GROSSLY inappropriate judicial behavior...

dlowan: I can see how what I said would seem over-reacting.

Craven mentioned attractiveness in his previous sentence. Then he said "This does not even address the vastly differing tastes." The two together gave me the impression he was saying that a victim is chosen on the basis of whether or not the rapist was physically attracted to his victim.

ossobuco: All rapes involve the sexual act as a component. That is a given. You may not be interested in arguing the primary motivations, but you did state that "sex is involved in the motivation". So primary, secondary, tertiary or other, you did state it as being a motivator. I disagree. You feel differently.

If you investigate, I think you will find that expert opinion in this area is in agreement with mine.

You don't think it is a motivator at all?

ossobuco: In all honesty I can't know because I don't truly know what goes on in the mind of anyone who rapes. In terms of violent rape, no I don't believe it is a motivator at all. Why? Because if it was a motivator, that would suggest the violent rapist (I'm making a distinction here) was looking to gain sexual satisfaction. I imagine that does happen (sexual satisfaction), but I don't believe that is what he is thinking about when he goes to commit the crime -- he is not thinking "I'm going to do this to be sexually gratified". In situations where it is something forced, but not violent...say in the situation of where something "goes too far" (for lack of a better way of describing it), the idea of sex for the perpetrator is in his mind initially, but what makes him continue to force an unwanted action whereas another man would stop? I concede sex is likely part of the motivation in this latter scenario.

My thoughts exactly!

How about because of both what he said and his lack of recall.

I've not taken a single one of your sentences out of context.



"Not" is functioning as an exclusion in the very sentence below your question.



Actually I was not talking about that at all. But allow me to say it now. Rapists very frequently target certain types of women. Some go so far as to have preference in looks etc.

So yes, some rapists pick their victims according to a particular taste. Some with more discriminating taste than most people would use.

Now what I WAS talking about was that the judge's comments were simply fallacious. Whatever the woman looked like there's certainly someone out there whose taste would include her.



I don't think you can explain why and I think this is a knee-jerk reaction. But in case it wasn't clear I'll say it again.

Some rapists do indeed select victims based on their personal taste.



Noted.



Allow me to disagree with the source then. It states in absolute terms what is not absolute.

I've noted how common this cliché is. You can find all sorts of physco-babble about it. It does not mean it's true, I happen to find it silly. <shrugs>

Now that I read it again, I do have to say that I also have a MAJOR problem with him saying it in the first place, but that fact that he forgot he said it is even worse in his position.

Your comment about tastes, makes it sound very much like what a rapist would be sexually attracted to. What makes you believe that is how a rapist thinks? Do you honestly believe a rapist will chose his victim based on who he finds to be sexually attractive? I can see the point that a rapist may seek a particular type of individual, but not because of sexual attraction.

Why are your beliefs true and those of people who have studied psychology, interviewed rapists and studied the whole issue merely psycho-babble?

Yes, I honestly believe some rapists choose their victims based on what they find sexually attractive.



I guess we disagree. <shrugs>



Why are you disguising an appeal to authority as a question?

I called it psycho-babble based on the opinions expressed and what I thought of it, not whether they studied it or not. Study and getting things ass-backwards are not mutually exlusive either.

Why?

I wholly disagree with your statement.



Not sure I follow you here. I'm not disguising anything. I'm basing my statements on credible information. You are basing your statements purely on opinion.



Let me rephrase. You believe you know more about a rapist's motives than those who have studied the behaviour of rapists?

Caprice - can you reference some of the studies? It is an interesting area.

I dunno - I have worked both with the rapists, and the raped. I have dutifully parroted the "about power, not about sex" in order to get a job I was interested in - never being all that convinced.

I am not sure how you would separate out the power/sex thing, really - I think more of us than like to admit it get some sexual stimulation from the exercise of power (as agent or recipient) - it is a common theme in porn (I gather - have never really watched it!) and I suppose most of us, if so attracted, can get satisfaction from a little fantasy, or just ignore it.

I think many rapists do, indeed, choose people whom they find sexually attractive to rape - and that, once the sexual attraction is established, the extra pleasure comes from various levels of coercion etc. I remain quite unclear about why this is so controversial.

Some, of course, though more rarely, are acting out a very specific pathology...eg those who choose very old people.

Some of the routinely lowest common denominator/"dark" side of sexuality is shown very clearly in raw, naked environments such as prisons, full of people with poor control of impulses - where power is used in very ritualized ways to determine who f#@ks and is f#@ked - and where the constant threat of extreme brutalization leads to acceptance of "lesser" brutalization in quite predictable ways.

