Triggering (Abuse): Rape Is Natural

[Guile]

I've been rather busy these past few weeks and failed to reach my monthly quota last months for "people pissed off". So I figured I might as well take care of this month, and retroactively last month, lest I make the bossman any more mad.

All humor aside, mega-trigger thread, be warned.

Let's avoid the evolution debate here, so just bear with me and can we all agree, pretend, or shut-up and agree that evolution happens under current scientific understanding.

Pre-Agriculture

Agriculture wasn't so much discovered as it was made practical. The big hitch to agriculture wasn't how to actually preform it, but how to store it. Agriculture is calories invested for a larger gain in the end, paying out at a single instant in time. That being two seasons invested in farming for a payout of four seasons worth of food. Unfortunately, this is not something that you get over time, but at harvest time, where you get your "payment" in a lump sum. Because of that you need to store it for the next year until harvest season comes around again.

On the other hand, hunting is a short period of work, for a small, immediate, reward, that will be consumed before it could go bad. As a result, hunting served as the primary means for survival for thousands of years, until adequate storage was invented. Because of this the idea of "my" was virtually nonexistent in pre-agrarian societies. Even in more modern times, such as the Native Americans, there was very little ownership (they having had very rudimentary farming). They didn't believe you could own land, and most personal property was no more then one could carry on their back. Compared to the Europeans and such who had a very strong idea of "My, mine, ours", who also had a tradition of agriculture.

All of this comes back to, rape was most likely far less traumatic in pre-agrarian societies, and even early-classical era societies. This being a result of their lack of ownership, not only of property, but the self, and their lack of preconceived ideals of human rights (artificial constructs). The major trauma experienced by victims now, is a result of our artificial notions of ownership, from property, to more specifically, our person, and rights as a person.

Genetic Implications

Human sexual patterns are a result of evolution and genetic factors, society and law are used as a means to equal the playing field and maintain order. Men invest extremely little in reproduction, with nearly three million sperm gametes per ejaculation it's a "theoretical" three million children that one could create (of course in practicality that's an impossibility). Women on the other hand invest a good deal, with only one egg per cycle, and a nine month pregnancy, plus risk of death in childbirth, they want to be far choosier with their mates then men. When a man reproduces he has no physical obligation to the child, as he could impregnate any number of women in a short period of time, and it's in his genetic interest to do so, as it ensures the survival of his genes to the next generation. Why put all your eggs in one basket (or your sperm in one woman ) when you could invest very little in having many women and therefore a likelier chance of continuing your genetic legacy.

Those sexual patterns mentioned before exist because take pedophilia and homosexuality, it's (from a genetic point of view), nonbenificial, you can't reproduce with a child, nor can you with a person of the same gender, so those factors have been bred out to a small segment of the population, as opposed to the men interested in pubescent and upwards girls who were able to reproduce.

Also interesting is that most rapes occur to women of childbearing age (80% being under the age of 30, and 9/10 of victims are women, and only 15% of rapes occurring to prepubescence individuals), even though they would be the most fit to resist. If rape were simply about dominance then it would be odd to choose victims so capable to fighting back. One must also consider the low percentage of violence in most rapes (of forcible rape, 84% didn't involve physical injury), even those that are forced, as for a man, it would be a bad idea to injure the person who would be carrying your genes to term. At the same time, for the woman, it would be best to resist as little as possible, lest she risk injury, and therefore, death. Theoretically then, humans are descended from the men who raped the most, and the women who fought back the least.

Rape is also observable in many species, from humans to primates to hundreds and hundreds of mammals. Rape fantasies are also the most common human fantasy, over half of college aged women have rape fantasies.

The final idea here is, rape is just about sex, and theories of "dominance motive" are simply feminist fallacies.

LOVE YOU ALL, HAVE FUN!!!

[Adam the Fish]

Interesting way of putting it

Whilst what you say is true, we are a modern society, and - for the most part - more civilised than the first humans.
In any case, it is generally considered morally wrong to rape someone in today's society, and I agree for the reasons you give about the risks of childbirth.

