Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

A third of male university students say they would rape a woman if there no were no consequences

You said 'how much of a boner do they seriously believe they could maintain in the presence of...(protest)..., thereby implying that few could manage it. Where did I say I believe that rape is always about power and never sex? I don't advocate that argument. If rape is about theft, what exactly has been stolen? Why do you also assume I might have a problem with consensual 'sexy power play'? I don't think there's anything wrong with that either.
 
Good point, maybe they should of asked the men how much of a boner do they seriously believe they could maintain in the presence of screams, shouts, tears, punches, clawings, pleadings and seriously-not-happy-face (or even just cold immobile terror).

the bit that is the key point to this study is that there is a subset of men who could see themselves behaving in a way that would legally make them rapists, who didn't see themselves as rapists. this was those who were prepared to use coercive measures to obtain a lack of resistance to them, something they could pretend was proper consent. that made them in their eyes not-rapists. because they see resistance as part of the game of man as chaser and woman as prey. she's supposed to say no at first, he's supposed to push to overcome that. not necessarily by pinning her down against her active resistance, but by creating a situation where she isn't actively resisting him.
 
Read the paper, there's a good twat. They had no reason to not take the questions seriously. In fact, as course credits were involved as a "payment" for participation, the encouragement would have been the exact opposite of what you claim. The data was also assessed using variables to allow for participants not taking the survey seriously.

and they discarded responses that were nonsensical
 

It's a matter of the description of experience, I'm saying I don't agree that people who find power a turn-on (or would use the word or one that can be associated with it to describe some aspect of their sexual experience) are therefore rapey, as if some aspect of 'power' in sex is the definitive characteristic of rapism.

The definitive characteristic of rape isn't about 'power' or any over of the many various words one could use to describe some experiential or emotional aspect of sexual experience or sexual relationship.

There are many ways of exploring 'power' or other things in sex that tell us nothing about what rape is in essence.

In my opinion rape is about theft, the taking by force or coercion or deceit that which hasn't been given. Perhaps this is a subtle difference from what is meant with the whole 'rape is about power' thing. If I were to enjoy some leggy blonde in a cat-suit lording it over me of an evening, that would be a whole lot of sex an power going on without rape having anything to do with it.

There's probably a venn diagram somewhere in what I'm struggling to say here and I'm fairly sure it looks like a figure-eight rather than a fried-egg.
 
Last edited:
You said 'how much of a boner do they seriously believe they could maintain in the presence of...(protest)..., thereby implying that few could manage it. Where did I say I believe that rape is always about power and never sex? I don't advocate that argument. If rape is about theft, what exactly has been stolen? Why do you also assume I might have a problem with consensual 'sexy power play'? I don't think there's anything wrong with that either.

Yes I did imply that a minority of men could manage it, perhaps because I like to believe that most people aren't rapists. Fair enough for the rest of what you said. And rape being about theft means theft of sexual-access, theft of a persons choice, the theft of power...

Apparently the word 'rape' used to (chillingly) be described as a transgression of a father or husbands 'property'. I certainly don't mean that.
 
Last edited:
the bit that is the key point to this study is that there is a subset of men who could see themselves behaving in a way that would legally make them rapists, who didn't see themselves as rapists. this was those who were prepared to use coercive measures to obtain a lack of resistance to them, something they could pretend was proper consent. that made them in their eyes not-rapists. because they see resistance as part of the game of man as chaser and woman as prey. she's supposed to say no at first, he's supposed to push to overcome that. not necessarily by pinning her down against her active resistance, but by creating a situation where she isn't actively resisting him.

Ah, would this be the 'rape culture' I've been hearing about of late?
 
I'd
Yes I did imply that a minority of men could manage it, perhaps because I like to believe that most people aren't rapists. Fair enough for the rest of what you said. And rape being about theft means theft of sexual-access, theft of a persons choice, the theft of power...

Apparently the word 'rape' used to (chillingly) be described as a transgression of a father or husbands 'property'. I certainly don't mean that.

I also want to believe most people aren't rapists but this paedophile and rape chat makes me seriously worried. If one in three blokes is a rapist (and possibly a similar proportion of gay women, who knows, I have certainly come across women with a similar lack of respect for anyone's boundaries although not been raped by one) then how the hell are you supposed to tell as they don't all walk around with a sign on their head?

The idea that literally anyone you know could be a rapist makes me really scared. No wonder nobody wants to believe that it happens because it's so terrifying.
 
... I'm sure you'd like to add for the public record that at no time did any juror actually discuss any trial they had been a juror on with anybody that had not been a juror on the same trial.
Oh of course not. ;)

To be honest people took that pretty seriously and didn't say anything more than 'it was a rape case'. I think we are allowed that much.
 
I'd


I also want to believe most people aren't rapists but this paedophile and rape chat makes me seriously worried. If one in three blokes is a rapist (and possibly a similar proportion of gay women, who knows, I have certainly come across women with a similar lack of respect for anyone's boundaries although not been raped by one) then how the hell are you supposed to tell as they don't all walk around with a sign on their head?

The idea that literally anyone you know could be a rapist makes me really scared. No wonder nobody wants to believe that it happens because it's so terrifying.

Don't be scared, fear is a massive and useful industry, but just in case- learn yerself some Krav Maga.:)
 
Still, literally anyone.
What is your point? It's rational for women to be cautious around strange men (and sometimes men they already know) because there is a high incidence in general of rapey behaviour. As for potential paedophiles, parents tend to be very cautious when entrusting a child to someone's care. The irony is that most rapes are by acquaintances and most paedophile attacks are familial.

Edited to correct final sentence.
 
What is your point? It's rational for women to be cautious around strange men (and sometimes men they already know) because there is a high incidence in general of rapey behaviour. As for potential paedophiles, parents tend to be very cautious when entrusting a child to someone's care. The irony is that most rapes are by acquaintances and most paedophile attacks are familial.

You're almost there with your last sentence... ;)
 
Go on, I'll bite. Are you talking statistics or something more subtle?

I'm very broadly trying to make the point that this study does not in any way add credence to the idea that living in a state of continual omni-directional fear is a productive life strategy. What it does do is point towards certain cultural problems that we already know about, and which very unfortunately don't seem to be getting better in a hurry.
 
Vanishingly unlikely, compared with potential rapists.

True, but we can also say that potential rapists are vanishingly rare in comparison to common thieves. Comparing different types of criminal behaviour seldom yields any results worth bothering with.;)
 
True, but we can also say that potential rapists are vanishingly rare in comparison to common thieves. Comparing different types of criminal behaviour seldom yields any results worth bothering with.;)

Potential rapists are incredibly common! :eek:
 
What is your point? It's rational for women to be cautious around strange men (and sometimes men they already know) because there is a high incidence in general of rapey behaviour. As for potential paedophiles, parents tend to be very cautious when entrusting a child to someone's care. The irony is that most rapes are by acquaintances and most paedophile attacks are familial.

Edited to correct final sentence.

Personally I'd replace "most" with "a majority", because most implies almost all.
 
Because you're a coward.

A deluded coward.

More than likely, as I've less than a score left of my "three score and ten". Still, at least I can die knowing my life had value.

Tut tut, don't you think you're rather giving the game away with your fixation on my supposed "anger management issues"?

No you won't. As always, all you'll ever do or be good for is shit stirring.

Thank-you for your excellent contribution to this thread. We appreciate your efforts anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom