Rape Arousal

[Dr. Dalek]

Rape has nothing to do with age or looks. It has nothing to do with lust.

If I feel lust for someone it is never an old woman.

[Cyberman]

If I feel lust for someone it is never an old woman.

He said

It has nothing to do with lust.

I think you miss read.

Anyway there are people whith fetishes who may lust after old women. It sound strange but it does happen.

[Dr. Dalek]

How much do fetishes have to do with rape though?

I thought fetishes were primarily a masterbation thing.

(Not trying to sound lewd)

[SkepticLance]

Let me indulge myself with a bit of speculation. In other words, I hypothesize.

 

I have always thought that, from an evolutionary standpoint, rape is not conducive to reproductive success. If we see the potential rapist as a member of a tribal, hunter-gatherer society, we are looking at most of Homo sapiens recent evolution. In this society, rape would lead to serious personal consequences - even death of the rapist by neolithic execution. Thus it would not be a successful reproductive strategy and the propensity to commit rape would be selected out of the gene pool. However, certain men are still liable to committing rape.

 

Then it occurred to me that there is one situation where committing rape would carry no adverse social consequences. ie. in war time. If one tribe is fighting another, and an 'enemy' woman is captured, raping her would carry no social censure or punishment. Thus, the propensity to rape could evolve, as long as it is (mostly) restricted to 'the enemy'. Ditto for raping slave women who were captured from the enemy. This becomes a successful reproductive strategy, since those slave women can bear children who get adopted by the tribe.

 

If my hypothesis is correct, then we predict that the incidence of rape becomes epidemic in wartime, with 'enemy' women suffering often.

[Citizen Zero]

Simple imo. We live in a world of uncertainty and straw man arguments. Imagine you see a rich attractive woman and look at her that certain way that makes her know you want her, but you have no money and she makes some kind of statement to that effect as if to disqualify you from being a potential suitor. But you do not let that stop you and you keep trying and she finds that attractive. She didn't really have some infallable argument as to why she shouldn't marry anyone. Maybe money doesn't buy happiness. Maybe by not giving up you are giving her what she REALLY wants -someone who will fight for her.

 

I think most (males at least) can see the appeal of this situation. It's like if you give someone what they really want in life, they will be more open to your views and what you have to say. On the other hand if you give someone a choice between dying and being more open to your views, behaviors and beliefs they are usually going to choose the ladder.

 

What is it officially called? Stockholm syndrome or something... It's like getting someone to admit you were right.

[gcol]

For an example of mass rape being a successful reproductive strategy, just google Genghis khan and how common his Y chromosome is now. An example, also, of where success does not equal good.

[DaveC426913]

However, the majority of victims are young women. This indicates at the very least that sexual attraction is a factor.

 

I think the more relevant factor is sexual rejection and feelings of betrayal.

[Senseless]

Do you have proof of this, or just conjecture?

 

Oh... surely, you've heard of old women getting raped in London. Its just that most victims raped at that age prefer to keep such information to themselves. This type of rape is done mostly by mad men... no... i mean... extremely mad men... raping someone is already a mad man's doing.

[aswokei]

"If it wasn't for date rape, I would never get laid"

You ought to be ashamed! Well, unless she really deserved it.

 

Why do men rape? I think probably not for the same reasons liberals tend to think. Liberals tend to think men rape women because rapists are motivated by humiliating and they get off on hurting women.

 

Maybe that's true to some extent. However, rape is entirely natural. It happens in many areas of the natural kingdom. Male birds rape female birds. They even have gang bangs. A cluster of male birds will all gang up on one female bird and start pecking her until she opens her receptacle. If she doesn't open up, the cluster of males will literally peck her to death. Also, many monkeys are known for brutal rape--particularly the Chimpanzee. I've heard that that female mink will not even ovulate unless she's made to bleed by the male. It's all about the rape genes. Rape genes are beneficial to everyone who possesses them (even females). Now I should explicate what I mean by "beneficial." I don't mean it doesn't hurt the females--only that it helps the animals who possess that gene to continue propagating their DNA sequences.

 

The reason men rape women is to propagate DNA. It's just one of several alternative reproductive strategies. Strictly speaking, it's a natural and human thing to do.

[Phi for All]

Why do men rape? I think probably not for the same reasons liberals tend to think.

I think you're right. If liberals tended to think for the same reasons men rape we'd all be in trouble. But do you have any evidence that liberals think?

