're messing up cause and effect. Rape porn is an effect of a pre-existing interest in sexual dominance, not necessarily a cause, and the difference in overt chauvanism between the two societies merely means there is more feminist opposition in one culture than the other, and this constrains the expression of the impulse in the culture with more feminist opposition. Either way, I think the impulse is biological. Notably, I just read a survey somewhere that says there is a growing interest among American men in Japanese porn depicting rape, meaning that the interest is cross-cultural in spite of the differences in content of the porn.

So far as violent porn, or even generally misogynistic porn (which almost all porn is) actually causing rape, the feminists are on shaky ground. Porn consumption is about 10x what is was 20 years ago because of the internet, but rape has dropped sharply during that period of time, and this is true in both the US and in Japan. I never used to believe in the catharsis hypothesis until I saw the statistics but now I am starting to believe it. While correlation doesn't prove causation, a negative correlation as strong as this certainly suggests it as a strong possibility.

In any event, no, I don't think this impulse is principally learned. I also think the impulse is very common, though it's expression as actual rape occurs in a very small percentage of those who entertain the fantasy.

So far as what society can do about it, I agree that education won't help because it is biological. Law enforcement can help. If the victims aren't blamed or treated poorly by authorities, that might increase reporting of it. Stiffer penalties can be a deterrent, as with any crime.

There's a (growing) handful of scummy people out there that are going to do terrible things no matter what the education system changes, posters and TV ads say men SHOULD be, etc. These are the murderers and rapists - not all men at large or patriarchy, etc.

There is no rape culture, just like there isn't a murder culture. We know it's wrong and it's punished severely. Some psychos are going to do it anyway. All we can do is try to avoid the worst of it by making some sensible choices, including fighting back when necessary.

I don't think it's useful to lump all crimes together. Different crimes may involve different issues, some biological and others sociological. It isn't just a matter of there inevitably being some bad people, because the prevalence of crime can differ between one society and another, and over time in the same society. So I agree with you to a point about rape, but would avoid over-simplifications.

 

[jackstar7]

I think it is worth considering that rape is a crime of power more than a crime of sex. This is more clearly on display in cases of child sexual abuse, but the dysfunction present in child or adult sexual assault is generally consistent. The mentality that must exist is one of "I want, but cannot have, but I shall take anyway." Entitlement, self-loathing, sometimes with a distortion of empathy (in survivors who become perpetrators) or sociopathy (those who cannot empathize) all likely exist before the opportunity to perpetrate the act. Rape is not an impulsive choice, it is a mindset.

A greater psychological education is what I'd like to see starting as early as third grade to get kids understanding themselves and being reflective and learning empathy before puberty kicks in and turns their world inside-out.

My point in expounding on this is to say that I do not think we have a rape culture, but I do think we have a culture that lacks for substantive introspection among individuals, and lacks in providing the education that could foster such and the empathy that ought to follow from it.

 

[Nebor]

You can usually shut down the "rape culture" dummies pretty fast by asking them if they support reducing prison sentences for rape & commuting sentences for those already in prison. After all, no one taught them not to rape. They were as much a victim of "toxic masculinity" as the women that they raped. Is it fair to imprison someone for something they had no control over?

Basically take their desire to shirk personal responsibility, amplify it and turn it on them.

 

[fskimospy]

You can usually shut down the "rape culture" dummies pretty fast by asking them if they support reducing prison sentences for rape & commuting sentences for those already in prison. After all, no one taught them not to rape. They were as much a victim of "toxic masculinity" as the women that they raped. Is it fair to imprison someone for something they had no control over?

Basically take their desire to shirk personal responsibility, amplify it and turn it on them.

I would think the easy response to that is that we have many aspects of our culture that can predispose people towards certain criminal behaviors but that doesn't mean we don't punish those crimes when they happen.

 

[Nebor]

I think it is worth considering that rape is a crime of power more than a crime of sex. This is more clearly on display in cases of child sexual abuse, but the dysfunction present in child or adult sexual assault is generally consistent. The mentality that must exist is one of "I want, but cannot have, but I shall take anyway." Entitlement, self-loathing, sometimes with a distortion of empathy (in survivors who become perpetrators) or sociopathy (those who cannot empathize) all likely exist before the opportunity to perpetrate the act. Rape is not an impulsive choice, it is a mindset.

