Sexual abuse in women's prison is rampant...also water is wet

[Vorpal]

[quote="Vorpal" pid='390402' dateline='1674486154']
Sexual desire does not have to include a wish to be caring and tender.  Why do people masturbate?  Watch pornography. You would say it is not out of sexual desire?
I would say it is pure sexual desire.

To fullfil a sexual urge. Masturbation and sexual intercourse are not interchangeable either. 

You can meet the hunger drive by eating fast food a gourmet meal or by eating slugs and roots on a desert island.  The quality of the satisfaction does not redefine the drive.

People who have sexual intercourse regularly also masturbate because it fullfil their desires. 

Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. Both fulfill sexual desires, though differently.

[epronovost]

A feminist who tries to base definitions with a solely female point of reference is as unwise as a male researcher who over focusses on the male experience.

Actually, Brownmiller did not analyse it uniquely from the female point of view. She did attempted to demonstrate that men who rape do it willingly and perceive rape as different than sex and that it's primarely motivated by desires of domination and power either to increase their sense of power and domination or preserve it. That's why she makes the argument that premeditation is a sign of power and domination motive. Brownmiller does argue that rapes cannot be "accidental". At best, they require a level of incredible negligence that can only be born from a profound narcissism (a power and domination drive). 

I personally would tend to disagree with her on that point. I believe she is too categoric in this caracterisation of rape as purely and openly premeditated. I think that, like other sociologists (and yes even feminists; I do find it weird you qualify academics by their ideology instead of their discipline; it would be weird for me to describe Palmer as "the complementarist" which is is instead of biologist), that rape myths and misogyny do cloud the perception of what is or is not rape amongst rapists and studies have shown that rapists are significantly more misogynistic than their society and hold on to a lot more myths supporting rape.

Then again, those myths and attitude do feed aggreived entitlement which is itself an expression of the desire for power and domination. In my opinion, the biggest defect of Brownmiller's argument is precisely that they are both very vague and rather "fit all" and couched in a very harsh language that makes it almost dogmatic even though she's largely correct about the nature and the motivation behind rape and sexual violence in general. While we are at it, I do think her theory completely breaks down into nonsense when it comes down to sexual sadists for whom sexual pleasure and domination are basically the impossible to untangle.

[epronovost]

Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. Both fulfill sexual desires, though differently.

I would also like to note, again, that nobody is denying that rape involves sexual acts and sexual pleasure for the perpetrator, but that these things are not why a rapist choose to rape. They are a pleasant side effect not a prime motivation for acting in such way. It's not because you eat food, that fills you up and that it's tasty in your mouth that you actually are hungry. Sometime you eat for other reasons like stress or gluttony.

[Vorpal]

I don't think Brownmiller though carefully about date rape situations at the time of her original work. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. There are serial rapists and fluke rapists. Narcissism plays into fluke rapists, but so does impulsivity and drug and alcohol use in ambiguous situations many times. Rape can occur with a lot of genuine tenderness and self-delusion within the context of a relationship. It's still rape.

[Vorpal]

Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. Both fulfill sexual desires, though differently.

I would also like to note, again, that nobody is denying that rape involves sexual acts and sexual pleasure for the perpetrator, but that these things are not why a rapist choose to rape. They are a pleasant side effect not a prime motivation for acting in such way. It's not because you eat food, that fills you up and that it's tasty in your mouth that you actually are hungry. Sometime you eat for other reasons like stress or gluttony.

Brownmiller and the original researchers stated outright that rape has nothing to do with sex. They back pedalled out of obvious necessity.  They should have back pedaled even further.

Her bias that sex must involve love seems obvious although she used data involving males. Palmer points out several examples where sexual desires is referenced by a rapist but it is ignored or interpreted as a wish to dominate.

[epronovost]

I don't think Brownmiller though carefully about date rape situations at the time of her original work. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.  There are serial rapists and fluke rapists. Narcissism plays into fluke rapists, but so does impulsivity and drug and alcohol use in ambiguous situations many times. Rape can occur with a lot of genuine tenderness and self-delusion within the context of a relationship. It's still rape.

I do think that she thought carefully about the issue in her orginal work. It was not a botched job. Her book is one of the first real serious and extansive research on the subject from a sociological perspective. Though it does have plenty of weaknesses due to its time of writting and its decidedly millitant tone. I would say that it does ignore several intersection and has been called out for its consistent ignorance of other cultures, racial dynamics in the US. It was also rightfully criticised for it's rather underwhelming treatment of Freud. It's view on animal coercive copulation are also very weird. To her they are not rape since animals lack a human concept of consent which, while fair, undermines the idea that animal do have a concept of consent though it is different than human.

