(TW : Discusses rape stats) AIBU to find this interview with Louise Perry insulting to both women and men?

[Carla786]

I still think Louise Perry has valid points in her 2022 book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution and some of her Maiden Mother Matriarch podcast interviews, although I've always had disagreements with quite a few of her points

I cam across this interview today and was shocked, however. She badly states that she thinks 1/3 of men would commit rape given the chance of getting away with it.

Evidence? In her book, she does cite a study of US college students where 1/4 of the men said they would force sex if they could get away with it. (Higher numbers said yes when asked that than when asked if they would commit rape if they could get away with it).

But 1/4 is not 1/3, and a sample of US college students is not 'all men'. I searched for other studies giving such high numbers, but could find none. I myself believe that the numbers of men who would do that are higher than we'd like to think, but I certainly don't think they're as high as 1/3, and tossing around this kind of unsubstantiated claim feels insulting to men on general

She's spoken of the huge impression working for Rape Crisis for her gap year had on her, so maybe that's given her a skewed view?

Furthermore, if she sincerely believes that 1/3 of men are that evil, why on earth does she keep encouraging women to marry as early as possible and have kids younger? I don't think there's anything wrong with marriage and kids young, but I certainly wouldn't give that advice if I believed 1/3 of men were potential rapists! lt feels profoundly immoral to encourage women to prioritise marriage so much if you believe 1/3 of men would rape. Particularly as someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about abuse surely knows that those men who would rape or abuse are more likely to step that up when a woman's pregnant or raising a young kid.

MN thoughts? Am I overreacting, or is this position both disturbing and profoundly insulting to both men and women?

Sorry, here's the link to the interview I read : I'm afraid it's paywalled, but maybe someone has a way of reading The Times?

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/louise-perry-the-feminist-telling-women-to-switch-off-porn-and-get-married-sfsc9gmwl

What are you insulted by? The fact men admitted it or a woman repeated it?

I personally think the numbers are a lot higher than that.

I think the numbers are higher too. I'm not sure why you think it's profoundly insulting to women though OP, frightening and worrying certainly.

I'm not sure I think it's insulting.

I do also question those stats. Not least because I think gathering stats like that is fraught at the best of times.

But I would say I think she's mistaken rather than being insulting.

She doesn't need to be right or wrong does she, because she's said she believes a third of men would rape someone. Data won't back her up but she hasn't made a claim as such so why would it?

It's disturbing, yes. But it's the kind of made-up statistic which can't be proved or disproved.

It's perfectly possible that a third of the men she's personally come in contact with would be capable of rape. If you think that percentage is too high then you've been lucky in terms of the circles you've moved in.

Obviously I'm furious that 1/4 of the surveyed students admitted they'd rape.

But doesn't extrapolating from 1/4 of the men at 1 US college to men in general, and raising it from 1/4 to 1/3 feel at least somewhat insulting to men?

It also feels insulting to women, to badger them to get married, if she truly believes so many men are that evil.

Or am I naive for firmly believing that MOST men would not rape?

Though I do think a lot more would, otoh, than we'd like to believe. Gisele Pelicot case, for one,,was very eye-opening.

You think over 1/3 of men would rape given the chance?

Am I just very naive to think most men are not that evil?

It would certainly be depressing if that were true ..I hope not...

I think you only need to see what happens in war to see that nearly all men would rape women in a situation where there were no consequences for the rape and they were only thinking day to day and the women have been dehumanised. Even when they are fighting to prevent other men doing it to their sisters and wives and mothers they can quickly dehumanise other women to enable them to rape them. So it's not a stretch to think 1 in 4 can do this without being in a war situation, whatsoever.

You're thinking in Western. There's entire ass countries where marital rape is not only legal but encouraged.

If 1/4 of interviewed male students in a Western country where rape is (rightly) vilified were willing to admit that they would, I'd argue saying 1/3 is probably being conservative if you include the men who would rape but wouldn't admit to it in a survey. Globally I'd say the numbers of men willing to rape if there'd be no repercussions are almost definitely more than 1/4 and quite likely to be more than 1/3.

War is extreme and most soldiers are drugged up to the eyeballs

True, but it is the only situation when men can kill and rape without consequences that they would have in none war. So it is the only time when their actions are completely down to their own moral compass. All the surveys and questionnaires are just theoretical and still influenced by society norms. But when there aren't society norms then nearly all men will rape women they have dehumanised. We see this all the time. Sex workers are dehumanised by society and men who wouldn't think of raping their daughter's teacher would, at best, have no sympathy for a sex worker being raped and at worst would actually use them and possibly rape them. There is a very large percentage of men who can very easily dehumanise women, for numerous reasons, and would have no issue in raping them if they knew there were no consequences for doing it.

