Rape vs Violence: A Double Standard

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
Look, if you want to declare that we live in a "rape culture" that's fine, but the whole idea of "we shouldn't teach women how to avoid rape, we should teach men not to rape" is a complete cop out. By that logic, I could say "we shouldn't teach people not to leave their keys in their car, we should teach people not to steal cars". If it were that incredibly simple, crime (and not just rape) would have been eliminated years ago. We should, of course, do what we can to teach people that rape, theft, murder, assault, etc. are terrible and should not be done, but the notion that there's something wrong with having people exercise reasonable judgment in order to avoid becoming victims of crimes is ludicrous. Crime will never go away 100%, and proclaiming that asking people to take steps to avoid becoming the victims of crime is somehow "victim-blaming" or contributing to "_________ culture" does no one any favors.
I actually agree with most of what you've said, statistically validated stereotypes are evidence of both societal inequality and that precautions are important. Unless you believe that the reason black people are the major source of petty theft is that blacks are inherently kleptomaniac, in which case I would direct you to some entry-level sociology regarding povery/crime cycles. Here's the thing, though;

- We teach people not to leave their keys in the car, but we also teach people not to steal cars.
- We teach women not to get raped... but there is no equivalent education for men instructing them not to rape. There is almost no consent-based content in sex ed curricular. Seriously. That's why its fucked, and that's why I bring it up. You're right, it might never be safe for a women to go out at night, and there should always be considerations of safety... but let's teach the boys not to steal the car too, right? Even if it doesn't work, it'd be a start.

For starters, this U of Surrey is extraordinarily dubious on multiple accounts. I read through the quotes used, and only 2 of them actually say anything about forcing a woman to do something against her will (11, 13), and these quotes themselves are somewhat dubious. You can argue that #7 does, but anytime a quote has multiple '...' smack in the middle of it, I take it with an enormous grain of salt. Likewise, I can almost guarantee that you could produce similar results by talking to convicted murderers about how they killed people and then having gamers talk about kills they made and get similar results with asking people "which came from gamers and which came from convicted murderers?" Does that prove that we live in a murder culture? I guess you could argue we do.
1) I would argue that we live in a violence/murder culture. As I have said, you can be both. We're also a music-culture and a bunch of other fun stuff, it's just a statement of societal internalization.

2) The elipses are irrelevant, those are the quotes as they were presented, and they were unable to distinguish them. Even with what we are given, unless you assume that Usurrey are lying the facts as presented show that in a controled, mis-attributed and randomized environment, young men couldn't tell apart convicted rapists and their lad's mags. Could the argument be made that the quotes were cherry picked, and that lads mags were disproportionately punished by the selection? Yes, definitely. But go pick one up and have a read, I think you'll find that the researchers wouldn't have had to look all too hard to pick those examples. Furthermore, while only a few directly insinuated rape, every quote given there is sexually exploitative or dismissive of consent.

Yes, it's telling that they are intelligent people making a justified assumption. 99% of rapes in the US are committed by men (that's against both men and women). Again, statistics.
Yes, and the statistics indicate a horrible reality. The assumption is justified, and it's justified because of a disturbing gender-bias concerning sexual violence. I'm not sure what we disagree on here.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
Smeatza said:
Maybe because they aren't telling the truth. Certainly not about western developed society.
Do we actually have any statistics to support the idea that all or even most rapists claim this? not that I doubt it, just that I?m interested.

...

On the other hand, rape as a sexual deviancy will exist as long as mental illness exists.
https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/scullyandmarollis.htm

Have a gander at this, the first two paragraphs are particularly important regarding the second part of your post I have quoted.

For anyone who can't be bothered to click the link, here's the relevant excerpt (although all of it is relevant)

"Rape is viewed as an individualistic, idiosyncratic symptom of a disordered personality. That is, rape is assumed to be a psychopathologic problem and individual rapists are assumed to be "sick." However, advocates of this model have been unable to isolate a typical or even predictable pattern of symptoms that are causally linked to rape. Additionally, research has demonstrated that fewer than 5 percent of rapists were psychotic at the time of their rape (Abel et al., 1980).

