To try and dispel some rape myths since we're all talking about it ?

[bemorebernard]

I did some training with one of rape crisis most eminent psychologists.

There are 4 categories of rapist

1. sadistic rapist - the Fred west type , they get off on humiliation, terror , violence , they get salacious pleasure from causing pain . Very rare .

2. angry rapist - the frenzied attacker . Think the Yorkshire ripper . Most likely to come to police attention.

3. the opportunist rapist - they will use violence as a means to and end . But they don't get off on the violence , it's a way to get the sex they want .

4. now this is important so listen up
   The compensatory rapist. Never uses violence .the most complex and clever . The most difficult to investigate. THEY DO MOT SEE THEMSELVES AS RAPISTS. They utilise distorted thinking to justify their actions. "Women like it , when they say no they mean yes , men are t mind readers ," and after the rape they will normalise it . The fact there are often no consequences after will be justification to them. They may perpetrate many sex crimes and the cos will often say there isn't enough evidence. Only if they are reported 4 or 5 times will they statistically start to come to attention.

RAPE IS A RELATIVELY EASY. RIME TO GET AWAY WITH

Now think about it .

This happened to me . All those women saying none of my friends / relatives/ partners would do this , exactly how do you know if they don't see their actions as rape ?

I had a one night stand back in 2015 and what started consensual became something else. That guy left my flat the next day and will have carried on dating , maybe now in a full relationship or married . He tried to go from vaginal to anal sex without asking and pretending not to know what he'd done . It hurt me . I told him what he was doing and he laughed and said sorry .

He might never display that behaviour again. No one would think twice .
And he would deny and refute it if I'd reported it. A mistake he'd say no doubt .

My point is men in cat 4 do not see themselves as rapists so many many men have acted this way then justified it and shaken it off , never to surface again

I tried dating from mid 40s to 50 and the behaviour of men in that category was abhorrent. They clearly had no concept of consent or want that means .

There are many more rapists out there than women think . And until you're the victim , you wouldn't know .

Russell brand has refuted the claims of his accusers . He doesn't see himself as a rapist . He is the majority of men in cat 4 .

I agree op. We see women on here talking about their own husbands being cunts because they don’t want sex because they’re touched out/just given birth/sick or god forbid exhausted or not in the mood.

No is never accepted and they push and strop and moan and attempt to emotionally blackmail.

my own friends husband raped her (said he was using a condom and didn’t and she ended up pregnant) but me and my friend don’t say that out loud. We both know but she can’t face that.

I have other friends where their male partners have gone full blown toddler tantrum that they’re not getting enough sex and it carries on until the women relent.

if you are having sex with someone who is reluctant, who you have worn down with your moaning, who is ‘going through the motions’ to shut you up it is rape. They don’t want it. They’re just appeasing you. It’s not consensual.

This.

But I actually don’t think there are 4 separate categories- they all merge together really. Getting pleasure from grinding someone down, ie 4 IS sadistic, ie 1. They’re all mingled with each other.

You’re telling people ‘now think about it’ and ‘now this is important so listen up’ like you’re a teacher or an expert, but when actually you’re wrong, even though your intentions may not be bad.

Brand WAS violent, and calling him a compensatory rapist who ‘never uses violence’ is just wrong. And he absolutely knows he’s a rapist, which is why he threatened via lawyers his 16yo victim.

I agree.

A very close relative of mine was raped by a man who probably fell into category 4. I dont know him but from what my relative has said he probably doesnt see himself as a rapist because he didnt leap out of the bushes wearing a ski mask.

But he raped my relative who is still having treatment for PTSD.

I think that a significant number of men still dont quite get consent. They dont see the power imbalance. They see consent from their own perspective of relative strength. They believe they wouldnt allow it to happen to themselves, that they would fight a potential rapist off. Therefore if a woman is raped she let it happen and if she let it happen it wasnt rape.

The men in category 4 dont see that a woman may 'let it happen' because the alternatives are worse - risking physical injury, frightening their children, running out into the night to who knows what.