Yes, as mentionned before, Brownmiller's position on rape as a strictly premeditated action is weaker. While I do not believe any rape could be called "accidental" as in the perpetrator cannot be blamed for it, the level of premeditation of different rapes vary widely from something very impulsive under drug or alcohol influence by a misogynistic person who believes wholeheartedly all sorts of rape supporting myths vs some dude raping a woman as a form of punishment for an offense imagined or real. In both cases, it's still rape and the psychological motivation remains broadly the same, but they are very different as an experience from the rapist perspective. The later one for example will be fueled by much more anger if not fury than the former.

Where I don't agree or would at least need you to clarify your thought on it is the idea that genuine tenderness is possible within the context of a rape. Genuine tenderness would imply that a person truly cares about another one feeling, opinion, desires, taste, etc. Unless we are talking about a mentally impared person, I don't think anybody can be so blind as to think they are genuinly tender all the while raping someone.

[epronovost]

Brownmiller and the original researchers stated outright that rape has nothing to do with sex.

That's completely incorrect. She made the argument that rape was motivated by power and domination not that it didn't involve sexual pleasure for the perpetrator or sexual acts. That's just a strawman.

Her bias that sex must involve love seems obvious although she used data involving males. Palmer points out several examples where sexual desires is referenced by a rapist but it is ignored or interpreted as a wish to dominate.

It's not because someone says that they had sexual pleasure or an urge to fuck that the rape they commited was motivated by this. I would also like to note that those rapists testimonies were derived from a ridiculously small sample in the mid 70's. Convicted rapist at the time where very often the sadist types for whom both Palmer and Brownmiller definitions falls flat.

[jerry mcmasters]

The idea that rape is an act of control rather than an act motivated by sexual desire has been from the start very odd and unnecessarily dichotomous.  Rape almost always  has at its center the desire for sexual gratification. Often there is a component of wanting to control and to dominate.  Sometimes the two are merged in sadistic pleasure where the sexual gratification is fed by the power difference and humiliation.


The control and domination is a part of the very definition of rape but not necessarily the motivation for the rape. It is a means to the end and not an end in and of itself in a large number of occurrences.  In date rape situations, the rapist would most often wish for acquiescence rather than  resistance.  So, domination is not the point.

Most rape victims are females in their teens or twenties.  It is NOT evenly distributed by age. How do we interpret this?  Sexual attractiveness is a key to choosing a victim.  Vulnerability is another smaller key.  Sometimes an easier mark is chosen due to the wish to "succeed" and get away with it.  Here, sexual attractiveness is balanced against other matters.  

A minority of rapes occur with humiliation at the center and with little wish for sexual gratification.  Same gender rapes with objects rather than sexual organs fall in line with this category.

I am not sure why the notion that rape is not about sex trope developed but it's counterproductive. Horny guys wanting sex need to know they can cross the line even though power and control is not part of their original plans.

Well said.  I never really understood the "control and domination and humiliate" but not "gratify yourself with an orgasm" dichotomy.  I may be misunderstanding the nuances of the conventional interpretation, maybe it was never meant to be a dichotomy.  But I'm pretty sure pure desire to orgasm in a desirable person is in there somewhere.  (that said, I do think in rape there is certainly still power and control, maybe even mostly)

Men are very competitive and jealous of each other.  Do they seek to demonstrate their dominance over each other through sexual penetration?  That certainly can be the case, in circumstances, but it is not a norm.

[epronovost]

Well said.  I never really understood the "control and domination and humiliate" but not "gratify yourself with an orgasm" dichotomy.  I may be misunderstanding the nuances of the conventional interpretation, maybe it was never meant to be a dichotomy.  But I'm pretty sure pure desire to orgasm in a desirable person is in there somewhere.  (that said, I do think in rape there is certainly still power and control, maybe even mostly)

The control, power, domination vs sexual gratification and biological imperative is indeed a rather false dichotomy of more accurately a an old debate from which modern version have moved away from though still retain some of the character. Rape is still perceived and seen as an act of domination and its motivations vary depending on the type of rape and rapist though the need for the rapist to see themselves as superior, more important and deserving of sexual gratification above their victim fundamental human rights to the most elementary safety is a common thread. Let's say that semantic has create a larger dichotomy than there actually is when it comes down to it.