We view rape as behavior learned socially through interaction with others; convicted rapists have learned the attitudes and actions consistent with sexual aggression against women. Learning also includes the acquisition of culturally derived vocabularies of motive, which can be used to diminish responsibility and to negotiate a non-deviant identity."
- CONVICTED RAPIST'S VOCABULARY OF MOTIVE: EXCUSES AND JUSTIFICATIONS, Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla
I'll have to read through it, but that could be because rape has such a broad blanket of different acts that it covers. The act of forcibly penetrating someone at gun-point is usually kept in these statistics along with things like "18 year old had consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend." The first example could be viewed as 'sick' while the second does not require any kind of psychosis on the part of the 18 year old.

What's more, there gets to be very sticky and unclear rules when alcohol gets involved. If a guy is using alcohol to ply a victim, he might be viewed as 'sick' while another guy who's getting drunk right along with a woman and they end up having intercourse back at her place, things often become less clear. That is not to say that a man is correct in assuming that just because he gets invited back that she's consenting to sex, but how and when consent is given between two people drunk off their behinds is not always a clear issue. It is wholly possible for someone to commit rape without even intending to.

Edit: I wanted to add that the '99% of rapes are committed by men' statistic is actually incorrect if you use a definition of rape that isn't reliant just on penetration. If you expand the definition to include other sexual acts and use the same principles about intoxication and such, I believe I've read that it's something like 55% male/45% female perpetrators.
 

petrolmonkey

New member
May 6, 2009
143
0
0
Shinkicker444 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
McMarbles said:
The difference is that nobody's ever RAPED anyone in self-defense.
I mean how could it even work? Someone pulls a gun at you, you dive bomb for their crotch in the hopes of giving them a blow job so they don't kill you but out of shock they shoot you in the leg.

Robber: What the fuck, man?
You: I was gonna suck you off in exchange for my life!
Robber: I didn't want to shoot you, just wanted your wallet!
You: Well fuck all now!
Robber: What the hell can of plan was that anyway? You think if I was set on killing you the only thing that would make me change my mind would be an inexperinced blow job from you?
You: I really didn't think this through.
Robber: Clearly. You'd be under stressed, so it would of been lousy.
Honestly, first thing that popped into my head was something you'd see in a SAW movie.

"Fk the girl and I'll let you live." Or something like that.
Se7en. You are thinking of the film Se7en.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Gorrath said:
It is wholly possible for someone to commit rape without even intending to
I disagree emphatically. Try this; Only have sex with someone when you have received an unambiguous, clear YES from that person in a setting and environment where they are comfortable and completely lucid. And, here's the important thing, only when you trust that person to be honest when answering your proposition. It's an extremely robust ethos.

Don't fuck while drunk, like you wouldn't drive. Don't fuck someone who is drunk, like you wouldn't let them drive you home. Why? So you can't 'accidentally rape'. Make responsible decisions about your sex life, like your driving, and make sure you only screw people who take an equally responsible attitude towards sex. That way you can't be caught in a situation where you hurt somebody, or be hurt yourself.

The idea that 'It could happen to anyone' is insulting . No, it couldn't, because I'm not a rapist and I give a damn where my dick ends up, and that the people who it interacts with want it to.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Gorrath said:
I'll have to read through it, but that could be because rape has such a broad blanket of different acts that it covers. The act of forcibly penetrating someone at gun-point is usually kept in these statistics along with things like "18 year old had consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend." The first example could be viewed as 'sick' while the second does not require any kind of psychosis on the part of the 18 year old.
I'll go ahead and clear this up to save you the searching;

"From September, 1980, through September, 198 1, we interviewed 1 14 male convicted rapists who were incarcerated in seven maximum or medium security prisons in the Commonwealth of Virginia. All of the rapists had been convicted of the rape or attempted rape (n = 8) of an adult woman, although a few had teenage victims as well. Men convicted of incest, statutory rape, or sodomy of a male were omitted from the sample.