[NevermindMe]

Guile: However, people also once bashed each other's skulls in with rocks over anything from stealing food, to trespassing. This means those who were best at killing and defending were the ones who survived.

On a evolutionary scale, animals develop the concept of personal ownership before they understand the ownership of others, that means that stealing must be natural as well. By this definition, the people who stole the most must've been the ones to survive.

Rape was natural at one point, all free range chickens are a product of rape, as chickens aren't intelligent enough to understand consensual sex. However with the way our modern world is crafted, society would break down just as it would if killing/stealing were suddenly legal. It would also break down if rape were suddenly legal. It's also worth noting we, as human beings are smarter than free range chickens. Just as men don't fight to the death over territory as male chickens do, human men don't rape, as we simply know better.

Also worth noting, upon being castrated, male sex offenders generally move on to different violent crimes. Ben posted and interesting study a while back, if he doesn't find it/post it first, I'll dig it up.

- Justin

[Guile]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Guile: However, people also once bashed each other's skulls in with rocks over anything from stealing food, to trespassing. This means those who were best at killing and defending were the ones who survived.

On a evolutionary scale, animals develop the concept of personal ownership before they understand the ownership of others, that means that stealing must be natural as well. By this definition, the people who stole the most must've been the ones to survive.

Rape was natural at one point, all free range chickens are a product of rape, as chickens aren't intelligent enough to understand consensual sex. However with the way our modern world is crafted, society would break down just as it would if killing/stealing were suddenly legal. It would also break down if rape were suddenly legal. It's also worth noting we, as human beings are smarter than free range chickens. Just as men don't fight to the death over territory as male chickens do, human men don't rape, as we simply know better.

Also worth noting, upon being castrated, male sex offenders generally move on to different violent crimes. Ben posted and interesting study a while back, if he doesn't find it/post it first, I'll dig it up.

- Justin

Yes of course I know we've moved beyond that, as per the lack of street-wide rape-orgies (rapegies?) happening.

What I am arguing though, is that rape is about sex, not dominance, as feminists lead you to believe.

[NevermindMe]

Guile: True, but your average run-of-the-mill Joe isn't going to rape someone just because he hasn't got any in a few months.

I'd speculate it's attributed to two things:
1. Yes, dominance. This would explain the cases where offenders went on to other violent crimes upon castration.
2. Lack of control caused by a variety of things from mental disorder to simply being less evolved.

Anyhow, very interesting topic.

- Justin

[Adam the Fish]

Personally, I think that the thing I found most interesting is that, whatever points and counterarguments are made, the OP makes perfect sense!

[joeblow9999]

I could be wrong, but I could've sworn there was a correlation between a certain percentage of male rapists having had parental (or more specifically mother) issues during childhood and subsequent misogynistic power/dominance issues. Not that the idea of the feminists blowing things out of proportion (or to quote Kenji, "a feminist conspiracy!") is necessarily implausible, but it does make sense that at least some rapists would be motivated by the aforementioned personality traits. Misogyny is real, and it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that someone growing up with an abusive or neglectful mother might end up hating women later in life, and want to exert some form of vindictive dominance over them.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by JKmadu619

Guile: True, but your average run-of-the-mill Joe isn't going to rape someone just because he hasn't got any in a few months.

I'd speculate it's attributed to two things:
1. Yes, dominance. This would explain the cases where offenders went on to other violent crimes upon castration.
2. Lack of control caused by a variety of things from mental disorder to simply being less evolved.

Anyhow, very interesting topic.

- Justin

1. I think it has more to do with "Well I've raped so what, will I be a bad guy now?".

The rape is almost entirely about sex, they want it, and due to poor impulse control, they just take it. Yes, some are about dominance, but I think those ones are more into the mental area, because they're trying to fill an emotional and mental void.

2. No argument here.

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by Guile

1. I think it has more to do with "Well I've raped so what, will I be a bad guy now?".

The rape is almost entirely about sex, they want it, and due to poor impulse control, they just take it. Yes, some are about dominance, but I think those ones are more into the mental area, because they're trying to fill an emotional and mental void.

