International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324594)

calebprime 10th November 2017 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12070572)
I am not sure that I understand you correctly: Are you talking about actual movies (Weinstein, Spacey) or 'movies in your head', i.e. masturbatory fantasies? (as long as they remain fantasies only, they don't hurt anybody)

There is a moral distinction which has been lost for some movie makers, I think.

I'm saying that everyone is a director of his or her own images, but some people involve other people in these fantasies. Some do it on a grand professional scale. Some do it cruelly and even illegally.

Sorry, dann. What I was trying to do was sort of reach into my inner glop and find continuity with every other male pig in the world. And then compare and contrast.

[see: Camille Paglia (men are fetishists)]

dann 10th November 2017 08:12 AM

You mean this one - or some of her old stuff?

calebprime 10th November 2017 08:18 AM

Oh, yes, her, but yikes! I'm 40 years out of date. Her old stuff.

I was thinking of __Sexual Personae__.

The actual benefit here might be that she took the view that every author is a vampire and a pervert, so let's look at every poem that way -- I'm exaggerating a little!

The result was a sexual frankness and lack of pearl-clutching that was refreshing at the time. Also made old poems dirtier, more exciting.

dann 10th November 2017 08:23 AM

I hadn't heard of her. I'll look into it.

This is a surprise (about the new one):
Quote:

At times infuriating, at times glittering, Paglia’s prose is always biting and relentless. It’s more effective, however, when praising Madonna’s sexuality than defending date rape.
27 Nonfiction Books By Women Everyone Should Read This Year (Huffington)

Ron_Tomkins 10th November 2017 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069131)
What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?

Have you tried asking them?

dann 10th November 2017 08:36 AM

I don't know any confirmed rapistst!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12062313)
I have mentioned this in discussions with other men, and they also seem (of course, some might be lying; it's hard to tell, but I didn't get that impression) to think that the whole idea of having sex with somebody who isn't really into having sex with you is repulsive.


calebprime 10th November 2017 08:41 AM

The purpose of reading her would be to challenge your reasonable self -- she intended to be a little provocative.

She was a bit "men will be men, men are pigs, men are fetishists, get used to it".

The thing is, art and life are different domains, obviously.

What is gloriously exciting in fantasy and in art doesn't work in life.

Unless you deliberately combine the two and are rich, maybe. And have good lawyers.

No. To be frank, I'm only glad that I don't have to be morally ashamed of my particular sexual fantasies. Only by the degree that I gave in to them by being greedy for pleasure and deliberately cultivating my own scenarios rather than the opposite approach: sex like a spartan diet -- just as much as necessary. Perhaps someone who never cultivated those vines would be less occasionally appalled with himself. Not for how he's hurt other people, but for how he turns into a different person with different desires, depending. Sex could be as bland as oatmeal, or it could be something you cultivate to extremes: think about autorerotic self-asphyxia.

Someone who goes to extremes is to some degree to blame: We expect people to control themselves.

dann 10th November 2017 10:53 AM

I'm not sure that I can follow you. That is, "sex like a spartan diet -- just as much as necessary." Necessary?! Sex is fun, sex is enjoyable. Why not indulge if you're with a partner who feels the same way? (Or if you're not, on your own.)
"Sex could be as bland as oatmeal, or it could be something you cultivate to extremes: think about autorerotic self-asphyxia."

I don't really get the contradiction, which seems to be based on the idea of indulging to the extent where it may kill you, which really isn't possible as long as we are talking about sexual intercourse. Auto-erotic self-asphyxiation is not the extreme end of a scale. At least, I don't think that it is. I've never tried it, I've never felt the least bit tempted, i.e. I don't see the point.

I feel the same way about stuff like poppers meant to enhance the pleasure you get from sex. I don't need it, I don't even feel the slightest bit tempted, and I am not even curious about what it would feel like. I don't think that poppers sound very sexy! (And I feel the same way about stuff like tantric sex etc: Why would I want to postpone my orgasm? Why would I want to learn how to hold back? ('Relax, don't do it!') If I were troubled by premature ejaculation, I might consider it, but as it is, I don't see the point.)

Controlling ourselves, yes, maybe, but I don't think that I walk around controlling myself, and I can't see how it might be a question of 'going to extremes'. Some people would definitely have to control themselves: A character of fiction, played by the other Kevin in The Woodsman: He is sexually attracted to children, knows that living out this desire would hurt them, and so he chooses to abstain. Very admirable, in my opinion, but only because of the direction of his sexual desire. (And I don't know what turns people into pedophiles. I suspect that it is also a kind of power trip, but once (?) you have this particular fantasy/desire, the best thing you can do is probably to seek help. But I have a hard time seeing it on a scale of extremes: Having sex with a child even once is once too many.)