Twelve percent of the rapists had been convicted of more than one rape or attempted rape, 39 percent also had convictions for burglary or robbery, 29 percent for abduction, 25 percent for sodomy, and 11 percent for first or second degree murder. Eighty-two percent had a previous criminal history but only 23 percent had records for previous sex offenses. Their sentences for rape and accompanying crimes ranged from 10 years to an accumulation by one man of seven life sentences plus 380 years; 43 percent of the rapists were serving from 10 to 30 years and 22 percent were serving at least one life term. Forty-six percent of the ' rapists were white and 54 percent were black ' Their ages ranged from 18 to 60 years; 88 percent were between 18 and 35 years. Forty-two percent were either married or cohabitting at the time of their offense. Only 20 percent had a high school education or better, and 85 percent came from working-class backgrounds. Despite the popular belief that rape is due to a personality disorder, only 26 percent of these rapists had any history of emotional problems. When the rapists in this study were compared to a statistical profile of felons in all Virginia prisons, prepared by the Virginia Department of Corrections, rapists who volunteered for this research were disproportionately white, somewhat better educated, and younger than the average inmate."
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
- We teach women not to get raped... but there is no equivalent education for men instructing them not to rape. There is almost no consent-based content in sex ed curricular. Seriously. That's why its fucked, and that's why I bring it up. You're right, it might never be safe for a women to go out at night, and there should always be considerations of safety... but let's teach the boys not to steal the car too, right? Even if it doesn't work, it'd be a start.
See, you need some sort of evidence of this, you cannot simply declare it. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I can absolutely say that my parents, my sex ed curriculum, my peers, and society taught me that "no means no" and that having sex with a woman who cannot give consent is wrong, and I've yet to meet anyone who believes otherwise who isn't already a sociopath or criminal (obviously an extremely tiny minority) and I've lived all over the country, so this notion of there being this incredible epidemic of guys who think rape is ok seems like a huge stretch to me. I'm sure you can find random internet postings of guys trying to justify such behavior, but I need some hard data in that particular regard.

Ultrajoe said:
2) The elipses are irrelevant, those are the quotes as they were presented, and they were unable to distinguish them. Even with what we are given, unless you assume that Usurrey are lying the facts as presented show that in a controled, mis-attributed and randomized environment, young men couldn't tell apart convicted rapists and their lad's mags. Could the argument be made that the quotes were cherry picked, and that lads mags were disproportionately punished by the selection? Yes, definitely. But go pick one up and have a read, I think you'll find that the researchers wouldn't have had to look all too hard to pick those examples. Furthermore, while only a few directly insinuated rape, every quote given there is sexually exploitative or dismissive of consent.
Several things.
1: For starters, the test was given to both men and women, and neither could distinguish.
2: No, only 3 quotes are dismissive of consent, and all 3 came from rapists, not "lad's mags" (love that name, BTW).
3: The U of Surrey test fails because they do not show which quotes in particular people got consistently right or wrong. As I pointed out, only 3 quotes are actually dismissive of consent (in other words, actually meet the definition of rape), and thus if the vast majority of people correctly associated those quotes with rapists (but may have gotten many of the others wrong) it pretty much sinks the entire thesis of the Surrey study.
4: 'Sexually exploitative' is extremely vague. I could say that you're being sexually exploitative by saying "women are horny, horny fucks". A men's mag saying something such as: "A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy." is not exploitative. Why? Because some women do like anal sex for those reasons (trust me, I've known them). Now, if it had "all women really want anal sex so give it to them" then ok, I could see your point.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
Gorrath said:
It is wholly possible for someone to commit rape without even intending to
I disagree emphatically. Try this; Only have sex with someone when you have received an unambiguous, clear YES from that person in a setting and environment where they are comfortable and completely lucid. And, here's the important thing, only when you trust that person to be honest when answering your proposition. It's an extremely robust ethos.

Don't fuck while drunk, like you wouldn't drive. Don't fuck someone who is drunk, like you wouldn't let them drive you home. Why? So you can't 'accidentally rape'. Make responsible decisions about your sex life, like your driving, and make sure you only screw people who take an equally responsible attitude towards sex. That way you can't be caught in a situation where you hurt somebody, or be hurt yourself.

The idea that 'It could happen to anyone' is insulting . No, it couldn't, because I'm not a rapist and I give a damn where my dick ends up, and that the people who it interacts with want it to.
Well, firstly please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say 'it could happen to anyone' I said 'someone can commit rape without intending to'. Those two statements are not at all the same. While adhering to the standards you set forth would eliminate the possibility of rape without intention, people often do not. An individual can very well think they have received consent when they have not, in which case they can, in fact, commit rape without intending to. You can disagree with that having ever happened, but I think it's pretty easy to see various scenarios of just exactly how that could happen. This doesn't make what happened okay either. You can commit murder without intending to and it's still wrong (we usually call this manslaughter). I am simply illustrating that rape can have varying factors that may or may not lead to the conclusion that someone was 'psychotic' when they committed the act. Someone having sex while drunk in a way that their partner didn't clearly communicate was okay is still rape, but does not require the rapist to be psychotic.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
But in doing so you're redefining the term, unjustly, so you can dismiss it. Rape culture just means that our society facilitates rape, that's what it means,
So I looked the term up, in my native language I might add, and the definition is as follows:

Rape Culture is a form of society in which rape or sexual assault is mostly tolerated (not a direct quote but as close as I can translate).

