This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
50/2,000,000/20 years = large fraction?
Yeah, you really have your finger on something big here. Huge effects. With such a strong signal that certainly holds true for every man, and women being unconscious like a third of their lives, the true rape rate must approach 100%.
I think that the "large fraction" of men is actually closer than your 50/2M.
Consider a hypothetical woman whose kink it is to have men fuck her while she is unconscious. So she explains that to her tinder dates. "I will let you record a short video statement of me consenting for legal purposes, then drink my roofie and as soon as I am unconscious, you can perform certain sex acts we agreed upon beforehand."
Do you honestly believe that 99% of men would go ewww and quit their date right there?
My prediction would be that there would be 10-30% for which that kink would be a hard no. Perhaps 5-10% would be really into it. The remainder would find that it makes sex less enjoyable for them. Some would be able to arrange another fuckdate on short notice which they anticipate will lead to hotter sex. The others would likely take her up on her offer -- it might not be the best sex of their lives, but it beats jerking off.
That is to say, a majority of men on tinder would likely be willing to go along with having sex with an unconscious woman, as long as there are no ethical or legal obstacles. I do not think that this tells us anything about men except that a lot of them are underfucked and will prefer suboptimal sex to no sex.
In the French case, it seems very unlikely that the husband contacted 2M men and only got 50 to take him up on his offer.
From an evopsych point of view, I would imagine that by inclination, most men are born indifferent about consent, just as we are born without much in the way of inhibition towards killing members of our outgroup or stealing from them. The pro-social preferences for not raping, murdering or stealing all have to be taught, and just like we sometimes fail to instill a deep preference against murder, we also sometimes fail to instill a deep preference against rape.
Presumably (I did not read deeply into the case), the husband searched his accomplices in forums where the norms about consent were horribly absent, perhaps some telegram channel related to upskirt photos. This might explain why he found so many without anyone reporting him to the cops.
At the end of the day, my feeling is that there is a significant minority of people who are severely misaligned, and only the threat of punishment keeps them from defecting. His accomplices were simply taking up his offer because they believed that their crimes would be much less likely to be discovered compared to rapes they might commit on their own.
Your thought experiment is "what if it weren't rape"? Yes, I expect those numbers would differ, if consent was explicit and the woman were attractive.
But this is just misandrist equivocation. "Some significant fraction of men would engage in behavior that would be rape if not for all the explicit consent and instruction from the woman" isn't great evidence for "some significant fraction of men are hardened rapists who are victimizing anything unconscious in their general vicinity".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To state the obvious, we have to adjust for
I'm genuinely curious what your honest estimate would be of the fraction of adult men who would have sex with an unknowing unconscious woman (that they're attracted to) if they could be guaranteed no consequences. I want to say 5% of men acculturated to the modern West, probably much higher in other times and places. The prevalence of rape in wartime historically points to higher number I think.
How familiar are you with the case? Because it reads like a swinger presenting conman type succeeded in persuading a bunch of dumb low life deviants -- more likely to be rapists -- to entertain his own fetish. Some portion of them were fully cognizant of the situation, but others were too stupid to see the game or indeed convinced themselves their fantasy was real. A French retiree pimping his wife of 40 years without consequences. In other words you, a low life, congregate on Roofie and Rape Unconscious Women Fantasy forum so you're very motivated to indulge in your preferred paraphilia. The number of men in the Wiki chart without prior criminal convictions is a minority.
If we restrict the circumstances to the worst aspects of the real crime as we see it, then I feel safe with an an estimate of <1% of men as likely to participate in it. If we ignore the substance abuse claims said to a judge we have: a child porn guy, sixteen prior convictions including child sexual assault guy, a repeat domestic violence offender, "eight prior convictions for theft" man, career drug dealer fled-to-Morocco guy, a previous inpatient at psych ward, and a one Mohamed Rafaa who had served time for raping his own daughter. What percentage of men are likely to do any of those things? There's an answer to some of your questions in the data of sexual offenders.
A couple do sound like average enough middle-aged men, but then I'm reminded these were late middle-aged men (old for rapists, statistically) found themselves guilty of rape after they trolled the Roofie and Rape Unconscious Women Fantasy forum. I don't think there are any men in this case who were surprised when they discovered they were quite willing to engage in a criminal taboo. Bob, college student, who decides to have sex with Anne after a night out on the town because she said she would put out but fell asleep is something that sounds way more generalizable to me. Bob committed date rape, and I'd guess 5-15% of men are potentially like Bob. The complexity of consent is no stranger to this forum and few cases are as clear cut as sex with a drugged French retiree. Bob rarely finds himself popping into the bedroom of an old, sleeping French woman with her scumbag husband cheering him on with high-fives and assurances from the cuck chair.
Sex with an unconscious Scarlett Johansson lookalike does sounds like something with more potential popularity among men. An unconscious woman, however, is next level for "Are you done yet?" My assumption is that sex with an unconscious stranger is (I imagine) categorically different than bad sex with a disinterested or bored woman no matter how attractive they are. (Can confirm.) So we're back to asking about general rates of sexual deviancy and willingness to act on that. Almost all men will have sex with women not fully interested in the sex, but <5% could shamelessly rape strangers to completion as unconscious sex doll objects without memory.
You know who I bet could answer your questions well? Aella.
Maybe but Aella doesn’t shower so….
More options
Context Copy link
With the caveat that this isn’t something I’ve actually experinced, I’m actually pretty sure this isn’t the case, because if the woman is unconscious there isn’t any pressure to finish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO, this is ridiculously low.
"Would you fuck a random hot woman (with no STDs)?" Call it 30 percent (assuming the other 70 percent have romantic partners and don't want to cheat).
"Would you fuck a hot woman (with no STDs) who put zero effort into the sex, but merely allowed you to have your way with her?" Still 30 percent (all of the remainder).
"Would you rape a hot, unconscious woman (with no STDs), if it were magically absolutely 100-percent guaranteed that you wouldn't be caught?" I think 10 to 20 percent (1/3 to 2/3 of the remainder) is a reasonable guess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link