So here's an example. In 1971 when eastern Pakistan was fighting for independence for what became Bangladesh the religious leaders in Western Pakistan said that any women in the Eastern area of Pakistan could be considered as 'bounty'. So no man was forced to take up the 'bounty' and were not under some drug induced war situation looking death in the face. All had their moral compass. Estimated 1.5 million rapes from March to December.
This is just one of numerous examples across the world. It not an ethnic or cultural issue, it's actually how the majority of men would behave, if there were no consequences.

Drugged?

I'm currently studying History and have read quite a lot of detail on wartime rape. Otoh it reveals some disturbing things about tendencies that are clearly more widespread than we'd like to think, at least to some extent, though there are many reports of commanders who did intervene to stop them.

However, I don't think wartime situations should be equated. For one thing, there's always some element of dehumanisation involved, which was dialled up to an extreme in situations like post-WW2 Berlin & WW2 Nanjing where rape was most widespread.

Anthony Beevor's Berlin is full of detail, very hard to read but has important insights. For one, the rapes often seemed calculated to some extent. Calculation rises in instances like the Japanese systematic violence which was part of a wider dehumanisation.

It's also fair to point out that probably a lot of the rapes are committed by repeat offenders (as in peacetime), though of course this is hard to document.

Another thing is that armies, like other professions like the police, probably inevitably attract a sadistic cohort segment. Obviously wars like WW2 involved conscription but it's another element.

Still, you make me pause...It's chilling to think how many Russians/Germans/Japanese etc still alive today may unwittingly have rapist grandfathers or fathers even..😢😡

Pakistan (and the areas that compose it prior to 1947) have had longstanding problems with attitudes to women. India to slightly lesser extent. There's also the added factor of dehumanising and humiliating the enemy since female 'honour' is so prized.

I don't think men in general should be judged by what happened then.

But I do think it gives a disturbing insight into wider patterns..I just don't agree with judging men globally based on it.

Hang on, I think I remember your username from a previous thread on men. I think you made a comment roughly like, 'Ukranian women in the Donbas don't hate men, hating men is a luxury'. So otoh, you're criticising people who say they hate men.

But otoh why criticise others for hating men when you yourself say you think the majority would rape if they could get away with it? Unless I've misunderstood your meaning?

Incidentally, there certainly is reason for quite a few women in Ukraine to hate men if the treatment of women selling sex is still as bad as 2012...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/kiev-beautiful-women-sex-industry-ukrainian

It depends on how broadly you define 'rape', a lot of men might not consider forcing themselves on their wives in one way or another, rape. However it is legally defined as such. I think far more men would rape if given a chance and 30% is probably generous. We know from the history of war and genocides that rape is ubiquitous. It appears if men can get away with it, many of them will. That is why women ABSOLUTELY should not pin all their economic power on a man.

Are you a man? Because I really don’t understand you splitting hairs over what percentage of them would rape and getting offended on their behalf. If men are offended that’s their problem. I’m not being offended for them.

It was just an example that I used of many I could. I take your point about societal norms pre those events and their potential influences on the events. I don't think western norms have changed inherently male behaviour, but maybe they have. The tests haven't been there for the last 70 years.

Is this Louise Perry a fan of Jordan Peterson? I watched one of his videos about how women should be made to marry men and be Good Little Wives because, he claimed, that would end male disaffection and thus eliminate rape. Sounds like she's making a similarly repulsive case.

It's definitely insulting to treat women as an ego-soothing, baby-making, sexual and domestic convenience for male use.

It's probably insulting to imply that the only men who force sex are losers without a female appliance - it's demonstrably untrue, anyway.

You bring up a valid point and yes I did say this. It's war again (unfortunately). The point I was making that in Ukraine they need their men to prevent the other men (Russians) doing what men will do when women are dehumanised. So some of the behaviour of men in their society is not their priority at this time. The thread I said that on was not about violence against women but about the societal rights not being as importantas basic protection. It's a low bar, I know.

This is interesting. I've heard that women have no chance of protecting themselves because they are generally physically weaker than men. Well most of the 70 to 80 year old billionaires are physically weaker than nearly everyone on the planet, but they seem to do just fine when it comes to their security. Maybe it's not sex, but economic power that's the thing.

I'm not sure that 80-year-old billionaires form a valid basis for theories about human society in general!

😂 what are you saying, some of my best friends are 80 year old billionaires, 😂
Just putting out the idea that economic power is the way to go. Don't sweat the small stuff, go for the economics and if there are barriers then create alternatives.

I want some of what you're drinking