So dont try to tell me I am redefining the term, while I just said it implicates certain things. While your own definiton is far more off.

we facilitate it by depicting sexual exploitation and the coercion of sex as natural and desirable. I feel like a broken record, but it really is the same point as I've been trying to make all this time; our culture is flawed and it directly or indirectly leads to more sexual assault than there would be if we weren't this way. That's why it's a problem.
I would say the bold statement is just untrue. How is exploiting women for sex socially desirable, outside of a few juvenile male groups? I'm a bit unclear how you would define "the coercion of sex", but if you mean finding someone who wants to have sex with you, yeah thats pretty natural and desirable, but even that only to an certain extend. In my experience people who sleep around alot get judged, how much is depending on the social circles.

Even if we assume our society encourages men to "conquer" women. I dont really get how you jump from: "Men have to be the more active part in most romantic/sexual encounters, within our society" to: "Our society encourages men to get sex by any means necessary."

Especially since the first one is not a cultural thing but a biological one: Male presents itself, thus making the first step. Then trying to impress the female, however they do that: by being charming, showing of money, or having colourfull feathers. And the female has more of a choosing role. Thats basically in every species the same way.

In conclusion I think your assumption that our society facilitates rape by how a desirable "sexual conquest" for a man is depicted, is far fetched and a theory at best.

To come back to the intial topic, since we are, like you say, a murder culture and a rape culture, the term is meaningless in a rape compared to violance discussion. And since we are all those things the term means nothing at all to me, and I think I'm not alone there because you only read that on some corners in the internet. At least I never encountert that term in RL.
I agree we have gotten off topic, I did not bring the term up initially but disliked the way it was being dismissed incorrectly in the discussion. But, just for clarity, is the second part of this section really implying that because most people don't care it doesn't matter?
No "rape culture" doesn't matter to me because its not really a thing, at least not by the definitions I could find, and where I live (Germany that is).

Another logical fallacy. Here's the quotes we have access to:

1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ?I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ?Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.

Young men couldn't tell which of these were said by a rapist, and which were said by a publication that they read as a form of sexual advice. Yeah, the assassin and the car salesman both buy milk. We can deduce from that that they both enjoy milk. Both the magazine writers and the rapists agree that abusive, exploitative, sexist and aggressive behavior towards women is an acceptable way to go about your sexual life. You don't see a problem with that? You say 'sure there will be similar quotes regarding the topic', but read the damn quotes,

'You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.'
That's one that explicitly says women he dislikes need to be violently fucked (and given he's a rapist (revealed in the source article), that would probably imply that he didn't care much for what she wanted). And magazine readers couldn't determine this from something they would read daily. And you honestly think that's the same as comparing a shopping list from an assassin and a car salesman. Really? And do you honestly think that doesn't imply that those young men, at least, had a fucked up view of relationships? Yeah, both they and the rapists wanted to get laid, and they were indistinguishable in their efforts to do so. You do know what a rapists efforts to get sex are, right?

It would be more apt to see if car buyers could tell the difference between advertisements for cars and murders. And if they can't, then that *does* say something valid about the way we think about hired killers and a new 4x4.
"logical fallacy" Sure you know what that means? Because it does not mean "You dont agree with me and thus your arguments are illogical".

Of course my example with the salesmen was hyperbole, my point is certain people share certain core mindsets even if they are very different in other regards.

Some groups of juvenile men tend to have fucked up views about women and sex, no shocker here, some rapists tend to have fucked up views about women and sex, again no shocker.

