Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Acting White: The Psychology of Gang Rape

On the heels of the much publicized Richmond High School (CA) gang rape of a 15 year old, I found this article on gang rape psychology. It helped me to begin to understand such heinous behavior. Article link here.

James C. Collier

READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE...

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

15 comments:

applied psychology said...

I read the articles, very useful.

Anonymous said...

When the Jewish/Christian religion includes rape as one of the 10 Commandments and the Muslin religion rejects virgins as a reward for martyrs, then maybe "women [will be] viewed as equals worthy of respect.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Anonymous, because gang rapists are almost always devout religious followers. If only someone had told them that rape is wrong!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon @10:08

According to the linked article:

1. rape on college campuses is tolerated (i,e. no one is telling them that rape is wrong!!!)


2. rape is "strongly correlated with sexist (i,e. no one is telling them that rape is wrong!!!) attitudes"

Anonymous said...

I didn't read the article but if it says those things then it's just a typical batch of feminazi lies. The same people who go around campus terrorizing men with the utterly bogus "1 in 4" statistic, and whining about an imaginary "rape culture".

The vast majority of rape is committed by the same people who commit the vast majority of all crime - young, uneducated black and to a lesser extent latino males, raised by single mothers. And in every case, these young men absolutely know that what they're doing is wrong and they just don't care. All of these other comically roundabout explanations are just excuses for our hyper-PC society's fear of confronting the real problem.

James C. Collier said...

Anon 10:41, You need to sharpen your rhetoric. While black men commit crime (including rape) in higher proportion to their % of overall population, white men, as the majority, commit the greatest number of absolute crimes, in all categories.

Anonymous said...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus42.pdf

Look at 2005, and do the math. No need to apologize. By the way, I said young black and latino males. Many of the latinos get lumped in with "whites" to make the numbers look better.

Smile said...

@James C. Collier

"You need to sharpen your rhetoric. While black men commit crime (including rape) in higher proportion to their % of overall population, white men, as the majority, commit the greatest number of absolute crimes, in all categories."

Backatcha. The obvious % of blacks to their overall population is severely problematic and causes profound implosion. The tendency to prefer to view the situation as an explosion is understandable, we're all human and try to avoid discomfort.

Encouraging a braveness to judge ourselves is always helpful. Life seems to require this from all of us.

Your views and input is always appreciated.

Anonymous said...

This astonishes me.

The DOJ reports for 2005 apparently give this information: of the 36,600 blacks who were victims of sexual assault that year, fewer than 10 were assaulted by whites; the assailants were overwhelmingly blacks assaulting blacks. (Does this get discussed in the black community?) But of the 111,600 white victims of sexual assault that year, 37,500 were assaulted by blacks, 1 out of 3.

If this info is correct, what's your take?

And what if the situation were reversed and contemporary blacks hardly ever sexually assaulted whites, but one out of three black victims were assaulted by whites?

James C. Collier said...

Anon 2:56, you may be legit, but your numbers are fishy. The DOJ 2007 numbers I looked up do not come anywhere close to the 2005 numbers you quote. I have seen this stuff other places and I am still waiting for proof. If you want to see 2007 look here, (table 42) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf

Anonymous said...

The numbers are "fishy"?

They come from the same usdoj.gov site that you linked to!

James C. Collier said...

Anon4:00, More digging and the 2005 numbers you quote are legit. Not sure why 2005 was so high at 33%, while 2004 (8%), 2006 (17%) and 2007 (7%). I think spikes like this fly under the PC radar screen in all directions, unfortunately. Closer look would suggest a good stat-guy and a criminologist.

Anonymous said...

This is Anon 2:56 again. I went searching and found the same wild fluctuations in the numbers from year to year. 2005 was a huge variation. Some years, eg, there are 0 reports of sex assault by whites on blacks and then in the next year, thousands. How likely is that?

Frankly, though the numbers for all crimes suggest that blacks victimize whites at a rate all out of proportion to their share of the demographic, these stats shift so wildly, you don't really know what the literal score is. And with a hot topic like this, I think you need to have very solid numbers.

I read up on the DOJ's method in the Crime Victimization Survey. I assumed, wrongly, it was a compilation of police and court records. Nope. It's a survey of 77000+ households!

Anonymous said...

There are a few things I feel are worth consideration in regards to an earlier comment on christianity and the fact that rape is not part of the ten commandments. I would definately think that other commandments within the ten would be violated by an act of rape, such as honoring thy mother and thy father.

The bible is exponentially clear on the fact that sex is intended for a man and woman to bond and procreate and is ment only for two people commited to one another. Remember the ten commandments were rules to manage Moses crew and was in no way intended to suggest that anything not in these specific ten commandments is 'not that bad'.

Lastly I hope we remember that religion like everything else can be used as an excuse, taken out of context and misrepresented. It's unfortunate that the behaviour of people who claim to be strongly religious or spiritual seems to have really turned people off taking a closer look.

Anthony said...

The high 33% of 2005 (in contrast to the smaller ~16 and ~7 %'s in 2006-2008) is MORE accurate than those smaller percentages.

Why?

Because only the year of 2005 is the one NOT based on fewer than 10 sample cases (see the * note at the bottom of the page of Table 42 in those pdfs).