'Nick Ross and the myth of the self-guiding penis'

[DanaC]

Saw this interesting little comment piece in the Guardian today. It caught my eye, partly because I've been following the whole Nick Ross rape comments controversy, and partly because it resonated with a documentary I saw recently about attitudes towards women and rape in Delhi.

For background: Nick Ross hosted the popular and long running Crimewatch series, in which ongoing criminal investigations are discussed; re-enacted as part of a call for new information, and run phone banks to take viewer calls etc. The police come on and put out calls for info and warnings about dangerous indivuals, or con gangs known to be working an area and so on.

Ross has recently published a book, one chapter of which is being serialised in a national newspaper. In said chapter he makes some dubious comments about rape, and whether or not all rape is the same and whether or not women and particularly victims of unwanted or coerced sex see all rape as the same.

Having read some of the chapter it's not as bad as it has been made out, at leat I don't think it is. But the debate it has provoked is an interesting and perennial one.

Why are so many writers reinforcing the pernicious myth that men aren't in control of their actions, and that female sexuality is a dangerous weapon to be controlled?

Two years ago Naomi Wolf wrote an essay for CNN.com headlined: "Is pornography driving men crazy?" She declared that men are making poorer decisions about sex than they did in the past – supported only by the assertion that many "highly visible men in recent years (indeed, months) have behaved in sexually self-destructive ways" – and then invoked the impact of pornography on our dopamine system to explain this anecdata.

Vaughan Bell was among many neuroscience writers who dismantled her claims at the time, observing that "Wolf clearly does not understand either the function or the relevance of the dopamine system to this process," and she had reached her conclusions, "despite clearly not understanding how pornography could affect the brain and providing nothing but anecdotes about the effect on male sexual function."

A year later, Wolf moved on to the brain-vagina link. I didn't bother reviewing Vagina at the time, as others – Laurie Penny and Suzanne Moore for example – did a far better job; but one thing that struck me was just how dehumanising and demeaning Wolf's understanding of the world was for all involved. One chapter appeared to suggest that men should learn how to "activate the Goddess array" in exchange for sex, as if female sexuality were a whip with which to tame the male beast. If your partner only treats you nicely because they want to have sex, then the only use you have for a book like Wolf's is as a handy projectile.

I was reminded of Wolf's work when I read Nick Ross and Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail this weekend. In their respective opinion pieces, the two plunged into the ongoing debate about crime and sexuality with the subtlety of Brian Blessed on Christmas Eve, finding out his local Argos just sold the last Furby. Platell described her alleged experiences watching child porn, while Ross let loose with some "truths" about rape learned from his career as a television presenter

There are many things to pick apart in that article, but what really struck me was Platell's description of pornography (the article variously conflates child porn, violent porn and porn in general) as "an evil that is rousing men like Stuart Hazell to commit murder". Suddenly we're back to helpless man-beasts at the mercy of their penises, and it's not a long line between the idea that pornography drives men to sexually abuse and murder children, and the belief that a short skirt can incite rape

Nick Ross's article – hacked from a chapter of Crime, his latest book – sits at the other end of that line. It runs into problems early on with his clumsy use of statistics to suggest that men are equal victims of domestic violence, but his comments on rape were the most troubling.

In the book chapter Ross references a 2005 survey suggesting that a quarter of people believe rape victims who dress "provocatively" are "at least partly responsible if they are raped". He follows that with a suggestion: "In any other crime we take account of provocation and contributory factors. Even in murder. Why not with sex?" The icing on his cake is his complaint that, "for some it is heresy to suggest that victims should ever be held responsible at all." God forbid.

The "provocative clothing" myth is complete nonsense, as Dr David Lisak's comprehensive review of the topic makes clear. The average rapist is not a stranger in a ski mask, hiding in the bushes. The average rapist is acquainted with the victim. He is motivated more by power, anger and a desire to control, than by sexual impulse. His attacks – and he is likely to be a serial offender – are often premeditated. He uses sophisticated strategies and psychological manipulation to identify, groom and isolate victims. He is likely to have committed other violent crimes, such as the abuse of children or partners

It's this that makes Ross's views not just misguided, but downright dangerous. "It is sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation: rape is rape. Yet the real experts, the victims, know otherwise," he claims. "Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they led him on, they went too far, it wasn't forcible, they didn't make themselves clear."