2. No argument here.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. In your original post, you ended by saying that rape is all about sex and theories of dominance are "feminist fallacies." Now you're saying that some are about dominance. So which is it then?

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

Now you're just contradicting yourself. In your original post, you ended by saying that rape is all about sex and theories of dominance are "feminist fallacies." Now you're saying that some are about dominance. So which is it then?

It is almost always due to sex, but of course with everything there are the occasional exceptions. I'm saying that there are a couple nuts in every bag.

[L'Aviatrice]

If a person is heinous enough to be a rapist, they will not have the moral capacity to know the difference between sex and dominance. They will see them as one and the same.

And, going back to your original post...

Also interesting is that most rapes occur to women of childbearing age (80% being under the age of 30, and 9/10 of victims are women, and only 15% of rapes occurring to prepubescence individuals), even though they would be the most fit to resist. If rape were simply about dominance then it would be odd to choose victims so capable to fighting back. One must also consider the low percentage of violence in most rapes (of forcible rape, 84% didn't involve physical injury), even those that are forced, as for a man, it would be a bad idea to injure the person who would be carrying your genes to term.

Based off of the statistics you offered, it sounds to me like you're suggesting that rapists rape because they want to reproduce... surely that cannot be the case.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by strange_quark

I could be wrong, but I could've sworn there was a correlation between a certain percentage of male rapists having had parental (or more specifically mother) issues during childhood and subsequent misogynistic power/dominance issues. Not that the idea of the feminists blowing things out of proportion (or to quote Kenji, "a feminist conspiracy!") is necessarily implausible, but it does make sense that at least some rapists would be motivated by the aforementioned personality traits. Misogyny is real, and it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that someone growing up with an abusive or neglectful mother might end up hating women later in life, and want to exert some form of vindictive dominance over them.

True, but Occam's Razor is a great theory here.

Sure, sometimes, occasional oddity and fluke, but overall the simplest answer is the best, sex is the reason for forced sex.

[joeblow9999]

Originally Posted by Guile

It is almost always due to sex, but of course with everything there are the occasional exceptions. I'm saying that there are a couple nuts in every bag.

Then you probably should've included that in your original post, instead of a sweeping assertion that dominance theories are feminist BS.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by strange_quark

Then you probably should've included that in your original post, instead of a sweeping assertion that dominance theories are feminist BS.

You don't need to add little lawyer annotations to everything.

Sure for everything you could go on,

"People steal money because they want money/goods"*

*Except in the cases of revenge, where they feel slighted, where the person deserves it, martyr, robin hood-ing, etc.

Overall though the point here is that, it's not the typical "MYSOGONY ERHMAGAHDS" reason that we've all heard, it's about sex.

[Age of Ignorance]

Are we attempting to make legal arguments here? Rape is not unnatural, fine, but it is still illegal. Rape is not about dominance, fine, I can accept that, but that doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral. It's about sex, fine, that's cool, I can accept that also. Well, I can accept that on one premise: murder is not unnatural (excuse the double negative; "it is natural" would give a different impression) and is about killing someone; assault and battery are not unnatural and are about direct contact with someone; statutory rape is not unnatural and is about dominance; sexual assault is not unnatural and is about getting to touch or grope someone's privates (ew, cooties).

See what I'm getting at?

Point is, at law, you don't need a specific motive to commit a crime. You only require the motive to perform the non-mens rea elements of the crime. Whether it's about dominance or sex, it doesn't matter - the main thing is that you intended to perform the elements that constitute the crime.

And further, "rape" itself is strictly a legal concept. I wouldn't go so far as to devise a motive for any social or psychological aspects of it.

[L'Aviatrice]

Originally Posted by Guile

You don't need to add little lawyer annotations to everything.

Sure for everything you could go on,

"People steal money because they want money/goods"*

*Except in the cases of revenge, where they feel slighted, where the person deserves it, martyr, robin hood-ing, etc.

