mental health records - are medical schools privy to them?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
So how far back do licensing boards go when requesting medical history? Childhood? 18 years old? Last 10 years?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Actually, that's probably a good thing. Unis with counseling services seem to pressure -- if not coerce -- students with mental illnesses out of school entirely because they're liability risks. Instead of helping students, they just traumatize them more. :(

What? That's horrible.

The counseling and psychology program at other university I attended was nothing but supportive of me.


I had no idea that anybody could stoop to that level. I'm even more worried about this happening in medical school. Though I imagine that med schools wouldn't want to coerce people into leaving, because then they would have an unfilled spot. Still, school faculties are filled with remorseless people, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did want to get rid of people.
 
this is all good information. what if, say hypothetically, someone sees a psychiatrist/psychotherapist to deal with life problems like marriage issues, general stress, or just whatever reason? will those visits be made public? that seems against the very definition of confidentiality.

Confidential =/= Privileged.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That's the way things were around 1998. That's not exactly how things are these days. http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/3/369.short

The state bar examiners got my step-sister's records just fine. If they did, I'm sure the same thing happens every day with the medical examiners since bar examiners have always modeled themselves on medical examiners. You probably give them permission in the fine print without realizing it.

What part are you saying is incorrect about my post?
 
So how far back do licensing boards go when requesting medical history? Childhood? 18 years old? Last 10 years?

Increasingly, it's any history of mental illness. I don't know if anyone's done a state-by-state survey of these questions like they have with the state bar exams.

What the background checks turn up depends on what type of background checks they run. My firm used PIs, so they're a bit more in-depth than the normal ones you'd get on the Internet.
 
Last edited:
It's complicated. I am neither a psychiatrist or a lawyer, so I may screw this up, but as I understand it, a psychiatrist can place a 72-hour hold on a patient to keep them in a locked unit if the psychiatrist has reason to believe the patient is a danger to themselves or to others. At the end of that 72-hour period, if the patient wishes to leave and the psychiatrist wants them to stay, there will be a hearing before a judge who will decide whether or not the patient should be involuntarily committed for their own good/the good of society. Different states have differing laws; in California, the 72 hour hold can be extended as long as a week, or even two weeks, without a court order.

I assume, but do not know, that court-ordered counseling, psychiatric visits, or substance abuse treatment would show up on a background check; I do not know (but suspect) that they would be grounds for denying a medical license.

No, it won't show up on a background check, although any legal offense would. The exact laws vary by state (as do the names), but here is the process in Colorado:

  1. Pt or family member, friend, etc. states pt has feelings of SI or HI (suicidal or homicidal ideation)
  2. Pt taken to ED, typically to a Psych ED unit (not 2710 certified, so pt's time on hold CANNOT legally begin)
  3. Pt is placed on 72-hr hold (M1 hold) pending psychiatric assessment (this hold may be legally performed by a variety of professionals, including an RN w/ mental health experience, LCSW, MHC, MD, PsyD/PhD level psychologist)
  4. Pt is transferred to a 2710 certified and licensed facility --> hold time begins
  5. Pt is assessed by a Psychiatrist (typically daily) and may release pt at any time up until the end of the 72 hr hold
  6. If MD does not feel pt is ready after 72 hrs, pt will be offered VOLUNTARY commitment (most pts will accept this)
  7. If pt refuses or MD does not believe pt is competent to make that decision, MD may decide to pursue a 90-day commitment or "Certification" (other option is to let pt leave AMA)
  8. If pt is committed involuntarily, a letter (typically a form letter with a few basic details filled in) is sent to the local courthouse certifying that, in the MD's opinion, this person needs add'l time on a locked unit
  9. Pending official approval, the pt is placed on a certified 90 day hold
  10. I have NEVER seen a judge overrule an MD's decision to place a pt on hold (to do so would be to take that person and others' lives into his/her hands against the recommendation of a recognized expert in the field since the MD is basically stating that that this person cannot yet be trusted in the community)
 
There are many reasons why victims of rape and sexual assault do not immediately contact the police. One significant reason is that a victim may fear that he or she will not be believed, or that the police and community will choose to side with the person who attacked them. Another is that victims of sexual assault are often blamed for being victimized, whether it's because they had been drinking, or were dressed in a supposedly provocative way, or because they did not fight noisily enough. Ironically, by talking about how if victims were feistier, they wouldn't get raped, you are helping to perpetuate a culture of underreporting of rape and sexual assault.

