NationStates Jolt Archive

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

Vault 10 made some points recently that got him slapped with a warning, mostly because he seemed to be giving the okay to rape...but I think there was something interesting in what he was saying that is echoed, and fleshed out in the following article (http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm).

We want to challenge the dearly held idea that rape is not about sex. We realize that our approach and our frankness will rankle some social scientists, including some serious and well-intentioned rape investigators. But many facts point to the conclusion that rape is, in its very essence, a sexual act. Furthermore, we argue, rape has evolved over millennia of human history, along with courtship, sexual attraction and other behaviors related to the production of offspring.

Consider the following facts:

" Most rape victims are women of childbearing age.

" In many cultures rape is treated as a crime against the victim's husband.

" Rape victims suffer less emotional distress when they are subjected to more violence.

" Rape takes place not only among human beings but also in a variety of other animal species.

" Married women and women of childbearing age experience more psychological distress after a rape than do girls, single women or women who are past menopause.

As bizarre as some of those facts may seem, they all make sense when rape is viewed as a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage.

Here we must hasten to emphasize that by categorizing a behavior as "natural" and "biological" we do not in any way mean to imply that the behavior is justified or even inevitable. Biological means "of or pertaining to life," so the word applies to every human feature and behavior. But to infer from that. as many of our critics assert that we do. that what is biological is somehow right or good, would be to fall into the so-called naturalistic fallacy. That mistake is obvious enough when one considers such natural disasters as epidemics, floods and tornadoes. In those cases it is clear that what is natural is not always desirable. And of course much can be, and is, done to protect people against natural threats. from administering antibiotics to drawing up emergency evacuation plans. In other words, the fact that rape is an ancient part of human nature in no way excuses the rapist


Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?

We don't really need another rape thread. Or do we?

We don't really need another rape thread. Or do we?

I declare it thus.

I don't know necessarily if I buy the whole "rape is all about control, and not about sex". There are ways to be in control, without it simulating a sexual act.

I think there's an element of sexual desire to it. If it's only about control, why sexual acts? why not just physical violence?

I declare it thus.

And I thus declare it.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?
This question intensifies my desire to rape this thread. :)

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it wrong?

Of course it's wrong. If she says no, then you don't do it.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I don't like using the term hardwired, pretty much ever. It implies that the person cannot help themselves, and that they had no choice in the matter. If they had no choice in the matter, they cannot be held legally culpable, which means we would not be able to prosecute rape.

Therefore, I hate the term "hardwired."

However, I think that some men do have the tendency toward it, but I personally feel that it has less to do with any "hardwiring" and more to do with how the person is brought up to feel about other people.

If they are number 1 to themselves at all times, and everyone else is just a footstool, then it would be more likely that they would rape. However, if they are brought up to respect others and their personhood, they would be less likely to rape.

There are no absolutes, however.

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it wrong?

In my opinion, yes. The person always has a choice.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I think yes, however whether that wiring is ever activated depends on a lot of circumstances.

I don't know necessarily if I buy the whole "rape is all about control, and not about sex". There are ways to be in control, without it simulating a sexual act.

I think there's an element of sexual desire to it. If it's only about control, why sexual acts? why not just physical violence?

This is the thing that gets me, when I think about it. The argument is that the sexual element is more demeaning, more humiliating, thus more powerful...but enjoying doing something horrible to someone and enjoying the same thing sexually is different.

I understand that it's important that the victims of rape not be made to feel as though they did something to 'deserve' it...like being 'too good looking', or dressing in a certain way, being in a certain place, etc...but it doesn't really make sense to say rape isn't about sex at all, unless we are defining sex ONLY as consensual.

Of course it's wrong. If she says no, then you don't do it.Huh?

I meant, "men are hardwired to rape"...is that statement wrong? Not "is rape wrong". That is obvious.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

If you mean all men, I believe not. I was recently looking something up about crime and criminals, and a couple of books that talked about rape mentioned that something like 3/4 of rapists are sociopaths or sadists.

It's possible sociopathy or sadism is genetic, in which case, the answer is "yes, for some small number of men". But this has nothing to do w/ the rest of us.

No, I don't gotta cite off hand, but I could probably dig up the books again if I had to.

I don't like using the term hardwired, pretty much ever. It implies that the person cannot help themselves, and that they had no choice in the matter. If they had no choice in the matter, they cannot be held legally culpable, which means we would not be able to prosecute rape.

Therefore, I hate the term "hardwired." I think 'hardwiring' can be overcome by all sorts of social factors. I may be 'hardwired' to pump out as many offspring as possible, but I'm not going to. Nonetheless, the biological imperative to reproduce is definitely a force within me.

However, I think that some men do have the tendency toward it, but I personally feel that it has less to do with any "hardwiring" and more to do with how the person is brought up to feel about other people. So you think it's about socialisation, not biology.

If they are number 1 to themselves at all times, and everyone else is just a footstool, then it would be more likely that they would rape. However, if they are brought up to respect others and their personhood, they would be less likely to rape.

There are no absolutes, however. Less likely to rape...that suggests that socialisation is the force that keeps men in check...instead of the previous assertion you've made that socialiation is the reason men rape (or not), absent biological factors.

This is the thing that gets me, when I think about it. The argument is that the sexual element is more demeaning, more humiliating, thus more powerful..

I don't really care for that argument either because it applies a level of concious "choosing" the act for the goal, which I don't think applies. I sort of imagine the imaginary thought process..

"well, I really like to humiliate and degrade women, and force myself on them...what's the best way to get satisfaction....hm...pinch her nipple? No....grab her ass? that won't do it....punch her in the shoulder? Nah....oh, I can throw her down, pry her legs open and forcibly insert my penis in her vagina! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

I think to say that rape does not contain an element of sexual desire is wrong. I think it's a "perfect storm" (so to speak) of sexual desire, and a pathological inability to feel empathy.

Married women and women of childbearing age experience more psychological distress after a rape than do girls, single women or women who are past menopause

Was I the only one that kind finds this as a "duh" statement? I mean, of course if youre of childbreaing age its more psychologically distressing. I mean, whats the only thing that can make rape worse? Getting knocked up because of it.

well there isn't much keeping us from poo hurling monkeys so I guess we kinda are at least capable of rape yeah (feels odd saying that as I have a roll of duct tape in my pocket)

but at the end of the day I don't think you can put rape down to one thing its a pretty big thing and tbh I don't think control pays that large a part compared to things like sociopathy and lack of self control

I think to say that rape does not contain an element of sexual desire is wrong. I think it's a "perfect storm" (so to speak) of sexual desire, and a pathological inability to feel empathy.

what he said

I think 'hardwiring' can be overcome by all sorts of social factors. I may be 'hardwired' to pump out as many offspring as possible, but I'm not going to. Nonetheless, the biological imperative to reproduce is definitely a force within me.

Aww, I thought you were going to carry my children someday. Very well, if you say "hardwired" and mean "a tendency", then perhaps some men are. I wouldn't say "all", though.

So you think it's about socialization, not biology.

Yes, I do.
Less likely to rape...that suggests that socialisation is the force that keeps men in check...instead of the previous assertion you've made that socialiation is the reason men rape (or not), absent biological factors.

That wasn't really what I meant. Perhaps I didn't specify clearly.

I believe that humans have this theoretical "free will" that everyone throws around like a magical pie. It's influenced by social norms and by genetics - both to a certain extent - but I still feel that the person has the ability to defy all genetic inclinations and training and strike out on their own.

Hell, I did. Not in this way, certainly, but in other ways.

Hence why I say there are no absolutes - even with the best genetics and social upbringing, a person can turn into a sociopath if he chooses.

In fact, let me expand. Of course rape exists in an animals. Both humans and animals have desires. What separates humans from animals is the ability to put others ahead of our own desires. To create social dynamics where respect and appreciate the rights of other people. That is perhaps the fundamental difference between humans and animals. Not lack of desire, but ability to not act on it, for the good of others.

So of course rape exists in the animal kingdom. It's at its core a very animalistic thing to do. The act to fulfill a desire, with utter disregard for the consequences that the act has on others. In that way, rape is no different than any other violent crime. Simply acting on a desire for something, with a callous disregard towards others.

It's also abhorrent in human society, and the reason it's a crime.

Huh?

I meant, "men are hardwired to rape"...is that statement wrong? Not "is rape wrong". That is obvious.

*UBER FACEPALM*

Yeah, I should probably stop skimreading. I don't think men are hardwired to rape, more hardwired to keep the species going. Of course in some people that manifests itself in the form of rape. And obviously a lot of rapes have nothing to do with having kids.

If you mean all men, I believe not. I was recently looking something up about crime and criminals, and a couple of books that talked about rape mentioned that something like 3/4 of rapists are sociopaths or sadists.

It's possible sociopathy or sadism is genetic, in which case, the answer is "yes, for some small number of men". But this has nothing to do w/ the rest of us.

No, I don't gotta cite off hand, but I could probably dig up the books again if I had to.

Hmmm, I wonder if I could access this full article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m06r8008x62l8222/) through my Uni...

It seems to jive with some assertions made in the sources I've used and what you've said here. Some guys seem to get turned on by non-consensual sex while others don't. I'd like to find more studies on the corelation between sex and rape though.

Still, it's one thing to get turned on by non-consensual sex, and another to act on it, I'm clear on this.

Was I the only one that kind finds this as a "duh" statement? I mean, of course if youre of childbreaing age its more psychologically distressing. I mean, whats the only thing that can make rape worse? Getting knocked up because of it.

If rape was an effective method of getting women pregnant, then we could see a genetic or evolutionary pressure for men to develop some rape 'hard-wiring'. This would also explain why rape is so common on the battlefield. Those who survive the battle pass their (more aggressive) genes through forced insemination, i.e. rape.

I think the point of saying "rape isn't about sex" isn't "rape is in no way connected with sexual desire" but rather "the desire to rape someone is not at all just an extension of the desire to fuck someone."

So if the goal is total domination...as Neo Art pointed out, it seems a bit odd to land on rape as the best 'tool'. If the goal is to act on a desire...then what is the desire being acted out? Seen in that light, the desire of rape seems obvious...sexual pleasure derived from non-consensual sex. If that is true, would it change how we 'protect ourselves' from rape, as was suggested in the first article?

I think the point of saying "rape isn't about sex" isn't "rape is in no way connected with sexual desire" but rather "the desire to rape someone is not at all just an extension of the desire to fuck someone."

I think it also has something to do with what Neesika said. If we said, "Yeah, rape is about sex" the victims might think they somehow deserved it or were asking for it for being sexy or desirable.

I think the "rape is not about sex" is the natural reaction to the "She was dressed like a slut and askin' for it" defense.

So if the goal is total domination...as Neo Art pointed out, it seems a bit odd to land on rape as the best 'tool'. If the goal is to act on a desire...then what is the desire being acted out? Seen in that light, the desire of rape seems obvious...sexual pleasure derived from non-consensual sex. If that is true, would it change how we 'protect ourselves' from rape, as was suggested in the first article?

I think the vast majority of it is domination, power, and humilation, otherwise why do straight men rape other straight men in prison?

But I think its impossible to rule out a sexual component.

Here's the thing. I don't like the phrase or idea of "men would do it if they could get away with it". It implies that rape needs only two things. Sexual desire, and opportunity.

I will admit that I have had both present at various times in my life. I also freely admit to being someone whose sexual preferences lean towards (OK, not so much lean as full out go towards) dominance and control. Yet I'm not a rapist. And have not, even once, even, for a heart beat, considered it. And why not?

Because I have what rapists lack. Empathy. I don't rape for the same reason I don't steal and murder. Because I recognize it as wrong.

The question becomes, do I recognize it as wrong because I'm human, or because I'm socialized? Well, that raises the very big question, if it's social, is there a reason our society reflects those values? In other words, do I think it's wrong because society teaches it's wrong, or does society teach it as wrong because society developed into believing it's wrong by the designers.

Do we feel it's wrong because society says so? Or does society says so because we feel it's wrong?

That would take someone far smarter than I to work out.

If rape was an effective method of getting women pregnant, then we could see a genetic or evolutionary pressure for men to develop some rape 'hard-wiring'. This would also explain why rape is so common on the battlefield. Those who survive the battle pass their (more aggressive) genes through forced insemination, i.e. rape.

Rape can be understood as a third kind of sexual strategy: one more way to gain access to females. There are several mechanisms by which such a strategy could function. For example, men might resort to rape when they are socially disenfranchised, and thus unable to gain access to women through looks, wealth or status. Alternatively, men could have evolved to practice rape when the costs seem low -- when, for instance, a woman is alone and unprotected (and thus retaliation seems unlikely), or when they have physical control over a woman (and so cannot be injured by her). Over evolutionary time, some men may have succeeded in passing on their genes through rape, thus perpetuating the behavior. It is also possible, however, that rape evolved not as a reproductive strategy in itself but merely as a side effect of other adaptations, such as the strong male sex drive and the male desire to mate with a variety of women.....

