The Voyeur mentallity and Rape
Offline DISCLAIMER This is a controversial topic and I would hope only mature, reasoned minds address this. To all women on this forum, as well as any member of any gender that has been the subject of a rape, attempted rape or any form of sexual abuse: I am disgusted by the subject outlined herein but, given the story I am about to outline below, I hope you'll understand the question.
I fully understand that this topic may be deleted because of the controversial issue. I apologise in advance and hope I don't have a black mark against my name for what is an honest question. I hope those who know may know me, however slightly, will recognise that I am abhorred by this issue.
A friend of mine has recently watched the film irreversible. It's a film that has never appealed to me because I knew it featured a graphic rape scene and, to be honest, watching a woman being raped isn't something I want to see. The friend in question, who shall remain nameless, is a liberal, a human rights activist, an anti-war protester and a commited pacifist. I will quote him below (with some paraphrasing):
"You know the though of rape disgust me... but... I watched irreversible tonight and saw the rape scene involving Monica Belluci. I'm ashamed and disgusted to say that I was aroused. Not mentally bear in mind; I found the scene disgusting. But, I'm ashamed to admit, at the end of the scene I realised I was physically aroused"
You have to believe me when I say my friend looked shaken by this admission. This is a man I know wouldn't harm a fly and certainly wouldn't wish harm on any women.
So here is my question for discussion: Given the theories of Thronhill and Palmer as a potential springboard (I've done some googling), is there a reason that a male would find the horrific concept arousing, even on a purely physical level?
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
- Login to post comments
On a purely primal level, theres nothing wrong with such a concept
(How the hell do you think our species got this far?)
But hey, its just one of those things that had to be done away with, for society and culture to work/advance. We just havent been able to eject such things from our lower mentality yet.
Honestly, rape isnt even that horrific of a concept, if you can look passed it emotionally, from a distanced perspective. You wouldnt feel sheer contempt and disgust towards a rat that just raped another rat, you wouldnt feel that such a rat was an offront to everything you stood for. Sure, you may be a little queezy watching rats mate... but its (for lack of a better term) just a part of nature, that we like to demonize... go culture?
What Would Kharn Do?
Well, I mean... it's sex. Whether or not we find it a socially acceptable form of sex, our bodies don't particularly care: sex is arousing.
You're also pretty far removed from the circumstance when watching it on TV. I imagine you/your friend wouldn't get nearly the rise out of the same scene watching it live.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I suppose this wouldnt be a good topic to interject with
"So easy, a caveman could do it" ?
What Would Kharn Do?
I am not even sure of that much Kev. There are obviously not going to be too many cases that one can cite on that but one that I do know of was the "pool table rape". Basically, in 1983 and in New Bedford MA, a woman was gang raped in a bar for over two hours while most of the patrons cheered the rapists on. Some of them even restrained the bartender to prevent him from calling the police.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3382/New-Bedford-Rape-Trial-1984.html
=
I would say that the arousal has to do with the male "dominating role."
This also appears in other forms of porn for example, a quick google search of "bondage" came up with Results 1 - 10 of about 40,800,000 for bondage
True, I don't think that they're ALL bondage sites, but I would say it's still arousing for guys to have the female in the "submissive role"
Also, it is more arousing since they know it's fantasy and not real I doubt they would have the same reaction IRL.
Trust me on this one pineapple. Girls like it when you hold their hands over their head. Even the most prudish “Mrs. Grundy” type have remarked on it positively.
=
LOL I disagree. It was perfect timing.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
There are a lot -- I mean a LOT -- of women who have rape fantasies. We can't forget that fact when we look at the phenomenon of men being turned on by rape.
Domination and rape are not very far apart. A lot of women want a strong man who will take control and ravish them. Women are designed by evolution to be coy and to reserve their sexual favors. It shouldn't surprise us that some women would be turned on by the men that are strong enough to take what they want.
It also shouldn't surprise us that this is but one aspect of human sexuality. I have also watched Irreversable, and I couldn't make it through the rape scene. Curiously, I made it through the rape scene in Baise Moi without much of a problem. It just goes to show that we all have our own little quirks.
This ties in very closely to the discussions we've been having about morality. Consider that when Chuck Norris side kicks his way through Cambodia or Vietnam or wherever those movies were set, blowing up everything and everybody in his path, he's a hero. When an American blows up the Oklahoma city federal building, he's a villain. The actions are not too dissimilar if we take out the context. In the same way, a man who overpowers and forces himself on a woman who gets off on that sort of thing is a sexy beast. The exact same actions performed on an unwilling partner make him a criminal.
