How to Stop People From Becoming Rapists

[Griffin]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but...
I was under the impression dates were (sometimes, not always, they can serve a variety of purposes) the social cover given to discussing the terms and likelihood of later exchanges, and exactly what it is each party wants to and is willing to exchange, rather than being the item that is exchanged itself. Sometimes they decide what they want isn't what they thought they'd want - maybe this guy would be a fun sailing partner, but I don't want to sleep with him, you know? So it becomes a discussion about whether or not he'd want to do something like that instead, and maybe we won't come to any common ground. That's how things work. (Plus they can be pretty fun in their own right - often a date will be its own reward, even if the parties don't agree on any further transactions! Those who date just for socialization understand this quite well.)

Similar to business lunches, where the prospective business representative treats the client for the opportunity to discuss a potential arrangement, but without an obligation for the client to accept. Going on such a lunch doesn't (or shouldn't) entail any obligation on the part of the client - the rep simply pays because they know they probably want you (less risk for time commitment) while such sureness is unlikely to exist on the clients part. (and for a whole host of other reasons, but still.) There shouldn't be any sense of entitlement, because the transaction you are paying for is exactly the one you are getting - the opportunity to discuss and see if your interests can be mutually beneficial.

The idea that a woman owes a man something (beyond her time spent listening to his proposals) is pretty absurd, and if that's really common now, those guys need to grow up and get over their sense of entitlement.

All that being said, I haven't dated in quite a well, and never did date much, for the same reason I hate business lunches. And when I did date, it was with the knowledge that we'd be using it as an opportunity to check compatibility, but with a mutual and explicit understanding of what the outcome would be if we were both satisfied.

Is my understanding of what dating is/supposed to be way off base here? Because that seems to be how it works for all my friends too, and I got to be honest, I don't see a whole lot wrong with it.

[Aetius]

Having just ended a lease, the thought occurred to me of a "sexcurity deposit." At the outset of the date one party (the one not expected to pay) puts down a deposit, say the cost of going dutch on this particular outing. If sex occurs, the deposit is returned, if not, the deposit is forfeit. It does seem kinda silly and strange, but it does succeed in thoroughly undermining the entitlement element while not ignoring the reality that many relationships are transactional. One can decide to have sex or not, with the only thing at risk being a small amount equivalent to what you would have been responsible for anyway (namely feeding and entertaining yourself for that evening).

Although I think the chances of this becoming widespread are about the same as Barney Stinson's "lemon law."

Business lunch analogy

I'm not saying you're wrong in your analysis, but your analogy puts men in the role of a company and women in the role of a client, which is a model that is less and less viable as the genders equalize.

[setzer777]

I think a big step in the right direction would be for more men to feel like they are worthwhile enough as physical beings that sex with them is its own reward. Obviously transactions are always going to happen, but it's a good goal to try to get more men to feel desirable and not like they have to buy intimacy. Of course sometimes the brick wall of reality intervenes, but my impression is that right now there are men who buy into the transaction idea even though there are plenty of women who would desire sex with them for its own sake.

Edit: Of course some people prefer financial transactions for whatever reason. I'm talking about men who think that material transactions are their only option when that is not the case.

[*bird]

I think a big step in the right direction would be for more men to feel like they are worthwhile enough as physical beings that sex with them is its own reward. Obviously transactions are always going to happen, but it's a good goal to try to get more men to feel desirable and not like they have to buy intimacy. Of course sometimes the brick wall of reality intervenes, but my impression is that right now there are men who buy into the transaction idea even though there are plenty of women who would desire sex with them for its own sake.

Edit: Of course some people prefer financial transactions for whatever reason. I'm talking about men who think that material transactions are their only option when that is not the case.

But in order to do that, society needs to make it so that women (in the context of het relationships) can actually express the desire without actually getting punished for it. This is not currently happening as any woman who expresses sexual desires at all are considered sluts and shamed.

