The conventional sexual desirability of a complainant influences my belief in rape claims - Rape accusations, belief and incredulity, and Andrea Dworkin.

[Disgruntled Pupper]

This very website is full of penisniggers raping dead and alive animals, children, the elderly, and their own family members, TIP (trans-identified pennisniggers) trannies raping each other constantly, and penisniggers simping over ugly women who are autistic or BPD and don't shower, eat their toe fungus, puke in drawers and masturbate pedophiles, or who have literally killed someone. Then you honestly think "u r too ugly to have been raped lol" is an intelligent take that should be shared on the best website that shows why you and your idea are retard, and get pissy that you're downvoted? Lmao.

 

[Stan]

This very website is full of penisniggers raping dead and alive animals, children, the elderly, and their own family members, TIP (trans-identified pennisniggers) trannies raping each other constantly, and penisniggers simping over ugly women who are autistic or BPD and don't shower, eat their toe fungus, puke in drawers and masturbate pedophiles, or who have literally killed someone. Then you honestly think "u r too ugly to have been raped lol" is an intelligent take that should be shared on the best website that shows why you and your idea are retard, and get pissy that you're downvoted? Lmao.

IMO if uglymaxxing one's way into being impossible to rape worked, more women would do it.

 

[The Skeksis Emperor]

Thank you for responding thoughtfully, which is far more than others have done. But, you are misrepresenting me here. I did not ask the question whether you have to be 'hot' to be raped. I asked different questions.

Well that is not my intent, but I'm not really sure what you're asking then. That we should acknowledge that conventional attractiveness of the potential victim can play a role in whether someone is targeted for rape? Yes, it can. But that's not usually the case, and it is too often brought up in order to dismiss real victims who are not young or conventionally attractive. @Disgruntled Pupper is right, you only need to look at the Farms to see that unfortunately no one is above getting raped when they run into the right creep.

 

[rel=alternate]

One of those factors is that at the time of the alleged rape, Dworkin was hypermorbidly obese, over 50, and not conventionally sexually desirable.

You would be surprised.

I know someone who was raped, and let's just say that she's not conventionally attractive and quite on the heavy side. Like Null mentioned, it was also likely not something anyone had planned for and rather a crime of opportunity. If the rapist had the choice, would he have raped someone else? Maybe, I don't know. Maybe he found her attractive, there are all kind of people who are attracted by less than conventionally attractive people.

Unless we're talking about some kind of advanced sociopath who plans ahead for an abduction, you're likely looking at someone who would have done the same thing to any female in the same position of weakness at that moment.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

I think the more important issue is (like I said in Stinkditch) you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of Andrea Dworkin’s biography.

I did not claim to.

You said it was a 2000 rape until I corrected you,

You are correct. She published something in 2000 about events she claimed ocurred the year before.

You bring this up repeatedly as if you believe this to be a slam-dunk dismissal. It isn't, and it's irrelevant to this OP.

and didn’t even know about the 1968-71 relationship where she said she was beaten and assaulted numerous times (which, if you understand how time works, would be the likelier source of Dworkin’s opinions on the subject than an assault alleged to have happened in 1999.)

Dworkin's opinion on what subject? What are you talking about?

So you don’t know dick about Andrea Dworkin,

This post isn't about Andrea Dworkin's life. It's about sexual assault and conventional sexual attractiveness.

but let’s not let that stop you from going off half-cocked to another subject: do women have to be hot for you to believe they were raped?

That isn't the subject, though you very clearly want it to be the subject. It is not in the title or the first paragraph of questions.

That’s really more of a you question; but you seem to want to parse it so that unattractive (fat/ugly/old/etc) women CANNOT be raped and are NECESSARILY lying if they say they were,

Is this parsing in the room with us?

and the proof of this is that you don’t think they’re hot enough for their accusations to be credible.

Here’s what I think of the issue. To quote Susan Brownmiller, rape is a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. The sex actually isn’t the point, and rape is primarily a crime of power and domination.

