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)

Ron_Tomkins 26th May 2018 01:24 PM

What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?

The fact that they're very very bad people.

d4m10n 26th May 2018 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12306280)
What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?

The fact that they're very very bad people.

You define goodness/badness in terms of urges rather than actions? [emoji848]

dann 27th May 2018 02:09 AM

Then let's say that they have very bad urges, but that still doesn't explain why they have them.
In principle, you're right, of course: If we imagine that somebody has the urge to do something bad, fantasizes about doing it, but doesn't, then ... well, no harm done. Except, maybe, the harm that's been done to the individual with these urges, but I'll get back to that.

That is kind of what's portrayed in the movie The Woodsman (2004) where Kevin Bacon plays a convicted pedophile who is on the way to some kind of recovery: He sexually molested very young girls, but now he has realized that it was wrong, he fights his urges and helps catch a 'practicing' sexual predator.
But it doesn't make his urges easier to understand (and the movie doesn't try to do so), and the guys (see a few posts above) who seem to think that rape is the natural order of things because it results in offspring (unfortunately!), can't claim the same 'justification' for sexual abuse of pre-adolescents: They can't get pregnant, so the social-darwinists will have to come up with another way of making sense of that crime and those urges.

In the case of pedophilia, I'm not sure, but I think it's more than an individual problem, some random perversion. It may be a question of the whole culture. Take a look at Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. It's not exactly a pedophile novel, but it has been described like this:

Quote:

"Salinger is the literary equivalent of a pedophile, the child's world equals good, and all adults are fake and phony."
Confessional Prose (The Hindu, May 5, 2002)

And that idea seems to be prevalent in much of today's society:

Quote:

First, to make a fetish of adolescent innocence isn’t quite the same thing as eroticizing children, pace Calvin Klein ads and child beauty pageants. Second, though we may not want to admit it, Esmé and Joyce and Phoebe and the young Brooke Shields and JonBenét Ramsey represent different aspects of the very same thing: America’s love of youthful promise, fresh starts, eternal renewal. Salinger’s continued popularity is due in part to the way in which the author reflects that love—which, granted, can take unfortunate turns.
Innocence Lost (Nashville Scene, Mar. 15, 2001)

In the case of sexual coercion, and also in the case of 'merely' fantasizing about sexual coercion, I think that the prevalent misogyny in almost all societies plays a bigger role than the default explanation of the social-darwinists: the genes make us do it!
Take a phenomenon like slut-shaming, for instance. It's almost like a repetition of the Fall-of-Man story: A man want to have sex with her, and she wants to have sex with him, so she's a slut! (And how do sluts deserved to be treated?) She makes me horny, so she must be bad ... and deserve to be treated accordingly.
Of course, this entails the whole attitude to sex: 'Sexual desire is bad, so [i]I'm[/] bad for feeling like this, so I find somebody else to blame, the dirty whore!'

I think that sexual coercion (and fantasies of sexual coercion) is a way of fighting the shame, the embarrassment of having sexual urges - whether you fantasize about forcing or being forced. Se the quotation in post 250.

And then we've almost come full circle to pedophilia and the idealization of the innocence of children ...

Roboramma 27th May 2018 10:10 AM

You are misusing the term "social darwinist". I think you mean "sociobiologists" or "evolutionary psychologists". Social Darwinism is a completely different thing.

dann 27th May 2018 11:46 AM

No, not really, but feel free to include the socio-biologists and the evolutionary psychologists. They tend to overlap.

Roboramma 27th May 2018 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307037)
No, not really, but feel free to include the socio-biologists and the evolutionary psychologists. They tend to overlap.

I don't see how you think that link supplies any support to what you are saying.

Herbert Spencer outlined the ideas of what's come to be known as Social Darwinism in 1851, 8 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sp...l-statics-1851

And, no, there's no overlap between Evolutionary Psychology and Social Darwinism.

dann 27th May 2018 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307083)
Herbert Spencer outlined the ideas of what's come to be known as Social Darwinism in 1851, 8 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species.


No he didn't.