Rape reduces female reproductive success in several ways. For one thing, the victim may be injured. Moreover, if she becomes pregnant, she is deprived of her chance to choose the best father for her children. A rape may also cause a woman to lose the investment of her long-term partner, because it calls into question whether the child she later bears is really his. A variety of studies have shown that both men and women care more for their genetic offspring than for stepchildren......


For all those reasons, the psychological pain that rape victims suffer appears to be an evolved defense against rape. The human females who outreproduced others and thus became our ancestors. were people who were highly distressed about rape. Their distress presumably served their interests by motivating them to identify the circumstances that resulted in the rape, assess the problems the rape caused, and act to avoid rapes in the future.
Thoughts?

She was dressed like a slut and askin' for it.

Didn't Wilgrove make a thread about that?

I think the vast majority of it is domination, power, and humilation, otherwise why do straight men rape other straight men in prison?

But I think its impossible to rule out a sexual component.

To turn it on its head, if prisons were mixed sex, men and women, would male on male rape be as common? Or would most rape become men to women?

In other words, is the male on male rape in prison only about domination, power, and humiliation, or is it, at least partially, about convenience? IE, there's no women around...

I think the point of saying "rape isn't about sex" isn't "rape is in no way connected with sexual desire" but rather "the desire to rape someone is not at all just an extension of the desire to fuck someone."

What would you describe the desire to rape someone as then? (not saying it's exactly what you've said it's not, just in case anyone on NSG gets confused...not that this every happens :P)

The act to fulfill a desire, with utter disregard for the consequences that the act has on others.

I agree with much of this post, but I want to take issue with this one bit. I think for many if not most rapists, there is definitely regard for the consequences, because the victim's suffering is a major part of the appeal for them. It's not "I'm going to fuck this girl I know, and I don't care how she feel about it," it's "I'm going to fuck this girl I know while she cries and begs me to stop and it's going to fucking destroy her, which makes me feel awesome and powerful (because I am a worthless shitbag)."

To turn it on its head, if prisons were mixed sex, men and women, would male on male rape be as common? Or would most rape become men to women?
That would be an interesting, but highly twisted, unethical, morally repuslive, and just all around bad idea for an experiment (Imnot saying you were suggesting such an experiment, just throwing out my 2 cents).
In other words, is the male on male rape in prison only about domination, power, and humiliation, or is it, at least partially, about convenience? IE, there's no women around...
Part of it might be conveinence, but I have a hard time seeing that, because, as a straight male, I have a very hard time imagining a situation where I would want to have sex with another male.

But Ive never been to prison.

I agree with much of this post, but I want to take issue with this one bit. I think for many if not most rapists, there is definitely regard for the consequences, because the victim's suffering is a major part of the appeal for them. It's not "I'm going to fuck this girl I know, and I don't care how she feel about it," it's "I'm going to fuck this girl I know while she cries and begs me to stop and it's going to fucking destroy her, which makes me feel awesome and powerful (because I am a worthless shitbag)."

well, I think we're using the term "consequences" differently. Or rather, weighing it differently. Whether you simply don't care how she feels, or take pleasure in how she feels, it still means you don't feel BAD about how she feels. In fact, I'd argue, that's still not about "considering consequences" but still fulfilling personal desires. Perhaps I should say then, not "not realizing consequences" but "no regard towards them"

Which is, as I said, a fundamental lack of empathy.

This would also explain why rape is so common on the battlefield.

iirc its more a rear guard-ish situation not that I'm looking to say it never happens

in this example you can see that up in combat men don't have the freedom and security that a rear guard unit would have which I guess makes sense when you look at the control that seems to increase rape (family members abusing minors, bosses etc)

an evolutionary reason for that would be opportunity I guess but I'm reminded of a lions hostile takeover of a pride :/

But Ive never been to prison.

Yes, well, I think that's the crux of it, isn't it? :p

Ah, the motivations of rapists. What does their heart say? What are their true feelings about why they do what they do?

I agree with much of this post, but I want to take issue with this one bit. I think for many if not most rapists, there is definitely regard for the consequences, because the victim's suffering is a major part of the appeal for them. It's not "I'm going to fuck this girl I know, and I don't care how she feel about it," it's "I'm going to fuck this girl I know while she cries and begs me to stop and it's going to fucking destroy her, which makes me feel awesome and powerful (because I am a worthless shitbag)."

Agreed. I think the ability to understand the suffering of the victim and ENJOY it is a hallmark rape. Otherwise, why not just stick your dick into a tub of margarine? Or, alternatively, a cheese grater. Well, that's just my suggestion.

In fact, I'd argue, that's still not about "considering consequences" but still fulfilling personal desires. Perhaps I should say then, not "not realizing consequences" but "no regard towards them"

Which is, as I said, a fundamental lack of empathy.

Ah, true.

Now, I'm someone who gets off on rape fantasies. Some of them are pretty sick, I'm well aware. My ability to 'have no regard towards the consequences' only extends to the realm of fantasy however. I think there are a fair number of men and women like that. Thinking about it, and doing it...hopefully are very disparate things.

Though every once in a while I do have to ask myself why I think about these things at all. I haven't really answered that question.

Ah, the motivations of rapists. What does their heart say? What are their true feelings about why they do what they do?

and why is that a bad topic for discussion?

Otherwise, why not just stick your dick into a tub of margarine?

That is the third time on a forum I have seen you talk about doing just that....:p

Animals rape, so I disagree. 85% of the time the vile crime is committed for physical pleasure.

Agreed. I think the ability to understand the suffering of the victim and ENJOY it is a hallmark rape. Otherwise, why not just stick your dick into a tub of margarine? Or, alternatively, a cheese grater. Well, that's just my suggestion.

I am honestly not sexually attracted to butter or a cheese-grater.

That is the third time on a forum I have seen you talk about doing just that....:p

Hahahaha, I don't know, if I had a penis, it just seems like something I'd try:p
(to be super clear, we were talking about margarine, not rape)

I am honestly not sexually attracted to butter or a cheese-grater.

Ok, so do you think rape is an option that men who can't get sex otherwise take?

What rapists who are good looking, intelligent, and...frick, even married?

and why is that a bad topic for discussion?

I didn't say it was. But personally, I find it hard to keep track of even normal, non-rapist people's motivations in sex. I don't think there's an easy answer to explain away the motives of rapists.

I didn't say it was. But personally, I find it hard to keep track of even normal, non-rapist people's motivations in sex. I don't think there's an easy answer to explain away the motives of rapists.

Excellent point.

I think it can be either or both, as we see different kinds of rape.

To use some examples, when a drunk guy and a drunk girl are in bed together making out, and the girl says no but the guy ignores her protests and rape her - that could be only about sex. Inhibitions are lowered and the hormones are raging, and the sex drive could be very strong - but there's not necessarily an element of desire for control in that case.

On the other hand, when a man brutally rapes his wife in retaliation for her being out an hour past the agreed upon time, that could be all about control.

So I believe you can find a multitude of variations, and dismissing it as never being about sex seems odd to me.

(See also horrific examples from war zones, where soldiers are "rewarded" with women. Horny, lonely and scared, some young soldiers take the few moments of sexual satisfaction they can get. And on the other hand, see the cases where it's used as a weapon.)

well, I think we're using the term "consequences" differently. Or rather, weighing it differently. Whether you simply don't care how she feels, or take pleasure in how she feels, it still means you don't feel BAD about how she feels. In fact, I'd argue, that's still not about "considering consequences" but still fulfilling personal desires. Perhaps I should say then, not "not realizing consequences" but "no regard towards them"

Which is, as I said, a fundamental lack of empathy.

I entirely agree that a lack of empathy is the major issue. I'm just kinda quibbling over precise motivations, because I think in the vast majority of rapes, the source of pleasure for the rapist is not primarily getting laid but specifically hurting their victim. Considering how many rapes are committed by romantic partners, for example, it's fairly intuitive that consensual sex was an available option in some portion of those cases, but the rapists didn't want that. Basically, I'm simply saying that it goes beyond a complete lack of empathy to instead be a complete lack of empathy and a specific wish to cause harm.

This brings up an interesting question though...

Are people who get off to rape role play more likely to be potential rapists?
Id say no, I just want to see what everyone else thinks, and their justification.

Ok, so do you think rape is an option that men who can't get sex otherwise take?

Not an ethically acceptable one.

What rapists who are good looking, intelligent, and...frick, even married?

Prostitutes require much money, and other attractive women can take a long time to seduce. Sociopaths tire of these preliminary endeavors.

I think it can be either or both, as we see different kinds of rape.

To use some examples, when a drunk guy and a drunk girl are in bed together making out, and the girl says no but the guy ignores her protests and rape her - that could be only about sex. Inhibitions are lowered and the hormones are raging, and the sex drive could be very strong - but there's not necessarily an element of desire for control in that case.

On the other hand, when a man brutally rapes his wife in retaliation for her being out an hour past the agreed upon time, that could be all about control.

So I believe you can find a multitude of variations, and dismissing it as never being about sex seems odd to me.

(See also horrific examples from war zones, where soldiers are "rewarded" with women. Horny, lonely and scared, some young soldiers take the few moments of sexual satisfaction they can get. And on the other hand, see the cases where it's used as a weapon.)
Good break down...different 'kinds' of rape, used for different purposes, or happening in different circumstances.

So would it be too confusing, do you think, for people to say 'well sometimes rape is about sex'? Is it just simpler, and more concise to talk about it only in the context of power?

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

Vault 10 made some points recently that got him slapped with a warning, mostly because he seemed to be giving the okay to rape...but I think there was something interesting in what he was saying that is echoed, and fleshed out in the following article (http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm).




Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?
if rape wasnt somewhat about sex the rapist would just beat the crap out of you and call it a day.

its not about uncontrollable sexual desire for the rapee, however. which is perhaps what the "its not about sex" notion is about.

Is it just simpler, and more concise to talk about it only in the context of power?

I think its usually just narrowed down to rape not being about sex for the reason you brought up earlier. We dont want to victims to feel somehow at fault for being the object of desire.

This brings up an interesting question though...

Are people who get off to rape role play more likely to be potential rapists?
Id say no, I just want to see what everyone else thinks, and their justification.

I honestly don't know. I think there are just too many variables there to reach a meaningful conclusion. I mean, if the question were "are people who get off on fantasizing about raping people more likely to rape people" I would say yes, probably, but the very act of arranging such a roleplay implies that one has actually thought about those desires and recognized that pretending to act on them is very different than acting on them, which suggests the presence of that basic empathy we were talking about.

This brings up an interesting question though...

Are people who get off to rape role play more likely to be potential rapists?
Id say no, I just want to see what everyone else thinks, and their justification.

I don't know. There are degrees to this as well. Does the person get off only on roleplay? As in, it's specifically NOT designed to come across as REAL rape, but rather rough, 'stylised' rape? Or does the person want the 'rape' roleplaying to be as real as possible? Do they get off on actual depictions of rape, where no consent is implied, possible, or shown?

The internet is a very disturbing place. I find stories of non-consensual sex to be less disturbing perhaps than some images where you're really left wondering...IS that roleplay? *shudders, wishes could unsee*

I think some people who are into rape fantasies might be into actual rape...but I don't think it's the rape fantasy that is the key, as in, I don't believe rape fantasy is the 'trigger'.

The internet is a very disturbing place. I find stories of non-consensual sex to be less disturbing perhaps than some images where you're really left wondering...IS that roleplay? *shudders, wishes could unsee*


My ex's favorite kind of porn. In retrospect, I wish that had scared me away... :(

if rape wasnt somewhat about sex the rapist would just beat the crap out of you and call it a day.

its not about uncontrollable sexual desire for the rapee, however. which is perhaps what the "its not about sex" notion is about.

Aha! It certainly seems that outside of date-rape scenario, the specific person who becomes the victim isn't as important as opportunity. The rapist, in general then, is not going to rape someone because they're madly in love with that person and can't get her in any other fashion.

My ex's favorite kind of porn. In retrospect, I wish that had scared me away... :(

You see some of it and wonder how it's even fricking legal....and then you think, maybe it isn't, and then you want to wash your eyes and brain out...

By the way, to clarify: I in no way meant to condone rape, I'm actually shocked that anyone could possibly take that bit seriously. OK, that was hardcore trolling, so I was warned justly. Later I switched to more serious discussion.