But on the other hand, if two people (adult, consenting etc.) want to or feel the need to have sex five times a day, I would say go for it! Good for you! You may have to remind yourselves to get up for work and maybe pick up the children after school, but apart from that: no problem whatsoever!

My point is that I don't really think that most people need to "control themselves" in this respect. And I also think that the attempts to control oneself may have something to do with the need or temptation to 'go to extremes.' (Like the poor girls who try to control themselves and end up with an eating disorder.)

I've kindled the Paglia book and look forward to reading it. I am reading the British Romantic poets with a class right now, and she seems to write some interesting things about Byron and Shelley! :)

Butter! 10th November 2017 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12070564)
Sorry about getting your hackles up!



No, I think you understand me. It's the misogyny (or in the case of Spacey probably a kind of homophobia but expressed in the sexual act that I find difficult to understand - and you appear to have the same difficulties.
I can understand misogyny as such. It is easlily recognizable in some of the early lyrics by Mick Jagger:

Under My Thumb
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Yesterday’s Papers
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Out of Time
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And it's not that I find his contempt for the women he sings about/to less irrational than the contempt expressed by the sexual predators, but in his lyrics the misogyny is separate from and not entangled with the desire in the sexual act.

Ah! I think I've got you now. :) Forgive me for snapping, I shouldn't even have been posting yesterday. I was doing too many things at once.

That is a whole other kettle of discussion fish than my parroted, outdated clinical drivel, and one I'd like to explore more. I have to take a 2-hour train ride this evening (dreading it), so I will check back with some thoughts then. Trains have wifi now, which I quite enjoy.

fuelair 10th November 2017 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069282)
Considered, yes, but I don't think that's the case. A similar theory existed about rape a long time ago: Rapists wanted to have sex, that's all, but since they hadn't succeeded to have sex with a consensual partner, they would rape somebody instead. However, nowadays the consensus seems to be that rape is more about power than about sex. That many rapists are married seems to confirm that view. Also, if they don't care if a partner is into them or not, an alternative would be to go to a prostitute. Instead they rape, which seems to indicate that what turns them on isn't sex but rape.
Drug rape is also odd: People usually prefer a partner who is active (or at least conscious). Sex with a person who's drugged seems to come close to necrophilia. (And IIRC, that's how Jeffrey Dahmer started.)

By the way, I find your "just" a little weird.

I assumed it was simply a limiting notice (as in the only reason rather than as one of multiple reasons).

Ron Swanson 10th November 2017 08:15 PM

I have to say in answer to this question I REALLY have NO idea why anyone would want that :(

Maybe that's why we have so many laws in this regard!

dann 10th November 2017 10:15 PM

I don't know if there are more laws in this area than in others, but I think that the difficulty for the law is that the two persons who engage in intercourse (or not) don't usually sit down and sign a contract of consent before they consummate their relationship. That would have made it so much easier for a lawyer!

Quote:

using consent to distinguish between assaultative and non-assaultative forms of sexual contact does not mean that adults must have a written, signed agreement before engaging in physical intimacy. Nor does it even mean that partners must verbally express their consent to sexual contact. "Consent for an intimate physical intrusion into the body should mean in sexual interactions what it means in every other context—affirmative permission clearly signaled by words or conduct." There are many ways to make this permission clear through verbal and nonverbal cues. Permission is not manifested, however, though silence or ambivalence.”
Consent, Force and Coercion

'I, XX, being of sound mind and judgement, hereby consent to let my body be intimately, physically intruded into by the other party, YY, …'

It reminds me of a case from the late 1970s when a rapist, a student of law and chairman of the conservative student organization RCDS (Ring Christlich-Demokratischer Studenten) in Germany (West) made his victim sign a contract like this. A Marxist student group, the enemies of the RCDS, of course, published an article in their newspaper MSZ that pretended to defend the rapist by pointing out how being the leader of the RCDS and a student of law had led him to believe that it was acceptable behavior to force young women to have sex against their will as long as he had them sign a contract post festum.

Against the bad practice of dragging RCDS students into the dirt (Marxistische Studenten Zeitung (MSZ), May 1977)

The article is very funny, but the case obviously wasn't! Google Translate produces a fairly readable version in English.

dann 11th November 2017 06:01 AM

I would like to elaborate on something I wrote in post 44 when I mentioned:
Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12070252)
the rape scene in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America (the really ugly rape scene, not the funny one!).