The best part for men is that they don’t necessarily have to be rapists to cash in on the fear rape engenders in women. (See: Sargon of Akkad telling Jess Phillips “I wouldn’t even rape you” in a viral tweet.)

I think your need to be able to empirically discard women’s reports of being raped (by filtering them through your “yeah but is she hot enough” heuristic) is similar behavior. You’re doing this to declare yourself as the final authority over something that you really can’t know either way, unless you were in the room.

You sure are spouting a lot of beliefs about me for somebody who's never been in the same room with me. But, I am certainly the final authority on what I think I think.

So to answer your question: you’re doing this on purpose to remind women that the final decider in whether a rape they report is you, which it isn’t.

Newsflash: you also decide for yourself whether you believe a rape accusation. It could not be otherwise.

 

[Stan]

I did not claim to.

Is it too much to ask you to know something about the women whose reports of sexually assault you categorically discount because "eh she's not hot QED it did not happen" ?

This post isn't about Andrea Dworkin's life. It's about sexual assault and conventional sexual attractiveness.

Her name's in the post title so IMO its fair game to call attention to how the Dworkin facts you know fit on a 3x3 Post-It note.

Is this parsing in the room with us?

If your purpose to this discussion is that you don't believe a given woman's report of rape (your specific example being Andrea Dworkin) can possibly be true unless you think they're hot enough to rape, can you please clarify what the fuck you were getting at?

Here's what you wrote:

Is the conventional sexual desirability of a complainant something that influences your belief or disbelief in a rape claim? And whether it does or not, isn't it an empirical question and not an ideological one about whether conventional sexual desirability of a target influences a rapist's choice of target? If it is true that the conventional sexual desirability of a complainant correlates with being a target of sexual violence, would it not be both rational and moral to acknowledge that information in your belief formation?

So here's what I get from this:
1. You think women need to be hot for their rape accusations to be credible. If women aren't hot enough, and they report a sexual assault, they're lying about it, they must be. Because they're not hot so would would even rape them?

2. You think hotness is "empirical" fact, like the mass of a given element per mol or Earth's gravitational field or someone's WBC count, which honestly, it's not. One guys 5/10 is another's 7/10 is another's 3/10 (say one's an ass man, the next is a boob man, and the third is a faggot like you who thinks women are categorically not attractive.) So that's your opinion dressed up as "empirical" and authoritatively true.

3. The hotness of a given woman is a deciding factor in whether she gets raped, as opposed to some other factor like opportunity or the perp's desire to punish the victim or any other reason.

4. If these three things are true, which they absolutely are, then aren't I a clever clogs?

 

[Izdaja Slika]

Is it too much to ask you to know something about the women

Andrea Dworkin was one woman. And I do know 'something about' her.

whose reports of sexually assault you categorically discount

I do not 'categorically discount' any reports of rape any more than I categorically discount claims that anybody makes, unless the claim is a prima facie impossibility.

because "eh she's not hot QED it did not happen" ?

Do you have any capacity for respectful dialogue? What you've put in inverted commas there I did not say, nor is a paraphrase of anything I've said, nor can it be extrapolated from any arguments I've made. It is absurd strawman and I've already told you this.

Her name's in the post title so IMO its fair game to call attention to how the Dworkin facts you know fit on a 3x3 Post-It note.

I know she made a claim that she was drugged and raped in a hotel room, and I know about her generally. I am not on Mastermind and this isn't a quiz.

If your purpose to this discussion is that you don't believe a given woman's report of rape (your specific example being Andrea Dworkin) can possibly be true unless you think they're hot enough to rape, can you please clarify what the fuck you were getting at?

Jesus fucking Christ. It's in the first paragraph of this OP.

So here's what I get from this:
1. You think women need to be hot for their rape accusations to be credible.

If you get that from what I wrote, you are drawing unjustified conclusions. I did not say that and I do not believe it. It does not follow from anything I've said and it is in direct contradiction to things I have said.