I agree with much of this post, but I want to take issue with this one bit. I think for many if not most rapists, there is definitely regard for the consequences, because the victim's suffering is a major part of the appeal for them. It's not "I'm going to fuck this girl I know, and I don't care how she feel about it," it's "I'm going to fuck this girl I know while she cries and begs me to stop and it's going to fucking destroy her, which makes me feel awesome and powerful (because I am a worthless shitbag)."
I believe it's actually both.

Rape is definitely a part of our biological instincts. Not all species seek consent before mating. Yes, there are lots of biological reasons for consent, particularly among advanced species, such as the increased chance of offspring survival if raised by both parents. However, there's also the shotgunning approach. Rape fulfills the biological imperative of passing down your DNA, even though in a terrible (from human point of view) way.
Since our species normally uses the consensual reproduction, it is proven to be more effective than nonconsensual.

However, there is the other part to some cases of rape, and this is the aforementioned violence. Some humans take pleasure in killing, maiming and otherwise harming others, and violent rape behavior, naturally, is the best. It's particularly so in cases of rape and murder behavior, which clearly makes no biological sense.


I have to remind, also, that not all acts called rape (and, seemingly, actually most of them) involve any violence at all. Getting the girl extra horny with a drug so she sleeps with you is definitely not about "fucking destroying her!", it's about getting laid the easy way.

The maniac who rapes, tortures and kills women, and the dork who slips a pill into the girl's drink - they're motivated by completely different desires. This is not a justification of either act, but an observation that one is about violence and another is about sex.

You see some of it and wonder how it's even fricking legal....and then you think, maybe it isn't, and then you want to wash your eyes and brain out...

Ive actually never seen rape porn. Ive thought about it, just out of morbid curiosity, but I cant bring myself to google it.

The closest Ive seen I guess is BDSM where the girl started crying as some sort of emotional release from sex. But that was consential and not rape. So that just tells you how far away I stay from rape porn.

I entirely agree that a lack of empathy is the major issue.

Or maybe not. What if they do empathize with their victims, and punish their victims as a form of psychological projection? What if it's really self-punishment carried out on surrogates - like serial killers who want to be caught?

The kinds of people who can honestly not feel any empathy on any level are rather rare, while rape is unfortunately very common and widespread. So I don't think a 'lack of empathy' is an answer. Sure, it's definitely a lack of displayed empathy, maybe even claimed (how many prison toughs will claim not to feel fear, not to feel empathy...?), but it's there. And fucking with them.

I'm just kinda quibbling over precise motivations, because I think in the vast majority of rapes, the source of pleasure for the rapist is not primarily getting laid but specifically hurting their victim.

What about date rape?

I think its usually just narrowed down to rape not being about sex for the reason you brought up earlier. We dont want to victims to feel somehow at fault for being the object of desire.

So we perpetuate ignorance or at best, glittering generalities? I think that's the wrong tact: rape victims will feel shame and guilt, they don't need to hear "rape is about sex" to feel that way and hearing "rape is about power, not sex" will not change it. It's a natural emotional reaction to trauma. It's important for victims to know they are not at fault in order to recover, of course, but a slogan will not suffice there.

I think its usually just narrowed down to rape not being about sex for the reason you brought up earlier. We dont want to victims to feel somehow at fault for being the object of desire.

Has it become too simplified then? I don't want to get into the 'should woman watch what they wear' conversation, but has is taken away the focus on the underlying urge that may exist in all men? (wow that's pushing it...but I'll stick with it for now)

What I mean is...what if we accepted that, just like the reproductive drive, the 'rape drive' exists in most men, and that socialisation is the biggest way to stop that drive from finding expression? How would we alter our rape-prevention efforts? Would we at all?

Aha! It certainly seems that outside of date-rape scenario, the specific person who becomes the victim isn't as important as opportunity. The rapist, in general then, is not going to rape someone because they're madly in love with that person and can't get her in any other fashion.
right

and if they DO its an act of aggression not of lust. they take what is being denied them instead of working on whatever changes might make the object of desire more willing to have sex with them.

So we perpetuate ignorance or at best, glittering generalities? I think that's the wrong tact: rape victims will feel shame and guilt, they don't need to hear "rape is about sex" to feel that way and hearing "rape is about power, not sex" will not change it. It's a natural emotional reaction to trauma. It's important for victims to know they are not at fault in order to recover, of course, but a slogan will not suffice there.

Agreed, and Im not saying the slogan really fixes anything, I just think that people who narrow it down in such a way have good intentions.

You see some of it and wonder how it's even fricking legal....and then you think, maybe it isn't, and then you want to wash your eyes and brain out...

My ex cheerfully explained to me once that he generally googled "snuff porn" because the things he found under "rape porn" and "bdsm porn" and such weren't "realistic" enough. He only stopped this tactic when he found actual snuff porn, which was a bit much even for him.

Has it become too simplified then? I don't want to get into the 'should woman watch what they wear' conversation, but has is taken away the focus on the underlying urge that may exist in all men? (wow that's pushing it...but I'll stick with it for now)

What I mean is...what if we accepted that, just like the reproductive drive, the 'rape drive' exists in most men, and that socialisation is the biggest way to stop that drive from finding expression? How would we alter our rape-prevention efforts? Would we at all?

The best way I can think of would be to look at rape throughout history or across societies. When rape is considered not a big deal, the woman's fault, or just 'boys being boys' do we see more rape? If not, Id say socialization has little do with it.

Getting the girl extra horny with a drug so she sleeps with you is definitely not about "fucking destroying her!", it's about getting laid the easy way.

I completely disagree. You don't think the rapist is aware, when he chooses that path rather than, say, paying for a prostitute, that that girl is going to feel like shit the next day (and the next week, and the next month, and the next year, and the rest of her life) about what he did to her? You really don't think that's a major part of the draw?

I completely disagree. You don't think the rapist is aware, when he chooses that path rather than, say, paying for a prostitute, that that girl is going to feel like shit the next day (and the next week, and the next month, and the next year, and the rest of her life) about what he did to her? You really don't think that's a major part of the draw?

There are numerous reasons one might do what Vault said and not pay a hooker. The rapist may know she will feel like crap, he just might not care. Or he may really think she wont feel like crap. Ive met guys who have taken advantage of women at parties and they really didnt think the girl would care when they sobered up.


Youd be suprised how stupid some college guys are.

So we perpetuate ignorance or at best, glittering generalities? I think that's the wrong tact: rape victims will feel shame and guilt, they don't need to hear "rape is about sex" to feel that way and hearing "rape is about power, not sex" will not change it. It's a natural emotional reaction to trauma. It's important for victims to know they are not at fault in order to recover, of course, but a slogan will not suffice there.

This.

It sort of started annoying me lately, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Then I realised it was because it's a stupid, simplistic, and perhaps dismissive thing to say. I mean, there's a point to it, but I wonder if people put much more thought into it past that. Or is it just a response to the morons who go on about women who 'ask for it'. Dunno.

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

Vault 10 made some points recently that got him slapped with a warning, mostly because he seemed to be giving the okay to rape...but I think there was something interesting in what he was saying that is echoed, and fleshed out in the following article (http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm).




Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?

I also complimented Vault 10 on his post and I was warned as well. Hoepfully you will not get into trouble as well.

My ex cheerfully explained to me once that he generally googled "snuff porn" because the things he found under "rape porn" and "bdsm porn" and such weren't "realistic" enough. He only stopped this tactic when he found actual snuff porn, which was a bit much even for him.

*will never, ever use this google term*

or is it just a response to the morons who go on about women who 'ask for it'. Dunno.

I think the "rape is not about sex" is the natural reaction to the "she was dressed like a slut and askin' for it" defense.

Beat ya to it :D
I also complimented Vault 10 on his post and I was warned as well. Hoepfully you will not get into trouble as well.

Big difference. Neesika isnt being offensive, you two, even if you were joking, were.

*will never, ever use this google term*

First of all, if you're using Google to find snuff porn...

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/photo/image/126/you_re-doing-it-wrong.jpg

Secondly, some of that stuff is amazingly sick. That should be a warning sign.

I also complimented Vault 10 on his post and I was warned as well. Hoepfully you will not get into trouble as well.

To be fair, yours looked more like sarcasm than his did at the time.

Beat ya to it :D Yeah, I know, not trying to steal your thunder.:p

There are numerous reasons one might do what Vault said and not pay a hooker. The rapist may know she will feel like crap, he just might not care. Or he may really think she wont feel like crap. Ive met guys who have taken advantage of women at parties and they really didnt think the girl would care when they sobered up.


Youd be suprised how stupid some college guys are.

I'll believe that in some cases the rapist doesn't care. I do not believe that any guy thinks that a woman wouldn't mind being involuntarily drugged and raped, because if they did, they would have no reason not to say, "Hey, wanna take these roofies so I can fuck you after you pass out?" They may convince themselves that what they did "doesn't count" for some reason, but they know.

To be fair, yours looked more like sarcasm than his did at the time.

I was in a silly mood when I posted it. However, I was serious about the old testament point, the thing about having read something about rape and evolution, and about the sociological idea that rape a social more or taboo or whatever. Somehow I was modded for it but then I seem to be modded at every post. I could talk about how I like half and half in my coffee and get modded.

I was in a silly mood when I posted it. However, I was serious about the old testament point, the thing about having read something about rape and evolution, and about the sociological idea that rape a social more or taboo or whatever. Somehow I was modded for it but then I seem to be modded at every post. I could talk about how I like half and half in my coffee and get modded.

Racist!!! How come you can only take coffee if there's a little cream in it? Huh? HUH??

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

Vault 10 made some points recently that got him slapped with a warning, mostly because he seemed to be giving the okay to rape...but I think there was something interesting in what he was saying that is echoed, and fleshed out in the following article (http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm).

Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?
Interesting...

why can't it be about both? Power and Sex. the domination, humiliation and/or subjegation of a person through a sexual desire/act.

Interesting...

why can't it be about both? Power and Sex. the domination, humiliation and/or subjegation of a person through a sexual desire/act.

Which makes more sense, really.

how much are ruffy slipping college boy's attitudes influenced by situations like the kobe bryant rape case (that was dismissed) where it was OK to rape a woman because she came to the hotel room of a famous athlete late at night and should have known that that meant that she had consented to whatever that man wanted to do to her?

if a college girl shows up at a frat party it seems that she should know that she has consented to drugged out gang rape.

Oh dear. I had such a sick thought right now. That's a sign that it's time to lay off NSG for the day. *rubs temples*

First of all, if you're using Google to find snuff porn...

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/photo/image/126/you_re-doing-it-wrong.jpg

Secondly, some of that stuff is amazingly sick. That should be a warning sign.

Is snuff porn that stuff I sometimes see ads for on torrent sites thats bascially "Father rapes his hawt daughter!" and if you see a clip of it you think, "Either this isnt consentual or that girl deserves an oscar..."

Racist!!! How come you can only take coffee if there's a little cream in it? Huh? HUH??

Arggghhhh I knew it would happen somehow.;)

Arggghhhh I knew it would happen somehow.;)

*bows*

At your service.

if a college girl shows up at a frat party it seems that she should know that she has consented to drugged out gang rape.

This is more or less the mentality of frat boys.


Im sorry. That wasnt entirely fair. I just fucking hate frat boys.

This.

It sort of started annoying me lately, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Then I realised it was because it's a stupid, simplistic, and perhaps dismissive thing to say. I mean, there's a point to it, but I wonder if people put much more thought into it past that. Or is it just a response to the morons who go on about women who 'ask for it'.

Undoubtedly the last, but it's like how you see Darwin fishes on car bumpers because of the Jesus fishes (or is it the other way around?) It gets kinda old.

Is snuff porn that stuff I sometimes see ads for on torrent sites thats bascially "Father rapes his hawt daughter!" and if you see a clip of it you think, "Either this isnt consentual or that girl deserves an oscar..."

Snuff is worse. It is porn where people die and I am not talking about people having heart attacks during the romance either (how an awesome teacher and friend of mine went)

Snuff is worse. It is porn where people die and I am not talking about people having heart attacks during the romance either (how an awesome teacher and friend of mine went)

Holy fuck.

Snuff is worse. It is porn where people die and I am not talking about people having heart attacks during the romance either (how an awesome teacher and friend of mine went)

That's how I want to go... :(

Good break down...different 'kinds' of rape, used for different purposes, or happening in different circumstances.

So would it be too confusing, do you think, for people to say 'well sometimes rape is about sex'? Is it just simpler, and more concise to talk about it only in the context of power?

I honestly don't know. I suspect it's one of those myths that have taken hold, possibly due to some research on what motivates rapists that's been done in the past, where the rapists had attacked strangers. Pure speculation on my part, of course...

This is more or less the mentality of frat boys.


