Almost a quarter of men 'admit to rape in parts of Asia'

[kgambit]

 

But we don't prosecute for what an individual hoped to achieve but for what they did. Having a goal is not incompatible with favoring a means to achieve that goal, that's the difference between those who hope to achieve a peaceful revolution and those who clamor for blood under the guise of change. There is probably a reason why they chose to commit the act that's less related to their goals and more to their character. 

 

 

 

Intent can and does play a significant role in how crimes are prosecuted, and the best example is being charged with attempted murder.   That's carries a considerable longer sentence than aggravated battery.  In the case of attempted murder it is the intent of the individual that is paramount.  The same distinction applies after a fashion with the difference between premeditated murder and a murder committed as an act of passion.   Intent does matter.

 

The selection of the means to achieve a goal are secondary to the goal itself.  Again, with attempted murder it does not matter which weapon the perpetrator chose. 

Edited September 19, 2013 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

A knife is a versatile tool, it's a weapon, a kitchen utensil, a handyman's tool...ect,ect. But what it does its to cut and pierce, in that same way that rape is a sexual act which can be used for a variety of purposes. Yet the intended use does not change the nature of the act, which depending on the context requires some degree of appeal to the perpetrator. Whether it be physical attraction, power play or hatred, it doesn't change the fact that rape can only be sexual (unless you ask some feminists what they think)

So motives for sex violence appear to me as mere excuses for performing or understanding what its a sexual act.

 

  In that context, a sexual assault or a physical assault against a woman can simply seen as the choice of which tool the perpetrator uses to achieve the goal of establishing power over his victim.   

 

 

 

I know I said I wasn't going to say anything more on this topic but you have eloquently posted what I was trying to explain through several posts, good one 

 

And why couldn't you just have said that without posting so many links?

 

 

To be honest that was exactly what I thought I was saying. I thought it was obvious my overall point but it seems at times I don't explain my point coherently. Point taken for next time

[Orogun01]

 

 

But we don't prosecute for what an individual hoped to achieve but for what they did. Having a goal is not incompatible with favoring a means to achieve that goal, that's the difference between those who hope to achieve a peaceful revolution and those who clamor for blood under the guise of change. There is probably a reason why they chose to commit the act that's less related to their goals and more to their character. 

 

 

 

Intent can and does play a significant role in how crimes are prosecuted, and the best example is being charged with attempted murder.   That's carries a considerable longer sentence than aggravated battery.  In the case of attempted murder it is the intent of the individual that is paramount.  The same distinction applies after a fashion with the difference between premeditated murder and a murder committed as an act of passion.   Intent does matter.

 

The selection of the means to achieve a goal are secondary to the goal itself.  Again, with attempted murder it does not matter which weapon the perpetrator chose. 

 

But in the case of rape the goal is not the crime but the act itself its the crime, or to follow with your analogy it would be as you were being prosecuted because of your choice of weapon. I'm not saying that rapists shouldn't be prosecuted for their intent aside from their crime, but that intent and the crime are separate entities and should be treated as such.

 

Good post btw.

[alanschu]

A knife is a versatile tool, it's a weapon, a kitchen utensil, a handyman's tool...ect,ect. But what it does its to cut and pierce, in that same way that rape is a sexual act which can be used for a variety of purposes. Yet the intended use does not change the nature of the act, which depending on the context requires some degree of appeal to the perpetrator. Whether it be physical attraction, power play or hatred, it doesn't change the fact that rape can only be sexual (unless you ask some feminists what they think)

So motives for sex violence appear to me as mere excuses for performing or understanding what its a sexual act.

 

Do you think that attempting to understand the motivation is a meaningless endeavour, then?

 

If the reason for rape to occur is to satisfy sexual desires, are there other alternatives that could provide the same level of satisfaction?  If it's not just satisfying a sexual desire, is there more to why rape occurs?

 

 

If rape is just a sexual act, why is it considered so horrible (at least where I am from), while other sexual acts in general, are not?

Edited September 19, 2013 by alanschu

[kgambit]

 

 

 

But we don't prosecute for what an individual hoped to achieve but for what they did. Having a goal is not incompatible with favoring a means to achieve that goal, that's the difference between those who hope to achieve a peaceful revolution and those who clamor for blood under the guise of change. There is probably a reason why they chose to commit the act that's less related to their goals and more to their character. 

 

 

 

Intent can and does play a significant role in how crimes are prosecuted, and the best example is being charged with attempted murder.   That's carries a considerable longer sentence than aggravated battery.  In the case of attempted murder it is the intent of the individual that is paramount.  The same distinction applies after a fashion with the difference between premeditated murder and a murder committed as an act of passion.   Intent does matter.