Ross uses this to question, "whether a formal prosecution process is always the most rational way to deal with rape." Given what we know about predatory behaviour, the grooming and manipulation of victims, and the ability of serial rapists to remain undetected, it's one of the most stupid questions you could possibly ask.

It makes a lot more sense though if, like Ross, Wolf, Platell, and a thousand other hacks, you believe the myth of the self-guiding penis. It allows offenders to abdicate responsibility for their actions, and transfer it to seductive women; it leads people to assume that rape is a crime of passion rather than a cold, premeditated act of psychological manipulation and physical oppression; it reinforces the victim-playing notion among misogynists that female sexuality is a dangerous weapon; and it reduces men to the role of a barely sentient bag of hormones clinging desperately to the back of a rampaging penis.

The myth is as offensive to men as it's dangerous for women. Perhaps the worst part of it is the subliminal message repeated across the media each and every day of the week: whether it's porn driving men crazy or short skirts inviting rape, female sexuality is dangerous, and it must be controlled to protect men. How bizarre to be confronted with the world the way it is, and come to that conclusion

Rest of article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/th...atell-rape-men

[Sundae]

Another Nicky, well Nicky Campbell, picked up one of his contributors on 5 Live the other morning for using the term "child porn."

He said that whether we like it or not, pornography as defined by sexual images is part of our lives. Child pornography, however, is simply abuse. That was something I had never heard before and I have to agree with him.

Back to the case in point.
I abhor Ross's suggestion that the way a woman is dressed makes her a target for sexual penetration against her will and with the threat of violence. Ditto her actions - having the temerity to get drunk and maybe flirt.
He made some hideous comment about shops not having high-value items right by the exit because if they were snatched (my deliberate choice of words) then the shops only had themselves to blame.

Being liberal, I do try to see the other point of view in case I can learn something from it.
And I admit that I have previously been in a compromising position, which I shouldn't have put myself in, didn't really feel I wanted to be in, and just did what I thought would cause the least problems. And yes, that included penetration, but only with someone I had already had sex with. I did give more than one blow-job which was a "Maybe now I can sleep" compromise.

I did not consider any of these assault.
No violence or threats were involved.
I had been an interested participant right up until I wasn't, and I compromised.
And I have friends who were in the same situation. We shared our reactions which were a slight distaste, like realising you've started your period in a nightclub and the FHP machine has been smashed in.

BUT I have also known women who were thoroughly manipulated. None of them virgins, but cornered into situations they could not control. With people and in places they realised were scary. One who was an occasional smoker who was deliberately offered a very heavy form of skunk until she did not know what she was doing and ended up with two very, bury nice Oxbridge types. Her fault? Nick Ross would say-so. She was just too sweet and trusting, and honestly felt violated the next day. Did she report them? As if.

Intentions, meanings, outcomes, they are on a sliding scale. That much I give Ross.
But he married it up with the idea that some woen are asking for it.
And that I can never accept.

[toranokaze]

I have been in a few situations and have had things done and asked to do things by women that I was not 100% on board with but when along with because that is what my partner wanted.

Domestic abuse and rape for men have no services or centers we are on our own. And in most case of men who are abused by women the male victim is arrested because the idea the men as victims is such an anathema. I have a friend in a situation, the mother of his child physically abuses him. She knocked his teeth out and there is no help, no centers, no support groups, and especially not from the police; she was never charge and he barley made got off from being charged himself. This is wrong on a fundamental level and we do need to change how male victims of abuse are treated.


The whole concept of "self-guided penis" is heterophobic and misandric; that men are violent ravishing beasts upon the mere sight of flesh doesn't demonize women it demonizes men and male sexuality.

[Chocolatl]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

The whole concept of "self-guided penis" is heterophobic and misandric; that men are violent ravishing beasts upon the mere sight of flesh doesn't demonize women it demonizes men and male sexuality.

I think most would view it as demonizing women because the "blame" lies with her -- if only she would cover herself up, the poor man wouldn't be driven to madness. I agree though that it is an oversimplification that gives no credit to humans as a whole. We need to change how victims of abuse are treated. Period. Regardless of gender, age, sexuality. I think the mentality that you're speaking of, tora, that men can't possibly be victims at the hands if women, is the flip side of the same coin, and both sides are trying to boil down gender roles to some black and white standard.

It's interesting to me that, in order to try to cope with some of the ugly realities of our lives, of the pain we inflict on each other, of the troubles our societies have wrought purposefully or by accident, we conflate different problems and simplify causal relationships.