But I actually don’t think there are 4 separate categories- they all merge together really. Getting pleasure from grinding someone down, ie 4 IS sadistic, ie 1. They’re all mingled with each other.

My instinct was to put brand in 1 but I can see how he also fit in 4. My ex wasn't physically violent but his coercive abuse was definitely in the humiliation and terror, the physical threat was always there too. He is another who could be 1 or 4.

See I don't think rapists are few and far between. Convicted rapists yes, but rapists in general no. I don't necessarily believe that they don't understand consent but that they don't really care.

I'm quite shocked that an eminent psychologist specialising in sexual offences would be peddling such rubbish - sounds more like pop psychology than qualified opinion.

As someone who has spent their whole adult life working with both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, I have to agree this is pop psychology rather than fact. Thinking you can fit perpetrators neatly into 1 of 4 boxes is a gross oversimplification of a very complex subject. I'm not shocked though, sadly there are quite a few 'experts' out there delivering training on this subject who haven't actually worked directly with offenders or victims but are good at delivering catchy soundbites. I also think that when you talk in such a simplistic and un-nuanced way about 'categories' of rape/rapist you risk giving the impression that some rapes are worse than others, and therefore some are more acceptable. The reality is there is no such thing as a non-violent rape, or a non-violent rapist. Rape itself is an act of violence, always.

I would be very interested to know what research or training this is. Surely that would be acceptable to share? It sounds very established from the way you've referred to it.

I don't think it sounds like nonsense.

Your tone is really unacceptable though. Please don't speak to women as if we're children.

We were dating and he was supposed to be coming to mine. I asked him not to because I wasn't very well with a stomach bug. He still came anyway. He still expected me to cook for him, even though he could see I wasn't well and I said I wasn't hungry. He watched me running up and down the stairs to the toilet several times and showed no concern. I was dosing on the sofa and he woke me up because he wanted a cup of tea. When I asked him to make it himself as he knew where the stuff was, he said he didn't feel comfortable in someone else's kitchen and badgered me to get up and make it.

We went to bed and I made it clear I wanted to go to sleep as I didn't feel well. He wanted sex. He kept on and on and on about how I clearly didn't love him, why had I wasted his weekend by having him over and so on. All things that were my fault. In the end I just gave in and lay there, let him do his thing as I was tired of the whinging and emotional blackmail and just wanted to go to sleep.

He probably doesn't see himself as a rapist, but he was.

I think men with strong narcissistic traits have the ability to rewrite history. Even if they thought for a second they had committed rape they would tell themselves the same lie over and over until they believed it. If you accused them of rape they would feel unfairly accused.

There are frequently posts on Mumsnet from women asking if what has happened to them is rape/sexual assault. They woke up with their partner's penis inside them. Their partner pushed their head down on his cock. They said no-their partner persisted. They consent to vaginal sex-their partner takes anal. They consent to sex with a condom-their partner doesn't use one. Women are conditioned to be sexually available even now. It's a hard societal mindset to shift. All the men who do any of these things is a rapist. It is so damaging to characterise rape as a crime committed in dark alleys by strangers. It is also committed by nice middle managers in suburban bedrooms.

This

I think a lot of men don't experience power imbalance with them on the losing side unless they are ill or frail. Then some get very angry or upset as though some sort of universal rule has been broken.

I'd go so far as to say most rape happens within relationships and most of the time neither of the partners recognise it as rape. There are hundreds of posts on MN from women who are confused because they have had an unpleasant experience with their partner, which actually is rape.

I have been raped by an ex, we were drunk, no doubt he thought "well she's still single so she will hook up with me again". He wouldn't leave me alone so I let him "get on with it" as pp put it. It was 100% rape. I was 19. I didn't see it that way until many years later and MN opened my eyes. No doubt that guy never saw himself as a rapist and has done that to other women since. He's probably married with kids and still thinks of himself as a "nice guy".

I totally agree that the majority of rapists don't see themselves as such. This is why it isn't enough to teach about consent. It's not enough to teach young men not to rape women. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about consent, I'm just saying it's not enough. The issue is more complex than that.