"Funny rape" is an oxymoron, of course. One of the more memorable cinematic rape scenes is the one in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange where Alex rapes a woman while performing Singing in the Rain. Alex and the other members of his gang find the whole thing funny, but the victims, the woman who is raped and her husband who is crippled, don't, of course, and neither do the people watching the movie - except for the scattered psychos in the audience, maybe. That Alex considers it to be a joke makes the whole thing even worse. It's a rape scene (not the only one in the movie), and it isn't funny.

What makes the first rape scene funny in 'Once Upon a Time' (but not the first time you watch it) is that it isn't really rape: Noodles and his gang are robbing a jewelry store, and while the robbery is going on Noodles appears to rape one of the employees, who appears to enjoy it in spite of her protests. This makes the scene very disturbing the first time around because you think that the director has recreated the misogynistic stereotype of victims of rape enjoying the experience.

However, later the woman appears to have been in on the whole thing from the very beginning. She isn't a victim, she is an accomplice to the robbery, and 'raping' her was a way of making her appear to be a victim - the police won't suspect her, the rape victim, of all people! - similar to the many films where an insider, an accomplice, is roughed up (and asking to be roughed up) in order to make him seem to be a victim.*
The first time you watch the scene, it's disturbing. The next time(s) you watch it (if you remember), you are in on the joke, which is what makes the scene funny.

And if somebody misunderstands the scene to mean that rape in general is fun - and I think that some people do - the film makes up for it with the later rape scene, which ought to be compulsory watching for everybody.


However, the movie's attitude to prostitution is debatable.

* I just watched the scene again (the first one). I had forgotten that the 'rape victim' in the movie also asks to be roughed up, but the first time you see it, she appears to be a masochist. Only later do you discover her true reason for wanting to be bruised as well as 'raped'.

Ron_Tomkins 11th November 2017 09:59 PM

Actually, rape can be very funny and George Carlin already explained in detail how

dann 12th November 2017 01:04 AM

No, unfortunately the guy may go into great detail, but he doesn't explain anything, and what's worse in the context is that he isn't even funny. What has the outward appearance of jokes only works with his audience because they're willing to laugh at the most stupid stereotypes, thus confirming them.

E.g: A guy who rapes an 81-year-old woman while breaking and entering is a loser - not because he's raping as well as breaking and entering, but because he's raping an old woman.

George Carlin pretends to sympathize with sensible feminist substitutes of certain words: humankind instead of mankind, for instance, but only to come up with absurd examples that he himself invented for the purpose (a pretty easy exercise): "personholes" instead of "manholes"), pretending that those are the changes that feminists propose in order to make them look ridiculous (and also pretending that the feminists to whom this question seems important are incapable of coming up with better suggestions). (We know the stereotype: 'It's political correctness gone mad.')

And arrived at that point, he crowns it with: "If you wanna piss off a feminist, call her a cum catcher," a 'joke' that he justifies by pointing at the audience, many of which are couples, thus 'proving' that this is what women really are: cum catchers!

And an <SNIP RULE 10> like George Carlin probably doesn't even know what he's doing: denigrating women by reducing them to one small part of what they may do as part of having sex - which he has already debased with his use of the language, which only picks up on an old tradition: 'sperm receptacles', for instance, or all the variations of 'Women are good for one thing only.' We're all familiar with the stupidity of these stereotypes that imply that women are soiled by having sex, which, by the way, might be the subject matter of a clever comedian (which it probably already is).

That might also be a way of making jokes about rape that are actually funny: by looking at the stupid ideas of rapists: the bad excuses, the attitude that the victims deserve to be raped. I'm not saying that it is impossible to make a funny rape joke. (Which is very different from your: "rape can be very funny." No, it can't!) I'm only saying that George Carlin isn't up for the job: A rapist is supposed to be ridiculous because he rapes an old woman instead of a young one? Really?! And that's the whole joke?! You gotta be kidding!
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 0

Brainster 12th November 2017 11:31 AM

I'll mention here that it used to be a fairly common trope in pornography that resistance is only pro-forma, and that once the sex act starts, the former refusenik enjoys it every bit as much as the ravisher. Indeed, this was not uncommon in romance novels as well; the term "bodice-ripper" was used to describe those books.

