Ur a pair of F/wits. U make me hurl with your stupid, ignorant, rape-apologist comments.

Boys are raped; dozens of elderly folk – many of them male; men; women and girls; infants.

Not all rapists are sociopaths, paedophiles or anythng ‘separate’ to the rest of the community. Most of them claim to be heterosexual and many carry on seemingly normal and ordinary social involvement – family; jobs; friends.

When these ‘ordinary’ blokes rape; they don’t even think it’s rape – they think it’s just an opportunity and their entitlement – and that’s because society has infused them with exactly the claptrap you two are sprouting.

idjits both

And there’s a difference between making a joke about rape (still abhorrent and something I have no tolerance for) and telling a rape victim that she deserved it, or that she wasn’t really raped because of X, Y, Z, using all of the same justifications as rapists.

If we 1) know that almost all rapes are committed by psychopaths 2) We have extremely accurate “psychopath detection” skills (that can be taught)

Again, do we know this? I didn’t have time to read through the link you provided thoroughly, but no evidence jumped out at me, and I really feel like I would have seen it before if out there.

There is a huge problem, and that is people are entirely IGNORANT about psychopathy.

And they tend to be just as ignorant about consent. Again, I don’t believe that most rapes are committed by psychopaths, nor will I until I see very convincing evidence. I believe that most rapes are committed by men who know that they’re doing something wrong, but convince themselves that the non-consent doesn’t really “count.” Most people believe that rape means the victim must fight and scream, and that the rapist must use force outside of the rape itself. When those things don’t happen, lots and lots of people think that’s consent. Most people don’t know what rape is. Studies also show that most men who commit rape don’t call it rape. I think it takes a person with a mental illness or just a pure evil streak to really beat a person and threaten them with harm and rape them, but I don’t think it takes mental illness to rationalize doing a horrible thing to another person. I think most of us have done that at some point. And it’s even easier when the horrible thing looks nothing like what we’re told the horrible thing is supposed to look like.

Yes. So? That’s not even remotely the same as saying that all boys/men are rapists.

People are more likely to get into a car accident when they are drinking. Is that saying that all people drive drunk?

Women are more likely to cheat on their partners when they’re deployed with the military (I believe — for the sake of argument at least). Does that mean all women are cheaters?

Children are more likely to hit each other when their parents aren’t around. Does that mean all kids are violent when unsupervised.

Of course they don’t. And I can’t imagine you or anyone else taking offense at the above statements in terms of generalizing about an entire gender/age group/species, assuming that the statements are verifiable accurate. But a lot of people get all pissy when you say something like “men are more likely to commit rape when they’re drinking.” It’s not saying “men will commit rape when drinking.” It’s not even close. It’s pointing out a statistic, and a double-standard. It’s really annoying. And you know what? I feel no need to coddle men when talking about sexual violence committed by men against women. Just none, whatsoever. Including the majority of men who are not rapists. If non-rapist men want to make conversations about rapists and the women they rape about them (which is not the route you’ve taken, but the most common one — “but I’m not a rapist!”), I”ve got no time for it.

As for the above, you did not say it in those exact words. But it was with the same unqualified sentences:

“And what do you mean boys are more like to commit rape when they have been drinking?”

“Boys” aren’t more likely to commit rape if they have been drinking. Psychopaths and those with psychopathic tendencies are.

“Boys” is a 10 times broader term. Its an entire gender.

Also…

“No one wants to hear that their son could potentially rape someone . . . let’s keep talking about slutty drunk girls, so that no one has to sit down and have uncomfortable conversations about sex, power, violence, or icky old consent.”

Again… it doesn’t qualify “son”. Not qualifying “son” or “boys” is the same as applying it to the entire gender.

————–
Please again. Don’t understand me as subtracting from your great points. I’m just a subscriber to the “ecological activism” frame. Where we need to be careful when solving issues, to not create the opposite issues.

If we are not careful with unqualified statements, we can create toxic sexual shame in boys. This in turn creates boys that grow not knowing where their self-shaming comes from, and then, guess what? They channel it into misogyny.

I might be overcareful, but I certainly wouldn’t want to contribute to misogyny, when qualifying any statements on men is very easy.

——-

The suggestion above on parental conversation is great. And obviously (I AGREE) with it. Parents should have this conversation.

I’m adding something on top of it, not instead of it. Which is that parents should also get educated on psychopathy and be able to recognize it forming.

In Fact… One of the international solutions currently being constructed to lowering rape in the long-term (over generations) is for countries to diagnose potential psychopaths as early as possible and then adjust their upbringing to eliminate psychopathy.

In other words, for a psychopathic boy… the plain uncomfortable conversation from dad and mom is not **nearly** enough to scare him.

