Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Personal assessments aside, there are researchers who posit that rape is a heinous and inexcusable act that is motivated by sexual fulfillment. They propose that the debate over the motivation doesn't minimize the heinousness of rape or excuse the actions.
In response to those researchers, others propose that some rapists do so for sexual fulfillment but the majority do so for dominance. The research on rapist motivation is relatively scarce on either side. The support for the notion of rape as dominance instead of sex is partially rooted in studies of offenders and victims; but mostly rooted in the push for rape victims to be seen as more than sexual pawns who tempted and sexually enticed a horny offender.
|
@ bolded. Citation needed.
Some researchers say a lot of things, but mostly I see this out of the mostly misguided, imo, evo psych. Evolutionary psychologists like to argue that rape is natural. Some, though not all, are careful to condemn it at the same time. Evolutionary psychologists are also incredibly unscientific by specifically selecting the behavior of other animals and comparing it to humans and then attempting to apply motivations based on evolutionary success. I've not seen anything out of evo. psych. that I'd consider valid. The Rationally Thinking podcast addresses many of the issues I have with the quasi-field.
There is a sexual component to rape by the nature of the act, but that isn't the same thing as saying it's
about sex. Many rapists are also having consensual sex. Many rapists rape someone with whom they regularly have consensual sex, or have in the past. Elderly women, children who are raped/molested by non-pedophiles* and so on.
AA's rant was absolutely nonsensical to me on every ground, and any satire was lost by the focus on the guy not being able to get any and the reduction of men to their penises. It did more to excuse rape than 'satirically' call it out.
That and the fact she responded to the wrong reply.