I know you don't mean any harm by it, but in fact you have repeated several myths about rape and sexual assault prevention in quick succession, and I do not wish to let those myths go unchallenged.

Last, I would like to leave you (and everyone else) with this: Just World Fallacy

In this case, it applies because so often when talking about rape or sexual assault, people will immediately jump into conversation about what victims did or did not do to bring rape upon themselves, and not into conversation about why rapists choose to rape, or why rapes are so underreported in American society. We do this because we cannot bear to live in a world where bad things happen to ordinary, decent people - and so we must find some way in which these ordinary, decent people deserved to suffer, so that we can continue to believe that if we make all the right choices (are feisty, brandish knives, etc) we will never suffer the same sort of harm.

I agree with everything you said. I was really upset reading the story last night. There are two rape victims that I personally know. What they both did was keeping silent, giving up and getting into destructive relationships. Their married men that were abusive to their children and the women unconsciously tortured the kids, too. Not until I found out they were rape victims did their behavior make sense to me. I find it unforgivable that they totally ruined their children's lives and for that reason I often find it difficult to sympathize silent victims.
I completely agree that rape is nobody but the rapist's fault. However, in most human societies sexism is the norm and rape will occur somewhere to somebody. Girls are encouraged to go to ballet lessons, avoid rough games, keep long hair that's easy to grab, draw their eyes to look like pandas, and wear incapacitating dresses and high heels. Misconduct of boys, on the other hand, are tolerated because "boys are boys." You can't find such stark gender gap in our primate relatives. My point is, yes we should teach boys rape is bad mmmk, but we also need to teach girls since rape is somehow inevitable.
 
I agree with everything you said. I was really upset reading the story last night. There are two rape victims that I personally know. What they both did was keeping silent, giving up and getting into destructive relationships. Their married men that were abusive to their children and the women unconsciously tortured the kids, too. Not until I found out they were rape victims did their behavior make sense to me. I find it unforgivable that they totally ruined their children's lives and for that reason I often find it difficult to sympathize silent victims.
I completely agree that rape is nobody but the rapist's fault. However, in most human societies sexism is the norm and rape will occur somewhere to somebody. Girls are encouraged to go to ballet lessons, avoid rough games, keep long hair that's easy to grab, draw their eyes to look like pandas, and wear incapacitating dresses and high heels. Misconduct of boys, on the other hand, are tolerated because "boys are boys." You can't find such stark gender gap in our primate relatives. My point is, yes we should teach boys rape is bad mmmk, but we also need to teach girls since rape is somehow inevitable.

Did I seriously just read what I thought I read?
 
rape, it's not so much about sexual pleasure as it is about dominance.

Exactly. Rapists at some point of their lives were also victims, to parental abuse/neglect, sexual assault or bullying. By raping someone weaker they play god and feel the almighty power they wished to possess when they were victimized. That's why rape is often accompanied by torture and killing.

So much for rape. Anyway, I think psychiatric records should not be involuntarily revealed if HIPPA is strictly followed. The only exception is in the military, or if you apply for a CIA/FBI job.
 
No, it won't show up on a background check, although any legal offense would. The exact laws vary by state (as do the names), but here is the process in Colorado:

  1. Pt or family member, friend, etc. states pt has feelings of SI or HI (suicidal or homicidal ideation)
  2. Pt taken to ED, typically to a Psych ED unit (not 2710 certified, so pt's time on hold CANNOT legally begin)
  3. Pt is placed on 72-hr hold (M1 hold) pending psychiatric assessment (this hold may be legally performed by a variety of professionals, including an RN w/ mental health experience, LCSW, MHC, MD, PsyD/PhD level psychologist)
  4. Pt is transferred to a 2710 certified and licensed facility --> hold time begins
  5. Pt is assessed by a Psychiatrist (typically daily) and may release pt at any time up until the end of the 72 hr hold
  6. If MD does not feel pt is ready after 72 hrs, pt will be offered VOLUNTARY commitment (most pts will accept this)
  7. If pt refuses or MD does not believe pt is competent to make that decision, MD may decide to pursue a 90-day commitment or "Certification" (other option is to let pt leave AMA)
  8. If pt is committed involuntarily, a letter (typically a form letter with a few basic details filled in) is sent to the local courthouse certifying that, in the MD's opinion, this person needs add'l time on a locked unit
  9. Pending official approval, the pt is placed on a certified 90 day hold
  10. I have NEVER seen a judge overrule an MD's decision to place a pt on hold (to do so would be to take that person and others' lives into his/her hands against the recommendation of a recognized expert in the field since the MD is basically stating that that this person cannot yet be trusted in the community)