A greater psychological education is what I'd like to see starting as early as third grade to get kids understanding themselves and being reflective and learning empathy before puberty kicks in and turns their world inside-out.

My point in expounding on this is to say that I do not think we have a rape culture, but I do think we have a culture that lacks for substantive introspection among individuals, and lacks in providing the education that could foster such and the empathy that ought to follow from it.

This is one of those things that everyone "knows." You hear it on Law and Order all the time so it must be true, right? But the truth is that this theory was pushed by a feminist writer in the 1970s. Every actual scientists that has studied rape has come to the same conclusion: The victims tend to be young, attractive women (as opposed to older, established career women, who might be physically weaker, as one might expect if it were about power) and the perpetrators tend to be those who are for various reasons undateable or unmarriageable.

At the same time, everywhere prostitution has been legalized, rape has fallen. Indicating that it is after all, about access to sex.

 

[jackstar7]

Basically take their desire to shirk personal responsibility, amplify it and turn it on them.

Can't you both drive a message of personal responsibility while also investigating and addressing motivations?

The behavior that comes to mind is smoking with the assumption that a cure for cancer will be found, rather than addressing your desire to smoke AND working towards the cancer cure.

 

[Nebor]

I would think the easy response to that is that we have many aspects of our culture that can predispose people towards certain criminal behaviors but that doesn't mean we don't punish those crimes when they happen.

Easy but not very effective. We consider mitigating circumstances when deciding punishments. Such as when a man murders his physically abusive wife.

And when the other side is making noise about "teaching all boys not to rape," it strongly implies that anyone not taught otherwise believes it's ok to rape. How can you punish someone so severely for what's considered a serious crime when they don't even know it's wrong?

 

[jackstar7]

This is one of those things that everyone "knows." You hear it on Law and Order all the time so it must be true, right? But the truth is that this theory was pushed by a feminist writer in the 1970s. Every actual scientists that has studied rape has come to the same conclusion: The victims tend to be young, attractive women (as opposed to older, established career women, who might be physically weaker, as one might expect if it were about power) and the perpetrators tend to be those who are for various reasons undateable or unmarriageable.

At the same time, everywhere prostitution has been legalized, rape has fallen. Indicating that it is after all, about access to sex.

Boy that is a jumble of logical jumps that I cannot untangle. Can you take step by step?

It's not about power because the most desirable are targeted? Career women might be physically weaker...? And what makes those perpetrators unappealing? Is it simply physically? Socially? Can you cite some sources for this? I want to be open to being persuaded from my point of view... but this just posits a counter-point without support. Give me something so I can learn.

When I take a step back from what you wrote, it strikes me as just wanting to find the simple answer and address that, rather than checking to be sure that the correlations equal causation.

 

[jackstar7]

Easy but not very effective. We consider mitigating circumstances when deciding punishments. Such as when a man murders his physically abusive wife.

And when the other side is making noise about "teaching all boys not to rape," it strongly implies that anyone not taught otherwise believes it's ok to rape. How can you punish someone so severely for what's considered a serious crime when they don't even know it's wrong?

You say "what's considered" like it is debatable as to whether rape is a serious crime. Is that just a phrasing mistake there? I don't want to jump on details like an asshole, but it struck a weird chord in my brain.

 

[fskimospy]

Easy but not very effective. We consider mitigating circumstances when deciding punishments. Such as when a man murders his physically abusive wife.

I'm not aware of any situations where we say that the culture someone grew up in would be reason to let them out of jail for committing a crime.

Seems pretty effective. Saying that 'rape culture' is a cause to not punish rapists because they can't help it is a bad argument. It's not going to win either socially or in a courtroom.

And when the other side is making noise about "teaching all boys not to rape," it strongly implies that anyone not taught otherwise believes it's ok to rape. How can you punish someone so severely for what's considered a serious crime when they don't even know it's wrong?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse; that's a foundational principle of our legal system. I'm all for trying to teach new cultural norms in this way. Just seems like the smart thing to do.