Maybe that's true to some extent. However, rape is entirely natural. It happens in many areas of the natural kingdom. Male birds rape female birds. They even have gang bangs. A cluster of male birds will all gang up on one female bird and start pecking her until she opens her receptacle. If she doesn't open up, the cluster of males will literally peck her to death. Also, many monkeys are known for brutal rape--particularly the Chimpanzee. I've heard that that female mink will not even ovulate unless she's made to bleed by the male. It's all about the rape genes.

Civilized human society is a long way from it's animal cousin's equivalent in nature. If chimps were incarcerated (or worse) for rape wouldn't the majority learn to avoid it?

Rape genes are beneficial to everyone who possesses them (even females). Now I should explicate what I mean by "beneficial." I don't mean it doesn't hurt the females--only that it helps the animals who possess that gene to continue propagating their DNA sequences.

So it's beneficial to pass along the genes of people who have rejected the mores of their society?

The reason men rape women is to propagate DNA. It's just one of several alternative reproductive strategies. Strictly speaking, it's a natural and human thing to do.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Propogation doesn't override survival and if rape can get you removed from society then where's your other chances to propogate?

 

I think rapists either want to get back in prison or their sociopathic behavior overrides normal societal concerns for consequences.

[aswokei]

Phi... you're thinking too civilized. Humans haven't been civilized for a terribly long time. You know that, right?

 

Not to mention, do you think that many rapists really get caught? I'm betting that a very high number of women are raped. A very high percentage. I'm guessing that more than half of mid-aged women have been raped at least at once. I don't think there are nearly enough men identified and incarcerated as rapists for the number of women who have been raped. Do you?

 

Also think about all the conquerers sacking countries... all of the bloody times we've gone through. Can you even conceive how much rape there must have been during the history of humanity? Can you imagine? That shit shapes us. That kind of stuff really makes us who we are. That's probably why women are so naturally docile animals. Even though they loved their men, once their country has been sacked, they're going to be raped and screwed. The more easy going women are going to be better off.

 

Similar with the men. The men who were the most competent and busy rapists were going to create the most progeny when sacking communities. It's ruthles, and that's how I bet it was. We are the descendants of brutal rapist males and easy-going-take-anything-you-want women. Why? Because they were successful.

[Phi for All]

Phi... you're thinking too civilized. Humans haven't been civilized for a terribly long time. You know that, right?

Irrelevant for my argument to your premise. Civilized humans let their brains override biological imperatives all the time. It doesn't matter how long humans have been doing it; if you've been raised all your life to equate wrongdoing with incarceration or execution you think several times before committing such an act.

 

Not to mention, do you think that many rapists really get caught? I'm betting that a very high number of women are raped. A very high percentage. I'm guessing that more than half of mid-aged women have been raped at least at once. I don't think there are nearly enough men identified and incarcerated as rapists for the number of women who have been raped. Do you?

This is a more likely scenario for continued rape than procreation. If you got away with it once, your fear of the justice system is lessened.

 

Also think about all the conquerers sacking countries... all of the bloody times we've gone through. Can you even conceive how much rape there must have been during the history of humanity? Can you imagine? That shit shapes us. That kind of stuff really makes us who we are. That's probably why women are so naturally docile animals. Even though they loved their men, once their country has been sacked, they're going to be raped and screwed. The more easy going women are going to be better off.

Appeal to Tradition? Come on, in times of war a different set of rules comes in to play. And I would venture to guess that rape during war in modern times is not condoned as much as it used to be. Spoils of war is not an acceptable excuse, at least not in major countries.

 

Similar with the men. The men who were the most competent and busy rapists were going to create the most progeny when sacking communities. It's ruthles, and that's how I bet it was. We are the descendants of brutal rapist males and easy-going-take-anything-you-want women. Why? Because they were successful.

This is a nature vs. nurture argument now. I'm a 6' 3" blond Viking and you don't see me going out and sacking the neighborhood with a woman over each shoulder (at least not on weeknights).

 

Reminds me of a joke: Brodar the Viking king is addressing his assembled men before they leave the boats to sack the sleepy English fishing village.

 

Brodar: "Men, tonight we will sack the village!"

Men: "Yay!"

Brodar: "We will kill all the men..."

Men: "Yay!

Brodar: "... and rape all the women!"

Men: "YAAAAAY!!!"

Brodar: "And men... try to get it right this time!"

[TriggerGrinn]

wiki has some info:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapist

[carol]

Edelweiss

Old and ugly women do indeed get raped too.

However, the majority of victims are young women. This indicates at the very least that sexual attraction is a factor. Take it from there.

 

If an old or ugly woman was raped, most of the people I know would think that the rapist must be under the influence of a drug:)

[aswokei]

Irrelevant for my argument to your premise.