We're not talking about the procedure for locking them up. We're talking about how we go about finding out whether someone was ever locked up at all. Or how to find out whether someone ever saw a psychiatrist or was on psych meds, for that matter. Because I don't know what kind of background checks are run for licensing, I don't know what's going to be turned up.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/16/read-obamas-plan-to-reduce-gun-violence/

See item #2: IOW, as of last week, HIPAA no longer entirely applies to people with involuntary commitments so that they can be put in the FBI criminal database.

Why does this matter? Because schools are increasingly attempting to limit their liability by slapping their students with involuntary commitments, even when it shouldn't be applied. See, e.g., the Amherst rape case.
 
Last edited:
I was serious in every word.

In response to the first half of your post:

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/02/01/anonymous-why-i-was-silent/

Some women stay silent because they feel that they cannot go through the process of filing a complaint. You have to relive what happened to you over and over and over to many different people and for a very long time. People will pass judgement as to if you were somehow "asking for it" and as much as they shouldn't, some people will look at you differently. For some women it feels like they're being raped all over again. They were already violated once, I think its best to give them the respect to not judge them for how they deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
So much for rape. Anyway, I think psychiatric records should not be involuntarily revealed if HIPPA is strictly followed. The only exception is in the military, or if you apply for a CIA/FBI job.

IANAL, but I think HIPAA was being strictly followed because PI's are technically business associates. I'm not100% sure, but I think they figure it out through databases of medical billing codes.

With cash providers it is a bit more difficult, but usually just following the person to and from the office is all that we needed to subpoena their records.

That said, every jurisdiction's different.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Rapists at some point of their lives were also victims, to parental abuse/neglect, sexual assault or bullying. By raping someone weaker they play god and feel the almighty power they wished to possess when they were victimized. That's why rape is often accompanied by torture and killing.

Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.

Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid. The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong. If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.
 
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.

Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid. The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong. If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.

This is actually exactly what I was pulling out my laptop to say, I just hadn't done it yet. But mine was going to be in response to rape being about entitlement. If a woman is simply objectified by the sense of entitlement by the man, there would be no need or desire on his part to torture her or harm her. If rape was only about entitlement, then violent rapes wouldn't happen, but they do.
 
Last edited:
............

I agree that the baseline of rape is entitlement, or the idea that that the rapist can "take" or "do" whatever they want with whomever they want irregardless of what the other person feels BUT I think it's definitely a lot more than just that and it goes much, much deeper.
 
Last edited:
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.

Er, then shouldn't there be more rapists in the BDSM community than in the regular community?

Moreover, the average rapist rapes 5+ women, but they also don't really care about whether their victims are conscious or not. In fact, most American rapists prefer their victims to be unconscious. If a rapist gets off on suffering, then wouldn't they want their victims to be awake and remember it?

At the same time, how do you explain the relationship between harassment acceptability and rape acceptability, particularly across cultures? Ask yourself this: what do South Dakota, Japan, India, and Colombia have in common?

I think the other problem with your argument is that harassment frequently does not lead to visible suffering of another. Quite the opposite, actually. Most women, whether in America, Japan, or wherever, respond by smiling and trying to be nice, so that the guy goes away.

Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid.

This I agree with.

The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong.

This I do not.

If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.

I suggest you go to India or read an Indian paper. Sadly, they probably did think this. She was out at night with a man she was not related to, so she was a slutty mcslutterina. Therefore, she deserved to be punished.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the baseline of rape is entitlement, or the idea that that the rapist can "take" or "do" whatever they want with whomever they want irregardless of what the other person feels BUT I think it's definitely a lot more than just that and it goes much, much deeper.

Since you said you agreed with him, I just deleted it to give the more detailed answer.

I'm not interested in violent/stranger rapes. In Western contexts, I think they're red herrings. I think what women here need to worry about are date rapes, particularly involving drugs/alcohol, as well as other forms of DV.

In what ways do you think it's deeper?
 
Last edited:
Since you said you agreed with him, I just deleted it to give the more detailed answer.

I'm not really about violent/stranger rapes. In Western contexts, I think they're red herrings.