A little confusion while watching a movie shouldn't be cause for too much alarm.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
According to this study:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/86Jsi42.pdf
Seems that men are more likely to be desensitized, and were less likely to be sympathetic towards actual rape if they view violent rape in films and are more likely to have aggressive attitudes towards women.
What Would Kharn Do?
This is the whole idea behind the Army, except it's killing, not rape. Well.. I guess if you're in Cambodia in the 70s, it can be rape too... before the killing...
Boot camp is a way to break men of their social inhibitions towards violence while enhancing their sense of loyalty and devotion to the group at all costs. I don't know why we'd be surprised that repeated viewing of rape would desensitize men towards it.
The thing that's been sorely lacking, I believe, is a good examination of how rape, violence, etc, is portrayed. Are we talking about a series of ten movies on Lifetime (Television for Victims), or are we talking about gangsta rap encouraging rape? I'm sure when it's portrayed as happening to a heroine we all sympathize with, it's far less desensitizing than when it's part of a gore-fest or war movie, where it's a member of the "out-group."
I mentioned Baise Moi a bit ago, and I can't help but think I wouldn't have been able to watch that movie as comfortably if I hadn't seen lots of Quentin Tarrantino films before. Baise Moi was freakishly violent. I've also seen plenty of pro hardcore porn, so the graphic sex wasn't all that shocking either. If you showed that movie to a bunch of fifteen year olds, I'm sure the reaction would be quite different.
For what it's worth, you don't have to work hard to convince me that there's far too much violence on television. Luckily, rape is one of those things that is rarely portrayed graphically. I hope we continue this trend.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Urgh... to tired to fight against such a retarded concept as "Desensitization"
Maybe in the morning...
What Would Kharn Do?
Uh. Then what about the female/female play-rape porn? Or what about the rape porn where the would-be victim overpowers and 'rapes' their aggressor (I... err... know somebody who's into f/f rape-reversal porn. Ahem)?
I'm a tad dubious this is an issue that is so simple you could boil it down to a single cause.
I also don't buy te 'desentizing' routine. Boot camp is slightly different than simply watching a TV program or listening to rap music, as boot camp is implicitly designed to desentize you. If violent media can be causally linked to people acting violently, why are we seeing a precipitous downward trend in violence in the modern world? Why do nations like Japan which produce and refuse to censor huge volumes of violent material have such low rates of violent crime?
I've also yet to read a worthy study on the matter (I recall bothering to read one study that our good friend Jack Thompson continued to cite almost as regularly as his Bible; it was on a Discovery Institute level of badness. One of the most memorable gems from it: the researchers separated the test subjects into two groups. One group was tasked with doing arithmatics, the other with playing a first person shooter game. At the end of the 'research' session, the groups were told to complete the word 'm _ _ _ er'. Since the first person shooter players completed it as 'murder' more than the competing team completed it as 'murder', the researchers concluded that therefore the first person shooter games had made them more violent.
*Facepalm*
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, desensitization can and does happen. There is almost no argument at all that military boot camps, as Hamby mentioned, are designed to do just this to their soldiers.
The question is: Does violent media do the same thing to the average person? And if it does, does that actually mean something detrimental and/or at all relevant?
I would argue that the question is already answered: No. Either it does not desenitize people, or the desenitization is inconsequential. If it were otherwise,we would not see the relentless decline in violence throughout society that we do see in the modern world, and Japan and South Korea would not be among the safest countries to live in.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
First of all I'd like to offer my condolences because that movie was just awful. It's a shame that you were unfortunate enough to have sat through it. But it's kind of a bullshit question don't you think? I mean a guy gets murdered in the film too, did your friend have a crisis of conscience over watching a simulated murder? I doubt it. He probably watches hundreds or thousands of murders on television every year to much delight.
So tell your friend to stick the dvd in his porno nook between his stacks of lolicon and bdsm erotica and take interest in more wholesome pursuits, like grifting.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Well I've still not seen the film, so I let him see your response and he lold.
We were both pretty wasted last night so this seemed like the BIG ISSUE MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! In the cold light of sobriety it's not so much
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Has anyone else been following the DeAnza College rape case? It got a lot of coverage in the Bay Area and was in the national news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_De_Anza_rape_investigation
To me, I sided with the prosecutor. I think this is a case of not guilty by reason of insanity. Part of the insanity was alchol, but also kind of the caveman male thinking that she wanted it (from everyone) because she acted provocatively with one guy.