Overall though the point here is that, it's not the typical "MYSOGONY ERHMAGAHDS" reason that we've all heard, it's about sex.

I think the reason, generally speaking, is greed and a sense of entitlement... greed towards sex, and an entitlement to have sex whenever, wherever, with whomever, with no regards for the well-being of their victim. This, mixed with psychological disorders, is the recipe for a rapist. Of course, as you said, there are outliers who have other motives.

[Snufkin]

If rape is about sex, then it would suggest there might be some basis in telling women not to dress a certain way because it would attract a potential rapist more than dressing conservatively would.

[joeblow9999]

Originally Posted by Guile

You don't need to add little lawyer annotations to everything.

Sure for everything you could go on,

"People steal money because they want money/goods"*

*Except in the cases of revenge, where they feel slighted, where the person deserves it, martyr, robin hood-ing, etc.

Overall though the point here is that, it's not the typical "MYSOGONY ERHMAGAHDS" reason that we've all heard, it's about sex.

But are motivations of sex and misogyny mutually exclusive? I'm going to go with no. People can also steal for both revenge and personal financial gain. It's certainly possible to hate women while still enjoying the sensation of putting your penis in a vagina. For some rapists, the dominance aspect is what gets them off, and the sensation of having sex is icing on the cake. In others it might be the other way around.

I'd be interested in seeing if there are statistics available showing the different forms of rape that are reported, i.e. vaginal and/or anal. Because, while those are all grouped into the broad category of "rape," pregnancy and reproduction is obviously not going to be an expected outcome of anal sex, and that doesn't really lend any support for your theory.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Guile

Those sexual patterns mentioned before exist because take pedophilia and homosexuality, it's (from a genetic point of view), nonbenificial, you can't reproduce with a child, nor can you with a person of the same gender, so those factors have been bred out to a small segment of the population, as opposed to the men interested in pubescent and upwards girls who were able to reproduce.

Homosexuality can be evolutionary beneficial through kin selection. The best way to explain it is as follows: you're a heterosexual and suppose you have a homosexual brother. You're correct that the brother cannot reproduce, however, he is able to help you secure a mate and can help indirectly support the mother through her pregnancy.

I agree though, I don't see how pedophilia is genetically beneficial.

Originally Posted by Guile

Also interesting is that most rapes occur to women of childbearing age (80% being under the age of 30, and 9/10 of victims are women, and only 15% of rapes occurring to prepubescence individuals), even though they would be the most fit to resist. If rape were simply about dominance then it would be odd to choose victims so capable to fighting back.

There are a few key pieces of data you're either unaware of or intentionally not including. First, when women ovulate, there are observations that they tend to be more willing or flirty, have a "glow" and secrete a greater amount of pheromones, all of which entice. Second, women in that age group are more likely to have a desired waist-hip ratio than elderly women. Third, at the time of the rape, a large amount of the victims currently were or used to be in a relationship with the rapist, so there already is some ease of access. Fourth, the victims tend to be rather young and at that age, more reckless, sociable and impulsive. To me, it's a combination of want for sex and dominance, although whether it's 50/50 is up for debate.

Originally Posted by Guile

One must also consider the low percentage of violence in most rapes (of forcible rape, 84% didn't involve physical injury)

Of these, how many of the men were currently in a relationship with the victim? By relationship, I mean boyfriend, husband, friend or someone the female knows and maybe trusts. Point is, with familiarity, the female is more receptive and will not be as defensive. There is also the possibility for the relationship to have been rather abusive and the woman learned from unfortunate experiences that if she resists more, she will incur more damage, however, may still have love for him.

Originally Posted by Guile

Rape fantasies are also the most common human fantasy, over half of college aged women have rape fantasies.

This supports either view equally, however, again, the rape fantasies are presumably with someone they know and trust won't hurt them.

Overall, interesting debate.