I think what women here need to worry about are date rapes, particularly involving drugs/alcohol, as well as other forms of DV.

Violent stranger rapes, although a small percent, still happen. So I don't think they qualify as a red herring. I think that women here need to be worried about all the different types of rapes out there. I also don't think that we can use one blanket term for everything.

I think it's deeper than just "entitlement, nothing more nothing less" because people rape for power, for fear, for sexual sadism, for sexual frustration, for a sense of entitlement (yes), from ignorance, and for so many other reasons. I think to blanket it and tell a woman who was violently raped that it was just "entitlement" downplays what happened to her as well as objectifies her. Entitlement implies that women are objects to begin with (in my opinion).
 
Er, then shouldn't there be more rapists in the BDSM community than in the regular community?

Moreover, the average rapist rapes 5+ women, but they also don't really care about whether their victims are conscious or not. In fact, most American rapists prefer their victims to be unconscious. If a rapist gets off on suffering, then wouldn't they want their victims to be awake and remember it?

At the same time, how do you explain the relationship between harassment acceptability and rape acceptability, particularly across cultures? Ask yourself this: what do South Dakota, Japan, India, and Colombia have in common?

I think the other problem with your argument is that harassment frequently does not lead to visible suffering of another. Quite the opposite, actually. Most women, whether in America, Japan, or wherever, respond by smiling and trying to be nice, so that the guy goes away.

And if you've ever been to India, or just read a non-American newspaper, you'd know that the men who raped and murdered that poor woman probably did think that they were in the right. After all, she was out at night with a man she was not related to, so she was a slutty mcslutterina. Therefore, she deserved to be punished.

There are plenty of rapists in the BDSM community. I don't know where you got the idea that there aren't, but people who get together in that community have to be very paranoid at first due to the fact that it harbors a very high concentration of dangerous individuals compared to the normal population.

As for American rapists preferring victims to be unconscious, that's also a form of sadism. A normal person would not be able to have satisfying intercourse with a partner that is completely unresponsive. A sadist can. Again, it's a paraphilia based around violating the rights of others. Drugging an involuntary woman into a stupor and then raping her while she's helpless to do anything about it is most certainly something that would fall into the realm of sadism.

As for your last point about harassment, that's hardly rape and more like horny idiots thinking they can woo a girl if they're persistent. If you're referring to fondling/molestation though, that's a different paraphilia (frotteurism). It has a lot in common with sadism though (use of non-consenting partners with the intent being to make the other person extremely uncomfortable, feel violated, etc). Likewise there are still other paraphilias that revolve around violating non-consenting partners in some way (exhibitionism and voyeurism being two examples).

As for the Indian case, do you seriously think that any rational person could have a thought process that goes "I hate this woman for looking promiscuous, so I'm going to have sex with her"? The real thought process was more likely "there's a woman who's shunned by our society. I can act out my extremely illegal fantasies on her and no one will care". Coincidentally, this is why you find higher incidence of rape in countries that place the blame on the victim; it's safer for sadists to act out their fantasies in those countries, so more of them do so (namely the ones who would only hold back in other societies out of fear of being punished).

I would also like to point out that female rapists are not unheard of. Using my explanation you would expect that this would be the case since there's no reason why only men could derive pleasure from violating another person. Your explanation of male entitlement, however, fails to account for this observation.
 
Violent stranger rapes, although a small percent, still happen. So I don't think they qualify as a red herring.

They're a red herring because they form our main conception of rape, despite the fact that they're statistically not normal. Not only do they take up a disproportionate amount of attention, but they're also loaded with outmoded ideals of feminity as well.

I'm not doubting that they happen. I'm just saying that we should focus on what actually is likely to happen to the people here in the proportion that they're likely to happen. There's one very good reason for this: when "atypcial" rapes are compared to our primary conception of the "ideal" rape (i.e., "violent" rape), the victims are less likely to be believed. That's what's happening now with date rapes, even though they're statistically the norm.

I don't want to feed the conceptual metaphor troll in the back of all our minds.

I think that women here need to be worried about all the different types of rapes out there.

Fair enough.

I also don't think that we can use one blanket term for everything.

Fair enough. I was using the common terms, but these are the technical ones. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pub/main.html#sv

I think it's deeper than just "entitlement, nothing more nothing less" because people rape for power, for fear, for sexual sadism, for sexual frustration, for a sense of entitlement (yes), from ignorance, and for so many other reasons. I think to blanket it and tell a woman who was violently raped that it was just "entitlement" downplays what happened to her as well as objectifies her. Entitlement implies that women are objects to begin with (in my opinion).