Men are very competitive and jealous of each other.  Do they seek to demonstrate their dominance over each other through sexual penetration?  That certainly can be the case, in circumstances, but it is not a norm.

In our culture not really, but in more ancient culture it was more of the case, especially when it came down to pederasty where teenage boys and young adults had sexual intercourse with older mentors. Though sexual humiliation like getting people naked or mocking their physique and sex appeal remains in vogue.

[Vorpal]

Brownmiller and the original researchers stated outright that rape has nothing to do with sex.

That's completely incorrect. She made the argument that rape was motivated by power and domination not that it didn't involve sexual pleasure for the perpetrator or sexual acts. That's just a strawman.

It is correct in many public statements maybe not in her thorough explanations. No one took it completely literally but to mean sex was incidental, peripheral, almost coincidental.  Which is not true. Artificially hoisting it aside to place in it's stead domination is a failure to see the fact that it is multidetermined.  

Her bias that sex must involve love seems obvious although she used data involving males. Palmer points out several examples where sexual desires is referenced by a rapist but it is ignored or interpreted as a wish to dominate.

It's not because someone says that they had sexual pleasure or an urge to fuck that the rape they commited was motivated by this. I would also like to note that those rapists testimonies were derived from a ridiculously small sample in the mid 70's. Convicted rapist at the time where very often the sadist types for whom both Palmer and Brownmiller definitions falls flat.

We see a tend of young female victims which argues that attractiveness is key. Your misunderstanding about military stats actually prove my point.

Note the difference between hazing and rape.

[Vorpal]

There are several cases where rapist and out and out serial killers display pseudo-tenderness and caring despite a looming threat. They play it off like they are on a date although there was an abduction. One dude would repeatedly break the legs of his victims for sexual pleasure and act all chummy in between. Sometimes victims have spared their lives by pretending to receive the tenderness and sex willingly.

In many dating and hook up contexts there is a lot of sweet talk and tenderness before getting busy that is all about cajolling willingness but it evaporates after orgasm.

How do these observations fit in with Brownmiller's conception of sexual desires.

The answer is they don't. Her attempt at operationalizing a definition of sexual motivation fails on many levels.

[epronovost]

It is correct in many public statements maybe not in her thorough explanations. No one took it completely literally but to mean sex was incidental, peripheral, almost coincidental.  Which is not true. Artificially hoisting it aside to place in it's stead domination is a failure to see the fact that it is multidetermined.

That's also a rather "strawman-ish" way of presenting things. Yes, Brownmiller does consider sexual pleasure to be peripheral to desire of domination and power, but there is a great difference between that statement and saying it's coincidental. The thesis of Brownmiller on the subject of the motive of rape is that it's an act primarly motivated by desires of power and domination not that it's the sole and only one motivation, just that it's the most important; that the desires of power and domination makes people choose rape over other means to achieve sexual gratification like consensual intercourse, masturbation, consumming porn, etc.  

What makes Brownmiller wrong is not the fact that desire domination and power is the main motivation for rape, but how widely she interprets desires of domination and power compared to sexual desires and urges. In other words, she courts with a definitional fallacy and her interpretation is indeed crude compared to the psycho-social conditioning theory that is most popular and well supported these days and which takes back large chunks of her work. 

Note the difference between hazing and rape.

Hazing can, though necessarily do, include acts of rape, sexual humiliation and sexual assaults which would fall under the umbrella of sexual violence and thus theories about its causes. In fact they are common feature in particularly brutal and high profile cases of hazing.

Also, yes sexual assaults are more frequent in the military than in civil society for both men and women. Women are of course far more at risk than men, but if a men were to be sexually assaulted in his life, they are much more likely to be in the army than anywhere else. Men are more numerous as victims of sexual assaults in the military, but that's due to their disproportionate number in the military. 26 000 rape and sexual assault were reported in the army in 2012 for about 2% of the total military population compared to about 460 000 within the civilian population for a ratio of about 1.5% of the total population. It's also surprising because while young women are common victims of sexual crimes, young men are not. Most male victims of sexual violence are children and teenager and not young adults while for women young adult women are the most common victims. Of course, there is then the entire issue of war rapes which is mostly aimed at women though male prisonners of war were famously subjected to it if you remember the famous Abu Graib pictures as a famous example of it.