Im sorry. That wasnt entirely fair. I just fucking hate frat boys.
how else can you live with having drugged a woman and had sex with her while she was passed out?

Which makes more sense, really.

and because, at times, it's intertwined... that makes treatment harder.

Holy fuck.

watch 8mm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134273/)

watch 8mm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134273/)

No, don't. That's a movie I wish I hadn't seen.

Is snuff porn that stuff I sometimes see ads for on torrent sites thats bascially "Father rapes his hawt daughter!" and if you see a clip of it you think, "Either this isnt consentual or that girl deserves an oscar..."

You know what a snuff film is right? Where somebody actually dies? Snuff porn is that in porn form.

watch 8mm (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134273/)

It looks interesting. Thanks. Unfortunitally, I probably wont ever watch it because...

Cast (Cast overview, first billed only)

Nicolas Cage ... Tom Welles
:p

It looks interesting. Thanks. Unfortunitally, I probably wont ever watch it because...

:p
Muahahahaha...I was going to point out that Nicholas Cage was worse than the concept of snuff porn, but thought that might get taken the wrong way...

I completely disagree. You don't think the rapist is aware, when he chooses that path rather than, say, paying for a prostitute, that that girl is going to feel like shit the next day (and the next week, and the next month, and the next year, and the rest of her life) about what he did to her?
Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be a "shut it down and use the body" drug, it can be some stuff he takes himself as well, to "help us get along".
And one of the less effective drugs that "help you get along" goes by the formula of C2H5OH.

The guy who goes to the frat party/prom/another party, knowing that it will probably end in an orgy - is his purpose to "make that bitch feel like shit"? And I assure you he doesn't think of it as rape.



You really don't think that's a major part of the draw?
Maybe for some people, but definitely not for most.

---

Hey, I did it once, using a Spanish Fry on a hot blonde. It didn't work, though, she just went to her boyfriend instead. All I wanted was to get laid, and the prostitute wasn't quite fun enough.

This happened 22 years ago in Nevada, in a small casino in Lost Wages. Fortunately, they didn't catch me, because I went by the name of Laffer. Larry Laffer.

[ I was actually going to leave it at that, but, seeing as jokes become increasingly dangerous, I'll clarify: it happened in a computer game. And, no, it wasn't hardcore. You see, it was made 22 years ago. ]

No, don't. That's a movie I wish I hadn't seen.

That was bothersome, but Kids was worse since it was more realistic.

I mean really, Nicholas Cage married to Catherine Keener? I think not.

That was bothersome, but Kids was worse since it was more realistic.

I mean really, Nicholas Cage married to Catherine Keener? I think not.

ahahaha

No, don't. That's a movie I wish I hadn't seen.
Had to watch Human Trafficking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking_(TV_miniseries)) a few weeks ago, still traumatized. I thought I would be okay because it was a "made for T.V. movie" but no, the version that they put on was "with extra violence and more realistic rape scenes" <.< I was not told that.....I was originally told it was a documentary until I actually got to the screening and couldn't leave. :(

how much are ruffy slipping college boy's attitudes influenced by situations like the kobe bryant rape case (that was dismissed) where it was OK to rape a woman because she came to the hotel room of a famous athlete late at night and should have known that that meant that she had consented to whatever that man wanted to do to her?

Funny, I've never heard that about that particular case (although it does seem to be prevalent to blame the victim in rape cases).

Hey, I did it once, using a Spanish Fry on a hot blonde. It didn't work, though, she just went to her boyfriend instead. All I wanted was to get laid, and the prostitute wasn't quite fun enough.

This happened 22 years ago in Nevada, in a small casino in Lost Wages. Fortunately, they didn't catch me, because I went by the name of Laffer. Larry Laffer.

[ I was actually going to leave it at that, but, seeing as jokes become increasingly dangerous, I'll clarify: it happened in a computer game. And, no, it wasn't hardcore. You see, it was made 22 years ago. ]

So that's why Faith was soo good that night...

and were you the joker running after that blow up doll?

(Yes, I too played that game.)

if rape wasnt somewhat about sex the rapist would just beat the crap out of you and call it a day.


Not really.

If rape is about violence and humiliation, being forced to accomodate an unwanted partner, sexually, is more humiliating than (just) getting beat down.

I'd assume it works on the same motif that makes people do things like urinating on people after they've dominated them in some violent or powerful fashion.

I'll believe that in some cases the rapist doesn't care. I do not believe that any guy thinks that a woman wouldn't mind being involuntarily drugged and raped, because if they did, they would have no reason not to say, "Hey, wanna take these roofies so I can fuck you after you pass out?" They may convince themselves that what they did "doesn't count" for some reason, but they know.

As Julie said: "I mean, guys are saying that sometimes no means yes, and honestly, sometimes it does. But I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she wanted".

...I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

No.

In virtually every mammal there is some level of a female attempting to seduce males with a pattern of teasing, retreating, repeating, and eventually surrendering. The degrees to which this behavior is acted out varies tremendously, but it's almost always there to some degree.

Lions and other mammals where the social group is a family of females with one or two males the females tend to "surrender" pretty quickly. Quickly enough that has sex hundreds of times in just a few days. But still, she will prance about, he will pounce, she will run away, he will lie down. Over and over, until she decides not to.

Some animals the teasing is extreme. A female cheetah will flee from a group of males for several days, running for several miles. But even this is not animal rape, because when (such as in captivity) the female does not flee, the males don't bother to pursue. It's courtship, not hunting. The female still decides when she's going to let things go to the next step.

But in all animals, the patterns that courtship takes is determined by the hormones that govern their desires. Whether for privacy or company, aggression or empathy, devotion or aloofness.

Human females (humans in general really) are designed to crave stable sexual relationships. This is not to say that they don't also crave to stray, but they still crave a relationship to stray from. Which is why so few cheating spouses get divorced after one or two dalliances.

Women actually suppress signs of fertility (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7082704.stm) when they are most fertile to discourage sexual attention of men who are not their mate. That's how little rape has to do with evolved mechanisms for propagating the species. The human courtship evolved to encourage an infatuated male to fight for, and provide for a female that is incapacitated carrying his offspring in the context of extended family support.

It did not evolve so that the strongest of males who had the power to overwhelm unwilling females and impregnate them, then abandon them to care for themselves when at their most helpless, would be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations.

Holy fuck.

Yeah. According to my ex, most of what you actually find when you search for snuff porn is particularly hardcore, violent, realistic rape porn, but one day it led him to grainy footage of a crying girl being fucked and then having her head bashed in with a baseball bat. Not having seen it myself, I have no idea if it was real, but it was apparently real-looking enough that my ex believed it.

As Julie said: "I mean, guys are saying that sometimes no means yes, and honestly, sometimes it does. But I don't think for one second that any guy who's pulled himself off a crying woman has been mistaken for one minute about what she wanted".

I was actually just thinking of that very quote.

Yeah. According to my ex, most of what you actually find when you search for snuff porn is particularly hardcore, violent, realistic rape porn, but one day it led him to grainy footage of a crying girl being fucked and then having her head bashed in with a baseball bat. Not having seen it myself, I have no idea if it was real, but it was apparently real-looking enough that my ex believed it.

Holy fuck.


No offense meant, but I hope your taste in men has improved greatly.

I was actually just thinking of that very quote.

Im in ur head, stealin ur thoughtz

Holy fuck.


No offense meant, but I hope your taste in men has improved greatly.

I'm pretty confident that it has. :)

(And in fairness to my ex, that video did freak him out enough that he stopped googling for snuff porn. He may be a fucked-up little shit, but he's at least not turned on by actual murder.)

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

I've always thought it was at least partially about sex- particularly date rapists and the sort, as opposed to "violent" rapists.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I think there are certainly tendencies towards that, in women as well. "I want sex" doesn't necessarily differentiate whether or not someone is willing- that is where the brain comes in.

I remember watching something about some Amazonian tree frog on Disc/Hist/Animal channel, don't remember which.

The females of the species lived in the water, but during mating season, the males would climb the trees and begin croaking for a mate. The females try and get to the deepest croaks (which signify a larger mate)

However, this doesn't leave any females for the small males to mate with. So the small males wait for the females to pass by on their way to a large male, and then the small male jumps them and impregnates them.

...
Human females (humans in general really) are designed to crave stable sexual relationships. This is not to say that they don't also crave to stray, but they still crave a relationship to stray from. Which is why so few cheating spouses get divorced after one or two dalliances.

Women actually suppress signs of fertility (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7082704.stm) when they are most fertile to discourage sexual attention of men who are not their mate. That's how little rape has to do with evolved mechanisms for propagating the species. The human courtship evolved to encourage an infatuated male to fight for, and provide for a female that is incapacitated carrying his offspring in the context of extended family support.

It did not evolve so that the strongest of males who had the power to overwhelm unwilling females and impregnate them, then abandon them to care for themselves when at their most helpless, would be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations.

Both could have evolved. Rape as a breeding mechanism could have evolved in men, and then the behaviour you mention above could have evolved as a defense against that rape hard-wiring. And they would have evolved that defense because the other model of male behaviour works better for the female individual.

Kagetora;14637021']
However, this doesn't leave any females for the small males to mate with. So the small males wait for the females to pass by on their way to a large male, and then the small male jumps them and impregnates them.

This explains Paparazzi.

*snip*.
I wish I hadn't even read the third hand description :(

This explains Paparazzi.

Lol:p

So if I fantasise about rape, does that mean I am descended from men who were rapists?

Simply this...

Rape is someone taking from me, forcibly, something I don't want to give to that person. He/she isn't just perpetrating an act of physical violence on me, he/she is telling me that I don't have the right to say no and have that no respected.

<snip>

*throws up*

So if I fantasise about rape, does that mean I am descended from men who were rapists?

I've seen arguments like it, certainly.

But, no - it means you like a certain amount of 'violence' and 'humiliation' in your sex. The same reasons spanking and golden showers are popular (ish).

It did not evolve so that the strongest of males who had the power to overwhelm unwilling females and impregnate them, then abandon them to care for themselves when at their most helpless, would be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations.
Thanks. You almost continue my thoughts.

Exactly. For an animal of human genus, if evolution focused solely on brute force, such a subspecies/tribe ended up less effective. And was killed off by a tribe that evolved in a better manner. There surely have been tribes that fell down to this way of reproduction, degraded, and they're extinct now.

However, this is about both individual and collective survival. Rape is counterproductive for the species, but works for the rapist's own genes. If diluted as a small percentage in a large society that's ensured to survive anyway, though, the rapist's DNA would be successfully transferred down, and thus not entirely eliminated.
It's hard to say if from purely evolutionary standpoint its presence is bad or good. Generally it's a cuckoo, so I'd say bad, on the other hand, in some emergency situations, who knows.



Yeah. According to my ex, most of what you actually find when you search for snuff porn is particularly hardcore, violent, realistic rape porn, but one day it led him to grainy footage of a crying girl being fucked and then having her head bashed in with a baseball bat. Not having seen it myself, I have no idea if it was real, but it was apparently real-looking enough that my ex believed it.
Virtually all "snuff" is actually staged. Use of shaking low-quality cameras is a common effect to get absolute realism. There do exist, although not in wide circulation, a few mostly cell phone cam records of rapists and killers recording their acts. I've seen one on youtube even.
They're not the stuff anyone in his right mind would want, though - not because they're terrible, but because there's nothing to see in there. Some blurred walls or grass, someone hitting and kicking the victim, with only a few shots that aren't completely blurry, a few words, blur again. A staged "snuff" always looks better and more realistic than an actual recording.

Thanks. You almost continue my thoughts.

Exactly. For an animal of human genus, if evolution focused solely on brute force, such a subspecies/tribe ended up less effective. And was killed off by a tribe that evolved in a better manner. There surely have been tribes that fell down to this way of reproduction, degraded, and they're extinct now. Okay hi, tribal person here.

You did not slaughter other tribes en masse. You killed off most of their men, let their old die, and you took their women and made them yours. *sigh* Get it right! That's right, the less brutal tribes defeated the more brutal tribes by...um...raping their women...and um...

You did not slaughter other tribes en masse. You killed off most of their men, let their old die, and you took their women and made them yours. *sigh* Get it right! That's right, the less brutal tribes defeated the more brutal tribes by...um...raping their women...and um...
By "less brutal", I don't mean less brutal than the modern, or the medieval, or the ancient civilization.

We're talking about the less brutal being a bit worse than the Third Reich, and the more brutal a lot worse. It's not a case of a fluffy pink society that doesn't accept rape in any form versus one that does - it's a case of a society where sex at least can be consensual, among their own, versus one where females are not among subjects that can give or deny consent.

Oh, and you did kill off their old too, not waited for them to die.