[Dark567]

Of course sometimes the brick wall of reality intervenes, but my impression is that right now there are men who buy into the transaction idea even though there are plenty of women who would desire sex with them for its own sake.

But are there enough women who think that? There is a general asymmetry(in the US) in dating in that there is a much larger number of single men then there are single women(by about %10) and that's going to have an affect on whether or not there are "plenty" of women willing to have sex with them.


http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/unmarried-mal-1.html

[setzer777]

Of course sometimes the brick wall of reality intervenes, but my impression is that right now there are men who buy into the transaction idea even though there are plenty of women who would desire sex with them for its own sake.

But are there enough women who think that? There is a general asymmetry(in the US) in dating in that there is a much larger number of single men then there are single women(by about %10) and that's going to have an affect on whether or not there are "plenty" of women willing to have sex with them.


http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/unmarried-mal-1.html

I'm genuinely sorry if this is a stupid question (kinda slow today and statistics not my strong suite), but what accounts for the difference? I mean given that every married heterosexual woman is with a married heterosexual man (and same for non-marriage monogamous partnerships). My (quite possibly uninformed) impression was that there are more women than men (by a slight amount), as well as more men in relationships with other men than women in relationships with other women (by a significant amount).

[Роберт]

Of course sometimes the brick wall of reality intervenes, but my impression is that right now there are men who buy into the transaction idea even though there are plenty of women who would desire sex with them for its own sake.

But are there enough women who think that? There is a general asymmetry(in the US) in dating in that there is a much larger number of single men then there are single women(by about %10) and that's going to have an affect on whether or not there are "plenty" of women willing to have sex with them.


http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/unmarried-mal-1.html

I'm trying to figure out how there are so many more single men than single women. Polygyny? More man than women? More lesbians than gays?

Edit: ninja

[Aaeriele]

Interestingly enough, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 86 single males for every 100 single women [PDF] (average across the entire US, age 15 and over).

Breakdown by metro area: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ce ... /tab05.pdf

So perhaps something is biasing the results in the halfsigma link (perhaps the limitation to "unmarried non-Hispanic whites age 25-40") ?

Another thing of note is that there are far more widows than widowers.

[Роберт]

Interestingly enough, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 86 single males for every 100 single women [PDF] (average across the entire US).

Breakdown by metro area: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ce ... /tab05.pdf

So perhaps something is biasing the results in the listed link (perhaps the limitation to "unmarried non-Hispanic whites age 25-40") ?

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Even in a completely simple, no divorce, monogamous, 1:1 ratio of males to females type situation, it's easy to see.

In marraiges, if the women tend to be younger than the men (say men on average marry at 30, women at 25) you would see this come up. Women have a higher life expectancy, so counting everybody includes widows and widowers and the women out number the men. Just counting the specific age group and you get a different skew.

[Dark567]

I'm genuinely sorry if this is a stupid question (kinda slow today and statistics not my strong suite), but what accounts for the difference? I mean given that every married heterosexual woman is with a married heterosexual man (and same for non-marriage monogamous partnerships). My (quite possibly uninformed) impression was that there are more women than men (by a slight amount), as well as more men in relationships with other men than women in relationships with other women (by a significant amount).

There are more women then men, but almost all of it is in the 70+ age group.(Women tend to live a few years longer) I don't think we completely know why there are more men then women within young age groups or why there are more single men then women either.
The real reason is that naturally you are more likely to have a male child then a female one.

The natural sex ratio at birth is estimated to be close to 1.05 males/female.

Although it tends to vary by race from 1.03 to 1.07.
The suspected reason:

Sperm with Y (male) are 3% lighter (about 0.1 picograms out of the total 3.2 or 3.3pg mass of entire 23 chromosomes). The 3-10% more males born could be a result of lighter sperm occasionally being first to the egg as they may achieve, on average, more velocity through the thick fluid.

Interestingly enough, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 86 single males for every 100 single women [PDF] (average across the entire US, age 15 and over).