 

[Nebor]

Boy that is a jumble of logical jumps that I cannot untangle. Can you take step by step?

It's not about power because the most desirable are targeted? Career women might be physically weaker...? And what makes those perpetrators unappealing? Is it simply physically? Socially? Can you cite some sources for this? I want to be open to being persuaded from my point of view... but this just posits a counter-point without support. Give me something so I can learn.

When I take a step back from what you wrote, it strikes me as just wanting to find the simple answer and address that, rather than checking to be sure that the correlations equal causation.

Did you just discover P&N? You can take that horseshit to the Discussion Club, fancy boy.

 

[Nebor]

I'm not aware of any situations where we say that the culture someone grew up in would be reason to let them out of jail for committing a crime.

Seems pretty effective. Saying that 'rape culture' is a cause to not punish rapists because they can't help it is a bad argument. It's not going to win either socially or in a courtroom.



Ignorance of the law is no excuse; that's a foundational principle of our legal system. I'm all for trying to teach new cultural norms in this way. Just seems like the smart thing to do.

I disagree with you entirely. In particular I find your views on our legal system to be ammoniated and buttery.

 

[woolfe9998]

Boy that is a jumble of logical jumps that I cannot untangle. Can you take step by step?

It's not about power because the most desirable are targeted? Career women might be physically weaker...? And what makes those perpetrators unappealing? Is it simply physically? Socially? Can you cite some sources for this? I want to be open to being persuaded from my point of view... but this just posits a counter-point without support. Give me something so I can learn.

When I take a step back from what you wrote, it strikes me as just wanting to find the simple answer and address that, rather than checking to be sure that the correlations equal causation.

This is a false dichotomy because sexual desire is bound up with a desire for dominance (what you call power). The two need not always be linked, but they are certainly linked in many people's minds at least at times. Sexual fantasies that involve dominance of women, whether they are rape fantasies or just the typical consensual male dominance fantasies depicted in American porn, are quite prevalent among men. The fact that men may masturbate while thinking about sexual scenarios involving dominance makes it pretty clear that the dominance adds a certain spice to the fantasy, i.e. for some men it makes it "hotter" than just fantasizing about plain vanilla sex. Rape is a crime which undoubtedly arouses the perpetrator to a very great extent. They would just beat the victim up and not have sex with them if it was only about power or violence.

Nebor's statement that rape is just about sexual access I think is over-simplifying. It may well be true that rapists tend to be the type who don't get laid very often and that the victims tend to be attractive, but I think such men may harbor resentments toward attractive women who won't have sex with them, and this resentment may cause them to prefer sexual scenarios, in fantasy or reality, where they dominate, abuse, or humiliate their sex partner. This is why legalized prostitution may reduce rape but certainly won't eliminate it.

Again, we're dealing with two things - sex and dominance - which can be bound together. It isn't just one or the other.

 

[jackstar7]

That's reasonable. I can see how I was trying to disconnect things. There is certainly a relationship between the two factors. My guess is that the "balance" of them tips further towards the dominance side in those that would rape someone, and that overlooking that aspect of the psyche of someone willing to perpetrate this crime doesn't gain any insight into possible methods of prevention.

 

[Spungo]

Agreed - no problem with this at all. :thumbsup:
[EDIT] In fact, I think the more a victim does to detract & fight back a criminal - it makes the perpetrator MORE culpable!
In my earlier example of breaking into a home. If the door is unlocked and ajar, the criminal gets a little empathy for how easy the victim made the crime - almost inviting it. If the door is locked and the criminal smashes his way in, it's no longer just a crime of opportunity, it's with full intent and is looked at with more severity.

That's definitely true. We all laugh when people die as a result of doing something stupid, but it's a tragedy when an accident happens.

There is no rape culture, just like there isn't a murder culture. We know it's wrong and it's punished severely. Some psychos are going to do it anyway. All we can do is try to avoid the worst of it by making some sensible choices, including fighting back when necessary.