Sex is a very powerful drive - I guess I am not especially surprised or - theoretically speaking - disturbed - when it has manifestations, mixed up with a lot of other emotional experiences, that we find "dark" or unsavoury. I think these manifestations are still concerning sex - as well as other things. I do not think that denying these things as being part of the spectrum of sexuality is very helpful - partly because I think that means people are more likely to feel the need to repress or deny them in themselves if such a general denial is taking place, and I really do believe that it is the repression or denial of such urges - because they are seen as too awful to simply accept as part of ourselves, accepted, and let go of - that discourages such urges from being dealt with in a healthy way, as we might deal with urges to really hurt someone with whom we are very angry, or be sadistic with animals (a common urge in some developmental stages - especially for young boys) or with the desire most parents have felt to some degree on the 4th sleepless night with a screaming baby to put a pillow over their heads until they are blessedly quiet...

Somehow it seems to me connected with this denial that almost no rapist or child sexual abuser I have ever met seems to really believe that they forced sex on another person - even if accompanied with great violence - they prefer to shy away from the reality of the power they have abused and convince themsleves that the victim in some way wanted it..

In dealing with our ideas about and reactions to rape, it is important also to understand the relative commonness of rape and sexual abuse, and to know that the majority of it involves little or no actual violence (as in hitting etc) but frozen acquiescense (freezing being a seemingly hard-wired-in response to extreme fear by children, many women and quite a few men) gained by the threat - perceived or actual - of violence or harm.

We seem to want to see these people as monsters - and they are, in a sense, (as many human impulses are) but they walk amongst us - and in us, I think - far more often than we want to acknowledge - and I think the lack of acknowledgement helps nobody....

I appear to have rambled mightily!

The controversy involved in the attraction/power debate, Miss Wabbit, comes from the public dialogue of many years ago during which it was alleged that some women "are asking for it" with provocative dress or behavior. Feminists were predictably (and for once in my mind, justifiably) up in arms about such an allegation. I think, though, that they have carried it to an opposite extreme, reconciling in their minds the statistic that most victims know their attacker with a contention that it is never about sex, but about power and coersion.

Oh yes, I know whereof it comes, Set - and I think it has great truth in it.

I am merely challenging the taking OUT of the sexual component.

And the "she asked for it" belief is alive, well and thriving, sadly...

I would challenge that as well. I think that in the most extreme cases (sort of a "revenge against women thing"), the sexual component is almost meaningless, simply an expression of extreme contempt. But given the prevalance of "date rape" and the likelihood that the victim knows the attacker, that sex is very much a consideration in many, if not most, cases.

But Caprice, look at what was being discussing in the particular instance.

You had written:

To which I responded

What I am saying there is, why rape her if the motivator is power -- why not just beat the hell out of her?

To which you responded:

Which obviously means you understood what I was saying and are responding that on occasions, the guy just beats the hell out of a woman and does NOT RAPE HER.

So I observed:

To which you are now replying:

That makes no sense!

My question is "If power is the motivator" and sex is not -- why not just exert the power by beating the hell out of her. OBVIOUSLY sex is an ingredient.

But you seem so determined to make the "power" argument -- you want to exclude sex as "a" motivator -- and I just don't think you can logically do that.

You then went on to write:



AT NO GODDAM POINT HAVE I EVER SAID THAT SEX IS "THE PRIMARY MOTIVATOR" -- and in fact, the only person who has used that expression is YOU -- when constructing a straw man against which to argue.

Why not stop doing that?

By the by, the "she was asking for it" argument is bankrupt for an entirely different reason. If a merchant displays her wares prominently in order to attract buyers, and the objects are desired by someone who is in a position to just take them and walk off, no defense that the display were "provocative" would ever be accepted in a court. The undeniable fact that courts have in the past frequently accepted testimony about a victims dress or behavior in mitigation is a travesty of justice. Society does not accept behavior deemed criminal on a plea of impulse and opportunity in other areas, and it is part and parcel of the judeo-christian tradition of patriarchalism that such a defense were ever accepted in cases of sexual assault.

Sure - and the underlying belief that women are somehow responsible for regulating male sexual behaviour - (which is assumed to be an irresistible force for males, once roused) - maybe it really does stem back to the Judeo/Christian AND Islamic tradition - but I would suggest those traditions were invented for some deeper reason...

Well, we in the "west" have no part of Islam in our heritage, but "the three major religions" all do share the Abrahamic tradition. I would suggest that the women as chattel attitude arises from the severity of nomadic life millenia ago, when the narrow margin of survival made the word of the dominant male law. Once at AFUZZ, i pointed out just how loony the characters in the old testament are, and mentioned specifically the incident of Lot screwing his daughters in the cave after escaping Sodom. A rabbi there came to his defense, saying he truly did not know of it because God made it so, and then he actually attempted to appeal to my sense of reason by contending the incest was justifiable as a measure to preserve Lot's line by direct male descent ! ! ! The attitudes which make middle eastern nomadic patriarchalism odious to me are very much alive and well.