My initial point is that such a study has no scientific value. That is because finding some vague out of context quotes that share similaritys between to groups says nothing about those groups or a connection between those in a scientific way. You might find the study shocking, but that does not add to its value as a scientific project. The same thing could be done with any two groups you like.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
A few things.
For starters, this U of Surrey is extraordinarily dubious on multiple accounts. I read through the quotes used, and only 2 of them actually say anything about forcing a woman to do something against her will (11, 13), and these quotes themselves are somewhat dubious. You can argue that #7 does, but anytime a quote has multiple '...' smack in the middle of it, I take it with an enormous grain of salt. Likewise, I can almost guarantee that you could produce similar results by talking to convicted murderers about how they killed people and then having gamers talk about kills they made and get similar results with asking people "which came from gamers and which came from convicted murderers?" Does that prove that we live in a murder culture? I guess you could argue we do.
Thank you that makes my point about that study perfectly. It's just sensationalism and has less in common with actual research than it has rainbow press.

Ultrajoe said:
Try this; Only have sex with someone when you have received an unambiguous, clear YES.
Now it gets a bit tricky as to what exactly consent is, because if you only count explicit verbal consent I think you are wrong. I had many situations where I did not formaly declared that I want to have intercourse and gotten a clear verbal consent to that. I mean If she pulles you in and rips you clothes of thats equally okay in my book.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
See, you need some sort of evidence of this, you cannot simply declare it. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I can absolutely say that my parents, my sex ed curriculum, my peers, and society taught me that "no means no" and that having sex with a woman who cannot give consent is wrong, and I've yet to meet anyone who believes otherwise who isn't already a sociopath or criminal (obviously an extremely tiny minority) and I've lived all over the country, so this notion of there being this incredible epidemic of guys who think rape is ok seems like a huge stretch to me. I'm sure you can find random internet postings of guys trying to justify such behavior, but I need some hard data in that particular regard.
I actually have to go to bed, but I will find the study concerning deficient consent education when I awake.

Several things.
1: For starters, the test was given to both men and women, and neither could distinguish.
My mistake, you are correct. The first article I read about the study indicated it was supplied to men only, incorrectly. I don't think it impacts the implications of the study, however; men's mags share a problematic vocabulary with rapists. A broader spectrum of participants only strengthens its validity.

2: No, only 3 quotes are dismissive of consent, and all 3 came from rapists, not "lad's mags" (love that name, BTW).
I contest this. 1 and 2 are textbook examples of somebody interpreting desire or a proposition from a passive action (dressing), and the second literally refers to a woman's body as 'something', with no address to the individual's preference. 3, I admit, is merely a statement of possibility, but I argue its inclusion is valid because of the context; we know it's from a lad's mag. Were it revealed to be from a rapist the implications would be less benign. 4 recommends sex as a substitute for apology, 5 is blatantly entitled to someone else's body, 6 is stating that all women like dirty talk and 7 advocates rape. 8 I admit is benign, even if it indicates some troubling attitudes to women. 9 is like 3, it's valid in its context because we don't know who said it, but given it's actually from a rapist it would be interesting to note what 'willingly' entails. 10 through 13 are all talking about the desirability of a woman in a position of vulnerability (as are many others) and the last three are concerned with women being natural victims.


3: The U of Surrey test fails because they do not show which quotes in particular people got consistently right or wrong. As I pointed out, only 3 quotes are actually dismissive of consent (in other words, actually meet the definition of rape), and thus if the vast majority of people correctly associated those quotes with rapists (but may have gotten many of the others wrong) it pretty much sinks the entire thesis of the Surrey study.
I concede this on its premise, but not its conclusion. We do suffer for not seeing the exact responses. But one of the supplied results is important even without them; When given sources for the quotes, the participants associated with those not attributed to rapists, when mis-attributed and given correctly. This indicates an inability to separate the two sources. In addition, the researchers stated that the results were as effective as pure guesswork, which would imply there was no across-the-board avoidance of particular questions by all involved. I agree though, I can't say this for certain. It's tempting to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that wouldn't be intellectually honest of me, now, would it?

4: 'Sexually exploitative' is extremely vague. I could say that you're being sexually exploitative by saying "women are horny, horny fucks". A men's mag saying something such as: "A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy." is not exploitative. Why? Because some women do like anal sex for those reasons (trust me, I've known them). Now, if it had sex "all women really want anal sex so give it to them" then ok, I could see your point.
I apologize for my vague statement.
 