Quote:

The term "Social Darwinism" originated in Great Britain with the work of Herbert Spencer, who used the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1864.
Social Darwinism: Mid-19th to eary 20th centuries (Rational Wiki)

Quote:

Given the primacy which Spencer placed on evolution, his sociology might be described as social Darwinism mixed with Lamarckism. However, despite its popularity, this view of Spencer's sociology is mistaken. While his political and ethical writings had themes consistent with social Darwinism, such themes are absent in Spencer's sociological works, which focus on how processes of societal growth and differentiation lead to changing degrees of complexity in social organization.
Herbert Spencer: Sociology (Wikipedia)

About the book that you link to, it says:

Quote:

Despite its commonly being attributed to this book, it was not until his Principles of Biology of 1864 that Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", which he would later apply to economics and biology. This could be described as a key tenet of so-called Social Darwinism, though Spencer and his book were not an advocate thereof.
Social Statics (Wikipedia)

dann 27th May 2018 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot (Post 12305020)
Genghis Khan's DNA was, last time I looked, in 16 million people, something like 8% of the population over the land mass that was once the largest land empire on earth. He's the world record rapist. Nobody else even comes close. And he is also the world record replicator.

Statistically that's already conclusive, but he's just one example. The king of Swaziland, when I lived with a guy from there, had something like 86 children at the time. So another exampe of the 1:1 correlation with top rapist and top replicator.

And so on.


Statistically??! What statistics? The last time I looked, Gengis Khan's body, and thus his DNA, still hadn't been found.
And Douglas Adams has a very different take on the story of Gengis. :)

Quote:

Smith et al. (2001) criticized Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that a predisposition to rape in certain circumstances might be an evolved sexually dismorphic psychological adaptation. They developed a fitness cost/benefit mathematical model and populated it with estimates of certain parameters (some parameter estimates were based on studies of the Aché in Paraguay). Their model suggested that, on average, the costs of rape for a typical 25-year-old male outweigh benefits by a factor of ten to one. On the basis of their model and parameter estimates, they suggested that this would make it unlikely that rape generally would have net fitness benefits for most men. They also find that rape from raiding other tribes has lower costs but does not offer net fitness benefits, making it also unlikely that was an adaptation.
Beckerman et al. (2009) disputed explanations of male aggression as a reproductive strategy. In a study of the Waorani tribes, the most aggressive warriors had the fewest descendants.
Criticism of evolutionary psychology: Rape and attraction to aggression (Wikipedia)

Roboramma 28th May 2018 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307485)
No he didn't.







About the book that you link to, it says:

So your contention is that because the term "survival of the fittest" didn't appear in that book, that it therefore doesn't contain some of ideas which have come to be known as Social Darwinism?

I don't think that follows.

You might be right of course, I haven't read the book, I'm going by what I read in other sources, but your logic doesn't follow.

What I do know is that Social Darwinism is very different from evolutionary psychology. One is an attempt to understand as much of human psychology biologically, using the same principles that we can apply to any animal. The other is a psuedo-scientific ideology which is more about politics and economics than anything else.

Roboramma 28th May 2018 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307509)
Statistically??! What statistics? The last time I looked, Gengis Khan's body, and thus his DNA, still hadn't been found.

It's also worth noting the there's an odd fact about ancestry that if you go back far enough and take an individual, that individual will be either the ancestor of all living humans or none. And if you take smaller populations the same will be true, but you don't have to go as far back for that to be true.

DNA spreads through the gene pool, so the idea that any individual becomes the ancestor of millions of people over time isn't surprising and doesn't actually require any crazy reproductive success on that individual's part. S/he could have 2 kids (or 1) and still end up with millions, or billions, of descendants given enough time.

I mean, Ghenghis Khan was born in 1162 and his first son was born either in 1185 or 1187. That's 830 year ago, which, at 20 years/generation, is 41 generations. 241 is 2 trillion.

So there's been plenty of time for his genes to spread through the gene pool, even if only an average of 2 kids survive and reproduce in each generation.

So if he really only has 16 million descendants now, I'm not very impressed.

dann 28th May 2018 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307601)
So your contention is that because the term "survival of the fittest" didn't appear in that book, that it therefore doesn't contain some of ideas which have come to be known as Social Darwinism?