Here there isn't. Some countries really do have rape culture. Ironically, SJWs are the first people to scream racism when this fact is pointed out.

They do more than that. Too many Americans these days confuse Freedom with Freedom from consequences.

For whatever reason, people think laws dictate how the world works. If I get arrested by a black police officer, I have a legal right to call him the N word and tell him to go back to Africa. The law also says he's not allowed to slam my head into the hood of the car for saying that. Guess what will happen if I say that.

I think it is worth considering that rape is a crime of power more than a crime of sex.

Do you have any evidence for this? This sounds similar to saying murder is not about money but about the desire to kill someone. If I were to kill someone because they were trying to take my life savings, I would say it was 100% about money. I don't want to kill someone; it's just a means to an end. People do lots of evil things out of necessity. People backstab each other to climb the corporate ladder. Are they doing that because they want success or because they enjoy backstabbing people? Do kids steal chocolate bars because they like chocolate or because they like stealing? edit: Yes I'm aware that some people kill because they enjoy killing, and some people steal because they enjoy stealing.

A greater psychological education is what I'd like to see starting as early as third grade to get kids understanding themselves and being reflective and learning empathy

Empathy doesn't factor into this because you're assuming all people are on the same team. If you watch the video by that Elliot Rodger guy, he makes it clear that he's not on the same team as the people he killed. Those women were not his friends. Those men were not his friends. They were the enemy. They were the other team. Humans never have empathy for the other team.

And what makes those perpetrators unappealing? Is it simply physically? Socially? Can you cite some sources for this?

You're asking someone to prove that 20 year old women are more attractive than 40 and 50 year old women?

 

[jackstar7]

Do you have any evidence for this? This sounds similar to saying murder is not about money but about the desire to kill someone. If I were to kill someone because they were trying to take my life savings, I would say it was 100% about money. I don't want to kill someone; it's just a means to an end. People do lots of evil things out of necessity. People backstab each other to climb the corporate ladder. Are they doing that because they want success or because they enjoy backstabbing people? Do kids steal chocolate bars because they like chocolate or because they like stealing? edit: Yes I'm aware that some people kill because they enjoy killing, and some people steal because they enjoy stealing.

Empathy doesn't factor into this because you're assuming all people are on the same team. If you watch the video by that Elliot Rodger guy, he makes it clear that he's not on the same team as the people he killed. Those women were not his friends. Those men were not his friends. They were the enemy. They were the other team. Humans never have empathy for the other team.

You're asking someone to prove that 20 year old women are more attractive than 40 and 50 year old women?

Almost missed that you switched to my post...

Last thing first: Nope, I am not asking that. I was asking what makes the perpetrators of rape unappealing to the point where they have no recourse other than rape or prostitution. At least that's the part you quoted.

How can you say empathy doesn't factor into it and then provide an example wherein it's clear that more (any) empathy is needed? My point is that if kids were made to understand beyond their natural solipsism at an early age, they'd be less disposed to treating other people as enemies, but instead as other people.

As for traits and motives of rapists, here's what I can find to start:

http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/4/4_1.htm
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdf
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

Excerpts from the first:

Anger Rapist. Persons is this category are believed to commit rape in part as a means of expressing anger and hostility that has built up over time—not for sexual gratification, per se.

Power Rapist. As the name clearly suggests, these individuals are primarily motivated by power. Men in this subtype are interested more in having control over their victims and “possessing” them, so to speak, than they are interested in causing physical harm. Oftentimes, power rapists have problems with feeling inadequate, controlled by others, or are insecure about their masculinity, so they use rape as a means of feeling more powerful, strong, or in control. The acts are about “conquering” women to demonstrate their “manhood.”

Sadistic Rapist. Groth and his colleagues suggest that this subtype of rapists is perhaps the most dangerous. These men experience a great deal of pleasure and excitement—including sexual arousal—from inflicting harm on their victims, and enjoy watching the victim’s fear and suffering. During the rapes, these men are extremely abusive. They may restrain and torture their victims in idiosyncratic and sometimes bizarre ways. And at the most extreme end, sadistic rapists may even mutilate or kill their victims.