I know 100% my ex doesn't consider himself a rapist. He's the type who thinks it's a woman's duty to provide sex for her partner, and if she's saying "no", it isn't because she doesn't want to, it's because she's being a bitch and withholding / using sex as a weapon.

I confronted my ex about the sexual abuse after I'd left, and he told me he feels that I was the one who sexually abused him, because he could tell I didn't want it and that made him feel rejected. It provides a very grim insight into the minds of such men. He feels that he's the victim because I was making him feel bad about the sex he was very much entitled to.

He told me that I "could have said no", which yes, technically that was always an option, except he coerced me and put me in a position where I really felt I couldn't. No woman has sex when they don't want to unless they really feel they have no choice. But he can always insist that I could have said no which alleviates him of any guilt, and he gets to tell himself it was definitely consensual.

Would it make more sense not to see them as distinct categories but as multiple motivation factors that a rapist can have more than one of?

More communication aimed at men is needed. The first 3 categories are clear and men who are not psychopaths would recognise the situations as rape.

The 4th category needs to be clearly laid out so that the hard of thinking understand:

• If you use coercion, humiliation, intimations of violence (even without direct threat) to force someone to have sex with you then what you are doing is rape which makes you a rapist.

• If you use alcohol or drugs to lower someone's resistance to having sex with you then what you are doing is rape and you are a rapist.

• If you perform a sex act on someone to which they haven't actively consented then what you are doing is sexual assault or rape and you are a rapist.

• It doesn't matter if the someone is a stranger, your date, your ex, your current partner. What you are doing is rape and you are a rapist.

It needs to be crystal clear.

This will make some men uncomfortable. The more emotionally intelligent may look back on some of their sexual encounters and wonder whether they have always been the 'good guy' they think of themselves as.

What's your point?

Leaving this here.

Oops

One in ten men have carried out sex offences against children www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4902760-4902760-one-in-ten-men-have-carried-out-sex-offences-against-children

Apologies if it's been mentioned before but the "category 4" scenario is currently being explored in Emmerdale. I have found it utterly chilling, the gaslighting and the "I'd never hurt you, you wanted it as much as I did". It's really distressing to watch. It is also how my ex husband behaved. I'd wake up to him having sex with me, without my consent. When I told him it was rape he said "we're married, it's not rape". He couldn't see it. He could not accept he was doing anything wrong.

I think the categories you have listed are too ridged. Any man who enjoys causing a woman to gag on his penis, likes seeing the mascara running down the woman’s cheeks (remember in his “joke” about this on stage he emphatically said “Good!” after describing this scenario) has elements of category 1 sadism. It’s not his whole shtick maybe, but it’s there.

My question is “‘Good’ for who Brand?” - not your victim who has no opportunity to consent because you are shoving your penis down her throat whilst she is backed against the headboard. No, that’s a good for you, because, I presume, it gives you a thrill, not only the lack of consent but also the discomfort, panic and pain. And the shame, let’s not forget about the shame that accompanies so many woman following a sexual assault.

When Brand, and Rubiales for that matter, state the relationship/act etc “was entirely consensual“ they are making a statement they have no right to make. No one can say whether something was consensual for someone else. They can say “I believed it was consensual” but that more obviously leads to a question:

“Why do you believe it was consensual?”

Did the woman say yes after you asked permission?
Was she gasping with pleasure and delight?

In fact was she doing anything at all that could be considered, by a reasonable person, to indicate consent?

And in my opinion the honest answer to that question is:
”No, they were doing nothing at all that indicated they were consenting, because in that moment I gave no fucks at all beyond doing what I wanted.”

I think most rapists fall across those categories to some degree and the serial ones are more likely to have at least elements or low levels of category 1 because they necessarily lack empathy and/or enjoy removing a woman’s autonomy to gratify their own needs.

How is Rape Myths not enough of a warning?

It's complex and I'm sure there are many categories and reasons why men rape women.
I think (some) people immediately think of a woman being grabbed by a stranger and dragged into the bushes , they don't realise that it can be more 'subtle' (wrong word probably) than that.