If women aren't hot enough, and they report a sexual assault, they're lying about it, they must be. Because they're not hot so would would even rape them?

I did not say that and I do not believe it. It does not follow from anything I've said and it is in direct contradiction to things I have said.

2. You think hotness is "empirical" fact, like the mass of a given element per mol or Earth's gravitational field or someone's WBC count, which honestly, it's not. One guys 5/10 is another's 7/10 is another's 3/10 (say one's an ass man, the next is a boob man, and the third is a faggot like you who thinks women are categorically not attractive.) So that's your opinion dressed up as "empirical" and authoritatively true.

"Hotness" (a word I did not use: I said conventional sexual attractiveness) is a construct and there are many things we can say about it that are verifiable by sampling.

Also, I notice you've resorted to slurs now, but you've mixed it up with a lie that I think women are 'categorically not attractive'. I don't even know what you mean by it, but it does not even make sense. I've already said attractiveness can be determined by some statistical function of subjective ratings. I don't like the taste of tomatoes, but I recognise I live in a world where a great many number of people and cultures love tomatoes.

Your thinking is also rather repulsive: the fact that I'm gay and therefore not sexually attracted to women does not mean I have no understanding of human attractiveness.

3. The hotness of a given woman is a deciding factor in whether she gets raped,

It influences my belief, among many other factors that influence my belief.

as opposed to some other factor like opportunity or the perp's desire to punish the victim or any other reason.

I have already explained, in DMs and this thread and in the previous thread, that it is one factor among others. I have already explained what would have made Dworkin's claim more credible.

4. If these three things are true, which they absolutely are, then aren't I a clever clogs?

They are all false.

I also think you have displayed a tendency to form conclusions from your pre-existing prejudices, conclusions which do not follow from assertions or arguments I have made.

 

[Stan]

Is there a reason you didn’t actually quote my posts directly?

I do not 'categorically discount' any reports of rape any more than I categorically discount claims that anybody makes, unless the claim is a prima facie impossibility.

“But she’s ugly though so I doubt she’s telling the truth about being raped. Who would? She’s so ugly.” That’s what’s you’re saying when we strip off the ten dollar words and pretentious phrasing.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

Is there a reason you didn’t actually quote my posts directly?

Yes. The messageboard would not allow it. It sometimes happens with lengthy posts.

“But she’s ugly though so I doubt she’s telling the truth about being raped. Who would? She’s so ugly.” That’s what’s you’re saying when we strip off the ten dollar words and pretentious phrasing.

No, that isn't what I'm saying, and I'm sorry you are incapable of grasping that.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Stop digging

 

[Stan]

You’ve said that a complainant’s “conventional sexual attractiveness” influences how much you believe their report; I’m responding to that, not a strawman. Even if you think attractiveness affects offender behavior at a population level, that tells you nothing about whether a specific person is telling the truth—that’s a basic category error. Sexual assault isn’t driven purely by attraction, and victims include plenty of people who don’t meet conventional desirability, so your heuristic isn’t even a reliable proxy. If you want to defend it as “empirical,” you need to explain how your personal perception of someone’s attractiveness tracks the truth of an individual claim; otherwise it’s just a subjective bias you’ve decided to treat as evidence.

 

[Calandrino]

I googled this out of curiosity and it's not true, 3% of rape victims are over 65 years old, meanwhile 69% of victims are between the ages 12 and 34, with the median age being 17.

Is anyone really surprised by this?

To quote Susan Brownmiller, rape is a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. The sex actually isn’t the point, and rape is primarily a crime of power and domination.

Feminist academics say stuff like this, rapists don't

 

[Male Idiot]

It all depends on the rapper. I mean rapist.

Is it some sadistic skizo like Ted Bundy? Yes he will be very choosy.

Is it Saarjeet who will fuck a stray dog? No, he will rape anything and everything.