 

[Spungo]

How can you say empathy doesn't factor into it and then provide an example wherein it's clear that more (any) empathy is needed? My point is that if kids were made to understand beyond their natural solipsism at an early age, they'd be less disposed to treating other people as enemies, but instead as other people.

You're hoping to remove the humanity from humans. Trying to remove the us vs them mentality is just as silly as trying to pray the gay away or saying fat is sexy. No amount of brainwashing will change those things.

As for traits and motives of rapists, here's what I can find to start:

http://www.csom.org/train/etiology/4/4_1.htm
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdf
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/196

Excerpts from the first:

I always like reading studies that come from sociologists because they often have perplexing conclusions.
From the third one:

Male Sex Role Socialization:

When men are taught to be dominant and aggressive, this often leads to hyper-masculinity, male peer support for sexual aggression, development of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs (Kilmartin, 2000; Rozee & Koss, 2001). In his classic study of college date rapists, Kanin’s sample (Kanin, 1985) were significantly more sexually active, but also more sexually frustrated than controls, and believed that rape could be justified under certain conditions.

How on earth did they come to the conclusion that rape was caused by socialization and learned aggression? I would look at that and come to the exact opposite conclusion. That study found that people with the highest sex drives tend to be date rapists. If anything, that would imply sex drive causes rape, or at least a very large portion of it.

The website stinks of laziness because they couldn't even do 5 seconds of google searching. If their hypothesis about learned aggression is correct, we would expect the most pussified country on earth to have the lowest rate of rape. Sweden:

https://www.bra.se/download/18.22a7...426789/2012_NTU_2011_Kap_3_Utsatthet_2012.pdf

Look at that, the exact opposite is true. Also, look at Japan on that graph. Japan's porn is rapetastic, and that country has a very low rate of rape. It's almost like suppressing male desires and not giving them a healthy outlet (creepy rape porn) causes rape. That certainly makes sense. A lot of athletes say they would probably be in jail if they didn't have martial arts and sports as a way of releasing their natural competitive or violent emotions.


The problem with sociologists is that they tend to throw out all known medical science. Here is a case where a man turned into a raging pedophile as a result of a brain tumor. It's not a learned behavior. No amount of brainwashing will stop rape or murder or pedophilia. Those people can't be fixed. The best we can do is lock them up when we find them, and tell people how to avoid those monsters when possible. Don't walk alone at night, don't talk to strangers, never get into a stranger's car, don't get blackout drunk at parties, never leave your drink unattended, etc.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, I can't argue against hopelessness. If we're all potential monsters and nothing can prevent it, then I can't even imagine the point of any of this.

I mean if education is brainwashing... I got nothing.

 

[Spungo]

I mean if education is brainwashing... I got nothing.

Educating is when you present facts and proven theories. Going to medical school so you can remove the brain tumor from a pedophile is education.

Brainwashing is when someone is forced to believe things with no evidence. Much of sociology is brainwashing because it's not based on anything. There's no evidence to support the idea that rapists and pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

I wonder what SJWs think about pedophiles. Is it victim blaming when we tell children not to get into a stranger's car? Maybe we should just teach people to stop abducting kids. In SJW land, the desire to abduct kids is a learned behavior. We can stop it if we just put enough emphasis on how wrong it is to rape and murder children, right?

 

[jackstar7]

I'm confused. Am I an SJW?

The reason I ask it that I thought you were talking to me, and then suddenly it was very much like you were addressing someone else.

Also, nearly all medicine is just based on the best guesses at the time.

In life, there are few facts outside of math. So your notions of education v. brainwashing are suspect.

 

[Nebor]

I wonder what SJWs think about pedophiles. Is it victim blaming when we tell children not to get into a stranger's car? Maybe we should just teach people to stop abducting kids. In SJW land, the desire to abduct kids is a learned behavior. We can stop it if we just put enough emphasis on how wrong it is to rape and murder children, right?

If even your gender is a social construct, then of course something as maleable as pedophilia is a social construct. We just have to change pedophiles perceptions.