I have once seen an interesting documentary on the Nature channel. I don't watch this channel myself, but it wasn't at home. It was about some apes. The observers have been tracking them for a while, referred to them by names, all that. And I happened to see it just in time to hear a cute lecture on how their tribe switches the leader.

Of course, the change of the alpha male happened through a young ape defeating the old one in a fight. A fight to the death, because what use is a defeated leader to the tribe. So, the young male beat up the old alpha, then kicked him to the death. No surprise here. Then the new leader promptly proceeded to kill, one by one, all free-walking children he found. The females with smaller children were running away, but the alpha hunted them down and slaughtered first the children, then the mothers. As the voice explained, it always happens that way, because they were the children of the old leader. Apparently the only females spared were virgins, who, I suspect, weren't asked for consent when the new alpha raped them offscreen.

I'm generally hard to surprise, but that made me think. The cameramen were good, I would probably at least utter "oh shit" at the sight. But why were they telling us this in such nice a voice as if it was the cutest thing in the world? And then I thought again. This ape species made it so far with the way they do stuff - that means, it works for them. Who are we to interfere.

But that's the kind of brutality we're talking about here: when your dad gets old, you kill him, then you kill your mother, his other women, all those of your brothers whom you can easily kill, and then rape all your sisters, so that only your exact sperm gets to be passed on.
Is it the ultimate in productivity, or is there a chance that a bit less brutality could actually give better results?

Oh, and you did kill off their old too, not waited for them to die. Actually, we made peace with our enemies, and kept it. We also interbred with them.


I have once seen an interesting documentary on the Nature channel. I don't watch this channel myself, but it wasn't at home. It was about some apes. The observers have been tracking them for a while, referred to them by names, all that. And I happened to see it just in time to hear a cute lecture on how their tribe switches the leader.

Of course, the change of the alpha male happened through a young ape defeating the old one in a fight. A fight to the death, because what use is a defeated leader to the tribe. So, the young male beat up the old alpha, then kicked him to the death. No surprise here. Then the new leader promptly proceeded to kill, one by one, all free-walking children he found. The females with smaller children were running away, but the alpha hunted them down and slaughtered first the children, then the mothers. As the voice explained, it always happens that way, because they were the children of the old leader. Apparently the only females spared were virgins, who, I suspect, weren't asked for consent when the new alpha raped them offscreen.

I'm generally hard to surprise, but that made me think. The cameramen were good, I would probably at least utter "oh shit" at the sight. But why were they telling us this in such nice a voice as if it was the cutest thing in the world? And then I thought again. This ape species made it so far with the way they do stuff - that means, it works for them. Who are we to interfere.

But that's the kind of brutality we're talking about here: when your dad gets old, you kill him, then you kill your mother, his other women, all those of your brothers whom you can easily kill, and then rape all your sisters, so that only your exact sperm gets to be passed on.
Is it the ultimate in productivity, or is there a chance that a bit less brutality could actually give better results?
Chimps have a pretty hierarchical society...I sort of prefer the example set by the bonobos. There is no infanticide amongst bonobos...no male knows which offspring is his, and everyone fucks everyone else.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?


If you take out the social rules and such? Yes. Remember that discussion we had some time back about how quickly society can break down and become the rule of the strong? This is a part of it.

And to those who think that it's an excuse for that behavior, I point out that rabid animals also follow biological hardwiring, but there is no compunction against terminating them. The same applies here.

Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?
No. Not all men are hardwired to rape in the exact same way that not all wolves are hardwired to be alpha. Nor all individuals in any social species hardwired to be either dominant or submissive, aggressive or timid, belligerent or conciliatory, etc. "Rapist" is part of a personality type, and not all people (of either sex) have it.

Just for a moment, let's set aside all questions of socialization, normal/abnormal phychology, etc. Caveat: Personally, I would never frame an argument about something this complex in this way, but I just want to address the "hardwired" question in isolation for a moment.

Regardless of whether it is about sex or not, there is one thing that rape most certainly universally is about: domination. The rapist uses sex to demonstrate dominance within a group (even if it is only a group of two).

Among humans, just like among other primates and many other species, some individuals are going to be more assertively dominant than others. Some are going to be more inherently prone to resentfulness than others, and more likely to seek to relieve resentment over being dominated by others in the group by picking on someone else who they see as below them (as that they should be below them) in the pecking order. Some are going to express such feelings through sex, while others will express it in other ways.

But other individuals in the same situations will not have any desire or impulse to dominate, nor will they feel resentment about their perceived status in the group, nor will they seek to demonstrate their status by acting it out at the expense of another.

That brings up another necessary feature of rape: It does have to be non-consensual. The person on the receiving end has to not enjoy it. The dominance is demonstrated as the "power" to treat someone else badly without reprisal. Otherwise, it wouldn't be dominance.

You have stated often that you are into a sexual lifestyle that pushes boundaries on consent/force, dominance/submission, etc. Sometimes, I get the sense that, because of that, because rape fantasies and roleplay, etc, are a welcome part of your life, you sometimes have difficulty remembering that, in general, when people talk about "rape," they are not talking about things people choose to subject themselves to willingly.

They are talking very specifically about a situation in which someone takes something from someone else in a manner deliberately intended to cause extreme trauma and unhappiness. Whether is it about sex, or about power, or about anything else, it always about making the other person suffer profoundly. Even though the action is sexual, the kind of dominance being established through rape is not actually sexual.

Damage (emotional, psychological, social, and/or physical) done to the person on the receiving end is the defining hallmark of real rape (as opposed to fantasy rape). There is no getting around that. And no, not every male member of the human species is hardwired to be driven to do that to someone else, regardless of how they may be hardwired sexually.

Finally, I think we have to be very, very careful in comparing rape among humans to presumed rape among other species. We might be able to make a close enough comparison between human behavior and other primate behaviors to judge that it appears that some sexual activity in primate groups could be similar to rape, but among, say, dolphins? Really? That's a little too anthropomorphic for me. I mean, if we are going to assume we know how dolphins feel about their sexual activities, what tales could we spin about the drama I personally witnessed in the spider web in the upper corner of my bathroom window this very morning -- a story that could be entitled "He said: 'So much for love!' She said: 'So much for breakfast!' A Tale of One Escape and Two Disappointments"

If you take out the social rules and such? Yes. Remember that discussion we had some time back about how quickly society can break down and become the rule of the strong? This is a part of it.

And to those who think that it's an excuse for that behavior, I point out that rabid animals also follow biological hardwiring, but there is no compunction against terminating them. The same applies here.
No they don't. No animal is hardwired to be rabid. Rabies is a viral disease that destroys the brain, causing abnormally aggressive behavior in some victims of it as just one of a spectrum of conditions and behaviors associated with the end stages of the disease.

You can't bolster an argument about normal behaviors that may or may not be repressed by comparing them to the obviously abnormal behaviors caused by a disease that causes brain malfunction.

Guys, we don't need another rape thread. Kids play NS, for Pete's sake!

Guys, we don't need another rape thread. Kids play NS, for Pete's sake!
And?

No they don't. No animal is hardwired to be rabid. Rabies is a viral disease that destroys the brain, causing abnormally aggressive behavior in some victims of it as just one of a spectrum of conditions and behaviors associated with the end stages of the disease.


Behavior resulting from being biologically rewritten is still a condition that is caused by their biology. It's not their original state, I'll give you that, but it's still obeying biological impetus.

Guys, we don't need another rape thread. Kids play NS, for Pete's sake!

Theoretically, the site is PG13... and often discusses current affairs, news, etc. Did I miss the news article that said rape has stopped?

Behavior resulting from being biologically rewritten is still a condition that is caused by their biology. It's not their original state, I'll give you that, but it's still obeying biological impetus.

But, by definition (of having been rewritten), isn't 'hardwired' behaviour.... no?

Behavior resulting from being biologically rewritten is still a condition that is caused by their biology. It's not their original state, I'll give you that, but it's still obeying biological impetus.
No, it isn't for the reason GnI stated.

Both could have evolved. Rape as a breeding mechanism could have evolved in men, and then the behaviour you mention above could have evolved as a defense against that rape hard-wiring. And they would have evolved that defense because the other model of male behaviour works better for the female individual.

But in terms of reproduction the "what-a-girl-wants" model works better for men and women.

A pregnant woman is at a serious disadvantage fending for herself. Males that don't take care of their mates would create more pregnancies, but ultimately be less successful at creating offspring that reach adulthood and reproduce.

But, by definition (of having been rewritten), isn't 'hardwired' behaviour.... no?

Depends on what you consider hardwired to mean when it comes to biological drives I suppose.

Rape is about domination, certainly, but there is also a sexual element in it. It's one of the very basic drives (reproduction) of all living beings.

Personally, I find the idea of the tendency to rape being genetic, or biological, whatever you want to call it, both rather offensive and greatly alarming. My dad was a rapist. Does that mean I am, or going to be? You can sure as fuck bet not.

Depends on what you consider hardwired to mean when it comes to biological drives I suppose.

Rape is about domination, certainly, but there is also a sexual element in it. It's one of the very basic drives (reproduction) of all living beings.

It strikes at three of our most basic processes, actually - preservation of the species (reproduction), preservation of the self (selfishness) and preservation of security (the 'violence' responses).

But, the fact that it occurs at the intersection of three basic drives, doesn't mean that it is a hardwired function.

It strikes at three of our most basic processes, actually - preservation of the species (reproduction), preservation of the self (selfishness) and preservation of security (the 'violence' responses).

But, the fact that it occurs at the intersection of three basic drives, doesn't mean that it is a hardwired function.

No, no, no. You're putting the cart before the horse. What is the very basic drive of all living things? Reproduction. At it's very bare bones, it would manifest in the form of sexual predation.

Rape occurs when consent isn't present, but the basic reproductive drive does not recognize that, no more than a predator would recognize consent from prey. It's when you start constructing a social framework and rules that the ideas of consent start having a much stronger presence in the decision making process. It's the "why you shouldn't" ethos that keeps the drive in check.

It's a learned behavior, and while it can be an effective restraint, it's not perfect and can be easily broken.

No. Not all men are hardwired to rape in the exact same way that not all wolves are hardwired to be alpha. Nor all individuals in any social species hardwired to be either dominant or submissive, aggressive or timid, belligerent or conciliatory, etc. "Rapist" is part of a personality type, and not all people (of either sex) have it.

Just for a moment, let's set aside all questions of socialization, normal/abnormal phychology, etc. Caveat: Personally, I would never frame an argument about something this complex in this way, but I just want to address the "hardwired" question in isolation for a moment.

Regardless of whether it is about sex or not, there is one thing that rape most certainly universally is about: domination. The rapist uses sex to demonstrate dominance within a group (even if it is only a group of two).

Among humans, just like among other primates and many other species, some individuals are going to be more assertively dominant than others. Some are going to be more inherently prone to resentfulness than others, and more likely to seek to relieve resentment over being dominated by others in the group by picking on someone else who they see as below them (as that they should be below them) in the pecking order. Some are going to express such feelings through sex, while others will express it in other ways.

But other individuals in the same situations will not have any desire or impulse to dominate, nor will they feel resentment about their perceived status in the group, nor will they seek to demonstrate their status by acting it out at the expense of another.

That brings up another necessary feature of rape: It does have to be non-consensual. The person on the receiving end has to not enjoy it. The dominance is demonstrated as the "power" to treat someone else badly without reprisal. Otherwise, it wouldn't be dominance.

Some of the statistics given in these...questionable first two sources, suggest that your analysis of 'most dominant' down the line to 'least dominant' is pretty applicable. In the second source, they stated that only 10% of men got aroused by violence with sex as secondary, more were turned on by less violence, more sex, and most were turned off by the violence or non-consensual nature of it. So a small segment of the population goes for the most extreme sort, and even among that segment, it's doubtful that a large number of them would so buck socialisation as to act on it.

You have stated often that you are into a sexual lifestyle that pushes boundaries on consent/force, dominance/submission, etc. Sometimes, I get the sense that, because of that, because rape fantasies and roleplay, etc, are a welcome part of your life, you sometimes have difficulty remembering that, in general, when people talk about "rape," they are not talking about things people choose to subject themselves to willingly.

Gotta stop you here. Seriously? I'm actually really surprised you'd say this. There is no ambiguity in my mind between what is real, and what is fantasy. I'm pretty careful to use qualifiers if I use the word 'rape' to mean ANYTHING other than something that is non-consensual. The fact that D/s is something I welcome in my life means I've actually thought about these issues a lot...probably more probingly, more personally, and more often than most people...so I'm going to have to say that your senses are sending you astray on this one.

They are talking very specifically about a situation in which someone takes something from someone else in a manner deliberately intended to cause extreme trauma and unhappiness. Whether is it about sex, or about power, or about anything else, it always about making the other person suffer profoundly. Even though the action is sexual, the kind of dominance being established through rape is not actually sexual.