[Silmarwen]

I can agree that rape might have been natural at some point but it is and has to be one thing on a long list of natural things that we humans used to do but we've stopped doing now, but we stopped doing when our beloved intelligence came around. Sure, before we started making fires to cook our food, herding animals rather than hunting them and learned how to build our own shelters, then rape might have been an "okay" way to go about it, but I'm fairly certain we can all agree that we've moved along from this now, and that women have evolved a strong enough sense of self to be allowed to decide who should be allowed to put their seed in her one and only egg.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Silmarwen

I can agree that rape might have been natural at some point but it is and has to be one thing on a long list of natural things that we humans used to do but we've stopped doing now, but we stopped doing when our beloved intelligence came around.

Despite our beloved intelligence, I'm fairly certain rape still does occur.

Originally Posted by Silmarwen

Sure, before we started making fires to cook our food, herding animals rather than hunting them and learned how to build our own shelters, then rape might have been an "okay" way to go about it, but I'm fairly certain we can all agree that we've moved along from this now, and that women have evolved a strong enough sense of self to be allowed to decide who should be allowed to put their seed in her one and only egg.

You have an incredibly poor understanding of evolution and biology. Women have more than one, "egg". Additionally, hundreds of thousands of years ago when humans marveled over learning to make fires, women were already deciding who they would like to mate with. It's not something that is new to women as you make it out to be.

[Silmarwen]

Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!

Despite our beloved intelligence, I'm fairly certain rape still does occur.



You have an incredibly poor understanding of evolution and biology. Women have more than one, "egg". Additionally, hundreds of thousands of years ago when humans marveled over learning to make fires, women were already deciding who they would like to mate with. It's not something that is new to women as you make it out to be.

Oh mighty, I obviously know that women have more than one egg through their lifetime, but as I was building on (possibly poorly) the argument made in the first post about the amount of extra work and and sacrifice a woman has to put into a pregnancy as opposed to a man (as we're only able to have one kid going for us at the time, and it takes nine months, and the fact that we have _one egg at the time, and then it bleeds out and we get a new one. Pretty much. Don't worry, I go through this enough to have at least a basic understanding of what I'm talking about (but of course I'm not a biologist))
I think you might have misunderstood the argument I was making; rape happened before, and I understand what it happened before and I'm more ... okay with it happening before. Of course it didn't happen for everyone and every single mating that happened wasn't a rape, but back then it was considered natural. I'm not okay with rape happening today. At all - but I'm very aware of its continued existence. We're in an intelligent society (believe it or not), and yes, rape does happen, but we should know and understand better than that by now : )

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Silmarwen

Oh mighty, I obviously know that women have more than one egg through their lifetime, but as I was building on (possibly poorly) the argument made in the first post about the amount of extra work and and sacrifice a woman has to put into a pregnancy as opposed to a man (as we're only able to have one kid going for us at the time, and it takes nine months, and the fact that we have _one egg at the time, and then it bleeds out and we get a new one. Pretty much. Don't worry, I go through this enough to have at least a basic understanding of what I'm talking about (but of course I'm not a biologist))
I think you might have misunderstood the argument I was making; rape happened before, and I understand what it happened before and I'm more ... okay with it happening before. Of course it didn't happen for everyone and every single mating that happened wasn't a rape, but back then it was considered natural. I'm not okay with rape happening today. At all - but I'm very aware of its continued existence. We're in an intelligent society (believe it or not), and yes, rape does happen, but we should know and understand better than that by now : )

What about the fact that most men nowadays reproduce. But competition for mates, where the majority of people don't reproduce, builds a healthier human race?

Bring back rape and fighting for mates?

[thebigmole]

Your first post actually makes sense. However I'd say that there isn't rape that's ONLY just for sex. Because if a guy really wants sex, that's what hookers are for.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Your first post actually makes sense. However I'd say that there isn't rape that's ONLY just for sex. Because if a guy really wants sex, that's what hookers are for.

I'd disagree there.

I myself am very averse to the idea of American hookers, they're a hotbed for STDs and drugs, I'd honestly be less worried for my personal health/safety in a rape then I would hiring a hooker.

Isn't that just sad? (Let's not start a war here on why we need to legalize prostitution though)