Your contention is nonsense.

Quote:

I don't think that follows.

You might be right of course, I haven't read the book, I'm going by what I read in other sources, but your logic doesn't follow.

Then maybe you should read the book and correct your sources:

Quote:

Given the primacy which Spencer placed on evolution, his sociology might be described as social Darwinism mixed with Lamarckism. However, despite its popularity, this view of Spencer's sociology is mistaken. While his political and ethical writings had themes consistent with social Darwinism, such themes are absent in Spencer's sociological works, which focus on how processes of societal growth and differentiation lead to changing degrees of complexity in social organization.
Herbert Spencer: Sociology (Wikipedia)

Quote:

What I do know is that Social Darwinism is very different from evolutionary psychology. One is an attempt to understand as much of human psychology biologically, using the same principles that we can apply to any animal. The other is a psuedo-scientific ideology which is more about politics and economics than anything else.

I never said that they weren't one and the same thing. What I said was: "feel free to include the socio-biologists and the evolutionary psychologists. They tend to overlap."

Roboramma 28th May 2018 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307612)
Your contention is nonsense.

How do you know? The logic you used to dismiss it is simply wrong.


Quote:

Then maybe you should read the book and correct your sources:
Evolution was an idea that preceded Darwin. Darwin added the idea of natural selection, however Spencer was a Lamarkian (which is mentioned even in your quoted text).



Quote:

I never said that they weren't one and the same thing. What I said was: "feel free to include the socio-biologists and the evolutionary psychologists. They tend to overlap."
While I disagree with AlaskaBushPilot, I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything that remotely resembles Social Darwinism. I also disagree with the idea that evolutionary psychologists tend to overlap with social darwinists, but if you'd like to support that contention feel free.

dann 28th May 2018 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307615)
How do you know? The logic you used to dismiss it is simply wrong.


Evolution was an idea that preceded Darwin. Darwin added the idea of natural selection, however Spencer was a Lamarkian (which is mentioned even in your quoted text).


Your claim was that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307083)
Herbert Spencer outlined the ideas of what's come to be known as Social Darwinism in 1851, 8 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sp...l-statics-1851


However:

Quote:

Given the primacy which Spencer placed on evolution, his sociology might be described as social Darwinism mixed with Lamarckism. However, despite its popularity, this view of Spencer's sociology is mistaken. While his political and ethical writings had themes consistent with social Darwinism, such themes are absent in Spencer's sociological works, which focus on how processes of societal growth and differentiation lead to changing degrees of complexity in social organization.
Herbert Spencer: Sociology (Wikipedia)

Spencer appears to have been inspired by Malthus rather than Darwin, at least at first, but his ideas resembling "Social Darwinism" were expressed later, not in 1851, 8 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species.

Quote:

While I disagree with AlaskaBushPilot, I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything that remotely resembles Social Darwinism. I also disagree with the idea that evolutionary psychologists tend to overlap with social darwinists, but if you'd like to support that contention feel free.

AlaskaBushPilot seems to think that jumbling a couple of anecdotes together with references to a couple of misunderstood psychologists or social psychologists constitutes an argument, so you have to consider what his point is in the context of the text, and it seems to be that rape is the natural order of things because (some) rapists appear to have produced a lot of offspring. His (false) claim that more than 50% of women fantasize of being raped seems to go in the same direction: rape is the natural order of things. This allegedly "proven replication "strategy"" being "like #1 in recorded human history" actually makes it difficult to explain why rape isn't a well-respected strategy of reproduction in modern societies since it's "pretty powerful genetic impulse" that we just don't act on ... until we do at "such time we think we can, lol."

Disagree all you want. Spencer doesn't support you.

Lothian 28th May 2018 02:48 AM

What makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?
 
Marriage, they normally seem to be quite willing up to that point.

TubbaBlubba 28th May 2018 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot (Post 12305020)
Genghis Khan's DNA was, last time I looked, in 16 million people, something like 8% of the population over the land mass that was once the largest land empire on earth. He's the world record rapist. Nobody else even comes close. And he is also the world record replicator.