This boy needs even more treatment. So on top of the current suggestion, we’d also add even more preventive measures for psychopathic boys.

But your bullshit about saying that men shouldn’t rape is saying that all men are rapists causes me to deflate despite the rest of your comment. Especially since I just looked and no on on this thread even said the words “men should stop raping.”

I’ll be back for the rest later.

– I know that activists in the usa are used to having to deal a-hole conservatives. So they are used to making this thumb of rule “if it doesn’t say things in the exact same way as me, then it must be one of those pro-rape people”. So I understand why you made that assumption.

I’d be grateful if you give me the benefit of the doubt and don’t stereotype me but read my opinions on their own merit.

– The point: I am trying to *add* to the current frame. Not subtract from it. Everything that the movement in the usa already does about rape I AGREE with. I’m just trying to inform you of one additional weapon we have. Not try to convince you that you are wrong.

– Here’s the psychopath references, the most thorough literature on rape and link to biology and disorders (psychopathy):
http://tinyurl.com/67pz2p

==”All it takes in order to commit rape (as one of the options) is a rationalization that what you’re doing doesn’t count as rape.”== – The only person capable to *act* on that rationalization is a psychopath. (in general)

There’s a difference between making a joke about murder and actually committing it.

“And are you saying that psychopaths can’t be boys? Does that mean that my 15-year-old rapist was a man, or not a psychopath and therefore not a rapist by your definition? Really, I’m curious.”—> I was referring to the unqualified statement “boys”. The notion is “teach your boys not to rape” instead of “stop psychopathic boys from raping”

Men (boys) should stop raping = sexist statement, since we’re linking an entire gender to a specific crime act.

You might ask: “So, what’s wrong with teaching boys not to rape Alek?” The answer is easy. There is nothing wrong with it. It just doesn’t work. Psychopaths are by definition resistant to socialization and moral pressure. The only thing that effectively works on psychopaths is punishment.

Here’s the problem. A punishment comes “after the fact”. When the crime has already been committed.

=====But saying that everyone who rapes is therefore a psychopath and therefore nothing can be done to stop rapists from raping====

I never said that. You’re confusing me with the conservative “she asked for it” types that you have over there. That’s normal though so no offense taken, even though otherwise i’d fall in a coma if somehow people believed that I say rape can not be prevented. But again, no offense taken.

The information is not my attempt at drawing a correlation. (if x, then they must be psychopaths) Its actually based on actual on info about actual rapists. They are almost all diagnosed psychopaths.

======
The world would be much more digestible if only the most evil, insane and horrible creatures imaginable are capable of rape.
======

Psychopaths are never ever perceived as horrible, evil or insane. That’s a sociopath. Psychopaths are people who are perceived as charming, funny, friendly, charismatic and even sometimes kind. That’s one of the huge misconceptions. And that’s what i’m actually proposing! Education.

Before feminism, people actually believed in the myth that rape is done by strangers (and most who haven’t studied feminism still do).

In the same way, most of the people alive, are completely clueless on what psychopathy is and entertain all kinds of myths (imagining evil, foaming at the mouth serial killers). Which is why women are actually ending up befriend and dating psychopaths in an extraordinary ratio. Due to this misconception.

*Did you see the study on dating and psychopaths?

– I’m trying to add a weapon in the fight, not replace the current ones. If we 1) know that almost all rapes are committed by psychopaths 2) We have extremely accurate “psychopath detection” skills (that can be taught)

Why wouldn’t we add it? You say…

===============
You can’t spot a rapist.
===============

True. You can not spot a rapist.

You can however spot a psychopath. In fact, there are SAT-like tests on it.

Per example, just rounded percentages: If you had a 90% ability to spot psychopaths, and 90% of rape is commited by psychopaths. By having that skill, you are able to spot 80% of all rapists.

==============
And telling women that they can just puts them at more risk and also sets them up for blaming themselves more when they failed to spot that rapist that certain people think they should have been able to spot.
==============

I realize where you’re coming from because of that entire issue in the usa with victim-blaming. So I understand the instant assumption.

And… at the same time. You’re saying we shouldn’t be using something that saves women 80% of the time, because in case it doesn’t work… they might feel guilty it didn’t work? So we’d rather they not use it at all?

Do you see my point. This is an issue of victim-blaming.

If we don’t adopt new weapons in the fight, because we’re afraid that victim blamers will shame us for using them, then the victim-blamers have won, no?

============
It’s also throwing up our hands at the problem, and throwing open the door for the usual “he’s not a rapist! I know him! He’s not a psychopath! He’s a good person! He once gave money to a charity!” kind of arguments.
=============

So you actually agree with me. What you describe above is how people act around a psychopath. They rationalize out that he must not be one because they think that a psychopath acts evil on the outside.