I don't mean to be cheeky, but what Western woman goes through life and doesn't feel objectified?

TBH, I think this is why the entitlement explanation rings resonates with so many women. I've noticed it's a bit more common with "out" rape survivors than non-rape survivors in the feminist blogosphere. (IIRC, Marcotte's a rape survivor.)
 
There are plenty of rapists in the BDSM community. I don't know where you got the idea that there aren't, but people who get together in that community have to be very paranoid at first due to the fact that it harbors a very high concentration of dangerous individuals compared to the normal population.

Strawman. Please re-read my post.

I didn't say there weren't rapists. I just said that, for your argument to work, there would have to be more. As far as I can tell, that evidence doesn't exist.

As for American rapists preferring victims to be unconscious, that's also a form of sadism. A normal person would not be able to have satisfying intercourse with a partner that is completely unresponsive. A sadist can. Again, it's a paraphilia based around violating the rights of others. Drugging an involuntary woman into a stupor and then raping her while she's helpless to do anything about it is most certainly something that would fall into the realm of sadism.

So first sadism's about pain and now it's about rights? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

As for your last point about harassment, that's hardly rape and more like horny idiots thinking they can woo a girl if they're persistent. If you're referring to fondling/molestation though, that's a different paraphilia (frotteurism). It has a lot in common with sadism though (use of non-consenting partners with the intent being to make the other person extremely uncomfortable, feel violated, etc). Likewise there are still other paraphilias that revolve around violating non-consenting partners in some way (exhibitionism and voyeurism being two examples).

As for the Indian case, do you seriously think that any rational person could have a thought process that goes "I hate this woman for looking promiscuous, so I'm going to have sex with her"?

It's not about "sadism" so much as it is about group think.

I would also like to point out that female rapists are not unheard of.

Statistically they're so rare the CDC analyses of sexual violence treats analyses them separately. The pattern is strikingly different from male-on-female and male-on-male rapes -- so much so it's ridiculous to try to compare them (i.e., its teacher-on-student rapes, they tend to be in long-term relationships, and they're only a handful each year).

Using my explanation you would expect that this would be the case since there's no reason why only men could derive pleasure from violating another person. Your explanation of male entitlement, however, fails to account for this observation.

No, I think an outliers need to be treated as outliers. See the above links on intimate partner violence.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
This may be completely wrong but I assume that anything you bill to health insurance will be on your medical record.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

bills to medical insurance don't necessarily equate to a medical RECORD. i have a friend who's name and information was stolen, started receiving bills in the mail for pregnancy visits, etc. and it had been going on for months... fraud obviously but after the long process it still may come up here and there, there is insurance/identity fraud everywhere and in this case, she didn't find out about it until the very end, so I don't think insurance records are the best source of someone's medical history.
 
As long as it control. I dont think med schools give a what.

I have a friend who took the MCAT with accommodations, when you took the MCAT with accommodations med. schools can see it and they can find out the reason you needed the accommodations, she needed accommodations due to her mental health and she been accepted to multiple medical schools.
 
bills to medical insurance don't necessarily equate to a medical RECORD. i have a friend who's name and information was stolen, started receiving bills in the mail for pregnancy visits, etc. and it had been going on for months... fraud obviously but after the long process it still may come up here and there, there is insurance/identity fraud everywhere and in this case, she didn't find out about it until the very end, so I don't think insurance records are the best source of someone's medical history.

IANAL.

I never said it did. What often happens is you use the billing records to subpoena the full history. What I didn't say is that we usually took this information to opposing counsel, say that we know what's going on, and used that information to negotiate an out-of-court settlement or obtain a subpoena/request/etc. to obtain the full medical record. This is what happened in 90% of the divorce/custody cases my firm handled.

The problem with identity theft is that you're effectively guilty until proven innocent. It's easy to prove your innocence -- sort of -- if you're being billed for a foot amputation and you're walking around in your Jimmy Choos, but it's another for something as subjective and vague as psychiatric treatment.
 
Last edited:
Strawman. Please re-read my post.

I didn't say there weren't rapists. I just said that, for your argument to work, there would have to be more. As far as I can tell, that evidence doesn't exist.