Not exactly. First, the dating of that haplotype has recently been called into question. Second, it is not physically possible to spread your genes that persistently merely through mass rape. It requires your descendants to be quite a bit fitter than average as well. Instead, the argument for it being Chinggis Khan is that claiming descent, especially patrilineal descent, from the Great Khan was a way to bolster your social status among steppe tribes that persists to this day; this would have provided an advantage to his male descendants, even otherwise peripheral ones, and increased their odds of passing along their genes. Thus, it is more about the social impact and structure of steppe society (concubinage, etc) than Chinggis Khan being some kind of rape prodigy.

Ron_Tomkins 28th May 2018 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12306467)
You define goodness/badness in terms of urges rather than actions? [emoji848]

It's amazing how much stuff some people can read into a short sentence meant as a tongue-in-cheek line.

d4m10n 28th May 2018 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12307792)
It's amazing how much stuff some people can read into a short sentence meant as a tongue-in-cheek line.

Dann's reply was vastly more enlightening.

Roboramma 28th May 2018 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307662)
Your claim was that:




However:




Spencer appears to have been inspired by Malthus rather than Darwin, at least at first, but his ideas resembling "Social Darwinism" were expressed later, not in 1851, 8 years before Darwin published The Origin of Species.

I'm willing to concede that I may have been misled about the content of the 1851 book. However, it's still clear to me that Spencer's ideas were very different from Darwin's, as you also acknowledge.


Quote:

AlaskaBushPilot seems to think that jumbling a couple of anecdotes together with references to a couple of misunderstood psychologists or social psychologists constitutes an argument, so you have to consider what his point is in the context of the text, and it seems to be that rape is the natural order of things because (some) rapists appear to have produced a lot of offspring.
"The natural order of things" is a little loaded. I think his point is that rape was selected for and thus it's a reproductive strategy which exists in human psychology. There's no moral connotation to that, it's a descriptive rather than prescriptive statement.

I think his evidence for that statement is rather weak, which is where I disagree with him, but I don't think he's trying to make an argument that rape is good because it's natural.

Quote:

His (false) claim that more than 50% of women fantasize of being raped seems to go in the same direction: rape is the natural order of things. This allegedly "proven replication "strategy"" being "like #1 in recorded human history" actually makes it difficult to explain why rape isn't a well-respected strategy of reproduction in modern societies since it's "pretty powerful genetic impulse" that we just don't act on ... until we do at "such time we think we can, lol."
I agree that he's made several counterfactual claims. I think you are misconstruing the argument however. The point is not that rape is somehow a good thing, only that it's common, that even those who don't rape would under different circumstances, and thus it shouldn't be viewed as being a pathology, but rather as a human vice to understand in that context.

I actually don't think that rape as a reproductive strategy was specifically selected for. But, one more time, that hypothesis has nothing to do with social darwinism.


Quote:

Disagree all you want. Spencer doesn't support you.
You still haven't supported your contention of social darwinism in this thread.

dann 28th May 2018 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12307797)
Dann's reply was vastly more enlightening.


I don't know why this thread, i.e. my question, bothers Ron_Tomkins to the extent it seems to do.
The closest he got to a serious answer was "adrenaline rush", which is like saying that we enjoy the things that we enjoy because we enjoy them (which is always the problem with that 'explanation').
After that, xjx388 more or less took over from there insisting on his idea of “compassionate rapists” (my words) overcome by “situational callousness” (xjx388’s).

dann 28th May 2018 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307852)
You still haven't supported your contention of social darwinism in this thread.


Which contention, now? That they tend to overlap?

Roboramma 28th May 2018 08:26 AM

I do appreciate this thread. There is certainly something hard to understand about things like rape. But I also think there's some real insight in the quote:
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being

And I think pathologising evil is very dangerous. If evil is pathological, it's something that those people do, it's restricted to psychopaths and other instances of mental illness, not something that every individual is capable of if we don't guard against it.

There's certainly some sort of spectrum of empathy based on brain chemistry. But I think a lot of what we consider to be evil is simply a combination of human weakness with selfishness, and a little bit of addiction thrown in.