Delvo 12th November 2017 08:25 PM

In a lot of people's cases, this looks like a fairly straightforward expansion on something that, in its original milder form, is already naturally built in to most straight sexual relationships. The physical differences between men & women doesn't just exist in a vacuum; they're the main thing that makes us want to have sex, and they significantly affect how having sex works. Typically, in any straight couple, the man is physically capable of pinning the woman down, or pinning her to a wall, or picking her up, or changing her position to whatever position he wants her in, and so on, and she really has no ability to either do any of the same to him or physically stop him from doing it to her. And they both like it this way and enjoy demonstrations of this disparity, to such an extent that sex would seem weirdly restrained and lifeless, including to her, if he held back from it too much. The problem, then, would be people who take this too far.

dann 12th November 2017 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12073136)
I'll mention here that it used to be a fairly common trope in pornography that resistance is only pro-forma, and that once the sex act starts, the former refusenik enjoys it every bit as much as the ravisher. Indeed, this was not uncommon in romance novels as well; the term "bodice-ripper" was used to describe those books.

That’s true. And it’s possible (or at least, I think that it was possible at some point in the past) for a sexual coercer to be under the impression that at some point the unwilling woman would give up her resistance to the adamant coercer and actually enjoy the act. But, of course, that excuse (ignorance, false perception) would be valid only once, and among sexual coercers the persistent group seems to be the biggest:
Quote:

… researchers identified four sexually coercive groups (i.e., noncoercer, desister, initiator, and persistent) with past sexual coercion being the biggest predictor of sexual coercion.
Sexually Harmful Youth – Successful Reintegration to School (Springer, 2016)
In Once Upon a Time in America, Noodles also seems to suffer from this delusion, expecting Deborah, the woman he's been attracted to his whole life, to surrender to his assault, but at least he is disgusted with himself when he realizes that he is nothing but a rapist. His past experience with prostitutes earlier in the movie seems to have contributed to his delusion.

dann 12th November 2017 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delvo (Post 12073615)
In a lot of people's cases, this looks like a fairly straightforward expansion on something that, in its original milder form, is already naturally built in to most straight sexual relationships. The physical differences between men & women doesn't just exist in a vacuum; they're the main thing that makes us want to have sex, and they significantly affect how having sex works. Typically, in any straight couple, the man is physically capable of pinning the woman down, or pinning her to a wall, or picking her up, or changing her position to whatever position he wants her in, and so on, and she really has no ability to either do any of the same to him or physically stop him from doing it to her.


Yes, men are usually bigger and stronger than women.

Quote:

And they both like it this way and enjoy demonstrations of this disparity, to such an extent that sex would seem weirdly restrained and lifeless, including to her, if he held back from it too much. The problem, then, would be people (?) who take this too far.

Sometimes a woman may want to be pinned down, but that is not always the case, and it doesn't mean that it is OK to pin her down when she indicates that it isn't. So it's not just a question of taking it too far. Pinning somebody down who doesn't want to be pinned down is always taking it too far.
And if you actually think that sex without pinning her down is restrained and lifeless, I think that you're deluded.
What you are describing is the trope in pornography and romance novels mentioned by Brainster.

ponderingturtle 13th November 2017 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069622)
And aren't they even aware that they're actively trying to interpret what's going on as consent? They actually think that freezing up is the state a woman is in when enjoying or looking forward to having sex? (Unlike many others, that is one delusion you probably won't get from watching porn!)
To me the description sounds like a very bad excuse from somebody who feels entitled to have sex with an unwilling partner.

Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.

Delphic Oracle 13th November 2017 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069346)
What would make it instinctual? I know that you can find analogous behavior in the animal kingdom, but still … It also wouldn't explain how the alleged primal instincts would be transformed into human consciousness and concepts.
The reciprocity of the sexual act seems to be how we humans usually enjoy having sex so how do you go from that to the (apparently) complete lack of empathy?

For myself, this is critical. As in I can hardly even maintain ..err... adequate blood flow if my partner appears to be anything less than enthusiastic about our activities.

But I suspect that's hardly the norm, given the typical range of women's reported sexual satisfaction.

I've understood for years, though, that "rape isn't about sexual satisfaction." Since sexual activity occurred, most of us well-adjusted types conclude that must have been the goal, right? What would anyone need to add to that?!

Sex is the weapon used, yes. The goal is to overthrow another person's will, to instill in them shame, humiliation, utter helplessness, self-doubt, etc. It is quite simply among the worst kinds of abuses that a human being can inflict on another.

fuelair 13th November 2017 06:28 AM

<snip>

Edited by TubbaBlubba:  Removed for Rule 9 breach.

Bikewer 13th November 2017 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12073887)
Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.

I know from my studies that there are several different types of rapists, so they are not monolithic. One type is the serial rapist who is deluded to believe that if he only has sex with the woman, she will reciprocate and fall in love with him.
These people may use the threat of violence... Usually a knife or something equally intimidating, but rarely if ever physically assault the victim. When arrested, they frequently make repeated attempts to re-contact their victims, sure that they now have a “relationship”.