Damage (emotional, psychological, social, and/or physical) done to the person on the receiving end is the defining hallmark of real rape (as opposed to fantasy rape). There is no getting around that. And no, not every male member of the human species is hardwired to be driven to do that to someone else, regardless of how they may be hardwired sexually.
Yet if a man wanted to dominant someone, and cause them extreme psychological distress...would it have to be a sexual act? Neither of us are talking about the date rape scenario...I think we're specifically addressing rape where the perpetrator has no illusions about what he's doing. Is the sexual aspect of the violation simply the ultimate way a person can show that he is enjoying the pain he's inflicting on someone? When you say the dominance being established through rape isn't actually sexual...then what part does the sexual aspect of it have? Why is it there?

No, no, no. You're putting the cart before the horse. What is the very basic drive of all living things?

Survival?

Survival?

Agreed. Show me any animal, or person, that would choose reproduction over survival.

Agreed. Show me any animal, or person, that would choose reproduction over survival.

Are we talking reproduction followed by lack of survival, or lack of survival attempting reproduction (resulting in a failure to reproduce)?

No, no, no. You're putting the cart before the horse. What is the very basic drive of all living things? Reproduction. At it's very bare bones, it would manifest in the form of sexual predation.

Rape occurs when consent isn't present, but the basic reproductive drive does not recognize that, no more than a predator would recognize consent from prey. It's when you start constructing a social framework and rules that the ideas of consent start having a much stronger presence in the decision making process. It's the "why you shouldn't" ethos that keeps the drive in check.

It's a learned behavior, and while it can be an effective restraint, it's not perfect and can be easily broken.
Nonsense. Unless you are suggesting that rapists, in the heat of their reproductive drive, are not aware that they are fucking an unwilling person.

Also, if the sexual aspects of rape are driven by a basic urge to reproduce, account for rape with objects, in which the rapist does not penetrate the victim with his penis. Where's the reproductive urge there? Also explain homosexual rape. Also explain the aspects of rape that involve deliberate and often extreme humliation of the victim and/or physical violence against a victim who offers or can offer little resistance.

I'm sorry, but your argument just sounds like something that has been jury-rigged to try to fit into an a priori assumption that humans are brutal rutting beasts without any instincts that are not entirely selfish and preferably violent. In other words, your theory sounds like it is based more on ideology/philosophy than on observation of facts. You can't just ignore all the other stuff that goes with the sexual aspects in order to make a claim about human nature.

Are we talking reproduction followed by lack of survival, or lack of survival attempting reproduction (resulting in a failure to reproduce)?

The former. Lets just say, (and I know this an extreme case, but oh well) someone, or an animal, had a choice between having sex where pregnancy was absolutely garunteed, and then dying right after, or living, but having a much lesser chance at reproducing.

The former. Lets just say, (and I know this an extreme case, but oh well) someone, or an animal, had a choice between having sex where pregnancy was absolutely garunteed, and then dying right after, or living, but having a much lesser chance at reproducing.

http://img2.timeinc.net/toh/i/g/1106_bugs/Praying-Mantis-01.jpg

Survival?

On a species level, reproduction is a part of that.

Nonsense. Unless you are suggesting that rapists, in the heat of their reproductive drive, are not aware that they are fucking an unwilling person.

Hardly. They simply don't care that the person is unwilling.


Also, if the sexual aspects of rape are driven by a basic urge to reproduce, account for rape with objects, in which the rapist does not penetrate the victim with his penis. Where's the reproductive urge there? Also explain homosexual rape. Also explain the aspects of rape that involve deliberate and often extreme humliation of the victim and/or physical violence against a victim who offers or can offer little resistance.

If you look back at post #136, you'll find that I specified that the sexual element was a part of it, not the whole.

Conversely, if you insist it's only about domination, then why rape when physical violence and humiliation is more than enough to dominate the victim?

http://img2.timeinc.net/toh/i/g/1106_bugs/Praying-Mantis-01.jpg

Oh? I don't know very much about insects in general, so how is it that a mantis fits the bill?

Some of the statistics given in these...questionable first two sources, suggest that your analysis of 'most dominant' down the line to 'least dominant' is pretty applicable. In the second source, they stated that only 10% of men got aroused by violence with sex as secondary, more were turned on by less violence, more sex, and most were turned off by the violence or non-consensual nature of it. So a small segment of the population goes for the most extreme sort, and even among that segment, it's doubtful that a large number of them would so buck socialisation as to act on it.
That would jibe with the various sources I have read about it over many years.

Gotta stop you here. Seriously? I'm actually really surprised you'd say this. There is no ambiguity in my mind between what is real, and what is fantasy. I'm pretty careful to use qualifiers if I use the word 'rape' to mean ANYTHING other than something that is non-consensual. The fact that D/s is something I welcome in my life means I've actually thought about these issues a lot...probably more probingly, more personally, and more often than most people...so I'm going to have to say that your senses are sending you astray on this one.
I am entirely happy to be corrected on that. I did not mean to suggest you couldn't tell the difference between consensual and non-consensual -- not by a long shot. I only meant that, sometimes, in the way you phrase topics on this issue, it seems as if the distinction gets lost in the framing of the questions. But I do know that YOU have no such confusion. I'm sorry to have suggested otherwise.

Yet if a man wanted to dominant someone, and cause them extreme psychological distress...would it have to be a sexual act? Neither of us are talking about the date rape scenario...I think we're specifically addressing rape where the perpetrator has no illusions about what he's doing. Is the sexual aspect of the violation simply the ultimate way a person can show that he is enjoying the pain he's inflicting on someone? When you say the dominance being established through rape isn't actually sexual...then what part does the sexual aspect of it have? Why is it there?
Earlier, I mentioned in passing that some individuals are more likely to act out their resentment/dominance feelings through sex, while other individuals will act it out in some other way.

I think a tendency towards sexual acting out, sexualizing of social interactions at many levels, is another one of the myriad variations of personality type among humans, covering a wide portion of the normal/abnormal spectrum.

A personality that has "rapist" features may never even come close to being a literal rapist if the individual does not also have the personality features of sexualized impulse. (By the way, I'm making up these terms as I go along just to try to get my idea across.) Yet that person could still respond to negative situations or situations that throw social status into question by extremely negative domination over another person -- just not via sex.

And a person who does have features of sexualized impulse but lacks other "rapist" personality features might likewise never even feel a fleeting urge to commit rape, even though they may sexualize everything else they do, appropriately and inappropriately.

So, why is the sex aspect of rape there at all? Because an urge towards that kind of behavior originates in the individual. But not in ALL individuals.

Now, of course, there is a very strong socialization aspect to this as well. In societies where sex is given negative connotations, especially where it is used specifically to reinforce unequal social statuses, then I think we also see instances of those who wish to dominate in anger choosing to do that via rape, even if that is not "natural" to them.

But even among groups that do not have such attitudes towards sex/sexuality, we will still likely see occasional instances of rape-sex because of those few individuals who have that mix of personality features and who, through life experience, lack the social conditioning to repress or redirect their urges (or through life trauma, they have the psychological damage that increases and supports such urges).

Anyway, that's what I think.

Oh? I don't know very much about insects in general, so how is it that a mantis fits the bill?

It doesn't happen every time, but sometimes after copulation, the female kills and eats the male. The male takes that risk.

EDIT: I believe black widows do the same, but I don't remember for sure.

The former. Lets just say, (and I know this an extreme case, but oh well) someone, or an animal, had a choice between having sex where pregnancy was absolutely garunteed, and then dying right after, or living, but having a much lesser chance at reproducing.
If they were an individual, I think choices would be split in some ratio. However, your case is not hypothetical. Many spiders and insects have one partner die or get paralyzed after the sex and used as food for the spiderlings. Guess what they choose.

If there were two isolated groups of individuals, and one always chose life, another always impregnation, after one generation, only the second group would remain. Thus, everybody would choose impregnation.

http://img2.timeinc.net/toh/i/g/1106_bugs/Praying-Mantis-01.jpg

Are you under the impression that the male Mantis has been forewarned that it's head-scoffing time after he gets his?

On a species level, reproduction is a part of that.



Hardly. They simply don't care that the person is unwilling.



If you look back at post #136, you'll find that I specified that the sexual element was a part of it, not the whole.

Conversely, if you insist it's only about domination, then why rape when physical violence and humiliation is more than enough to dominate the victim?
I know I write long posts, but you do have to read all of them if you really want to know what my arguments are. I have already answered this question in two different posts addressed to Neesika.

Note: The length and complexity of my arguments is one of the reasons why I don't like to have to answer the same questions for different people in the same thread.

Are you under the impression that the male Mantis has been forewarned that it's head-scoffing time after he gets his?
If it was forewarned and afraid of death, only those with not enough brain to understand the warning would survive. Thus, its brain would be atrophied and evolutionally shrunk, and it wouldn't care anymore.

On a species level, reproduction is a part of that.


But my 'survival' and 'reproduction' impulses are not one and the same - and it's the individuals that make those choices.

Are you under the impression that the male Mantis has been forewarned that it's head-scoffing time after he gets his?

I suspect they're too stupid to understand/care. However, you are welcome to try to explain it to one if you want.

If it was forewarned and afraid of death, only those with not enough brain to understand the warning would survive. Thus, its brain would be atrophied and evolutionally shrunk, and it wouldn't care anymore.

Or the mechanism would change, due to the increased survivability of the smarter males, who would choose to mate only with less carnivorous females.

The fact that there's something of an apparent status quo, suggests that there's some equilibrium between extremes.

But my 'survival' and 'reproduction' impulses are not one and the same - and it's the individuals that make those choices.
Except they aren't really much of a choice. There's the right choice and the wrong choice. If individuals keep making the wrong choice, evolution will filter out free will and simplify them to creatures that make the right choice.

I suspect they're too stupid to understand/care. However, you are welcome to try to explain it to one if you want.

Too stupid to care... you don't think insects have survival traits?

Except they aren't really much of a choice. There's the right choice and the wrong choice. If individuals keep making the wrong choice, evolution will filter out free will and simplify them to creatures that make the right choice.

In your little false-dichotmoy land, sure.

In the real world, however, the right choice and the wrong choice are not necessarily binary.

there is rape and there is rape, and unfortunately both are tarred with the same brush. one is and one isn't. nonconsentual is nonconsentual, but one is about sexual gratification, of at least one participant, and the other is just gratuitous pain.

In the real world, however, the right choice and the wrong choice are not necessarily binary.
Well yes they are.
To reproduce is under most circumstances the right choice. The only case where the right choice is to keep living is where your kind is in danger and requires extra muscle to protect it. That's where hiveminds and hierarchies develop.

Are you under the impression that the male Mantis has been forewarned that it's head-scoffing time after he gets his?
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the spider drama in my bathroom this morning, "One Escape and Two Disappointments."

It's spider mating season, folks! Yes, that magical time again. And a spider has set up housekeeping in a corner of my bathroom. I am assuming it's a female. A couple of days ago, a very much smaller spider was making its way towards her. I assumed it was a male. He disappeared.

This morning, another smaller, presumably male spider was trying to get next to the lady spider. This date went down as I was watching. The small spider attempted to approach stealthily across the web from several directions, but was spotted. The larger spider made several moves to come at him, but he retreated, then came in again from a different angle. He progressed slowly, posturing along the way in a manner that suggested he was waiting to see if she would attack him or not. Female spiders do kill their mates, and all spiders will attack each other for food and to defend webs. The female spider seemed receptive at first, but she was just luring him in. As he started to come in more confidently, she turned on him. You should have seem him "run" across that web, with the larger female in hot pursuit (but not the good kind of hot). She nearly got him, too -- she actually got her forelegs on him, when he finally dropped on a line out of the web. But she dropped after him on her own line! DRAMA! When he saw her coming, he dropped even faster, plummeting the (for them) enormous distance to the edge of my bathtub, whence he hightailed it out there but good. She, after an abortive further drop, apparently decided to retreat back to the safety of her web.

Just a turf war? Or Love's Labor Lost? Hard to tell, but considering the season and the sizes of the spiders, easy to imagine. He got away with his life, but he failed to get laid this morning. And she missed out on breakfast. ;)

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the spider drama in my bathroom this morning, "One Escape and Two Disappointments."

It's spider mating season, folks! Yes, that magical time again. And a spider has set up housekeeping in a corner of my bathroom. I am assuming it's a female. A couple of days ago, a very much smaller spider was making its way towards her. I assumed it was a male. He disappeared.