[epronovost]

There are several cases where rapist and out and out serial killers display pseudo-tenderness and caring despite a looming threat.  They play it off like they are on a date although there was an abduction. One dude would repeatedly break the legs of his victims for sexual pleasure and act all chummy in between. Sometimes victims have spared their lives by pretending to receive the tenderness and sex willingly.

What a better demonstration of rape as an act motivated by power and domination than that? You literally have a dude torturing his victims and forcing them to play along with him for his own amusement. The guy is getting off on his sense of self superiority big time there. There is no clearer demonstration of power and domination in sexual context than this beside perhapse "corrective rape".

Of course no human being would consider their "tenderness" to be genuine hence why you called it pseudo-tenderness. They are not tender or caring. They do not have a sexual intercourse or sexual desires according to Brownmiller their action is just pure sadism and their motive is inflicting pain and humiliation unto other. Obviously, when Brownmiller mentions that sexual desire includes emotions like love, caring, respect and tenderness of which rapists are devoid off toward their victim, she doesn't talk about lies, manipulation, deceit or pseudo-stuff like you just did. That would make no sense.

In many dating and hook up contexts there is a lot of sweet talk and tenderness before getting busy that is all about cajolling willingness but it evaporates after orgasm.

How do these observations fit in with Brownmiller's conception of sexual desires.

Perfectly fine. The intercourse is over, both party have concluded and they leave not in bad term. For those who lie and manipulate to get what they want, she call those "rape" and not "sexual intercourse" and consider that the choice of tactic employed is derived from the ego and self-entitlement of the perpetrator thus, motivated by desire for power and domination. Yes, she consider people who lie and manipulate to get into someone else's pants and treat them like sexual objects more than people as literal rapists. They trick and manipulate and lie because they want to and find it pleasant. They view themselves as more important and superior to their sexual partner and enact that narcissistic view by acting as they instead of being honest. It's not like honest and respectful people have any trouble finding sexual partners or even flings. You just need a bit of self confidence, a dash of style, a healthy dose of humor and a bit of luck and you got all you need. As mentionned before Brownmiller's theory greatest weakness is that it's applicable no matter the evidence. With a good hammer everything can fit.

[Vorpal]

Epronovost,

As usual we disagree in proportional terms rather than the substance. You vastly overestimate the people who are mainly about dominance. Selfishness and wish to dominate are separate issues that overlap slightly. People who lie and manipulate to get consent are not rapists. They are slim bags for sure, but consent under false pretenses is still consent. Saying I love you when it is not true to give a false sense of commitment and to grease the skids does not rise to the level of overwhelming ability to consent.

Empty or authentic tenderness in service of a sexual goal has no relevance as to whether sexual desire is the motive. Feminizing the male psyche did nothing but cloud the issue. Sexual desire is a wish to have a sexy time and an orgasm at the end. Adding in what many women need to have a sexy time --warmth and caring-- is just not helpful. Especially so because we are mainly talking about men when it comes to understanding rape. Singularity and overzealous focus does not change the goal. Again many guys in these situations want their orgasm without trouble. They do not prefer to subvert someone else's will but do so because they are so focused on their preconceived goal. Yes some get off even more on the power trip and would miss dominating if it was not a part of the occurrence. Most wouldn't miss it.

[epronovost]

Selfishness and wish to dominate are separate issues that overlap slightly.

Not according to Brownmillers' definition of "dominance" though. Selfish people who do not care about others and don't want to care others and get what they want when they can are displaying dominance. From a very primal point of view it's absolutely correct.

People who lie and manipulate to get consent are not rapists. They are slim bags for sure, but consent under false pretenses is still consent. Saying I love you when it is not true to give a false sense of commitment and to grease the skids does not rise to the level of overwhelming ability to consent.

This is where the law gives you reason, but logic does not. There is a word for people who use deceit and lies to get money from or other valuables: fraud. It's considered a crime to use these techniques to obtain employment and valuables. It is fraud precisely because lies overwhelm the ability to consent and make reasonable decisions. Brownmiller considers that if you need to tell lies for a person to accept to have intercourse with you, you are no different than a fraudster and thus, you are a rapist. It's, to be fair, an excellent argument. The only times I have seen cases of "rape by deceit" be accepted in court was when one of the partner knowingly lied about was about having AIDS or their willingness to use a condom during intercourse only to remove it during the intercourse without the other partner's consent. 