We have had a couple here in the area. One was a police officer....

The other, the “South Side Rapist”, had something like 30 victims. This particular type is often referred to as “gentlemen rapists” in older literature because they don’t harm the victim.
It’s been noted that if the victim resists these people, they will often cease the attack. They can’t understand why the victim would resist.

Yet there is another type who is excited by the struggles and attempted resistance of the victim. These people are usually extremely violent, and resistance on the part of the victim will only excite them to further violence. Death is not uncommon.
Money thought that a certain variety of serial killer was also exhibiting a paraphilia involving violent rape:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

dann 13th November 2017 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12073930)
I've understood for years, though, that "rape isn't about sexual satisfaction." Since sexual activity occurred, most of us well-adjusted types conclude that must have been the goal, right? What would anyone need to add to that?!

Sex is the weapon used, yes. The goal is to overthrow another person's will, to instill in them shame, humiliation, utter helplessness, self-doubt, etc. It is quite simply among the worst kinds of abuses that a human being can inflict on another.

I think it's probably both: They get off sexually on overthrowing another person's will etc. The way Bikewer describes it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikewer (Post 12073977)
Yet there is another type who is excited by the struggles and attempted resistance of the victim. These people are usually extremely violent, and resistance on the part of the victim will only excite them to further violence. Death is not uncommon.
Money thought that a certain variety of serial killer was also exhibiting a paraphilia involving violent rape:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

A very bizarre case in Copenhagen, still under investigation:
Kim Wall: What we know about macabre submarine death case (BBC News, Oct. 30, 2017)
The guy used to frequent fetish clubs - who, by the way, must have a serious problem with keeping people like this away

dann 13th November 2017 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12073887)
Sure, but they have the "they never said no"

I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.


I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!

calebprime 13th November 2017 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12074233)
I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!

No, I think what he's talking about is more that the male here is obsessed and believes there is some kind of romantic bond when there isn't one -- possibly some weird variant of the severely socially inept, I don't know.

I do know that one-sided stalker relationships exist where the stalker wills him or herself constantly to believe that there is a mutual relationship.

So I think this is different from Weinstein, who is different from Dahmer, who is different from Woody Allen, who is different from Submarine Man.

It looks like I'm a splitter rather than a lumper. The reason is that I want thinking to be cool and careful rather than broad-brush and moral and wtf.

Dahmer's father writes an extremely sad book in which he speculates about how what he calls "the engine" of his son's sexuality became attached to increasingly weird stuff.

ponderingturtle 13th November 2017 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12074233)
I've heard about similar cases, but I don't understand what they're thinking. That it's ladylike to pretend to resist and that the woman's being demure??!

The thing is that they are not resisting, they are freezing up. The post I cited never had her resisting, just saying no and not fighting back.

ponderingturtle 13th November 2017 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12074237)
No, I think what he's talking about is more that the male here is obsessed and believes there is some kind of romantic bond when there isn't one -- possibly some weird variant of the severely socially inept, I don't know.

Not obsessed, just not getting that there is a difference between frozen panic and consent.

calebprime 13th November 2017 10:58 AM

Ok. I was speculating why a stalker-type person may completely distort the truth to themselves.

ponderingturtle 13th November 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12074260)
Ok. I was speculating why a stalker-type person may completely distort the truth to themselves.

That is a separate issue. I was talking about cases where people have gotten through the idea that no means no, but assume yes in the absence of a clear no. So if the victim freezes up and stops responding they think it is consensual.

It is the same reaction that molesters on the subway use.

Beerina 13th November 2017 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12069357)
All I can think of is that such people have given up on getting a willing partner and are evoking some primitive right to take what they want as reward for their perceived status.


It probably is primitive, with descriptions being our higher-level rationalizations.

Evolution is ripe with an alpha male dominating the pack then mounting his choice of female. At this time, or shortly thereafter when the male is sated, the betas swoop in and try to sneakily mate.

Of course these are animals, and the females may have little mating dance and just stand there and be mated with, which then feels good, end of evolutionary story.


Now add a giant brain and that throws a monkey wrench into the whole process, and on both sides. The sanctity of one's own body explodes in emotional importance, as does the ability to be sneaky.

mgidm86 13th November 2017 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beerina (Post 12074315)
It probably is primitive, with descriptions being our higher-level rationalizations.