My hypotheis for the latter acts in the following way: some small selfish act hurts others but leads to a pleasurable outcome. The person might feel initial guilt but the desire for that pleasure hit leads them to do it again, and this can be combined with rationalisation to lower those guilt feelings further. Over time the feelings of guilt become less and less whereas the action that leads to the same amount of pleasure requires something more and more.

Roboramma 28th May 2018 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12307869)
Which contention, now? That they tend to overlap?

Both the contention that Social Darwinism and evolutionary psychology overlap, and that anyone in this thread is promoting social darwinism.

Maybe I misunderstood your earlier posts and you haven't made the latter contention, in which case I apologise.

For the former, I did read your linked wikipedia page and I'm not seeing any mention of evolutionary psychology there. Yes, social darwinists will tend to use evolutionary arguments (which is what I'm seeing is supported in your link), but A is B doesn't equal B is A. Just because social darwinists use evolutionary arguments doesn't mean those who use evolutionary arguments are social darwinists.

dann 28th May 2018 09:03 AM

The articles at the Danish version of wikipedia are blissfully (in this context) short:

Evolutionær psykologi er relateret til andre områder af videnskab som sociobiologi, socialpsykologi og antropologi. (Wikipedia: evolutionær psykologi): Evolutionary psychology is related to other areas of science like sociobiology, social psychology and anthropology.”

Kritikere mener også, at der er paralleller mellem sociobiologi og sociale darwinistiske og racehygiejne bevægelser i begyndelsen af det tidligere 20. århundrede. (Wikipedia, sociobiologi): "Critics also think that there are parallels between socio-biology and social-darwinist and eugenics movements in the early 20th century."

dann 28th May 2018 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12307881)
I do appreciate this thread. There is certainly something hard to understand about things like rape.


This is where we agree 100%, I think, and I don't understand why so many just seem to take it for granted as if there's nothing that needs to be explained or understood.

Quote:

But I also think there's some real insight in the quote:
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being

And this is a point where we disagree. People have different interests, and in a competitive society, the competition becomes the enemy: 'You are in my way, so your intentions are evil.' (Even when, or maybe especially when, our interests are almost identical.) This is the point where people with empathy recognize what is happening and try to come up with solutions that both parties can live with. Psychopaths, on the other hand, simply insist on their own right to use and abuse their opponents, which they deserve because they are either bad or weak. (A certain president comes to mind at this point.)

Quote:

And I think pathologising evil is very dangerous. If evil is pathological, it's something that those people do, it's restricted to psychopaths and other instances of mental illness, not something that every individual is capable of if we don't guard against it.

There's certainly some sort of spectrum of empathy based on brain chemistry. But I think a lot of what we consider to be evil is simply a combination of human weakness with selfishness, and a little bit of addiction thrown in.

I have had the unpleasant experience of psychopaths who seemed to use alcohol to get even more in touch with their psychopathic side, but in general I think that the rest of us are much too preoccupied about not being too selfish. There's nothing wrong with wanting a good life for yourself and the people you love, but in a society that isn't geared to enable most people to get that, the ideal that people have, the American Dream, for instance, clashes with reality. And when some people realize that they get nowhere by being nice, they blame the others for their own lack of success even more: Not society with its rules and regulations prevents me (and an awful lot of others!) from 'living the dream.' And since I know that I'm a good person, the others must be to blame because they're not good, they didn't abide by the rules, so they deserve whatever I choose to do to them. This way of thinking is described in great detail in the book Psychology of the Private Individual: Critique of Bourgeois Consciousness.

Quote:

My hypotheis for the latter acts in the following way: some small selfish act hurts others but leads to a pleasurable outcome. The person might feel initial guilt but the desire for that pleasure hit leads them to do it again, and this can be combined with rationalisation to lower those guilt feelings further. Over time the feelings of guilt become less and less whereas the action that leads to the same amount of pleasure requires something more and more.