Empty or authentic tenderness in service of a sexual goal has no relevance as to whether sexual desire is the motive. Feminizing the male psyche did nothing but cloud the issue. Sexual desire is a wish to have a sexy time and an orgasm at the end.  Adding in what many women need to have a sexy time --warmth and caring-- is just not helpful.  Especially so because we are mainly talking about men when it comes to understanding rape. Singularity and overzealous focus does not change the goal. Again many guys in these situations want their orgasm without trouble.  They do not prefer to subvert someone else's will but do so because they are so focused on their preconceived goal.  Yes some get off even more on the power trip and would miss dominating if it was not a part of the occurrence. Most wouldn't miss it.

You are, again, trying to make a critique of Brownmiller's theory without actually understanding it. What you describe as sexual desire, Brownmiller calls "sexual urge". Sexual desire to her, is reasoned and conscious. The want for some "sexy time and an orgasm at the end" would be a sexual urge, not a sexual desire. Our urges are filtered by our minds into precise sexual desires and, according to Brownmiller, since you cannot accidently rape (unless severely mentally impaired which would make you not guilty of crimes) as rape is necessarily premeditated, a rapist decided that his "sexy time and orgasm at the end of it" would take the shape of an assault with not the slightest amount of care or tenderness for the victim and in fact a seriously large negative amount of it. That conscious choice, makes it an act of domination and power. She's wrong, but not because of any of Palmer's arguments against it and even less according to his own theory.

[Vorpal]

Love fraud is not a violent crime. Rape is.

It's a fine thing to call out people on love fraud. It's a weak thing to operationalize the word desire to no longer be synonymous with urge so you can claim rape has nothing to do with it. The poor word choice in her theory weakens the point she was trying to make.

What does a rough hook up look like? No overt tenderness. Only an honest and confirmed acknowledgement -- we will call that caring: We are going to use each other's bodies for a sexy time and probably never see each other again. A bit circular for my taste.

[Vorpal]

In the legal realm, one cannot accidentally rape someone because accident is not precluded in the definition. A person could have every indication that there is consent, but if there wasn't, and that person continues, it is rape. What is in the victims head is determinative, not what was in the perpetrator's head.

In reality the perpetrator can have varying levels of intent, some more culpable than others.

[Vorpal]

Also, the degree of domination is critical. There is a level that is quite usual and not indicative of an uncaring attitude. There is often a person who is the director and mover during the course of sexual activity, while the other person is passive. And there is not a thing wrong with it when there is consent. People are turned on by submissiveness as frequently as people are turned on by soft dominance. How does your hero contend with this? Does she acknowledge this reality?

[epronovost]

Love fraud is not a violent crime. Rape is.

"Love fraud" is not even a thing. If you were to lie to obtain consent, it is in no way different than using threats to gain consent. In both case consent is not obtained freely and knowingly. That meets the definition of rape. Of course you have to remember we live in a patriarchal society, our laws reflect this still to a degree despite the decades of fight to change them, the same goes for precedents. Back when Brownmiller wrote her book, in most US States, a man could not legally rape his wife. You had to wait until 1993 for marital/spousal rape to become a crime nationwide in the US. The story and timeline is similar for pretty much all Western countries. The Soviet Union was the first country to make it illegal for a man to rape his wife in 1922, Poland followed in the interwar periods and then all other countries of the Eastern Soviet bloc did so in the 50's. 

What rape, as a crime is, is subject to changes as the idea that women are people and should have equal rights and dignity makes its way into our legal framework, but the rational always remains the same. Did both partner positively consented to sexual activity in a free manner? Lying to someone about a something that is paramount to their consent is not allowing them to consent freely and without that consent and it's starting to make its way into our legal framework too.

It's a weak thing to operationalize the word desire to no longer be synonymous with urge so you  can claim rape has nothing to do with it. The poor word choice in her theory weakens the point she was trying to make.

It is equally weak to make urge be synomymous with desire. The fact they can be used synonymously doesn't mean that they must or that you can't make subtle, but signifiant differences between the two which is what Brownmiller does. Is her theory weak? Yes, but not because of the distinction between urge and desire. In fact, that's one of the concept that she did not create and was already in vogue in psychology at the time and still is to this day. Urges and desires are not synonymous in a clinical psychology frame nor in a philosophy of the mind one. They are synonymous in a more casual setting though.