So first sadism's about pain and now it's about rights? Sorry, I'm not buying it.



It's not about "sadism" so much as it is about group think.



Statistically they're so rare the CDC analyses of sexual violence treats analyses them separately. The pattern is strikingly different from male-on-female and male-on-male rapes -- so much so it's ridiculous to try to compare them (i.e., its teacher-on-student rapes, they tend to be in long-term relationships, and they're only a handful each year).



No, I think an outliers need to be treated as outliers. See the above links on intimate partner violence.

No, it's not just teacher-on-student rapes. Hell, just last month the FBI went on a manhunt for a woman who had been seen in videos raping children:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/feds-bust-jane-doe-child-porn/story?id=18030002

There have been studies which have shown that the prevalence of sadism in women is just as common as in men:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940032

You can find confirmed cases of female-on-male rape:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15876968

Granted these are hard to find, but not necessarily because they're rare, but because they're almost never reported for reasons that should be obvious.

Likewise, female pedophiles are rarely discovered due to the fact that they can blend in so well (imagine the reaction to a woman who comes up to your kid and starts going on and on about how cute the kid is and even hugs him/her a couple times; now imagine the reaction to a man who does the exact same thing). That said, pedophilia is a completely different beast from sadism. Most pedophiles are not sadistic and actually do believe that they're not harming children when they engage in sexual acts with kids. Male and female pedophiles don't differ in this regard, it's just society's perception of them that does (a male child rapist is "sick"; a female child rapist is "confused"). Obviously there are sadistic pedophiles out there, and again, males and females don't differ in that population.

Women rape just like men do. Deal with it.

As for the semantics of sadism, I use "suffering" loosely. A more accurate description would be "a paraphilia wherein a person is aroused by the infliction of a perceived noxious mental state in another individual". Sadists can derive pleasure from making another person feel physical pain, emotional pain, humiliation, discomfort, boredom, or any other noxious mental state, it doesn't have to be real, and it doesn't have to occur while they're in the vicinity so long as they believe it will occur later.
 
I've referenced that particular study multiple times when writing papers. Very interesting stuff.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
TBH, I think this is why the entitlement explanation rings resonates with so many women. I've noticed it's a bit more common with "out" rape survivors than non-rape survivors in the feminist blogosphere. (IIRC, Marcotte's a rape survivor.)

H'okay.
What I've found (through looking through other ppls research, my own life, and being around rapists/pedos) is that a rapists number one priority is to keep raping as many people and for as long as possible. They are predators who purposfully seek out victims who are unlikely to be believed. They benefit off of rape myths by chosing to rape people who are drunk, unconcious, have bad (aka slutty) reputations, etc. these are the vast majority of cases simply because they have so many victims. However I'm not sure they are the vast majority of offenders. there's another type of rapist - the opportunitist, he's prob not a lifer but instead someone who feels entitled to womens bodies, the whole PUA type. He rapes without knowing he's a rapist, without realizing what he does is hurting others because he doesn't see his victims as real people.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
I think what r1d1 did was great and admirable. I'm just saying that to say that "if only the victim would have..." Never really makes anyone feel better. Some women fight, others shut down, some are so terrified they crumble. I think that unless we have been in that position and felt that fear we should never judge how a woman reacts and instead say something more along the lines of "if only this rapist wasn't a sick twisted monster who probably has insecurity as well as power complex issues and feels the need to violate and batter another human being to get off."

...I was agreeing with you?
 
Actually most rapes, or at least the violent ones, have nothing to do with psychological trauma or a desire to be powerful, and everything to do with sexual sadism. A rapist isn't getting off on power, they're getting off on the suffering of another person. They don't necessarily need to be the ones in control either; sadists can very easily get off to watching others do the rape/torture. The vast majority also make do with using consenting partners. It's just a minority for whom consenting partners aren't good enough; they need the real thing. Often these people are also psychopaths, since that disorder pretty much eliminates any psychological barriers a normal person would have towards acting out a violent fantasy.

Trying to stop violent rape with education about treating girls well is mind numbingly stupid. The entire reason such rapists do what they do is because they know it's wrong. If they actually believed things like "she wanted it" they wouldn't have hunted down a non-consenting partner in the first place. When you have, say, a group of six men beating a woman to death while raping her they're not under any illusions that they're in the right.