To me it sounds too much like the ordinary 'guilty pleasures' that people have no reason to feel guilty about: the bar of chocolate you shouldn't eat, the bottle of whisky you shouldn't drink, or even the line of cocaine you shouldn't snort. You (may) harm yourself - in particular in the long run - but nobody else. And since this thread is about sexual coercion: I think that the particular role that fantasies play in this field need to be considered.
In other areas people may daydream: of the Lamborghini or the mansion, whatever. They may also imagine (more or less realistic) ways of getting there: working, winning, buying, stealing, but unlike masturbatory fantasies they don't have a similar kind of 'happy ending'.
When we're talking about sex, however, people have usually had a fantasy sex life years before they have one in reality.
And I think that this is where a lot of things go wrong for a lot of people. I think that the sexual coercer has dreamed of coercion a long time before he (she) actually hurts somebody in real life for the first time. I don't think that it starts with your scenario: "some small selfish act hurts others but leads to a pleasurable outcome."
I think that the only thing that gets hurt, at first, is the mind of the (future) coercer. And it may be because it was harmed before this process began.

dann 4th July 2018 06:00 AM

Male and Female Sexual Coercers
 
There are fewer female than male sexual coercers, but it is not an extremely rare phenomenon:

Quote:

In Germany, Krahe (2000) found that 9% of 248 sexually experienced women reported attempting to have or having sex with a man against his will. The strategies employed were exploitation of a man in an incapacitated state, (reported by 6% of women), verbal pressure (3%), and physical force (2%).
Tactics of Sexual Coercion: When Men and Women Won’t Take No for an Answer (The Journal of Sex Research, March 2003/Research Gate, Aug. 6, 2017)

Quote:

Although prior sexual abuse seemed to be part of a cycle of sexual coercion among both men and women, key predictors of sexual coercion among men were sexual dominance and sociosexuality, whereas the key predictor of sexual coercion among women was sexual compulsivity. These findings support the notion that whereas men may behave coercively to obtain or maintain an impersonal sense of power and control, women may behave coercively to achieve some level of interpersonal connection when feeling out of control.
Sexual coercion in men and women: similar behaviors, different predictors (PubMed, Mar. 28, 2009)

Ron_Tomkins 5th July 2018 06:39 AM

So, have we yet figured what is the internal cerebral mechanism that makes someone want to have sex with unwilling partners, and that would allow Dann to finally understand/accept that it is possible for other people to want to have sex with unwilling partners, so that he can finally get some sleep and peace of mind?

Roboramma 5th July 2018 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12350987)
So, have we yet figured what is the internal cerebral mechanism that makes someone want to have sex with unwilling partners, and that would allow Dann to finally understand/accept that it is possible for other people to want to have sex with unwilling partners, so that he can finally get some sleep and peace of mind?

The real question is what makes the rest of us not want to have sex with unwilling partners.

The thing that makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners is that lack of whatever the answer to the first question is.

dann 5th July 2018 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12069131)
But how can anybody enjoy to have sex with an unwilling partner?!
(And please don't tell me about the numerous historical cases! I know, I know!)


It was obvious from the very beginning that my question bothered (not only) Ron Tompkins' peace of mind immensely but that of many others too, which is why I specifically asked people to avoid the strawman that he now finds it necessary to repeat: "... would allow Dann to finally understand/accept that it is possible for other people to want to have sex with unwilling partners."

So Ron, could you at least attempt to make it probable that I don't understand or accept the possibility of people wanting to have sex with unwilling partners?
(That it's not only a possbility but an actual fact that some people not only want to have sex with unwilling partners but insist on having it was the starting point of this thread!)

dann 5th July 2018 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12351011)
The real question is what makes the rest of us not want to have sex with unwilling partners.


No, not really. I consider it the default mode. But maybe Ron Tompkins can explain what is so awesome about coerced sex since he seems to simply take the predilection for granted, thus making the explanation superfluous.

Quote:

The thing that makes some people want to have sex with unwilling partners is that lack of whatever the answer to the first question is.