I am guessing most of that has to do with age. A much larger number of wives outlive their husbands then husbands outliving their wives. 5 times as many. If it weren't for that there would end up around 5% more men then women, according to your stats.

[Vash]

I have a solution for stopping people from becoming rapists: don't rape them. In comparison to other incarcerated criminals, there is a higher rate of physical abuse among incarcerated rapists.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

So, how does anyone ever *become* a rapist, then?

[Vash]

The key point is to not rape.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

Well! I'm glad you helped us out with that!

Though I think the thread was addressing the question of how to stop people from becoming rapists outside Tautology Club.

[Vash]

Well! I'm glad you helped us out with that!

Though I think the thread was addressing the question of how to stop people from becoming rapists outside Tautology Club.

Mostly OT. I could come back with mine, but that's all I will say, because this is already verging on being a flame war across two threads.

One solution proposed in a couple of threads is to say more that rapists should not rape. Something more specific than what I said would be discussing possible suggestions for people who may be considering rape. The internal thoughts of rapists have not been directly addressed in most posts (I saw one, along the lines of consensual sex being much better).

[setzer777]

One solution proposed in a couple of threads is to say more that rapists should not rape. Something more specific than what I said would be discussing possible suggestions for people who may be considering rape. The internal thoughts of rapists have not been directly addressed in most posts (I saw one, along the lines of consensual sex being much better).

So if we're talking about people who consciously make the choice to commit what they know is rape...the question is why do they do it, and what would constitute a feasible alternative suggestion?

[Vash]

So if we're talking about people who consciously make the choice to commit what they know is rape...the question is why do they do it, and what would constitute a feasible alternative suggestion?

In particular, what would constitute an alternative suggestion.

Don't rape is the logically obvious one, and repetition is a factor in learning. What are some persuasive arguments to steer people away from rape? To some extent, causes have already been addressed. How do we turn what we know into suggestions?

Learning more about the internal thoughts of rapists would also be very useful (I am not sure what we still need to examine or if we need more, actually).

Edit: One of the reasons I suggest therapy, actually, is that it addresses the thinking of rapists directly, and on an individualized (or small group) level.

[Cheezwhiz Jenkins]

I see, sending a societal message of "don't rape" is of course a great idea (I had interpreted what you were saying as "We can stop rape by not raping," which is certainly true, but not very helpful in terms of how to accomplish the goal).

[Griffin]

I'm not saying you're wrong in your analysis, but your analogy puts men in the role of a company and women in the role of a client, which is a model that is less and less viable as the genders equalize.

Eh, its only an analogy. When I'm approaching an artist about something I want commissioned, I'll often pay for a meal while we discuss it, even though I'm technically a client in that situation. When I met with the florists, we went dutch, and when I met with the caterers, obviously they provided. Generally, the side getting sought out gets treated, regardless of which is the business and which is the client. I think that is even true in dating much of the time (there's obviously still a lot of traditionalist stuff going around, but getting ever less prevalent, where men are happier paying and throwing around their wealth). In fact, its a common 'technique' for a guy to have a girl buy him a drink, I've heard - this puts him in the role of pursued, and her in the role of pursuer, and the pursued is almost always in a distinctly stronger bargaining position. I don't know much of that stuff, though, so maybe I'm talking out my ass, but it seems to work for a friend of mine sometimes. *shrug*

[Deep_Thought]

The link below is of relevance to this thread. I've been debating whether to post it, because the ending is just a tad controversial as it starts to discuss child pornography/sex abuse, and I don't want this thread to become further side-tracked*.

Anyway, there is now some evidence linking the availability of pornography and a decrease in rape. Or at least, no increase in rape. This would chime with what some people have been posting above, that if potential rapists have other means to deal with their sexual compulsions then they are less likely to violate another human in order to do so.

*For the record, I think the harm caused to the children is pretty damned important and ought to be given a hell of a lot more weighting than the article's author seems to give it.