This is true for a certain group of rapists and a certain classification of 'rape'. Education programs are generally aimed at preventing date-rape scenarios (one of the most common forms, especially at colleges), not sadistic/power/stranger rapes. Clearly, no one is expecting a seminar to make someone think "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't put on a ski mask and go drag a woman into that alley tonight"

However, the hope and intention is that it will minimize the number of rapes where the guy says "I thought it was OK...I assumed that because of x, y, z, the fact that she slept with me before, the fact that she promised while she was sober, that she invited me inside, that her friend told me she was really into me but didn't have the balls to admit it..." and the girl says "I didn't want it, but he wasn't paying attention and I was too scared to do anything but lay there and cry".

Does it work? I honestly have no clue. Clearly, it's not enough...what's less obvious is whether it is a step in the right direction. Either way, though, it's hard to see how it could be detrimental. At the very least, it does raise awareness of the issue as a whole.
 
This is true for a certain group of rapists and a certain classification of 'rape'. Education programs are generally aimed at preventing date-rape scenarios (one of the most common forms, especially at colleges), not sadistic/power/stranger rapes. Clearly, no one is expecting a seminar to make someone think "Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't put on a ski mask and go drag a woman into that alley tonight"

However, the hope and intention is that it will minimize the number of rapes where the guy says "I thought it was OK...I assumed that because of x, y, z, the fact that she slept with me before, the fact that she promised while she was sober, that she invited me inside, that her friend told me she was really into me but didn't have the balls to admit it..." and the girl says "I didn't want it, but he wasn't paying attention and I was too scared to do anything but lay there and cry".

Does it work? I honestly have no clue. Clearly, it's not enough...what's less obvious is whether it is a step in the right direction. Either way, though, it's hard to see how it could be detrimental. At the very least, it does raise awareness of the issue as a whole.

there's another thing that both of you are missing. a LOT of education efforts aim to address the bystander effect. Getting young men to stand out against rapists can have a huge impact - while it is simply not reasonable to expect to catch and deter all rapists from doing what they do, it is very possible to lower the actual number of rapes. On my campus there was a young woman who passed out at a fraternity party and was raped by a member while his brothers cheered him on - i wonder if one guy would have had the decency to stand up for her, if maybe it wouldnt have happened in the first place. Personally I know I have evaded some sticky situations by male friends intervening and telling other men to back off - because let's be honest most dudes are more likely to take other dudes seriously than a thin thing like me (im decepively strong, but i don't have a very intimidating frame)
 
No, it's not just teacher-on-student rapes. Hell, just last month the FBI went on a manhunt for a woman who had been seen in videos raping children:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/feds-bust-jane-doe-child-porn/story?id=18030002

Anecdote =/= Data

There have been studies which have shown that the prevalence of sadism in women is just as common as in men:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940032

Sadism =/= Rape

You can find confirmed cases of female-on-male rape:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15876968

Granted these are hard to find, but not necessarily because they're rare, but because they're almost never reported for reasons that should be obvious.

Strawman. I never said that female-on-male rape doesn't exist.

Stop trying to change the subject. I don't feed trolls, let alone trolls who don't know basic logical fallacies.

Let's get back to the real issues and debate meaningful topics, shall we?
 
H'okay.
What I've found (through looking through other ppls research, my own life, and being around rapists/pedos) is that a rapists number one priority is to keep raping as many people and for as long as possible.

Their number one goal is them. Their money, their career, their sex life, their whatever. I certainly agree with you that that's a fair point, and the research seems to back it up. As far as I can tell, though, rape is just one of the many means they use to achieve their goal.

Entitlement is the state that occurs when they're repeatedly put on a pedestal and told that they have a right to something. I think the two things are closely related, but aren't quite the same thing.

They are predators who purposfully seek out victims who are unlikely to be believed. They benefit off of rape myths by chosing to rape people who are drunk, unconcious, have bad (aka slutty) reputations, etc. these are the vast majority of cases simply because they have so many victims.

Fair enough.

However I'm not sure they are the vast majority of offenders. there's another type of rapist - the opportunitist, he's prob not a lifer but instead someone who feels entitled to womens bodies, the whole PUA type. He rapes without knowing he's a rapist, without realizing what he does is hurting others because he doesn't see his victims as real people.

I'm not sure about this. Where are you getting this from?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about this. Where are you getting this from?