"Rape happens because the woman invites it" for example, being a gross reduction of a complicated web of gender roles, views of sexuality (both male and female), psychological manipulation, and misunderstood scientific fact (like the infamous "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.")

It brings to mind the view that some have that "the poor are poor because they're lazy," which ignores matters of access to opportunity, support for education, generational poverty, racism, etc.

As if big problems could have such simple answers.

[DanaC]

As the article says: 'The myth is as offensive to men as it's dangerous for women'.

[ZenGum]

If you are genuinely incapable of controlling your sexual urges, you are by my definition criminally insane and should be locked up for the safety of the general public.

[toranokaze]

Well if you have that level of impulse control issues there should be a long laundry list of crimes attached to you.

[Flint]

A couple of thoughts that occasionally trouble me:

1) The brain regions that regulate impules and correlate actions to consequences are not fully developed until somewhere in a person's twenties !!!

You can form an abstract association in a child's mind between what they are / are not supposed to do, or have them internalize a rules set, but unless they fall way outside the bell curve of Piaget's developmental stages, they aren't going to fully grasp these things in a larger context.

2) Our impulse control, etc. (and basically everything about us) is genetically coded to a great extent... making us all automatons, right? I cannot validate a good argument for 'free will' unless the laws of physics are not obeyed.

So... we may as well just go ahead and lock certain people up, right?

Or kill them at birth, if they fail a genetic test for social adaptability to a predetermined standard.

Catching them after they do stuff and putting them in jail sure as hell isn't going to change their brain chemistry.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Flint

A couple of thoughts that occasionally trouble me:

1) The brain regions that regulate impules and correlate actions to consequences are not fully developed until somewhere in a person's twenties !!!

Yeah, but they don't need to be *fully* developed to stop you from random violence and destruction.

2) Our impulse control, etc. (and basically everything about us) is genetically coded to a great extent... making us all automatons, right? I cannot validate a good argument for 'free will' unless the laws of physics are not obeyed.

Free will can be conceived of as a physical phenomenon, provided you think the mind is a physical phenomenon, so there is no problem with violating physicalism.
People's behaviour is guided partly by their genetics, but also very much by their upbringing and recent and current environment. However, each action (for responsible adults) is chosen with knowledge of the potential consequences, and so social punishment like imprisonment is a reasonable penalty provided the laws were known in advance to the wrongdoer.

So... we may as well just go ahead and lock certain people up, right?

Or kill them at birth, if they fail a genetic test for social adaptability to a predetermined standard.

Catching them after they do stuff and putting them in jail sure as hell isn't going to change their brain chemistry.

Not by itself, but it can take them out of circulation until the aforementioned brain regions develop fully.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

...take them out of circulation until the aforementioned brain regions develop fully.

For some people, this is never going to happen.

And it doesn't matter why (nature vs. nurture)--unless we are aiming at root causes, not reacting as an afterthought.

[Sundae]

Not strictly relevant, but interesting.

A retiring Judge, Alan Goldsack QC, recently opined that children from "criminal" families should have their children removed at birth to prevent them continuing the cycle of crime.

Because he is now sitting on judgement in cases where he has previously convicted the parents or even grandparents from the same family.
Interesting group on which to base your opinion; people who end up in court.

Of course our childcare, fostering and adopting system is the envy of the world and no child who enters the state system ever suffers

[DanaC]

Not to mention that those families don't have any other pressures on them beyond the innate criminality of the parents.

[Sundae]

No. They just like it.

I never picked up my parents' love for cauliflower or brussel sprouts, but had they been crims I'd have gobbled it down that propensity wholesale.

[infinite monkey]

I wouldn't walk around South Central at 2 in the morning, flipping gang signs and yelling obscenities.

I wouldn't traipse around the Serengeti with a meat necklace on.

I wouldn't dive into the ocean then cut a gash in my leg with a shard of glass.

What i'm saying is there ARE predators and we do have to burden a certain level of personal responsibility to not get into situations where we're likely to be victims of some ne'er-do-well with shenanigans on its mind.

I don't hide in the house. I don't hide my face or slink around. I would, and do, however, carry myself in such a way that I don't look like some injured bunny who will cry about the mean old lion who eated me when I wasn't doin' nuthin'.

I also won't pull the mask off the old lone ranger, nor will I mess around with jim.

Jus' sayin'.

[Ocean's Edge]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-vagina-laptop