You need to look at the accused as well.
Mr 25 year old Chud McCrypto won't rape a 70 year old mexican housekeeper, he can get his rocks off from 10 onlythot supermodels any time he wants. Was the accused Bubba, high on meth and barely able to tell a donkey from a truck? Muh dik cares not for what hole it enters, only that it enters. Shieeeeeet.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

You’ve said that a complainant’s “conventional sexual attractiveness” influences how much you believe their report; I’m responding to that, not a strawman.

You've strawmanned my statement a dozen times over this thread, the previous thread, and the DM responses. You insisted that the accurate version (that you've finally posted) above is the same thing as your strawman-reinterpretation "Dworkin is too ugly to rape".

Even if you think attractiveness affects offender behavior at a population level, that tells you nothing about whether a specific person is telling the truth—that’s a basic category error.

It does not tell "nothing". If conventional sexual attractiveness has any influence on victim choice by a rapist, it would in fact be statistically impossible for it to tell "nothing". If you used it as the sole criterion to influence your choice (of complainant belief), then indeed you would probably be way off (depending on course, on what the actual base rate of complainant truth is and what you believe the actual base rate of complainant truth is). But I've never used it as the sole criterion and never would.

Sexual assault isn’t driven purely by attraction,

I did not suggest it was. In fact, I recognise it's a crime of opportunity like some other crimes.

and victims include plenty of people who don’t meet conventional desirability, so your heuristic isn’t even a reliable proxy. If you want to defend it as “empirical,” you need to explain how your personal perception of someone’s attractiveness tracks the truth of an individual claim; otherwise it’s just a subjective bias you’ve decided to treat as evidence.

You could lobby that accusation about any single criterion people use, because if we knew the truth of individual claims none of this conversation would have happened.

I believe Cosby drugged and raped a number of women when he was at the height of his celebrity power. The main thing influencing this belief is the number of complainants who came forward and the establishment of a modus operandi. But also (yes, hold your breath in horror) the complainants' conventional sexual attractiveness and youth at the time.

Is my belief rational? How would I know? I don't know the actual truth of any of the individual encounters. I've never seen a study that establishes a correlation between number of complainants and the truth of their complaints. Cosby's actions are consistent with "serial rapist targeting young women who could benefit from Cosby's connections". But they are also consistent with "women who were eager to exploit Cosby's connections did drugs with him and had sex".

 

[Stan]

@Izdaja Slika

So now you’re retreating into “I never said it was the sole criterion,” but that’s not really responsive to my criticism, because you started this entire discussion by foregrounding “conventional sexual attractiveness” as a meaningful factor in how believable you find a rape allegation.

The issue is that you’re conflating “a factor that may influence some offenders’ victim selection in some contexts” (but imo is less important than opportunity, power dynamic, pre-existing relationship with the victim, intoxication, etc.) with “a factor that meaningfully predicts whether a specific complainant is telling the truth.”

Those are not the same thing. Lots of things have weak population-level correlations and become useless or actively misleading when applied to individuals. And at times it becomes difficult to not see it as a bad faith argument. A bad heuristic does not become rational merely because it’s one factor among many.

I’m glad you brought up Bill Cosby because his case actually weakens your argument considerably: what makes the Cosby allegations compelling are the number of complainants, the consistency of the accounts, the alleged modus operandi, the power imbalance, and Cosby’s opportunity/access to isolate and incapacitate victims. Those are evidentiary considerations. “The women were conventionally attractive” is basically decorative garnish on your reasoning — it contributes no meaningful explanatory power except to reveal the intuition you’ve been trying to dress up in increasingly technical language since the start of this thread.

TL;DR: you started this discussion by treating “conventional sexual attractiveness” as a meaningful credibility factor, and now you’re retreating to “it’s only one factor among many.” There’s enough counterexamples on this forum alone to suggest it’s not predictive at all.

 

[Izdaja Slika]

@Izdaja Slika

So now you’re retreating into “I never said it was the sole criterion,”

I'm not retreating to that; I am correcting your strawman.

but that’s not really responsive to my criticism, because you started this entire discussion by foregrounding “conventional sexual attractiveness” as a meaningful factor in how believable you find a rape allegation.