[*bird]

So perhaps something is biasing the results in the halfsigma link (perhaps the limitation to "unmarried non-Hispanic whites age 25-40") ?

Well duh, only non-Hispanic young white people matter, didn't you get the memo?

[Aaeriele]

Anyway, there is now some evidence linking the availability of pornography and a decrease in rape. Or at least, no increase in rape.

Er, one of those is actually relevant, the other really isn't at all. Which is it?

From reading the article, it seems like there's no actual evidence for correlation, so it would seem to be the latter.

[Deep_Thought]

The first half of the article and the linked report discuss a correlation between the availability of Internet connections and a decrease in rape between 1980 and 2004 in different US States. The author of that report claims the availability of the Internet as a proxy for the availability of porn. I'll let you decide how accurate that is.

The second half of the article cites a paper with an abstract that only states no increase when the Czech Republic legalised pornography. Despite it being in PubMed I can't seem to get the full paper, so I can't comment on the specifics.

[Beardhammer]

I see, sending a societal message of "don't rape" is of course a great idea (I had interpreted what you were saying as "We can stop rape by not raping," which is certainly true, but not very helpful in terms of how to accomplish the goal).

We already do this by immediately jailing and/or executing rapists. The ones that don't get executed usually get killed by the other inmates unless thrown into solitary for the entire time they're there. Putting signs up telling people they're bad for raping people isn't going to change anything. They already do that for drugs, and we all know how fantastically effective that is.

The author of that report claims the availability of the Internet as a proxy for the availability of porn. I'll let you decide how accurate that is.

That's because the Internet is for porn, obviously.

[mmmcannibalism]

I see, sending a societal message of "don't rape" is of course a great idea (I had interpreted what you were saying as "We can stop rape by not raping," which is certainly true, but not very helpful in terms of how to accomplish the goal).

We already do this by immediately jailing and/or executing rapists. The ones that don't get executed usually get killed by the other inmates unless thrown into solitary for the entire time they're there. Putting signs up telling people they're bad for raping people isn't going to change anything. They already do that for drugs, and we all know how fantastically effective that is.

The author of that report claims the availability of the Internet as a proxy for the availability of porn. I'll let you decide how accurate that is.

That's because the Internet is for porn, obviously.

Where are rapists who are not also murderers still executed by law?

[Goplat]

I see, sending a societal message of "don't rape" is of course a great idea (I had interpreted what you were saying as "We can stop rape by not raping," which is certainly true, but not very helpful in terms of how to accomplish the goal).

We already do this by immediately jailing and/or executing rapists. The ones that don't get executed usually get killed by the other inmates unless thrown into solitary for the entire time they're there.

You're thinking of child molesters, not rapists in general. If you like to rape adults, society lets you continue to rape adults in prison.

[podbaydoor]

Beardhammer, that only works if rapists are actually accused, convicted, and jailed. And we know how often that happens.

[nitePhyyre]

The first half of the article and the linked report discuss a correlation between the availability of Internet connections and a decrease in rape between 1980 and 2004 in different US States. The author of that report claims the availability of the Internet as a proxy for the availability of porn. I'll let you decide how accurate that is.

There is also a host of data showing the same for Japan.

By that I hoped to imply that I know making a utopia is impossible. That was my whole point! Sex-with-everyone-you-want is wishing for the fulfilment of a fantasy, held by a decent proportion of humanity, and it's never going to happen.

Further, if anything, the expectedness of sex should be reduced. An awful lot of people expect to get sex quickly after meeting someone, and those attitudes can't but help contribute to attitudes excusing rape. Sex on a first date is great, but it's not guaranteed and really shouldn't be expected.

I'm quoting Deep, but this is also for Gelsamel. The expectedness of sex is, I think the main reason I put the 'grain-of-salt' caveat in the first post. Huxely takes every point and moves it way past what anyone would consider sane. Because, if we don't enforce strict puritanical views, we will enforce polygamy, love-less lives, and constant sex. Obviously. More to the point, while it seems I took a bit of an extreme example, my main concern is that ideas like:

Rather, it's a gift, and only a gift.

