In all fairness to myself and weaselling out of arguments all the time, in my latest defence I did mention, "People who have fallen on hard times, or who've been taught a harmful worldview of the people they would rape, or have very impaired judgement due to intoxication, or any combination of the above, are something society has a hope of intervening in". And in fairness to you, this hasn't been my argument throughout, but I thought the whole point of this enlightening process was that opinions could change and grow. You're right though, if the psychos rape for pleasure, and intoxicated wankers rape for pleasure, then the rape to wilfully victimise someone and take charge proportion does seem smaller. I've quoted this out of order, because I think what I said above more or less follows into this, sort of. I guess my trouble is I can't see anyone wanting to rape for sexual pleasure being rational, however I can see someone wanting to rape for control being rational - albeit coming from a place of being miserably depressed. What I mean by rational is more or less a logical desire, so for the latter they do it in that moment because they think it will make them feel better, but for the former they do it because they really want sex that badly and they can't stand that they're not having it. My definitions of rational/irrational are based on personal experience, and I guess if you can't really grasp the concept then that's a great thing - it means you haven't ever had thoughts that defy all logic and demand your attention, which is a good thing because no one wants to think truly irrationally ever. My biggest problem here is that I can't believe so many people would be that irrational. People can of course be momentarily irrational, but it's certainly on the rarer side, so to be persistently irrational and it not to amount to anything (counselling, a previous crime, etc.) seems off. Maybe I'm just being naive, and more people are pretty damn crazily irrational a lot of the time than I thought. Honestly I'm not that exasperated (unless you start quoting me out of context again), it's probably more that this thread has been a much greater commitment than I thought it would be, because once I've started something like this I'd be being a douchebag if I floated out controversial opinions and then backed away because I couldn't be bothered. In terms of me being ad hoc, well of course I am - unless it's something I'm particularly invested in I'm not going to do intellectually rigorous legwork and will instead argue what I think is true based on what I believe to be true. You're acting like my weird mental arguments are something new to you Smuel. I mean it's good research, and it certainly makes your points even more compelling. I guess what I would say is that rape for power isn't something readily quantifiable, as people wouldn't own up to it, however certainly this makes it more spurious than what you're putting forward. It's hard to track honestly, it's not like people do impact studies on random conventional wisdom phrases to see their effect on policy making. Again, I guess it's a spurious point at best - it's very hard to validate. As a side point, I guess possibly another part of my inability to grasp why people would rape for sex is because I've been in a long term relationship since I was 15 and so never really had to live at any point the desperate chronic masturbator dream, and can't really conceptualise a situation where my own sex drive could ever get to such an uncontrollable level. As such I guess I'm a heavily biased person to be having this conversation with, you lucky man.