Evolution is ripe with an alpha male dominating the pack then mounting his choice of female. At this time, or shortly thereafter when the male is sated, the betas swoop in and try to sneakily mate.

Of course these are animals, and the females may have little mating dance and just stand there and be mated with, which then feels good, end of evolutionary story.


Now add a giant brain and that throws a monkey wrench into the whole process, and on both sides. The sanctity of one's own body explodes in emotional importance, as does the ability to be sneaky.

We are just animals too. One of our big problems, in my opinion, is that we forget that. Almost all human behavior comes as no surprise if you think of us as just another species.

Funny (the highlited) - animals seem to be happier than we are, or at the very least more well adjusted. We try and make something more out of sex than it is - they just boink each other and are fine with it. Our big brains are pretty much one big hang-up.

dann 13th November 2017 11:13 PM

No! They definitely don't seem to be happier than we are. And they don't "just boink each other and are fine with it."
Now, I suppose you aren't talking about spiders or praying mantises, but even if we look at some of our closest relatives, that doesn't seem to be the case:
Quote:

Males charge at females, rip out their hair and kick, slap or beat them. Males often kill the babies of rivals to increase the availability of females to mate again.
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People (As it turns out: not much! dann)

On the other hand, if we look at bonobos, sexual aggression doesn't seem to occur. Still, I don't think you can compare human sexuality with animal behavior and get any reasonable explanations for rape or any other kind of sexual coercion:
Quote:

Hunger is hunger, but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a different hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand, nail and tooth.
Karl Marx: Grundrisse

Not even among bonobos do you see many scented candles, Kamasutras or Victoria's Secrets. And even among chimps, date rape drugs were never really in vogue.
And in spite of a tendency in some circles to idealize bonobos in this respect, their kind of sex leaves much to be desired:
Quote:

Sex among bonobos is usually about 10 seconds in duration. Most often, it does not appear to involve orgasm by either individual, no matter the sexes.Questioning the “sexy” bonobo hype

Even premature ejaculators will probably feel smug at this point of the comparison! :)

dann 15th November 2017 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12073887)
I certainly know women who have said that their rapist asked them out on a second date. The guys certainly did not see what they did as rape.


That appears to be one of three types of rapists described by psychologist Nicholas Groth, who calls this type the power assertive rapist:

Quote:

The power rapists tends to have fantasies about sexual conquests and rape. They may believe that even though the victim initially resists them, that once they overpower their victim, the victim will eventually enjoy the rape. The rapist believes that the victim enjoyed what was done to them, and they may even ask the victim to meet them for a date later.
Power assertive rapist (Wikipedia)

Ron_Tomkins 17th November 2017 09:36 AM

Here's why I think such questions are basically a waste of time (unless you're really bored and have a lot of time on your hands): There's probably an infinite number of reasons why an individual may wanna have sex with an unwilling partner. It's different for each individual, and each individual case. However, I think it is up for them (the individuals in question) to figure out why they want that. Not us. Because regardless of whether we figure that out in this forum, the people who are engaging in that activity, are gonna keep doing it.

dann 18th November 2017 02:32 AM

Here's why I think such answers are basically a waste of time: There's definitely an infinite number of reasons why people choose to believe in weird things. People are all different, so it's not up to us to figure out why each individual person believes what he or she believes. People will continue to do so anyway.

Right?!

No, not really.
First of all, you could say almost the same thing about animals: Each animal is slightly different from the others so it's no use studying them, systematizing them, dividing them into groups, and subdividing them because … well, they're still gonna stay animals.

Psychological research has already come a long way systematizing rapists, dividing them into groups with similar ideas and similar behavior, which is necessary if you're at all interested in finding a way of dealing with the them in a rational way.

I always get suspicious when somebody presents me with nonsensical reasons why a certain theme (for instance religion, superstition or rape) can't be studied and explained. It's fairly easy to see why some people don't want religion to be researched: They suspect that their beliefs aren't rational, that they can't stand the light of day, but instead of being honest and rational about this, they rationalize and claim that what they don't want to happen just can't be done.

Have you considered the real reason why "such questions" bother you in this case?

Mycroft 18th November 2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12070831)
I feel the same way about stuff like poppers meant to enhance the pleasure you get from sex. I don't need it, I don't even feel the slightest bit tempted, and I am not even curious about what it would feel like. I don't think that poppers sound very sexy! (And I feel the same way about stuff like tantric sex etc: Why would I want to postpone my orgasm? Why would I want to learn how to hold back? ('Relax, don't do it!') If I were troubled by premature ejaculation, I might consider it, but as it is, I don't see the point.)