 

Civilized humans let their brains override biological imperatives all the time. It doesn't matter how long humans have been doing it; if you've been raised all your life to equate wrongdoing with incarceration or execution you think several times before committing such an act.

I agree. Humans are very good at overriding instincts. Those huge frontal lobes sure do come in handy. However, it doesn't make our instincts irrelevant as you seem to think. Take racism, for example. In many places people who look very different from each other can get along fine--even though a small part inside of them may whisper "Don't trust him!--he's black, or has slanty eyes--he's your competition!"

 

Many of us are able to override our natural predisposition to not trust people who look different from us. However, many aren't. It's that instinct that says, "Don't trust him!" that causes things like racism. It's instinct. Just because many people can override these instincts most of the time doesn't make these instincts irrelevant.

 

Appeal to Tradition? Come on, in times of war a different set of rules comes in to play. And I would venture to guess that rape during war in modern times is not condoned as much as it used to be. Spoils of war is not an acceptable excuse, at least not in major countries.

I'm just saying war, in particular, is a time when rape is rampant. I'm also willing to bet that wartime rape and pillaging shapes us and our genes a great deal. Even during times of peace, in normal polite society, rape is pretty common. By the way, you know I'm not in any way condoning rape, don't you?

 

This is a nature vs. nurture argument now. I'm a 6' 3" blond Viking and you don't see me going out and sacking the neighborhood with a woman over each shoulder (at least not on weeknights).

I wouldn't doubt that rape has crossed your mind at some point in your life, whether you're willing to admit it or not. I know I've thought about it--I'm not ashamed of it, either. I'm a human. However, also like a human, I am able to exhibit strong self-control. However, just because, perhaps you and I are able to control our urges does not mean everyone else can.

 

Reminds me of a joke: Brodar the Viking king is addressing his assembled men before they leave the boats to sack the sleepy English fishing village.

 

Brodar: "Men, tonight we will sack the village!"

Men: "Yay!"

Brodar: "We will kill all the men..."

Men: "Yay!

Brodar: "... and rape all the women!"

Men: "YAAAAAY!!!"

Brodar: "And men... try to get it right this time!"

 

haha

[Sisyphus]

So women are docile now? When did that happen?

[aswokei]

So women are docile now? When did that happen?

 

Yes, women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men.

[SkepticLance]

Let me once again state my theory on rape.

 

First : In evolutionary terms, under normal conditions, in a normal human society, rape is counter to reproductive success.

 

Let me explain. Normal human society, over most of the 250,000 years Homo sapiens has existed as a species, is a tribal hunter/gatherer society. If a man in such a tribe (50 to 200 people) commits rape, he cannot get away with it. And the woman he rapes has father/brothers/husband. The rapist will be lucky to escape with his life. Exile would reduce his chances of successful reproduction. And a single act of rape, with all those devastating consequences, is seriously unlikely to result in successful reproduction. Thus, committing rape inside the tribe is counter to evolutionary success.

 

However, there are two situations where rape, and subsequent reproduction, can be carried out without harmful consequences.

 

1. Time of war. Tribe A is fighting Tribe B. This is a bit like the viking story. Kill the men and rape the women.

 

2. Slavery. An outcome of war. The men are killed and the women made into slaves. And this happens all through human history and pre-history. The female slaves are raped, probably repeatedly, by their owners. Usually, any offspring become part of the fathers tribe rather than slaves.

 

Ideally evolution would have resulted in males who are inhibited from rape within their own society but are only too willing to rape in wartime, and with slaves. Actually, this is quite close to the truth for most men.

 

However, the genetic reshuffling that takes place with conception results in people who are genetically varied. Thus the inhibition to rape will be highly variable, and some will have relatively little such inhibition. This leads to a minority of men who will rape even inside their own group.

[Phi for All]

I agree. Humans are very good at overriding instincts. Those huge frontal lobes sure do come in handy. However, it doesn't make our instincts irrelevant as you seem to think.

I didn't say our instincts are irrelevant. I said you arguing that humans haven't been civilised very long was irrelevant to my point. You were raised in a civilised society and even your single generation (at least most of it) has been trained to avoid actions which might land them in jail or worse. If there is a good chance you'll be caught, the civilized person avoids it.

Take racism, for example. In many places people who look very different from each other can get along fine--even though a small part inside of them may whisper "Don't trust him!--he's black, or has slanty eyes--he's your competition!"

Let's stick to one subject to avoid strawmen arguments.

I'm just saying war, in particular, is a time when rape is rampant. I'm also willing to bet that wartime rape and pillaging shapes us and our genes a great deal. Even during times of peace, in normal polite society, rape is pretty common.

