News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Erm... thank you for the article, I found it very informative. But did you read it? From the conclusion:
The article is from 1988, so not the latest, and didn't conduct its own research so much as pointed out flaws in other research, but it did so quite effectively. Remember the claim I replied to:
If that were the case, then why did Groth (cited as 1979a) find multiple quotes which he attributed to power but which explicitly expressed a sexual motivation, for instance:
(There's a more graphic quote as well which is more convincing but which I won't reproduce here). In examining the use of violence in rape, Geis (1977) reported that 78% of the rapists in the study "wanted the victim to cooperate", and similarly the Queen's Bench Foundation (1978) reported that 71.2% in their study "stated that they were hoping the victim would comply", 61.7% said "they had not intended to use violence."
The author cites a couple of instances of an argument that rape is about power and/or violence because it uses the vulnerability of the victim, which explains why the elderly are raped in spite of their assumed lack of physical sexual attractiveness, which would appear to contradict a sexual motivation. Yet the author points out that the age distribution of rape victims is inversely proportional to vulnerability, with young women being far more likely to be victims than are the elderly or children.
The most concrete counter-argument is that about recidivism rates amongst rapists who are castrated. If rape is simply a violent crime performed in a sexual way, then we would expect that castrating a rapist, while it might prevent future sexual violence, would not prevent the one-time rapist from enacting their violent tendencies in other ways. But the paper cites a Danish study which found that violent recidivism rates among rapists, once sexual crimes were removed, were 8.8% among those castrated, and 21% among those who weren't. It was a small study and was not recent when the paper you linked was published, but it is still quite powerful because it doesn't rely on reports by rapists nor on indirect evidence like demographic data.
Certainly - though this conversation has been crucial in understanding the depth of this aspect. But remember, I argued back against the claim that "sex crimes are almost always about power and not about sexual gratification."
I would say in light of the article you linked I am more certain now that that statement was wrong.
absolutely ridiculous