 

The selection of the means to achieve a goal are secondary to the goal itself.  Again, with attempted murder it does not matter which weapon the perpetrator chose. 

 

But in the case of rape the goal is not the crime but the act itself its the crime, or to follow with your analogy it would be as you were being prosecuted because of your choice of weapon. I'm not saying that rapists shouldn't be prosecuted for their intent aside from their crime, but that intent and the crime are separate entities and should be treated as such.

 

Good post btw.

 

 

 

I understand the distinction you're making.    I don't think anyone would  think that you are proposing that we not prosecute rapes.

 

Being prosecuted for your choice of weapons is a good counter.  In certain cases the choice of weapon can be important.  But just as in murder and homicide, rape and attempted rape are both prosecutable offenses.   So the intent to commit the act whether or not the act is actually completed is sufficient to prosecute. 

 

Specifically if a rapist enters a house and makes it clear via word and/or action that his intent is to sexually violate a women, he is prosecutable if he completes the attempt or not.  In this context, the term intent does not refer to his underlying motivations but rather answers this question  "Did you intend to rape the victim" as opposed to answering "Why did you want to rape the victim?"  Our debate is centered around the latter which explains the sociological / psychological motivations for the crime.   

 

BTW, I'm more than happy to defer to lawyers in the audience if they wish to correct my legal terminology or understanding of the law.  

 

Good discussion. 

Edited September 19, 2013 by kgambit

[Orogun01]

Do you think that attempting to understand the motivation is a meaningless endeavour, then?

 

If the reason for rape to occur is to satisfy sexual desires, are there other alternatives that could provide the same level of satisfaction?  If it's not just satisfying a sexual desire, is there more to why rape occurs?

 

 

If rape is just a sexual act, why is it considered so horrible (at least where I am from), while other sexual acts in general, are not?

 

 There are two major theories regarding paraphilias (biastophilia being one of them) one which advocates that environmental factors are the major cause and the other which focuses on a courtship model which categorizes paraphilias regarding a deficiency  on one of the stages of courtship. Not really related to my point but just felt like it might be relevant.

 

I think that attempting to find an absolute reason for anything that its highly subjective is ultimately a meaningless pursuit, so the effort should not be focused on finding and categorizing the different causes but rather a common element. In the case of rape the only one I can think of is the sexual element, regarding motives I can defer to any of the theories I previously mentioned to point out psychological issues that would lead to violent behavior. I believe that the motives for rape can be divided into either being purely sexual or because violence; but that rape as an act of violence requires a certain degree of sexual inclination. I then choose to see rape as a sexual act because it requires some degree of attraction. Though I'm aware that it can be performed with objects as well, I attribute that more to a repressed personality trait on the part of the rapist.

 

I understand the distinction you're making.    I don't think anyone would  think that you are proposing that we not prosecute rapes.

 

Being prosecuted for your choice of weapons is a good counter.  In certain cases the choice of weapon can be important.  But just as in murder and homicide, rape and attempted rape are both prosecutable offenses.   So the intent to commit the act whether or not the act is actually completed is sufficient to prosecute. 

 

Specifically if a rapist enters a house and makes it clear via word and/or action that his intent is to sexually violate a women, he is prosecutable if he completes the attempt or not.  In this context, the term intent does not refer to his underlying motivations but rather answers this question  "Did you intend to rape the victim" as opposed to answering "Why did you want to rape the victim?"  Our debate is centered around the latter which explains the sociological / psychological motivations for the crime.   

 

BTW, I'm more than happy to defer to lawyers in the audience if they wish to correct my legal terminology or understanding of the law.  

 

Good discussion. 

It is better to be clear, specially when talking about something that could be misconstrued as being supportive of negative behavior.

 

My particular concern is closer to it being a hate crime (a concept that I dislike) so what would be relevant in your example would not be the whether the perpetrator wanted to rape the victim but rather why did they target the victim in the first place. I don't think that the motivation changes the crime ultimately it sets a bad precedent as well being too subjective to base a verdict on.

[alanschu]

 

 

I think that attempting to find an absolute reason for anything that its highly subjective is ultimately a meaningless pursuit, so the effort should not be focused on finding and categorizing the different causes but rather a common element. In the case of rape the only one I can think of is the sexual element, regarding motives I can defer to any of the theories I previously mentioned to point out psychological issues that would lead to violent behavior. I believe that the motives for rape can be divided into either being purely sexual or because violence; but that rape as an act of violence requires a certain degree of sexual inclination.  I then choose to see rape as a sexual act because it requires some degree of attraction. Though I'm aware that it can be performed with objects as well, I attribute that more to a repressed personality trait on the part of the rapist.