And I'm saying that martial law in times of war forgives many actions which would otherwise be illegal. Bringing up rape in war is really beside my point.

By the way, you know I'm not in any way condoning rape, don't you?

I'm pretty sure.

I wouldn't doubt that rape has crossed your mind at some point in your life, whether you're willing to admit it or not. I know I've thought about it--I'm not ashamed of it, either. I'm a human. However, also like a human, I am able to exhibit strong self-control. However, just because, perhaps you and I are able to control our urges does not mean everyone else can.

If I was 100% guaranteed that I would never get caught, that my actions would never be found out, and that there would never be any repercussions, I would still never consider forcing myself on any woman. There isn't a single bit of me that would take any pleasure in hurting or demeaning an unwilling human being in the name of sexual pleasure.

Yes, women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men.

A very Hasty Generalization.

[Mokele]

A very Hasty Generalization.

 

For which he's been warned. This is a forum for debate, not misogynist proclamations.

[aswokei]

How does my characterization of women as docile qualify judging me as misogynist? Now that's a bit hasty.

[Phi for All]

How does my characterization of women as docile qualify judging me as misogynist? Now that's a bit hasty.

Calling all women docile compared to all men, especially in the presence of all men, comes off as hostile and discriminatory, thus an example of misogyny. In addition to being a rather laughable generalization.

 

Watch some C-Span, the WWF or the audience for Oprah. Or in the real world working for companies like mine.

 

Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of any woman I know as "docile".

[aswokei]

Calling all women docile compared to all men, especially in the presence of all men, comes off as hostile and discriminatory, thus an example of misogyny. In addition to being a rather laughable generalization.

 

Watch some C-Span, the WWF or the audience for Oprah. Or in the real world working for companies like mine.

 

Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of any woman I know as "docile".

 

Misogyny--hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

 

I see a non-sequitur here. I characterize women in general as docile and hence I hate, dislike, or mistrust women? Wow... such cutting, incisive use of logic! I am in awe.

 

How other people's prejudices cause them to react is really not my problem. People could, if they chose to, perceive conformity as a virtue--in fact, I do. We all do. Without conformity nothing could be accomplished. But for some reason I am given an infraction and stigmatized as a woman hater because I suggest that women are more conformist than men. Interesting.

 

Didn't I say men are more aggressive and savage than women by nature? Why didn't anyone accuse me of misandry? You guys ought to open your minds and stop thinking with your hearts. Yes, that noodle exists for a reason. It's not consuming 25% of your body's metabolic energy for shits and giggles.

[Royston]

I hate, dislike, or mistrust women?

 

You made a generalization, nobody was implying you hated or disliked women.

 

How other people's prejudices cause them to react is really not my problem.

 

<cough>

 

People could, if they chose to, perceive conformity as a virtue--in fact, I do. We all do. Without conformity nothing could be accomplished. But for some reason I am given an infraction and stigmatized as a woman hater because I suggest that women are more conformist than men. Interesting.

 

Didn't I say men are more aggressive and savage than women by nature? Why didn't anyone accuse me of misandry? You guys ought to open your minds and stop thinking with your hearts. Yes, that noodle exists for a reason. It's not consuming 25% of your body's metabolic energy for shits and giggles.

 

Look everyone, it's the funniest man in the world !

[Mokele]

How does my characterization of women as docile qualify judging me as misogynist?

 

Because it's precisely the sort of characterization misogynists use as a justification for why women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Because that myth (yes, myth) has been around for centuries, and has always been used to denigrate, trivialize and discriminate against women.

 

Your statement is as much misogynist as saying "all blacks are criminals" is racist.

 

I characterize women in general as docile and hence I hate, dislike, or mistrust women? Wow... such cutting, incisive use of logic! I am in awe.

 

See above. You use the same tactics used by men for centuries to legitimacize making women second-class citizens, and wonder why we see that as misogynist? You trot out a discriminatory idea that's known to be false, and don't expect to be called a misogynist? Sorry, that shit won't fly here. The 'weaker sex' crap is misogynist, period.

 

Didn't I say men are more aggressive and savage than women by nature? Why didn't anyone accuse me of misandry?

 

Because all discrimination is not equal. Men are not, and have never been, an oppressed group, as women have.

 

You guys ought to open your minds and stop thinking with your hearts. Yes, that noodle exists for a reason. It's not consuming 25% of your body's metabolic energy for shits and giggles.

 

This coming from the guy who makes a baseless, discriminatory statement without investing the trivial amount of thought needed to see how it's obviously false.

 

Seriously, turn off the computer, and go socialize. You'll find out just how wrong you are in short order.

 

Mokele