So I don't think they boys deserved to be convicted of a sex crime and jailed. But I think they needed probation, community service and sensitivity training.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Depravity is often arousing, the condition that allows your friend to be aroused by that scene, is not that much distinct from the countless woman who prefer there sex with a bit of humiliation and pain, being slapped, spit at, hair pulled, clothes ripped, etc.. Or why a number of individuals I know, including myself have watched the beheading videos more than once, or why some of the men I've grown up with seek fights for the sheer joy of acting violently. Or why for centuries past executions, crucifixion, lynchings, were a public spectacle, that brought families out, for the same reason on a lesser level we enjoy the UFC, or boxing, the Saw films in all its bloody glory.
And i would say that those that don't find such notions of depravity arousing have rarely been exposed to them to be aroused, or are a rarity. But it would be a mistake to judge your friends moral state by his arousal, because in his essence he can be easily aroused and repulsed as well, repulsed by the injustice or rape but aroused by the sexuality of it. Surely, your friends contemplation of it, suggests that he his in fact revolted by the injustice of the act as well.
The Euripides, Greek tragedy, "The Bacchae" has King Pentheus, aroused, and disgusted by the depraved Dionysusian rites, and his unwillingness to see his own depravity in Dionysus led to his eventual horrific death.
Liberalism, and dewey eyed Humanism tends to have King Pentheus sort view of human nature, that sees depravity and it's arousal, but can rarely grasp to call it it's own, to see it as our friends "arousal", as othered, as a minority deviance, from forces outside of human nature, rather than within them, and easily all of ours.
Desensitization is one of those words that gets tossed around by armchair psychologists far too often. It doesn't mean what most people think it means.
Desensitization means only what you would think. After seeing a thing a certain number of times, a person loses his or her initial strong reaction. In medical school, students become desensitized to blood, guts, vomit, excrement, oozing pus, and the smell of gangrene. All of these desensitizations are necessary because it's very bad to throw up in a patient's open belly, or to appear repulsed when a patient comes in with a particularly gruesome wound.
Humans become desensitized to damn near everything with repetition. You know how a particular treat becomes boring if you eat it too often, but if you abstain for a few months, it's the best thing you've ever had? Desensitization.
When pundits talk about desensitization from viewing rape or violence, there's a hidden message that perhaps shouldn't be there. Either the implication is that desensitized people are more likely to do a particular thing, or that people ought to be sensitive to a particular thing.
As for violence, there is some compelling evidence that viewing lots of violence does increase the likelihood that someone will commit a violent crime. There's a scientific explanation for it, too. Viewing violence raises the testosterone level in males pretty drastically. It's part of our evolutionary history. Before TV, if you were watching violence, there was a good chance you were going to need to be violent yourself. A rush of testosterone would be a big help. Today, we know intellectually that it's just a movie, but our genes don't know that, so they continue to give us the rush of testosterone.
It's no secret why men like movies about guns, fast cars, and big trucks. It literally gets their testosterone going. The down side is that men with lots of testosterone are very much more likely to be violent themselves.
It's not a question of if. It's a question of how much.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Speaking of military, the Army also releases FPS games for free.
I wonder how many people joined the military to be like Solid Snake?
The female is still in a submissive role.
An exemption would be a domnimatrix, but men are probably attracted to it because of the role of female being submissive and they want to break so they get aroused.
Fascinating.
I would think that is a significant factor.
Women are smaller than men
Women are weaker than men
Women are shorter than men
Women are less aggressive than men
No one... ever... Snake is a TERRORIST
If your delusional enough to join a military because of a fictional character... make sure you join on the words of one who isnt trying to destroy the government status quo
What Would Kharn Do?
Winning a game of chess also raises testosterone levels, so what? I highly doubt winning more games of chess, would have made Karpov a violent individual.
Those who turned to non-violent resistance, such as the civil rights movement, also would have had raised testosterone levels as a result of viewing and expieriencing their violent injustice. An expression of higher testorene levels in human beings, can be manifested as having the nicest lawn. Both a person viewing a violent act as aroused specator, and a person repulsed by it enough that he is compelled to stop it, had their testorene levels raised by viewing the act.
Yeah, you should join to get the skills needed to take over the world and crush your enemies.
... am i that easy to read? -_-
What Would Kharn Do?
Do you have any idea how inane this comment is? You know that testosterone isn't an on/off switch, right? It comes in quantities. Furthermore, chess is... let's see... what is that thing men like to do... competition?
Of course playing chess raises testosterone levels. Would competitive chess players typically be described as highly competetive? My word! I believe they would! That's one of the things testosterone does. It also increases men's tendency towards violence. It's multipurpose. You know... how... like... some chemicals do... like... more than one thing for the human body based on the environment and the individual's genetic makeup?