I have wondered about this a lot myself. Having spent a lot of time reading feminist writers and thinkers, the idea that rape is about power and control, not about sex, is something I've heard a lot; feminists will also talk about "rape culture", the idea that our society encourages rape, blames the victims, and excuses rapists. If that's your conceptual framework, then it makes sense to wonder how many rapes are committed by "accidental" rapists, who are acting from an unexamined and unreflective place of entitlement and who somehow do not realize that what they are doing is criminal.

Of course, the problem with this is that it's hard to do research if you've already got a pretty clear idea of what you SHOULD find based on your overarching theory of rape culture, and I'm also not sure how you would investigate "accidental" rapes like that.

I used to be pretty firmly in the camp that most men were capable of rape and would probably rape if they had the opportunity, but recently I've begun to reexamine my thought process on this -- I drew my conclusions based on my personal experiences and those of my friends, but then, my experiences are not necessarily a random sample of the population, and while I'm still fond of the "personal = political" slogan, you can't really draw population-wide inferences from personal experiences!!
 
I'm not sure about this. Where are you getting this from?


I got this from research showing some men will vemently say that rape is wrong, but will admit to doing behaviors which legally meet the definition of rape or wanting to do those behavior as long as the actual word rape is not used.

Also from the reddit thread about rapists (where rapists were telling their stories)


Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
I got this from research showing some men will vemently say that rape is wrong, but will admit to doing behaviors which legally meet the definition of rape or wanting to do those behavior as long as the actual word rape is not used.

Also from the reddit thread about rapists (where rapists were telling their stories)


Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

You have to look into the methodology on studies such as that. There was a very prominent one making the rounds recently where their conclusion was essentially the same: men will say that rape is wrong, but will admit to actions which legally meet the definition of rape.
However, when you looked into the actual questions asked, many of the admissions were for statements such as "I have had sex with someone who had been drinking"
I recognize that at a certain point, intoxication prohibits consent, but we should also recognize that not all intoxicated intercourse is equivalent to rape.

This is simply an example; I'd have to dig through and track down the paper again (which is difficult as I no longer have journal access) to find all of the stats and questions, but it is an example of how difficult it can be to get an accurate reading from these types of surveys.
 
You have to look into the methodology on studies such as that. There was a very prominent one making the rounds recently where their conclusion was essentially the same: men will say that rape is wrong, but will admit to actions which legally meet the definition of rape.
However, when you looked into the actual questions asked, many of the admissions were for statements such as "I have had sex with someone who had been drinking"
I recognize that at a certain point, intoxication prohibits consent, but we should also recognize that not all intoxicated intercourse is equivalent to rape.

This is simply an example; I'd have to dig through and track down the paper again (which is difficult as I no longer have journal access) to find all of the stats and questions, but it is an example of how difficult it can be to get an accurate reading from these types of surveys.

Are you talking about Mary Koss' research? She did a lot of the pioneering research into rape prevalence that gave us the commonly accepted "1 in 6" statistic for lifetime victimization prevalence among women... I've heard criticism of her surveys before on the grounds that she would define as rape events that respondents to her surveys were not defining as rape, but having looked at the surveys again I don't have any issue with her work. I'm trying to think of someone who's done equivalent research into rapists other than Lisak, and drawing a blank.
 
I have wondered about this a lot myself. Having spent a lot of time reading feminist writers and thinkers, the idea that rape is about power and control, not about sex, is something I've heard a lot; feminists will also talk about "rape culture", the idea that our society encourages rape, blames the victims, and excuses rapists. If that's your conceptual framework, then it makes sense to wonder how many rapes are committed by "accidental" rapists, who are acting from an unexamined and unreflective place of entitlement and who somehow do not realize that what they are doing is criminal.!

Sorry, just got back into the country.

Just to be clear, I do not take this view. Nor do I take the accidental rapist view. Just because you're entitled doesn't mean what you did was accidental.

Of course, the problem with this is that it's hard to do research if you've already got a pretty clear idea of what you SHOULD find based on your overarching theory of rape culture, and I'm also not sure how you would investigate "accidental" rapes like that.

It's covered in any graduate anthropological research methods course. I hear they put them up on iTunes now.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, just got back into the country.

Just to be clear, I do not take this view. Nor do I take the accidental rapist view. Just because you're entitled doesn't mean what you did was accidental.

See I'm on the "intent isn't magic" camp
It doesn't matter whether or not you intended to rape - it doesn't make it any less traumatic for the victim and it doesn't mean the rapist should be punished any less
 
Top