Rape and the thinking behind it

[ChristinedePizan]

This is something I posted on the DSK thread:

I've always been of the belief that rape is about power and taking something that isn't freely given and that the sexual excitement comes as a result of that (or is enhanced by it at least).

But is there a difference between a rapist who goes out to rape in a premeditated way (and judging by Tristane Banon's account, that would include DSK) and one who is an opportunist, who might rape a woman sleeping in bed next to him or one who has had too much to drink but wouldn't set up a situation in such a way as to enable him to rape a woman forcibly?

And if we accept the premise that regular porn users will ultimately seek out ever more hardcore porn in order to achieve the same level of thrill, does that apply to rapists too?

Since I posted that, other people have helpfully posted links (which I will repost on here) and pointed out that rape is necessarily a pre-meditated crime, given that it's a bit difficult to whip out a penis and penetrate a woman without planning.

However, I still think the whole thing is worthy of discussion - there are so many different types of rape - gang rape , rape as a weapon of war, date rape, stranger rape and probably others I haven't thought of.

Are the reasons/thinking behind rape in all those situations the same?

I don't know why this is fascinating me so much at the moment, it might be because DSK seems to have been such a blatant aggressive and pre-meditated rapist that he ought to have been caught by now. And probably the only reason he hasn't been is that he's used his power and influence to get away with it. And I was wondering how many men got away with date rape because their victims haven't reported it.

Sorry, this is all a bit jumbled but I would really like to explore this.

I think there is likely a difference in the rapists' heads where the 'opportunists' would never consider themselves the equal of the 'premeditated' rapists (as I think some of the data references shows - remove the R word and they admit to committing acts which meet the definition of rape although they would never admit to it if they were asked outright 'Have you raped somebody?').

I wonder if there is also a difference in how the rapist sees it - a 'premeditated' rapist may see it as all about power and not really about sex at all, whereas the 'opportunist' will probably blur the lines between power and sex more (they may start off mainly with the aim of having sex, but then use their power to get it?). But of course for many opportunists it is actually all about power anyway (e.g. DV situation)

It feels very weird to me to try and distinguish between types of rapist. Perhaps that is because the end result is still the same, so why try to distinguish between them? The end result for the woman (or sometimes man) is that she (or he) has been raped. As such, in an ideal world, the rapists should be treated exactly the same by society and in court: a crime and a criminal should be punished based on whether a crime was committed not on how or who by. So distinguishing between 'types' of rapist feels very unhelpful from a legal/criminal perspective, although perhaps may be useful from a sociological perspective in trying to understand how it happens, why it happens, how it can be prevented, and in trying to educate society that the two things are actually the same and that one is not more excusable than the other.

Sorry, I feel quite jumbled on this too (been up since 4 with baby) but would like to read/explore more as I have found the DSK story so very shocking so this is on my mind at the moment.

I think what you're talking about really is 'motive'. Logically there cannot just one motive for rape any more than there is one motive for murder. And, equally logically, there cannot be a 'typical' rapist any more than there is a typical murderer either. Maybe brain-scans or DNA analysis might show commonalities, and maybe some behavioural patterns emerge (as above), but I think it's dangerous to over-simplify and discount certain people from any crime because 'they don't seem the type'

In the DSK case, I think he's like a lot of wealthy, powerful men in the world... Berlusconi, Heffner, Clinton, Mosely, Tiger Woods... who approach every situation (sexual or otherwise) with the assumption that they will get their own way. Their experience of life and sex is that people (including women or men if they're gay) either submit immediately, flattered by the attention, or submit eventually with some persuasion, forceful or otherwise.

I think the reason it interested me (although you're right, there is no difference in the end) was all the people saying 'well he could afford all the prostitutes he wanted' as though rape was about wanting sex and not being able to find anyone to have it with.

I will read your links Proles

Blimey - have just read that whole study proles. Chilling stuff :(

Ill get flamed for this but i think sometimes rape is about sex.

Sex and power can be intertwined though.

CP that is interesting. The point about rape is that you are having non-consensual sex. You are only able to have sex with them by rape. It's completely different to paying someone for sex. (Without getting into a conversation about the fact that there are prostitutes who aren't actually freely consenting). Odd that people would say that.

DOC I agree. It probably happens in more what they call "date rape" scenarios. The man wants to have sex with the woman, she doesn't want to have sex with him. He wants to have sex with her a lot though, and so does it anyway. He doesn't care that she doesn't want to. His desire to have sex, for him, outweighs her desire not to. So the motivation is having sex, but the way it is carried out is through exercising power and domination. I guess also as soon as someone has said no there may be an element of "I'll show her, the bitch / pricktease / etc" which you would have no way of knowing was going through his head if you were on the receiving end (and he didn't say it out loud, obv).

SQ/DOC - actually I agree that I think it might be more about sex in some scenarios (perhaps this is where I was trying to get to?). Certainly when I was raped, on both occasions it was because they wanted to have sex with me and didn't think my consent was important. My first rapist (who raped me when I was asleep) didn't even think he'd raped me. He genuinely had rationalised it to himself that because we were in a relationship, it was somehow okay.

On date rape being more linked to sex: SardineQueen wrote "the motivation is having sex". I'm not so sure. I think the motivation is still power/control and sex is the means not the motive.

I think it's more the case that non-rapists have sex because sex is the motive.

Rapists who rationalise that they are entitled to sex aren't rationalising the sex, they are really rationalising the power and control of their entitlement.

"I think it's more the case that non-rapists have sex because sex is the motive. "

I don't understand this bit? Can you elaborate?

anyone hear Ken Clarke saying that some rapes were more 'serious' than others?

on Vicky D 5Live this morning

Was just going to start a thread on this. On the politics show at the moment and all over the papers. Seems ken clarke has presented a very badly thought out policy and then for good measure made some really offensive comments about rape.

my jaw did hit the ground listening to it

thread here

"I think it's more the case that non-rapists have sex because sex is the motive."

SardineQueen, I admit that statement isn't clear. I have tried all sorts of alternative phrasing and I'm still not able to articulate it properly, so please skip that point.

OK vesuvia!