My OP is clear about what my questions are and what my thinking is.

The issue is that you’re conflating “a factor that may influence some offenders’ victim selection in some contexts” (but imo is less important than opportunity, power dynamic, pre-existing relationship with the victim, intoxication, etc.) with “a factor that meaningfully predicts whether a specific complainant is telling the truth.”

Those are not the same thing. Lots of things have weak population-level correlations and become useless or actively misleading when applied to individuals.

They are not "the same" thing, but I did not claim they were. Gross household income is associated with the value of the dwelling that a household lives in, but they're not "the same". You are now making a counterclaim: you accept that conventional sexual attractiveness influences target choice among some types of rapists. And you have heaped in strawman reimaginings and personal insults, as if what I believe has a moral dimension, even if I was mistaken about what counted as a good reason.

And at times it becomes difficult to not see it as a bad faith argument. A bad heuristic does not become rational merely because it’s one factor among many.

You are simply assuming your conclusions in your premises. You've already decided it's a bad 'heuristic'.

I’m glad you brought up Bill Cosby because his case actually weakens your argument considerably: what makes the Cosby allegations compelling are the number of complainants, the consistency of the accounts, the alleged modus operandi, the power imbalance, and Cosby’s opportunity/access to isolate and incapacitate victims. Those are evidentiary considerations. “The women were conventionally attractive” is basically decorative garnish on your reasoning — it contributes no meaningful explanatory power except to reveal the intuition you’ve been trying to dress up in increasingly technical language since the start of this thread.

You've decided it contributes no meaningful explanatory power. You haven't demonstrated it. The fact that the women were all young and conventionally sexually attractive makes me more certain of Cosby's guilt.

TL;DR: you started this discussion by treating “conventional sexual attractiveness” as a meaningful credibility factor, and now you’re retreating to “it’s only one factor among many.”

The two statements are not in contradiction, and I am not retreating. I am correcting your repeated mischaracterisations.

There’s enough counterexamples on this forum alone to suggest it’s not predictive at all.

You do not know what a counterexample is.

If my statement was 'women who are not conventionally sexually attractive are never raped', then they'd be 'counterexamples'. But my statement was never that and you know it.

 

[babadook]

intellectually disabled

This website is a shelter then

 

[The Punished Mitch]

Pretty much the only thing that influences my belief in rape claims is a filed police report directly after the fact, excluding obvious exceptions such as children.

 

[The Orthodox Autist]

This thread was a mistake that the OP should be raped for. (Sneed)

 

[meager]

Is the conventional sexual desirability of a complainant something that influences your belief or disbelief in a rape claim? And whether it does or not, isn't it an empirical question and not an ideological one about whether conventional sexual desirability of a target influences a rapist's choice of target? If it is true that the conventional sexual desirability of a complainant correlates with being a target of sexual violence, would it not be both rational and moral to acknowledge that information in your belief formation?

Over on Stinkditch, I expressed my incredulity at claims that feminist writer Andrea Dworkin was drugged and raped at a hotel in 1999. This academic article summarises the claims and the context.

I don't believe that Andrea Dworkin was drugged and raped in that hotel. My disbelief arises from a number of factors (inasmuch as I can determine the influence of any factor on how it affects my belief). One of those factors is that at the time of the alleged rape, Dworkin was hypermorbidly obese, over 50, and not conventionally sexually desirable. For expressing this, I received a number of 'dumb' 'mad at the internet' and 'autistic' ratings. That's okay. I'm not complaining about the ratings system. I want to understand why people rated it that way and if they have good reasons to do so, or they just don't agree with me.

Of course, there are other reasons I don't find Dworkin's claim credible (or rather and more plainly, other reasons why I don't believe her on this). But for the time being I'd like to discuss the questions in my opening paragraph.

Translation for normal people:

There’s no way that old, ugly fatass got raped. Stop negrating me, please.