 

First, I don't think anyone was seeking an absolute reason.

 

Note that in many cases I'd agree that a sense of "attraction" is necessary.  I don't think it's the only catalyst however, though I admit that I'm hardly an expert on the subject.  I do wonder, in the learning of websites that are created to allow people to embarrass their ex through picture submissions and stuff like that, that on some level there are people out there that do wish to humiliate a person.  And I know even in my own imagination, I can envision that for many women I know (and probably some men) that sexual assault would rank right up there with the worst imaginable experience.

 

This is mostly just by my logical deduction (and hence very capable of being wrong), but in retrospect I do get the impression that younger women are raised in an environment to fear sexual predation (and to a lesser extent even all younger children, though I didn't really understand why "don't talk to strangers" was an issue when I was that young).

[Chairchucker]

 

That second link seems to be doing the same cherry picking thing of "Some men don't ejaculate during rape." (An interesting point to bother raising given that consensual sex doesn't necessarily result in ejaculation.) "In one one of the interviews by the rapists." They are seizing on a small percentage of examples and saying "Therefore, this is the rule."

 

Oh also, this quote: "A rapist uses actual force or violence or the threat of it to take control over another human being" is a generalisation that we now recognise not to be necessarily true. 

 

You haven't really made your point as such, you've just found links and said "here's some people who also agree with my view." They all seem to be taking the path of "Some interviewed rapists said this, therefore that's the case for every rapist ever." (Although strictly speaking that first link doesn't really support your point, read it again. She's basically saying "Different people have different motivations.") Third link, from what I could be bothered reading before I go to bed, didn't seem to support your point that strongly either.

 

I don't think you read the articles properly, I'll quote from the first one and last paragraph. I can't see how this can be made any clearer that the main reason for rape is not about the actual sex

 

"I believe that both the psychological and sociological perspectives regarding rape can be proven correct depending upon the individual rapist. I believe that some rapists truly do have psychological problems while other rapists feel a need to dominate women or feel sexually frustrated as a result of rejection. Regardless of the cause of rape, I don't think that there is any excuse for invading another person's body and individual space without proper consent. As far as most rape cases are concerned, I believe that both sociological explanations of sexual permissiveness and gender inequality provide the best explanation equally."

 

 

"I believe that some rapists truly do have psychological problems while other rapists feel a need to dominate women or feel sexually frustrated as a result of rejection."

 

Equal weight given to 'sexually frustrated'. Translation: they want to have sex. This link does the opposite of supporting your point.

[Walsingham]

The key part is "as a result of rejection". It's the feeling of helplessness in the face of frustration that is key.

[TrashMan]

 

ii

 

Blackmail someone. Kidnap him and tie him up. Torture him. Kidnap a loved one. Be in a position of power (boss at work for example)

All of those are different instances of holding power over someone. There is need for sex to relish in power.

 

 

"Frustration our of fear of rejection" is a bunch of hogwash from where I'm standing. Hell, I should be a rapist extraordinare by that logic.

 

Yes those are all ways that people exert power over someone but those don't apply to power over women in the context of this discussion and why men rape women.

 

 

Yes, they do apply. Unless woman dont' count as "people" or "someone" anymore.

Furthermore, the issue of rape is not exclusive to women. Men get raped too.

 

So trying to distill the reasonign behind rape by looking only at man->woman is an excercise in faliure.

[Walsingham]

OK fine. Two books to read which are perfectly readable in their own right, but which deal with this question of motivation behind rape.

 

The Jigsaw Man, is a book about the work of a British forensic pathologist

 

Berlin; The Downfall is a book about the advance of the Red Army across Germany towards Berlin.

 

Neither are primarily making a 'case' about rape. And as you should see from the reviews they are also good reads. I'm not asking anyone to dedicate precious time to agreeing with me.

[BruceVC]

OK fine. Two books to read which are perfectly readable in their own right, but which deal with this question of motivation behind rape.

 

The Jigsaw Man, is a book about the work of a British forensic pathologist

 

Berlin; The Downfall is a book about the advance of the Red Army across Germany towards Berlin.

 

Neither are primarily making a 'case' about rape. And as you should see from the reviews they are also good reads. I'm not asking anyone to dedicate precious time to agreeing with me.

 

Thanks Walsie, both look like good reads. Especially the Berlin one