Science.... it's weird, it's wild, and it's wacky.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You do know that the various incarnations of Snake are not even in the same genre of games, right?
=
Speaking of testosterone..........
Guilty as charged.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Most men don't realize it when it happens to them. [Which is likely the case in the OP]
facepalm
Apparently you didn't get the point, of course it's out of the competitive nature of chess that raises our testosterone, my point was that this doesn't mean we're prone to act violently when we win a game of chess.
What you were doing is singling out violent images, raising testosterone and supposedly increasing our propensity to behave violently. But what you don't get is that there's little distinction between "violent images", winning at a game of chess, cartoons of Muhammad for some people, having the best lawn, the atheist disgust of Christianity, the impression of evil that is supposedly caused by religions, witnessing impoverished and war ridden children, etc, all of which raises our level of testosterone, and create for us a desire to favor some form of social dominance concerning these issues. Violence is only one means favored by individuals to go about doing so, so is non-violence, so is seeking political reform, joining a war rally, seeking a debate, seeking to play another game, or putting up bus billboard, and etc..
Violent images may raise testosterone, but how we "act" has to do with the perspective we bring to those images, violent images from the Iraq war might lead us in to the streets to protest (non-violently), and it might lead some individuals to join the jihad. Both individuals are responding to raised testosterone levels.
It's not the violent images per say, but how well we perceive "violence" as a viable means for a particular form of dominance, that we act violently. If we didn't perceive violence as viable means to a particular end, than our raised testosterone levels wouldn't lead us to act violently, but rather we would engage in other means of achieving that particular end we desire.
Do you get it yet dense one?
...Oh? And where is this evidence, then? It's not in the crime statistics, which have been in rapid decline over recent decades.
This is one of those baseless sentiments that you'll hear in American popular press and, essentially, nowhere else. Anyone ever wonder where this demonization of violent in the media came from? I did, a few years back, and so I went and did a bit of armchair research on it.
It turns out the vast majority of the present day 'watching violence makes you violent' rhetoric is only about 3 decades old; in the 1980s, a woman named Patricia Pulling and a fellow named Dr. Thomas Radecki essentially began the contemporary movement (up until then, anti-censorship had been the de facto status quo in industrialized nations). Patricia Pulling was a radical Christian bigot who was convinced that a vast Satanic conspiracy was taking over America and that her son had committed suicide as a result of a curse being placed on him during a game of Dungeons & Dragons, Dr. Radecki was founder of the National Coalition on TV Violence and a confidant of Mrs. Pulling; he echoed her concerns over Satanic cults operating in the U.S., claimed that cattle mutilations were evidence of Satanic cults at work and lauded Cassandra Hoyer as an 'expert witness' on the matter of 'teen Satanism' (Cassandra Hoyer was a clinically insane woman who claimed to have been 'chosen by God' to be a high priestess for Satan, as well as claimed to have eaten a non-existent twin sister).
This whole ridiculous affair, culminating in everything from BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) presentations at police seminars to lists of 'Game Related Deaths' and even re-publication of unlawfully edited newspaper articles, created a zeitgeist of general and unwarranted hesitance towards having violence portrayed in the media in America (of course, since the lies and absurdity present in the movement were transparent nearly anywhere else in the world, the zeitgeist thankfully remained firmly localized to the USA). The zeitgeist persists, though of course it's no longer considered socially reasonable to blame the devil; instead, modern self-righteous bigots like Jack Thompson rely on woo woo psychobabble that sounds technical but is actually meaningless and whatever 'studies' they can drudge up from those experts that have bought into the zeitgeist (naturally, not a single one of these studies appears in peer reviewed literature).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Speaking of D&D, I have an comepletly unsupported and ancedotal theory.
People who play D&D produce less testosterone than the general population.
Anyway, testosterone is highly linked to aggression. Ever wonder why the UFC and violent movies and shows are so popular in the first place?
Notice how men are the biggest and most frequent fans of said media?
...I suppose it's too much to ask that the question of why violent crime rates would be dropping if violent media makes us violent be answered, then?
Testosterone 'makes you violent' in the same way that dopamine 'makes you an addict' (that is to say, both statements are an oversimplification). Are you a biochemist? No? Then perhaps you shouldn't be speaking as though you're an authority in the matter.