The biggest weakness of her theory is how wide is her definition of domination/power and how it lacks in nuance and subtleties which is why, while her ideas are still considered important, they are not accepted.

What does a rough hook up look like?  No overt tenderness.  Only an honest and confirmed acknowledgement -- we will call that caring:  We are going to use each other's bodies for a sexy time and probably never see each other again.  A bit circular for my taste.

If it shows care, it meets her definition. If you seek consent, you care about someone else, that's inescapable. If you want your partner to enjoy themselves, no matter how you achieve it, you show tenderness towards them. Seeking the please someone else is what tenderness is all about. Though, sexuality being weird, it can take surprising forms. Tenderness and care do need to be overt or presented in a stereotypical fashion to be there and be felt (to a degree).

[epronovost]

 There is often a person who is the director and mover during the course of sexual activity, while the other person is passive. And there is not a thing wrong with it when there is consent.  People are turned on by submissiveness as frequently as people are turned on by soft dominance. How does your hero contend with this? Does she acknowledge this reality?

Of course she does and if you knew a little bit more about BDSM you would know that in such a relationship absolute control is in the hands of the "submissive/passive" partner. That person controls what is being done and her consent is essential during the entire thing. BDSM is elaborate roleplay. It's not actual violence; it's theatrical violence. Note that I have already adressed this. It's not actual domination; it's the illusion of it. If you are turned on by being slapped and called a bad bitch, me doing to you on your terms and with your consent is me trying to please you. Me trying to please you shows tenderness towards you and me caring you since it's me explicitly trying to do things that will please you out of the kindness of my heart. That this turns me on is just a match made in heaven. This is sexual desire and a consenting relationship according to her definition. The feelings of people in a fully consensual BDSM relationship that adheres to the Safe Sane Consensual mantra for one another are no different than those of any other couple having intercourse including the those who like gentle kisses, soft carress and wispering sweet nothing in each other hears. Both have care and tenderness for the other in their heart (so to speak). They just express it differently because they have different kinks.

PS: I find it amuzing yet disrespectful that you call Browmiller "my hero" despite the fact I disagree with her. You seem to be unable to understand that me thinking Palmer is wrong, that his critiques of Brownmiller's work are bad, that his own theory is even worst does not mean I think Brownmiller is correct. She's not, but you keep parroting the bad points of Palmer and some of your own that even Palmer did not make like your point about BDSM which Palmer understood was a non-starter. If you make bad points and bad critique of Brownmiller's work, I'll defend her and how you wrong, but that doesn't mean she's correct.

[Vorpal]

I was not referring to bdsm there. I was referring to vanilla sex of the old fashioned variety where the male (usually) is in charge. He is having his way with her. It's a stereotypical overstatement that is true in more cases to a further extreme than you would care to admit.

[Vorpal]

It is as big a mistake to conflate care and consent as it is to divorce sexual desire as a component of rape. What value is this counterintuitive muttering of semantics?

[epronovost]

He is having his way with her.

As long as it's done with her consent and that her being consenting is important to the guy having his way with her, then it's not rape and its caring. He might not care a lot, but he still display basic care.

[epronovost]

It is as big a mistake to conflate care and consent as it is to divorce sexual desire as a component of rape.   What value is this counterintuitive muttering of semantics?

Well I don't see how you can consider consent as not caring. To seek someone's permission before and during an activity is a sign of basic respect and care for their wellbeing. That's simply how basic care is expressed in human through signs of mutual respect, especially respect of other people's boundaries and limits. 

Since consent is central to what is rape or not, then this basic form of care born out of mutual respect for someone else boundaries and agency it is central to any discussion on rape.

What is the value of this semantic? It allows us to understand why people rape. People rape because they do not care about other people boundaries and agency. They do not have a very basic level of care and respect toward their victims. Brownmiller would say that this is a desire for domination, but I would say that this is too crude and because of it incorrect.

[Vorpal]

Someone can be meticulous about obtaining consent out of concern for the self, to avoid the consequences of the law rather than to honor agency.

No insight is gained.  Of course people who rape or commit other crimes are being selfish and not showing enough care.  People who steal televisions usually do so because they desire a television or the money they can get for it.  Some may also be gratified by dominating other people's living space, but not necessarily.  Claiming that theft is not about the value of the item stolen, but rather it is about domination, does not really pass the smell test, does it?