This morning, another smaller, presumably male spider was trying to get next to the lady spider. This date went down as I was watching. The small spider attempted to approach stealthily across the web from several directions, but was spotted. The larger spider made several moves to come at him, but he retreated, then came in again from a different angle. He progressed slowly, posturing along the way in a manner that suggested he was waiting to see if she would attack him or not. Female spiders do kill their mates, and all spiders will attack each other for food and to defend webs. The female spider seemed receptive at first, but she was just luring him in. As he started to come in more confidently, she turned on him. You should have seem him "run" across that web, with the larger female in hot pursuit (but not the good kind of hot). She nearly got him, too -- she actually got her forelegs on him, when he finally dropped on a line out of the web. But she dropped after him on her own line! DRAMA! When he saw her coming, he dropped even faster, plummeting the (for them) enormous distance to the edge of my bathtub, whence he hightailed it out there but good. She, after an abortive further drop, apparently decided to retreat back to the safety of her web.

Just a turf war? Or Love's Labor Lost? Hard to tell, but considering the season and the sizes of the spiders, easy to imagine. He got away with his life, but he failed to get laid this morning. And she missed out on breakfast. ;)

Why does that remind me of last Saturday night?

But that's a good story I wish I was there to see it.

Well yes they are.


Oh! A baseless and illogical denial? Well, I'm convinced.


To reproduce is under most circumstances the right choice. The only case where the right choice is to keep living is where your kind is in danger and requires extra muscle to protect it. That's where hiveminds and hierarchies develop.

You seem to be under the rather bizarre impression that mating is one of those opportunities that quintessentially knocks only once.

It did not evolve so that the strongest of males who had the power to overwhelm unwilling females and impregnate them, then abandon them to care for themselves when at their most helpless, would be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations.

I do not think that the point of rape and evolution is the rape and abandon approach but the rape and marry approach. This is really not all that difficult to imagine. If I was a primitive leader of a family or tribe I can see how I might want to ambush my neighbors and kill their men and take their women and children. I can also see how if I was an officer of a mercenary force I would do something similar but then trade my slaves for the slaves of other mercenary outfits so the women and children that I now owned did not hate me for killing their menfolk.

I know that I will get modded again for expressing these views so maybe before I get modded I should at least explain myself. Despite being modded in the past I have never advocated that anybody should kill other posters. Also, the reason why mercenaries and nomadic tribes need more women and children is for labor and marriage purposes. Nobody wants inbreeding. People need labor. Get it?

If you have any questions, why dont you ask them before warning me that I am advocating violence or something? I am surprised everyone here is not modded for having the same discussion that I had earlier when I was modded. *mutters bitterly*

Of course it's wrong. If she says no, then you don't do it.
Rape is wrong.

But what is considered a rape is defined by culture - Same applies to, say, value of a human being (eg. slavery).

Biological explanations for rape are dangerous because they can be used to excuse rape. This not their intent, they are simply designed to shed light on possible evolutionary reasons for rape. Evolutionary in the sense that certain triats would allow for the act to take place, similar to innate aggression may lead to murder.

However rape should not be excused, or diminished in the slightest. It is an incredibly violent crime that effects the victim for years after the attack. Rape victims are several times more likely to develop substance abuse, mental disorders and suicide attempts. Further, while many rape victims do not suffer serious physical injuries, many do. Including broken bones and like from beatings or vaginal or anal tears from the assault.

Assumptions that rape is caused by uncontrollable sexual urges, mental illness, momentary loss of control or that the victim brought it on themselves have no empirical support whatsoever.

I won't go into more complex theories such as the MTC: R3, but I will use the groth typology. According to groth, there are three types of rapists. Anger(40%), power(55%) and Sadistic(5%). With anger rape the goal isn't sex. It is violence, aggression and humiliation of the victim. Sadistic rapists too use violence and aggression but that is what they get off on. Its a mix of violence and sex. Last the Power Rapist wants to show how much a man he is and dominate women. This has more to do with sex than other two and they generally don't use a great of violence.

So, no generally speaking rape is not about sex.

I do not think that the point of rape and evolution is the rape and abandon approach but the rape and marry approach. This is really not all that difficult to imagine.
It is easier to imagine if significant facts are not considered.
If I was a primitive leader of a family or tribe I can see how I might want to ambush my neighbors and kill their men and take their women and children.
For most of human evolutionary history, subsistence was achieved by hunting and gathering. This limits population clusters.

Two significant facts arise from this.

Firstly there are limits to the size of a group; bringing in too many extra people, stretches the carrying capacity of the land beyond sustainability.

Secondly, few other groups will be interacted with (ranges of a sufficient size to support a human band usually need to be quite large and the only mode of transport is one's own feet). Since band size is limited and ranges tend to be large, most neighbouring groups are actually biologically inter-related (when groups get too large to be sustainable, they split and the off-shoot group moves into adjacent territory). Further in-group mate choice is very limited resulting in mates being sourced from near by bands (causing close familial ties). So the few neighbours reasonably within reach are usually close relatives. Evidently, very often bands are characterized by "fission/fussion", so neighbours are often people who were in one's band before, and will be in one's band again.

So for most of our evolutionary history, we have lived in necessarily small bands, with near-by groups of humans being comprised of close biological relatives, who share culture, language and life-ways, and in many cases are actually former and future band-cohorts to the individuals of currently disparate bands.

I can also see how if I was an officer of a mercenary force I would do something similar but then trade my slaves for the slaves of other mercenary outfits so the women and children that I now owned did not hate me for killing their menfolk.
Hunting and gathering is a highly mobile life-way where "all hands" are needed to achieve subsistence. Herding captives about while trying to hunt and gather your daily subsistence is less than pragmatic, even if one does not have the additional complication of being on the look-out for reprisal raids.

Hunting gathering groups that have cooperative, peaceful and reciprocal relations with their surrounding neighbours, have substantial advantages when compared to those who have hostile relations with their surrounding neighbours. Peaceful cooperative relations increases security, both in terms of potential hostile attacks, and in terms of subsistence, it opens up opportunities to trade goods and gives one a wider pool of mates to choose from, without having to risk life and limb to get them.

Trading mates (for instance via sister exchange) also "balances" out population numbers, since exchange of group members leaves groups with the same number they had before the exchange, whereas grabbing captives risks pushing your range beyond its carrying capacity and would require more mobility, which has its own costs when subsistence is marginal.

Prior to the advent of agriculture, raiding and capturing neighbours is a less efficient strategy than cooperating and trading.

Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?

This reply may sound stupid on first reading but I think it answers the question elegantly:

Men do not come off a factory line.

But in terms of reproduction the "what-a-girl-wants" model works better for men and women.

A pregnant woman is at a serious disadvantage fending for herself. Males that don't take care of their mates would create more pregnancies, but ultimately be less successful at creating offspring that reach adulthood and reproduce.

I don't think it has to be one or the other. You could think of them as different reproductive strategies that are evolutionarily successful in different contexts.

...This has more to do with sex than other two and they generally don't use a great of violence.

So, no generally speaking rape is not about sex.

Are you aware that these two sentences contradict each other?

This reply may sound stupid on first reading but I think it answers the question elegantly:

Men do not come off a factory line.

Ah, you're a Model 203, I see. Your line always had this self-hating bit. The rest of us embrace our robotic origins!

Biological explanations for rape are dangerous because they can be used to excuse rape. This not their intent, they are simply designed to shed light on possible evolutionary reasons for rape. Evolutionary in the sense that certain triats would allow for the act to take place, similar to innate aggression may lead to murder.

Innate aggression isn't used to "excuse murder," however. Neither can an explanation be a justification. A person is legally responsible for his own actions regardless.

However rape should not be excused, or diminished in the slightest. It is an incredibly violent crime that effects the victim for years after the attack. Rape victims are several times more likely to develop substance abuse, mental disorders and suicide attempts. Further, while many rape victims do not suffer serious physical injuries, many do. Including broken bones and like from beatings or vaginal or anal tears from the assault.

This is all true, but doesn't mean we should perpetuate ignorance.

Assumptions that rape is caused by uncontrollable sexual urges, mental illness, momentary loss of control or that the victim brought it on themselves have no empirical support whatsoever.

I assume that's true, but it's not relevant.

I won't go into more complex theories such as the MTC: R3, but I will use the groth typology. According to groth, there are three types of rapists. Anger(40%), power(55%) and Sadistic(5%). With anger rape the goal isn't sex. It is violence, aggression and humiliation of the victim. Sadistic rapists too use violence and aggression but that is what they get off on. Its a mix of violence and sex. Last the Power Rapist wants to show how much a man he is and dominate women. This has more to do with sex than other two and they generally don't use a great of violence.

So, no generally speaking rape is not about sex.

That's a cozy classification but does not support your argument.

Rape is sex - violent, nonconsentual, criminal sex. So to insist that it's "not about sex" is misleading, a comforting generalization; a fiction.

Ah, you're a Model 203, I see. Your line always had this self-hating bit. The rest of us embrace our robotic origins!

I would sig this, but it's too much effort.

Rape is sex - violent, nonconsentual, criminal sex. So to insist that it's "not about sex" is misleading, a comforting generalization; a fiction.

No, I don't think that's true.

Firstly - because 'rape is sex' isn't true. Rape INVOLVES sex, but that doesn't mean rape IS sex, any more than life IS breathing.

Secondly - rape crimes often consist of deliberate harm - the stories of bayonets, knives, broken branches, bottles, screwdrivers inserted in to the chosen orifices of the male or female victims before, during or after - as well as the gang-rape concept, testify to this. Sex is not 'deliberate harm' - although it can feature it (and such would usually be considered uncommon).

No, I don't think that's true.

Firstly - because 'rape is sex' isn't true. Rape INVOLVES sex, but that doesn't mean rape IS sex, any more than life IS breathing.

It's the involvement of sex which delineates it as rape as opposed to some other form of assault.

Secondly - rape crimes often consist of deliberate harm - the stories of bayonets, knives, broken branches, bottles, screwdrivers inserted in to the chosen orifices of the male or female victims before, during or after - as well as the gang-rape concept, testify to this. Sex is not 'deliberate harm' - although it can feature it (and such would usually be considered uncommon).

I know sex is not 'deliberate harm' ordinarily, but it is when it is forced on someone without their consent.

Are you aware that these two sentences contradict each other?
Are you aware that you seemed to ignore the paragraph which preceded that sentence in which I explain two situations in which rape had little to nothing to do with sexual gratification? Further, I should have explained the power rapist better. While this rape tends to have more do with sex i.e. less focus on violence and aggression than the other two, it's not simply about sex. It has great deal to do with power and control over women.

I used the Groth typology because, its fairly basic and I don't want to get into more complex theories. But if I did you would see sex is a small to absent compont in the vast majority of sexual assaults.

Innate aggression isn't used to "excuse murder," however. Neither can an explanation be a justification. A person is legally responsible for his own actions regardless.

This is all true, but doesn't mean we should perpetuate ignorance.

I assume that's true, but it's not relevant.

That's a cozy classification but does not support your argument.

Rape is sex - violent, nonconsentual, criminal sex. So to insist that it's "not about sex" is misleading, a comforting generalization; a fiction.
First, I don't really understand your replies. You seem to arguing against me yet I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. I'm not trying to excuse rape, simply giving explainations within Criminology.

To your point I can understand however. "rape is sex" really? What about large percentage of rapists who don't climax. Est. by some at as much as 40% of assaults. Or those who use foreign objects, or who penetrate in a non-sexual part of the body? This idea that rape=sex is silly.

It's the involvement of sex which delineates it as rape as opposed to some other form of assault.


Err... no, it isn't.

Let's have a look at Hawaii's law on the matter:

Sexual pentration is: "vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, deviate sexual intercourse, or any intrusion of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body … however slight."

Sexual contact is: "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person … or of the sexual or other intimate parts of the actor by the person, whether directly or through the clothing or other material intended to cover the sexual or other intimate parts"

The 'sexual' in the terms 'sexual' abuse, 'sexual' pentration, 'sexual contact' and 'sexual intrusion' do not actually imply that 'sex' was the aim, or even, was involved.

Check the bolded parts of the 'sexual penetration' reference, to see what I mean. If you stick a screwdriver up someone's ass, it's a sexual assault. It's probably first degree in most states, too - because a screw-driver probably counts as a deadly-weapon, and probably causes injury (and either of those would be enough to make it first degree).


I know sex is not 'deliberate harm' ordinarily, but it is when it is forced on someone without their consent.

Which is why rape is about harm, not about sex.

I say it. Lots of people say it. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

But is it really not about sex, at all?

Vault 10 made some points recently that got him slapped with a warning, mostly because he seemed to be giving the okay to rape...but I think there was something interesting in what he was saying that is echoed, and fleshed out in the following article (http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm).