Just for informative purposes:

My understanding is that the primary effect of poppers is to relax the sphincter muscle, making anal sex less painful and more enjoyable and that the high you get from it is secondary. I don't have first hand experience with this, so your mileage may vary.

The point of postponing orgasm in tantric sex is that the moments leading up to orgasm are amazing too, so extending that is your goal. Orgasm itself may be a tad bit better, but it also brings things to an end, can't be extended much for men, and drains your energy.

Mycroft 18th November 2017 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12073136)
I'll mention here that it used to be a fairly common trope in pornography that resistance is only pro-forma, and that once the sex act starts, the former refusenik enjoys it every bit as much as the ravisher. Indeed, this was not uncommon in romance novels as well; the term "bodice-ripper" was used to describe those books.

I'm reminded of a comment my dad made once when we were watching a movie together. The plot was a woman seeking revenge for having been raped by killing her rapists (Dirty Harry movie?) and my dad said it would have saved everyone a lot of grief if she's just admitted that she liked it.

That was probably 30 years ago or so, but I strongly doubt my dad was the only person who thought that way.

dann 19th November 2017 01:52 AM

He wasn't, and unfortunately it's still a common trope.
An almost 100-year-old Danish song goes: "Din mund siger nej, men dine řjne siger ja."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I didn't know that it was a translation of an old American song: "There's yes, yes, in your eyes."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I wonder how many rapists were inspired by this song …

dann 19th November 2017 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12082425)
My understanding is that the primary effect of poppers is to relax the sphincter muscle


Not according to any of the explanations I've found:
Wikipedia
Medical advisory site (in Danish)
I also can't imagine why anyone would want to "relax the sphincter muscle" during a rave party ...

Quote:

The point of postponing orgasm in tantric sex is that the moments leading up to orgasm are amazing too, so extending that is your goal. Orgasm itself may be a tad bit better, but it also brings things to an end, can't be extended much for men, and drains your energy.

The advocates of tantric sex that I've met never seemed reliable, and their claims of heightened pleasure always remind me of the happiness that some Christians say that they get from meeting Jesus. Not very convincing.
So far, I've been quite satisfied with the chemically and spiritually unenhanced "end". That it "drains your energy" is part of the tantric myth! It relaxes you, definitely, so you won't feel the need to get up and run a marathon immediately after, but it's the kind of relaxation that most people seem to enjoy. Basking in the afterglow doesn't really need to be enhanced. If you feel this way, you didn't do it right.

theprestige 19th November 2017 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12082926)
He wasn't, and unfortunately it's still a common trope.
An almost 100-year-old Danish song goes: "Din mund siger nej, men dine řjne siger ja."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I didn't know that it was a translation of an old American song: "There's yes, yes, in your eyes."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I wonder how many rapists were inspired by this song …

"The mouth says no, but the eyes say yes?"

dann 19th November 2017 02:54 PM

Pretty close! :)
din = your, cf. German: dein (or 'Shakespeare English': thy/thine)

Delphic Oracle 19th November 2017 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12082425)
Just for informative purposes:

My understanding is that the primary effect of poppers is to relax the sphincter muscle, making anal sex less painful and more enjoyable and that the high you get from it is secondary. I don't have first hand experience with this, so your mileage may vary.

The point of postponing orgasm in tantric sex is that the moments leading up to orgasm are amazing too, so extending that is your goal. Orgasm itself may be a tad bit better, but it also brings things to an end, can't be extended much for men, and drains your energy.

I've never understood why orgasm=end.

I'm afflicted like most women (I know of). The first one takes a lot of work and after that we're good to go.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Mycroft 19th November 2017 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12083531)
I've never understood why orgasm=end.

I'm afflicted like most women (I know of). The first one takes a lot of work and after that we're good to go.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

It sounds like you have excelent motivation to be with a person interested in tantric sex.

Brainster 19th November 2017 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12082926)
He wasn't, and unfortunately it's still a common trope.
An almost 100-year-old Danish song goes: "Din mund siger nej, men dine řjne siger ja."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I didn't know that it was a translation of an old American song: "There's yes, yes, in your eyes."

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

I wonder how many rapists were inspired by this song …

And of course the old gag about how the woman says, "Don't! Stop!" and a few moments later, "Don't stop!"

There was a thread a Christmas or two ago about the famous song, Baby It's Cold Outside, and whether it hinted at date rape (certainly it qualifies as sexual pressure). Some people pointed out that it was a different time back then, that women experienced a lot of social pressure not to have sex outside of marriage. But hormones were raging in them just like the young men they were dating. So the solution became to put up enough resistance to gauge the longer-term prospects and to establish that you weren't a "slut".