Cause more harm than good.

First off, and this is kinda off-topic for rape, but this sentiment is misogyny. The idea that sex is a gift comes from two simple 'facts':
1) That women are property, whose only use is making heirs.
2) If they are out having fun, they can't be trusted to produce heirs.

On topic, this sentiment is delusional. It has no basis in reality. Try this on for size: "Sex is a fun exercise that releases endorphins and other 'feel good' chemicals." And what do you think the idea that sex is a gift that should only be given to someone truly special says about the person who can't get sex? It says they aren't worthy of your time, that they aren't special, that they aren't worth loving. Our society places a lot of emphasis on love and sex. Our biology places a lot of emphasis on love and sex. To be hammered all day everyday with "You are a worthless piece of shit if you don't get laid tonight", and to be hammered all night every night with "No, I don't want to have sex with you" does not lead to being well adjusted.

I suggest a two pronged approach, where the availability of sex is increased, and where the shame of rejection is decreased. We can do both of that easily by treating sex not as something special and magical, but simply as something fun to do sometimes.

And as to whether or not this is a utopian ideal, I don't know. What I do know is that it semms to work out for our closest relatives the Bonobo

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (although a pair of Western Gorillas has been photographed performing face-to-face genital sex), tongue kissing, and oral sex. In scientific literature, the female-female behavior of touching genitals together is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing. The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it. Bonobos do not form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding.


Group of Bonobos
Bonobo males occasionally engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior. In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing". This also may occur when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. Another form of genital interaction, called "rump rubbing", occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. Takayoshi Kano observed similar practices among bonobos in the natural habitat.
Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital behavior, possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of bonobo society. The bonding among females enables them to dominate bonobo society. Although male bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females. Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes these new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity.
Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than those of the common chimpanzee. Female bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared to common chimpanzees, bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, enabling them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, bonobo females who are sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.

Maybe we should take a couple of pages from their (kinky) book.

[podbaydoor]

I think you're reading way more into the word "gift" than Kestrel implied. A "gift" doesn't have to be something super amazing special given to an awesome special recipient. I give gifts to my office coworkers. The sense in which Kestrel was using it, I feel, was in the sense that sex is something for which consent should be given freely and voluntarily, as a gift would be - whether it's to the love of my life or a one-night-stand. If someone is not waiting for the free and voluntary giving of the sex, then they are running the risk of forcing someone into that sex. It doesn't matter if they're a FWB or spouse.

tl;dr "gift" = free and voluntary giving
"gift" =/= super awesome special package

[Beardhammer]

I think you're reading way more into the word "gift" than Kestrel implied. A "gift" doesn't have to be something super amazing special given to an awesome special recipient. I give gifts to my office coworkers. The sense in which Kestrel was using it, I feel, was in the sense that sex is something for which consent should be given freely and voluntarily, as a gift would be - whether it's to the love of my life or a one-night-stand. If someone is not waiting for the free and voluntary giving of the sex, then they are running the risk of forcing someone into that sex. It doesn't matter if they're a FWB or spouse.

tl;dr "gift" = free and voluntary giving
"gift" =/= super awesome special package

I think it's fair to assume that, intended or not, people will likely read into sex more than they will you sharing a pizza with everyone. Somehow an onion and chicken pizza just doesn't quite have the psuedo-emotional hooks that sex does, despite it being delicious enough to be considered manna from heaven.

I agree with your assessment of KestrelLowing's use of the term "gift" though.

[nitePhyyre]

I had thought of that a while after I posted. Its just that I've never heard it used like that before. In my experience, "Sex is a gift" has always been followed with "So save it for someone you love". If that isn't what was meant, my apologies. That said, what I assumed was meant is a common enough attitude, and I still think it is a detrimental meme.

I think it's fair to assume that, intended or not, people will likely read into sex more than they will you sharing a pizza with everyone.