Moreover, since you mentioned a contact sport, why is media being singled out here? If violent television makes people violent, good word, our hockey and football leagues must be murderer factories! Better put a lid on sporting events in order to cease our non-existent spiral into anarchy.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Funny you should mention that:
Only because UFC was mentioned...
edit; i suppose i could attempt to make the case, that without exceedingly high levels testosterone, UFC would seem like nothing more then rough homo-erotica....
What Would Kharn Do?
That's interesting.
I've watched plenty of porn during the past 40 years, but my dick still hasn't become
desenitized.
If anything, it's been the opposite has been true.
I think you're right. The word desenitization does get thrown around too much by armchair psychology wannabes.
What's my point, eh?
In one case, people say watching the shit causes more of it.
On the other hand, when it's convenient (as it is in the above case as well), it is said that watching the shit causes less of it (i.e. desenitization).
A rather interesting dilemma, eh?
One can argue either way to justify whatever suits them.
BTW. This is on another tangent...
Rape is considered a crime involving "deadly force" in many States, e.g. NY and NJ.
I mention this because it is rather interesting that given the use of deadly force, such as shooting a rapist in the back, in the midst of the commission of the crime e.g. against one's wife (regardless of whether or not ANY weapon was being used by a rapist), assuming the husband shoots his wife's rapist (and assuming the rapist is not himself), the husband would have a legitimate self-defense case
in many States.
That rape is considered a crime in which deadly force is employed by the rapist (regardless of whether or not a weapon was used), was very surprising to me. As was
learning that deadly force would be justied to stop an unarmed rapist.
I find it a fascinating legal
distinction that State laws "claim" that rape always involves deadly force (in many States). It's one of the few crimes a legal gun owner could make a justified case of self-defense when shooting someone in the back, and in which the crime does not result in the death of the victim (AIDS cases aside.)
Wow those are some retarded people. If only they had all died they could have been put up for the Darwin Awards.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
You have to be mentally defective to like soccer as it is... they'll prove themselves soon enough
What Would Kharn Do?
We can only hope. On a side note. I played the latest UFC game and it was pretty bad-ass.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Now now... thats just the testosterone talking
What Would Kharn Do?
Kevin, nobody is denying the other factors that affect violent crime or saying that testosterone can only make you violent.
Same goes for the media [For example, are they watching the media because they are prone to aggression in the first place and are hence attracted to it?] there has to be a mechanism to distinguish [This seems familar.....]
Also there has to be consideration of countries like Canada who basically get the same movies/shows as America, but have a MUCH lower murder rate, and of course the declining violent crime rate in the U.S since about 1993.
And like Hamby said it's a question of how the testosterone affects the person.
I approve.
This is pretty much exactly what happened when my girlfriend watched me playing UFC. She regards any form of wresting as homo-erotic tho. For the record, UFC kicks all sorts of ass.
And FOOTBALL rules :P apart from the rioting, but those guys are dickheads.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Now... i can appreciate wanton, senseless violence... but i cannot tolerate a soccer riot... i feel such a noble sport, like rioting, is shamed by the mere mentioning of soccer...
(seriously, why isnt Rioting a sport yet?)
edit
Ya, hanging your tongue out the side of your mouth, while grunting, and repeatedly mashing controller buttons next to your crotch, while watching 2 nearly naked men struggle on the ground, would give her the impression...
What Would Kharn Do?
I think it was maybe more the occasional comment like "you're mine bitch!" that really did it...
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Because we wouldn't have anything left?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Awe, what'ca talkin aboot? we'd all have new TV's!
... no wait... thats Looting...
But i suppose we could make Looting to Rioting, as Penalty shots is to Hockey
Must admit... it'd be a hell of a sport, Shirts vs Skins every night, couple hundred people bashing each other upside the head for a few hours, add a couple molotov's and some car tipping... fires, looting, stupid stunts... Police SWAT teams and Riot units as referees when it gets to out of hand.... GLORIOUS!
What Would Kharn Do?
Pineapple, is this the first time I've been on your side against KB? I think it is.
Kevin, there's no doubt that there's a connection between aggression and testosterone, and there's no doubt that people with very high testosterone levels are less prone to rational, logical thought than they are to brute force when faced with a crisis. To be honest, I'm not sure where to point you because it's been so obvious for so many years that nobody bothers to prove it anymore.
Oh, and Pineapple, just so I'm not being completely on your side... nobody ever said that just because I let some testosterone show in a response that my response was wrong.
Oh, and Doomed, rioting is a sport. It's called Soccer.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Or in other words, hambyjob is saying, "I pulled it out my ass, and I want you to believe it on blind faith."
Please refrain from the urge to whip it out to see whose is bigger.