Another source (http://www.dianarussell.com/menrape.html) backs up the previous, stating that the desire to rape is a biological one. Now, there are plenty of problems with both these 'sources', but I think it's an interesting topic. A little scary really. Are men 'hardwired' to rape?

I know, I know, that's an incredibly offensive thing to say...but is it untrue?


Rape CAN be about sex, but it can also be about power. The "research" and "facts" that are in that article are just the interviewing and testing of select people, and ones who will support the data the survey/experiments are trying to find.

Rape CAN be about sex, but it can also be about power. The "research" and "facts" that are in that article are just the interviewing and testing of select people, and ones who will support the data the survey/experiments are trying to find.

Why would anyone have a bias on why rapists rape? What is in it for anyone? Do the raped want to feel like they were the victims of a guy who wanted to exert power over them rather than wanting to feel like a guy was horny and just had their way with them? Are feminazis somehow involved?

Why would anyone have a bias on why rapists rape? What is in it for anyone? Do the raped want to feel like they were the victims of a guy who wanted to exert power over them rather than wanting to feel like a guy was horny and just had their way with them? Are feminazis somehow involved?

Somehow rape is now a 'feminazi' conspiracy? Are you about to make yourself a whole new kinda popular?

It is easier to imagine if significant facts are not considered.
For most of human evolutionary history, subsistence was achieved by hunting and gathering. This limits population clusters.

Two significant facts arise from this.

Firstly there are limits to the size of a group; bringing in too many extra people, stretches the carrying capacity of the land beyond sustainability.

Secondly, few other groups will be interacted with (ranges of a sufficient size to support a human band usually need to be quite large and the only mode of transport is one's own feet). Since band size is limited and ranges tend to be large, most neighbouring groups are actually biologically inter-related (when groups get too large to be sustainable, they split and the off-shoot group moves into adjacent territory). Further in-group mate choice is very limited resulting in mates being sourced from near by bands (causing close familial ties). So the few neighbours reasonably within reach are usually close relatives. Evidently, very often bands are characterized by "fission/fussion", so neighbours are often people who were in one's band before, and will be in one's band again.

So for most of our evolutionary history, we have lived in necessarily small bands, with near-by groups of humans being comprised of close biological relatives, who share culture, language and life-ways, and in many cases are actually former and future band-cohorts to the individuals of currently disparate bands.


Hunting and gathering is a highly mobile life-way where "all hands" are needed to achieve subsistence. Herding captives about while trying to hunt and gather your daily subsistence is less than pragmatic, even if one does not have the additional complication of being on the look-out for reprisal raids.

Hunting gathering groups that have cooperative, peaceful and reciprocal relations with their surrounding neighbours, have substantial advantages when compared to those who have hostile relations with their surrounding neighbours. Peaceful cooperative relations increases security, both in terms of potential hostile attacks, and in terms of subsistence, it opens up opportunities to trade goods and gives one a wider pool of mates to choose from, without having to risk life and limb to get them.

Trading mates (for instance via sister exchange) also "balances" out population numbers, since exchange of group members leaves groups with the same number they had before the exchange, whereas grabbing captives risks pushing your range beyond its carrying capacity and would require more mobility, which has its own costs when subsistence is marginal.

Prior to the advent of agriculture, raiding and capturing neighbours is a less efficient strategy than cooperating and trading.
Nice. Well done. That is a much better response than the one I was going to use, which was just to point out that his imagination about what he might possibly do if he was a strapping strong caveman in a movie starring Rachel Welch and if circumstances permitted is neither a valid nor an interesting basis on which to analyze this topic.

But yours was better. :)

Just popping in to say...I haven't had time to reply to Mur'vs very detailed posts, but I just wanted her to know that I have read them, and appreciate that she made them.

Just popping in to say...I haven't had time to reply to Mur'vs very detailed posts, but I just wanted her to know that I have read them, and appreciate that she made them.
You appreciate that I made them? That sounds so weird. Are you about fire me?

It's the involvement of sex which delineates it as rape as opposed to some other form of assault.


Err... no, it isn't.


Which is why rape is about harm, not about sex.
Buh?

The definitions you've provided highlight the sexual nature of acts which are performed by body parts, or objects besides the penis. Rape used to be solely defined as penile penetration...the laws have been widened to include touching of a sexual nature, or other acts of a sexual nature.

Sometimes rape is going to be about sex. Sometimes rape is going to be the way to cause harm. Nonetheless, in both scenarios the assault is of a sexual nature. You cannot separate the sexual nature of the assault from the assault as though it simply isn't there...

If you stick a screwdriver up your ass for fun it's likely part of a sexual act. If someone does it to you during an assault, it's an assault of a sexual nature, because of the area of the body involved. In most sexual assault (versus rape) definitions, touching the genitals or anus is by definition touching of a sexual nature (rebuttable presumption).

You appreciate that I made them? That sounds so weird. Are you about fire me?
The term is 'downsizing'. You are being downsized.

Frick, can't a woman show some appreciation around here, even if it sounds weird? I just didn't want you thinking you put in all that effort for nada. :P

Buh?

The definitions you've provided highlight the sexual nature of acts which are performed by body parts, or objects besides the penis. Rape used to be solely defined as penile penetration...the laws have been widened to include touching of a sexual nature, or other acts of a sexual nature.

Sometimes rape is going to be about sex. Sometimes rape is going to be the way to cause harm. Nonetheless, in both scenarios the assault is of a sexual nature. You cannot separate the sexual nature of the assault from the assault as though it simply isn't there...

If you stick a screwdriver up your ass for fun it's likely part of a sexual act. If someone does it to you during an assault, it's an assault of a sexual nature, because of the area of the body involved. In most sexual assault (versus rape) definitions, touching the genitals or anus is by definition touching of a sexual nature (rebuttable presumption).

Sometimes rape is going to be about sex. Sure. The guy who blackmailed all his classmates through myspace or facebook or whatever, and then extorted blowjobs, etc, was in it for the sex, as well as the power. The guy who breaks into the house and tells the woman he's going to have sex with her, or he's going in the other room and killing her kids... probably a large proportion of it is sex.

But, then - you're entering that territory of delineation of the crime. It's a sexual assault, but is it rape?

And what proportion of rape does it account for?

But, is it a 'sex' crime because the crime took place in a sexual part of the victim's anatomy? You say that it's a sexual act because auto-insertions would be a sexual act. But that doesn't follow. Maybe you like getting slapped across the face - that doesn't mean someone walking up to you in the street and unloading a fist to the jaw is doing it for his, or your, sexual pleasure. Sex is about intent, as well as content.

And, as for appealing to what 'rape used to be?' probably not a good idea, or we're going to have to start having a discussion in which wives can't be raped by their husbands, men can't be raped at all, and women can only be considered raped if they made an appropriate attempt to physically resist... whatever that would mean.

Rape is a 'sexual crime' - but that is partly because of the spectrum, partly because of the gray area it inhabits, and partly because of the way it is committed... and treated, after the fact. That doesn't mean it's ABOUT sex. And neither does the fact that it involves 'sexual areas', any more than poisoning someone is about food, or mouths... or shooting someone is about skin, or bullets.

But, then - you're entering that territory of delineation of the crime. It's a sexual assault, but is it rape? That question doesn't really make sense to me. 'Rape' is what we colloquially refer to non-consensual sex as. Rape has a very limited legal definition in some jurisdictions...namely only penile-vaginal intercourse. Many jurisdictions took the word 'rape' right out of it because of this and have a series of 'sexual assault' laws, dealing with all manner of non-consensual sexual acts. So if it's sexual assault, in the legal sense, then it's likely not rape in the legal sense for the reasons I've already mentioned. But if it's sexual assault in the colloquial sense, then it's probably rape in the colloquial sense too.



And, as for appealing to what 'rape used to be?' probably not a good idea, or we're going to have to start having a discussion in which wives can't be raped by their husbands, men can't be raped at all, and women can only be considered raped if they made an appropriate attempt to physically resist... whatever that would mean. I wasn't appealing to what rape used to be, I was pointing out how fucking stupid it can be to narrowly define something as 'not a non-consensual act'.

Rape is a 'sexual crime' - but that is partly because of the spectrum, partly because of the gray area it inhabits, and partly because of the way it is committed... and treated, after the fact. That doesn't mean it's ABOUT sex. And neither does the fact that it involves 'sexual areas', any more than poisoning someone is about food, or mouths... or shooting someone is about skin, or bullets.It doesn't mean it's NOT about sex either...which is what you flatly and unequivocally stated earlier. I'm saying, both extremes "it's all about sex" and "it's not about sex at all" are only going to be true a very small percentage of the time.

Or the mechanism would change, due to the increased survivability of the smarter males, who would choose to mate only with less carnivorous females.
The females don't eat the males because they're evil. They do it because they need to a big load of food to produce their spawn. Mating with "less carnivorous" females would not produce any spawn, so would be useless.


You seem to be under the rather bizarre impression that mating is one of those opportunities that quintessentially knocks only once.
No, it's the opportunity to fulfill life's purpose. It's like driving from DC to NYC: you can just go straight, or you can drive back and forth for a few more days, but why? The sooner you arrive, the better.

Living on after mating only matters for species where the male is supposed to provide care for the offsprings afterward.

Living on after mating only matters for species where the male is supposed to provide care for the offsprings afterward.
From an evolutionary perspective, you'd have to say that it would be better to maximise the number of matings along with trying to make them happen early. It depends on the biology of the organism in question I would say, rather than the role the males play after the birth of the offspring.

So for humans for example you'd have to say that the species is better off if the males mate often, rather than early and while taking whatever risk is necessary. Granted, human males can do stupid and dangerous things under the influence of hormones driving them to mate, but on the whole there's a limit. Few men are going to willingly and knowingly die just to get laid.

From an evolutionary perspective, you'd have to say that it would be better to maximise the number of matings along with trying to make them happen early.
It's important to do the full cycle - to maximize the number of successful reproductions by your offspring. That means ensuring they are born and grow up, not merely mating.
If it means being consumed so the female can produce more offspring (advanced enough to care for themselves), that's the best strategy. If it means living on to care for them, that is the thing to do.


So for humans for example you'd have to say that the species is better off if the males mate often, rather than early and while taking whatever risk is necessary.
Humans are a species in such an advanced state that it's often better if some (many) males don't mate at all - either to save females for better males, or to curb overpopulation.

Are you aware that you seemed to ignore the paragraph which preceded that sentence in which I explain two situations in which rape had little to nothing to do with sexual gratification? Further, I should have explained the power rapist better. While this rape tends to have more do with sex i.e. less focus on violence and aggression than the other two, it's not simply about sex. It has great deal to do with power and control over women.

I used the Groth typology because, its fairly basic and I don't want to get into more complex theories. But if I did you would see sex is a small to absent compont in the vast majority of sexual assaults.

Actually, I read your previous post better than you apparently did.

Here are the numbers you posted:

...

I won't go into more complex theories such as the MTC: R3, but I will use the groth typology. According to groth, there are three types of rapists. Anger(40%), power(55%) and Sadistic(5%). With anger rape the goal isn't sex. It is violence, aggression and humiliation of the victim. Sadistic rapists too use violence and aggression but that is what they get off on. Its a mix of violence and sex. Last the Power Rapist wants to show how much a man he is and dominate women. This has more to do with sex than other two and they generally don't use a great of violence.

So, no generally speaking rape is not about sex.

Now, you describe sadistic rapists as those who 'get off on' violence and aggression, which implies that they're doing it for sexual reasons. So, we can say that 5% of rapes are done for (at least partially) sexual reasons. Now, you describe power rapists as having more to do with sex than the other two. They're 55%. So, adding that to the 5% we already have, we end up with 60% of all rape cases being partially sexual in nature.

Let's just be clear here. No one is arguing that rape is only about sex. That's stupid. If it was just sex, it wouldn't be rape. Just like excluding the sexual aspect from rape entirely, i.e. saying it's not about sex at all, would also make it not rape. It would simply be assault.

Rape, then is about sex and violence.

The term is 'downsizing'. You are being downsized.

Frick, can't a woman show some appreciation around here, even if it sounds weird? I just didn't want you thinking you put in all that effort for nada. :P

... considering the thread topic... the term, I believe, is "being given the shaft." :tongue:

... considering the thread topic... the term, I believe, is "being given the shaft." :tongue:
That would be in extremely poor taste, even for NSG.

It doesn't happen every time, but sometimes after copulation, the female kills and eats the male. The male takes that risk.

A female mantis will invariably kill the male mantis via decapitation during copulation. The reason for this is that the nerve cluster that makes the male mantis mate is located in the lower... thorax, IIRC. The ganglion in the head prevents the mantis from spending all of its time in courtship mode. Simply put, the male has to be decapitated to mate properly.