In fact, psychopaths make friends the most easily and are perceived often times the friendliest most charismatic people around.

There is a huge problem, and that is people are entirely IGNORANT about psychopathy.

Besides. Here are some other things that psychopaths are the main perpetrators of in everyone’s life:

-Physical abuse
-Cheating
-Manipulation in both financial and personal life

You’re telling me that if women (and people in general) were able to recognize psychopaths, that wouldn’t bring huge advantage to their lives?

And are you saying that psychopaths can’t be boys? Does that mean that my 15-year-old rapist was a man, or not a psychopath and therefore not a rapist by your definition? Really, I’m curious.

Are you involved in the anti-sexual violence movement Alek? Because while you seem like someone who intend well, I get the distinct impression that you’re not. And to me, that says that you should either leave it to or get involved with those are and stop marching in and acting like you know better, because you clearly don’t. The world would be much more digestible if only the most evil, insane and horrible creatures imaginable are capable of rape. And I personally could not think less of someone who does rape and do in fact think they’re the scum of the earth. But saying that everyone who rapes is therefore a psychopath and therefore nothing can be done to stop rapists from raping is ignoring the fact that a.) rape is known to not exist in some cultures and b.) the facts prove otherwise. It’s also throwing up our hands at the problem, and throwing open the door for the usual “he’s not a rapist! I know him! He’s not a psychopath! He’s a good person! He once gave money to a charity!” kind of arguments. You can’t spot a rapist. And telling women that they can just puts them at more risk and also sets them up for blaming themselves more when they failed to spot that rapist that certain people think they should have been able to spot.

“”Don’t kid yourself; airing that ad would suggest that rapists are ordinary people who are responsible for their own actions!”"

RAPISTS ARE NOT NORMAL PEOPLE. Rapists are:

1) Psychopaths
2) Violent Criminals

Here’s something that everyone seems to forget… Virtually a 100% of rapists… have one thing in common. They all have this one thing in common. What is it?

They are psychopaths.

And guess what. Psychopathy (more on the narcissistic disorder side) is a very clearly defined disorder that is easy to recognize.

So the facts are like this:

-Women are raped mostly by boyfriends, acquaintances, family, male friends (not strangers)
-Psychopaths have the most “social success” with women (befriending women, getting dates with women, forming relationships with women )

*Even though psychopaths are a small percentage of the population (maybe 1 in 25) they represent most of female’s friends or short-term partners.

The chances of a non-psychopath committing rape are almost non-existent. Obviously this doesn’t solve family rape (uncles etc…), but it automatically gets rid of a huge chunk of the problem.

There is a very huge problem in society… where women are unable to recognize and resist psychopaths (ussually charming, cunning, charismatic and socially manipulative, easy to befriend people).

1) Rape is committed by psychopaths (not men or boys, but psychopaths, a disorder)
2) Alcohol increases the chances of you falling a victim to a psychopat (conned, raped, financially cheated, etc…)

I realize that feminists have had to battle with conservative ignorant a-holes for years! You had to battle with these patriarchs who victim blame and tell girls that if they dress a certain way “its their fault”.

And I realize how that can make you watch anything that’s not “rapist punishment” as “one of those victim-blamers”. Its only natural for the human brain. We automate things we have to do a lot (fight off aholes), but we automate it by generalizing things into simple black and white categories. Its either victim blaming, or its rapist punishing… We’ve automated it so much, we can’t even perceive anything else.

To inform people of risk-minimization, does NOT mean, that its giving up on criminal punishment.

When we inform tourists to be wary of people who touch them a lot while asking for the time… We’re not blaming the tourists for being robbed. It does not mean we’re telling tourists not to leave the hotel!

p.s.

Again… “boys” do not rape. Psychopaths do. To say “parents should stop their sons from raping” is just as ignorant as “parents should stop their daughters from dressing nice”.

Boys do not rape. Rapists do. Its not an issue of “man”. Its an issue of “aggressive criminal”.

At either rate Sunless Nick, if you wish to superimpose societiy’s lack of insight onto me because you willfully choose to ignore what I am ACTUALLY saying in favor of that, I can’t help that.

I’m not. I’m saying that society imposes a context onto what you’re saying, which you may not want there, but you can’t just deactivate it because you don’t want it to count in your case.

You posited by inference and implication (if not outright expression) that safety and liberty are somehow mutually exclusive or non overlapping.

No I didn’t.

This is the reason why race can never be truly discussed in America (and I say this as a Black man) because people hear what they WANT to hear as opposed to many times what is being said.

Which unfortunately, you are demonstrating quite well.