King Aragorn

New member
Mar 15, 2013
368
0
0
Admittedly, i'v only skimmed over the first page, but i'll say this: what about the gameplay perspective? there is justification for let's say..why I killed that assassination target in Assassin's Creed, but what about that helpless guard over there who I killed for fun? i'm not necessarily condemning violence in video games, but there is kind of a double standard. Rape can be equally explored in video games. Either it be a powerful moment for the player character, a villain is made more villainous, so on and so forth. Just like there are a few dozen million rape scenes in movies.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Chris Tian said:
"logical fallacy" Sure you know what that means? Because it does not mean "You dont agree with me and thus your arguments are illogical".
I take this discussion seriously, and I don't accuse people of a fallacy as some sort of cheap swipe. The basis of your refutation was that this study was comparable to juxtaposing shopping lists of two different careers. There is no logical progression from one example to another, I even gave an example of a more correctly comparable 'shopping list' analogy.

As such, I called it a logical fallacy. If your intention was to demonstrate that the study is as equally silly as your given metaphor, then I'm sorry, but as I took it you were comparing an apple to my orange.
 

Chris Tian

New member
May 5, 2012
421
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
Chris Tian said:
"logical fallacy" Sure you know what that means? Because it does not mean "You dont agree with me and thus your arguments are illogical".
I take this discussion seriously, and I don't accuse people of a fallacy as some sort of cheap swipe. The basis of your refutation was that this study was comparable to juxtaposing shopping lists of two different careers. There is no logical progression from one example to another, I even gave an example of a more correctly comparable 'shopping list' analogy.

As such, I called it a logical fallacy. If your intention was to demonstrate that the study is as equally silly as your given metaphor, then I'm sorry, but as I took it you were comparing an apple to my orange.
My point is that the study and my hypothetical shopping list have both equally much scientific value regarding the comparison between the two groups respectively. Saying that is logical fallacy felt like a cheap swipe since its true, both have exactly zero scientific value in that regard.

You took your own assumptions as to what exactly the study implies about our culture and used it to prove your point. All the study proves is that you can cherry pick certain quotes and people can not tell from whom they are. You may take from that what you will, but thats your interpretation not scientific proof of your point. Thats why I initially said its hard to argue with a study thats scientifically worthless.
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/scullyandmarollis.htm

Have a gander at this, the first two paragraphs are particularly important regarding the second part of your post I have quoted.

For anyone who can't be bothered to click the link, here's the relevant excerpt (although all of it is relevant)

"Rape is viewed as an individualistic, idiosyncratic symptom of a disordered personality. That is, rape is assumed to be a psychopathologic problem and individual rapists are assumed to be "sick." However, advocates of this model have been unable to isolate a typical or even predictable pattern of symptoms that are causally linked to rape. Additionally, research has demonstrated that fewer than 5 percent of rapists were psychotic at the time of their rape (Abel et al., 1980).

We view rape as behavior learned socially through interaction with others; convicted rapists have learned the attitudes and actions consistent with sexual aggression against women. Learning also includes the acquisition of culturally derived vocabularies of motive, which can be used to diminish responsibility and to negotiate a non-deviant identity."
- CONVICTED RAPIST'S VOCABULARY OF MOTIVE: EXCUSES AND JUSTIFICATIONS, Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla
Interesting paper. I could have done with more detail.
You might find this interesting.
http://www.courseweb.uottawa.ca/PSY3171/personalwp/p6The%20Relationship%20between%20Psychopathy%20and%20Deviant.pdf
It supports what you posted but still acknowledges that rape can come from sexual deviancy.
Rapists should still be given psychotherapy. Mental illness or no, there are issues there.

If sexual education was adequate teaching kids about consent would be a part of it.
The problem that this presents is that the majority of rapists come from working class backgrounds, and don't have a high school education in the first place. So the only place left to turn is the parents, and if that's a dud.......
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Loki_The_Good said:
I think it's less about the content and more about the player. It's true in a sense virtual mindless violence and virtual rape technically hurt no one. (except for traumatized rape victims soo no I guess that isn't even true anyways) It's more about the catharsis release from the players. If your stressed out having a bad day there are people you want to hurt. People you feel deserved to be hurt. You can't do it though society doesn't allow it for a host of good reasons. So you burn off that aggression harmlessly by killing virtual proxies.