I'm saying this is a part of the problem.

[Beardhammer]

I think it's fair to assume that, intended or not, people will likely read into sex more than they will you sharing a pizza with everyone.

I'm saying this is a part of the problem.

And it will remain a problem until people either completely remove the emotional attachment that comes with sex (probably biologically impossible) or we somehow manage to assign equal emotional attachment to a pizza (possible, but would that really be a good thing?)

[CorruptUser]

I think it's fair to assume that, intended or not, people will likely read into sex more than they will you sharing a pizza with everyone.

I'm saying this is a part of the problem.

And it will remain a problem until people either completely remove the emotional attachment that comes with sex (probably biologically impossible) or we somehow manage to assign equal emotional attachment to a pizza (possible, but would that really be a good thing?)

I think I've met some guys that showed more emotions over the last slice of pizza than with a girl*. I really should not be one to judge, but I somehow doubt they are the best examples of the species.

*I say girl, and not woman, because I wouldn't call the females they sleep with 'women', regardless of age.

[Beardhammer]

I think it's fair to assume that, intended or not, people will likely read into sex more than they will you sharing a pizza with everyone.

I'm saying this is a part of the problem.

And it will remain a problem until people either completely remove the emotional attachment that comes with sex (probably biologically impossible) or we somehow manage to assign equal emotional attachment to a pizza (possible, but would that really be a good thing?)

I think I've met some guys that showed more emotions over the last slice of pizza than with a girl*. I really should not be one to judge, but I somehow doubt they are the best examples of the species.

*I say girl, and not woman, because I wouldn't call the females they sleep with 'women', regardless of age.

Being one of those guys that would generally prefer good food to good sex, I think I can safely say we're all a little warped, and probably shouldn't be considered "normal."

[setzer777]

I've had sex with women I felt no closer to than to a friendly acquaintance. My only real thoughts were about ensuring that it was an enjoyable experience for both of us. I've also had deeply emotional sex.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I certainly don't think that it makes me a "poor example of the species".

[CorruptUser]

You are a "poor example of the species" if you can't/never have more emotional involvement with another human than over the last slice of pizza, not for having unemotional sex. Maybe I'm wrong, and there really is some cheese and sauce covered bread that is more important than other people.

[mmmcannibalism]

You are a "poor example of the species" if you can't/never have more emotional involvement with another human than over the last slice of pizza, not for having unemotional sex. Maybe I'm wrong, and there really is some cheese and sauce covered bread that is more important than other people.

I have an Italian restaurant you need to go to.

[Beardhammer]

You are a "poor example of the species" if you can't/never have more emotional involvement with another human than over the last slice of pizza, not for having unemotional sex. Maybe I'm wrong, and there really is some cheese and sauce covered bread that is more important than other people.

I value the last slice of pizza more than I value the average human. There's six billion of us mucking up the planet, but a good pizza? Shit, those are rare.

[Deep_Thought]

And as to whether or not this is a utopian ideal, I don't know. What I do know is that it semms to work out for our closest relatives the Bonobo

I know it works for the Bonobo, and I do think that increasing the amount of good, enjoyable sex in the world would be a good thing. But unfortunately the Bonobo experience doesn't map terribly well to current human civilisation/society. It might work when you're in a small tribe of people, but as I pointed out in my earlier post the risk of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease makes it rather harder to achieve when you live in a city of several million people!

[Vash]

You are a "poor example of the species" if you can't/never have more emotional involvement with another human than over the last slice of pizza, not for having unemotional sex. Maybe I'm wrong, and there really is some cheese and sauce covered bread that is more important than other people.

What if your life's passion is pizza? Still, your point is valid. If you care about pizza about normally or less, or it's standard or inferior pizza, yet are unable to care for anyone more than that, you are fucked. Being that detached is not a happy thing. It also can mean problems for the people you do get involved with. Though, I think that people, if they make an honest effort and don't get stuck (which is why some people need help), can overcome it.