Well, because young men in particular like to boast of their sexual conquests, the story gets around that a lot of women say no initially but eventually consent. And that gets interpreted as "They wanted it all along, they just didn't know it." Completely understandable, but certainly incorrect.

dann 20th November 2017 02:55 AM

There have been several discussions here at the ISF of the song Baby It's Cold Outside (lyrics), and it is a song that it's very easy to disagree about. You have a dialogue between a man and a woman, and they're both being ambiguous - and their lines are meant to be ambiguous. The literal meaning of the woman's lines is that she wants to leave, but reading between the lines, it's fairly obvious that she might actually desire to stay, i.e. to have sex. The literal meaning of (most of) the man's lines is that his primary concern is her well-being, but it's just as obvious that he actually wants her to stay so he can have sex with her.

However, two lines make him stand out as a creep in any context, in the 1940s as well as nowadays:
"What's the sense in hurting my pride?"
"How can you do this thing to me?"
This cannot be construed as anything other than emotional blackmail. He's not a rapist, but he is an emotional blackmailer, she is hurting him and his male pride by not having pity sex with him.

And then I'm back to my original question: Who would want to and be able to enjoy having sex with a woman who doesn't really want and desire to have sex with you, but only gives in because she (in this case) feels obliged to?
(And once again: I don't need proof that a lot of people do and always did! I know! I'm trying to understand what's in it for them, why they don't creep themselves out!)

It is fairly easy to interpret the woman's apparent intention to leave as an avoidance strategy: She would like to stay, but fears what the rest of the world might think of her, i.e. slut-shaming - a word that has now also been adopted in Danish (the concept however, isn't new!).

It was probably meant to be a sweet, albeit risqué, song about seduction, which always implies an ambiguous attitude in the person who's being seduced: desire and unwillingness to give into this desire:
Quote:

Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioural choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation". Some sides in contemporary academic debate state that the morality of seduction depends on the long-term impacts on the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, and may not necessarily carry the negative connotations expressed in dictionary definitions.[8] (Wikipedia)
However, the two lines mentioned above certainly are not in any way "an appeal to the senses."
In the 1940s, '50s and early '60s male pride may have been considered to be a valid reason for women to give in to having sex. I don't know. I'm glad that the 1950s are long gone.

calebprime 20th November 2017 04:31 AM

The thread subject here is serious, so it may not be the best place for me to remind Dann that songs have to allow for characters' subjective, selfish in-the-moment voices, and that humor is deflationary: People not acting at their moral bests.

That Joe Warm Inside might be saying something a little manipulative to himself or to her in the heat of the moment hardly makes him a creep for all time: It makes him like every other human being ever on the planet.

Or, we don't quite have enough info -- maybe he's a creep if he says that often and in a certain way, maybe not if it's just the usual vanity.

I'm not one of them especially, but I know several non-creeps who had a certain amount of pride invested in their seductive abilities.

As songwriting, I'd contrast this with the deliberate voice-of-the-creep, as in Steely Dan's desperate characters.

dann 20th November 2017 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 12083531)
The first one takes a lot of work and after that we're good to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12083742)
It sounds like you have excelent motivation to be with a person interested in tantric sex.


It just shows why premature ejaculation is an actual problem, in particular if the premature ejaculator thinks that everything ends at that point. I think that most men don't find it a problem to keep going beyond the woman's "first one" - and that they also don't think of it as "a lot of work" but actually enjoy the stages leading up to it as well.
Tantra and tantric sex are religion and superstition. Simply delaying ejaculation during intercourse isn't - and neither is the the notion that the whole thing doesn't end with male ejaculation.

It took a long time to get Christianity out of the bedroom. I see no reason to invite Hinduism inside instead. It's as bad as recommending TM to somebody who just needs to learn to relax

dann 20th November 2017 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12084112)
That Joe Warm Inside might be saying something a little manipulative to himself or to her in the heat of the moment hardly makes him a creep for all time: It makes him like every other human being ever on the planet.

I never mentioned "for all time," and I assume that Cosby, Spacey and Weinstein aren't creeps 24/7.
However, the guy in the song is being a creep. I can't tell what he's like the rest of the time.
Would you feel proud of yourself if you succeeded in making a woman have sex with you by means of a guilt trip like this?
"What's the sense in hurting my pride?"
"How can you do this thing to me?"

calebprime 20th November 2017 05:09 AM

Quote:

"a creep in any context, in the 1940s as well as nowadays"
I can perhaps be forgiven for thinking this might be for all time.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.