The problem is no one deserves to be raped. It's an entirely one sided attack. The only catharsis is for people who are predators. People who want to hurt a victim. Who want to destroy some one, own someone, take away their person hood an use them as a tool for their amusement. While no one suffers when done virtually it comes from a far darker and far less common desire then pent up aggression and frustration. Why is it not good enough to beat them to kill them why must you do that and then violate them. It's all about power over someone else. No other reason. None. Facilitating fantasies like that is not something that should be encouraged. I'd never ban the subject entirely. Art needs to be free and there are ways of treating even the worst material and situations with respect but it has to be done carefully, tactfully, and right.

It's not like violence has free reign anyways. If some made a game KKK manhunter where you shoot fleeing unarmed black people their would be a huge outcry and rightly so. This is the line rape always crosses. Video game violence even mindless violence comes from a desire to release feelings of victimization and helplessness. In GTA when your going on a spree it's generally from a "no world you put your hands up" mentality. It's a feeling of regaining power. Rape and my above example are about making someone a victim. It's about taking someone else's power. That's not something we should encourage.
I want to engage you on this post because you seem to be advocating the position that, if someone finds something offensive enough, censorship is okay. I'm not sure because I don't know what you mean by 'outcry'. If someone wants to make the KKK game you suggested, then in my view they should be allowed to do this. Now if you mean we should call it out for what it is, a racist bunch of nonsense that we personally find offensive, I agree. If by outcry you mean we should attempt to censor the individual who made the game, I totally disagree.

I have no problem if someone makes a game dealing with any situation, scenario or theme; it is their right to do so, and while I'll not condone it by buying it, neither would I condemn anyone who wants to make or buy such things. You claim that art needs to be free, only to continue by saying that it has to fit some mold of tact or care. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is tactful or careful? Does GTA treat murder with tact and care? Of course you've already said what others have, that murder and rape are different things, but there are plenty of people that would just as quickly claim that the 'tactless', 'careless' way with which murder in GTA is treated is deserving of censorship or moral outcry. Who draws the line between what is too dark? Which subjects can be treated with tactless, graceless abandon and which must have the 'appropriate' somber tones?

I say we let our wallets decide. Those who want to play rape games can play rape games, those who want violent games can play those, those who want Viva Pinata 3 can play that (I know I do). And let none of us or even most of us decide who has to treat what fantasy in what way.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
Terramax said:
Although, I have heard of one film by Paul Verhoeven, many years ago, where a homophobe is actually raped by a group of gay men, and then becomes gay himself. I forgot which film though.
I wouldn't know about that, but Paul Verhoeven's Flesh+Blood [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089153/] has a rape scene.

SpunkeyMonkey said:
Some of the "murder" quoted isn't done with or executed with murderous intent. Look at Carmageddon - it's funny, it's comical - you don't set out to slice open someone or take pleasure in taking someone's life, it plays in a comical way and has the whole tone set as OTT and silly.
Society is already disconnected from reality when they can play murder games without any problems. But yeah, when games portray it as something easy and distant, the act of killing doesn't even register anymore. But fortunately there are games like Spec Ops: The Line that break the normal perception of gamers and take a serious look at killing.

zefichan said:
People like you are the reason why it's not "fuss", why it's needed, and why it doesn't matter that it's "just" games. Your attitude right there says everything.

The day whiny people like you realize that rape is actually a big deal, and that making fun of the victims and pretending it's not a big deal is BAD, that day we can stop "fussing" about rape.
Rape is bad. That is also something I have said in the OP. But war is even worse (on a global scale) and people are making fun of that too. Anyhow, there is a difference talking about rape in reality and talking about a scenario involving rape in games.

Also people are watching movies like the SAW movies, where there are numerous torture scenes and mutilation. People pay money to see stuff like that. And then there is stuff like The Human Centipede [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/].
 

Mark Rhodes

New member
Nov 15, 2011
31
0
0
It is a simple matter to why rape is worse. Rape always has a victim, it has to by definition. Violence does not. Sure, someone has to get hurt, but killing someone in a game because that person killed your game family or whatever is different than raping someone.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Mark Rhodes said:
It is a simple matter to why rape is worse. Rape always has a victim, it has to by definition. Violence does not. Sure, someone has to get hurt, but killing someone in a game because that person killed your game family or whatever is different than raping someone.
Even if we all agree that rape is worse though, what does that understanding mean about censorship? Murder is worse than simply punching people, but we don't use that as a precursor to censor murder from games. There are also things some might consider worse than rape (torturous mutilation) which already appear in some games. What is worse or not is subjective, but whether we accept censorship or not is something else entirely.