I think that this is the point where xjx388 usually suggests situational callousness as the answer.

dann 5th July 2018 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12349929)
Quote:

These findings support the notion that whereas men may behave coercively to obtain or maintain an impersonal sense of power and control, women may behave coercively to achieve some level of interpersonal connection when feeling out of control.
Sexual coercion in men and women: similar behaviors, different predictors (PubMed, Mar. 28, 2009)


I have found a case story that seems to imply that at least one guy raped in a situation where he felt out of control. Unfortunately, it's in Danish - and most of it is behind a pay wall: Kan flinke fyre begå overgreb? (Can nice guys be sexually coercive?) (Politiken)

Roboramma 6th July 2018 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12351097)
No, not really. I consider it the default mode.

Sure, I certainly think you are right, but that doesn't mean that the question is meaningless. Just as we might ask why do people dislike sex with unwilling partners, we can ask why people like sex at all. We can ask why we like food, and similarly why we dislike some foods. These questions might seem so obvious as to not be worth asking but they do have answers and those answers can supply insight into further questions.

I really do think that it's only by understanding the norm that we can understand deviations from it.

I'm not going to try to answer those questions right now. I think sometimes the right question is harder to come at than an answer, so if I've managed to offer that, that's not a bad start.

Of course I may be wrong and mine may be the wrong question, but I really don't want to get too involved in this thread to be honest. :boxedin:

dann 14th July 2018 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12352269)
I think sometimes the right question is harder to come at than an answer, so if I've managed to offer that, that's not a bad start.


The right question is always a good beginning, but I think that yours can be improved by deleting the negatives:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12351011)
The real question is what makes the rest of us not want to have sex with unwilling partners.


And this is the point that I think that all the advocates of coerced sex miss with their pseudo-Darwinian arguments: Nature actually made sex enjoyable for both parties! So if you want to experience the pleasure of having sex, all you need to do is find somebody you would like to have it with who would also like to have it with you.
The next question is either the one I asked in the OP or, to put it bluntly: Since nature has made it pretty easy to make this thing work, what the hell goes wrong for people when they have to resort to fantasies (and even worse: the reality) of sexual coercion instead? Because coercion doesn't really seem to be what nature intended (if nature could actually have intentions).

Quote:

Of course I may be wrong and mine may be the wrong question, but I really don't want to get too involved in this thread to be honest. :boxedin:

No, and I can see why. Many people seem to feel so threatened by this question that they can't relate to it in a straightforward manner. Their response seems to be 1) that's how nature wants it (which is obviously false), 2) can't be answered (which is always a ridiculous idea), 3) something must be wrong with people who try to answer it. Yeah, right!

Roboramma 14th July 2018 11:24 PM

I agree that your version of the question is also a good one and one that is relevant to the issue under discussion. :)

Bikewer 15th July 2018 06:43 AM

NPR’s The World has run a number of articles on the particularly nasty situation regarding rape in India. In some provinces, it’s endemic.
They have interviewed men who have been arrested and imprisoned, and they all reflect the cultural attitudes that sound very familiar... That it’s the woman’s fault. That women should not “dress that way” or “be out at night” or go to clubs, or whatever. That they are asking for it.
Worse, in interviewing the victims, they express the attitude from female family members that feeds into the male attitude... That “men can’t help themselves”, or that “they love you so much they just have to have it” .
Things that were heard commonly in this country not all that long ago.

When I started my police career in the late sixties.... This attitude was reflected in the way police tended to handle rape cases. Unless the woman had been the victim of extreme violence, officers joked about “failure to pay” rather than rape, indicating that rape victims were essentially prostitutes.
Often, such cases were “shitcanned” as quickly as possible, or the investigators would give the victim the “runaround” where she could not pin down the exact location of the incident and thus since “venue” could not be established, no investigation could continue.

There’s an ongoing scandal, especially with smaller departments, where “rape kits” taken at emergency rooms are simply tossed into the evidence locker and never submitted for testing. In some cases that have come to light, literally thousands have been discovered.

My first department had to take over one of the small municipal departments in the area after it was discovered that none of their officers met the state-mandated qualification requirements. In going through the department’s stuff, a Yard-Barn type storage shed was discovered out back and in same, along with a lot of other “evidence” that had never been cataloged, were hundreds of these rape kits.... All useless due to improper storage.

Sabrina 15th July 2018 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12362448)
The next question is either the one I asked in the OP or, to put it bluntly: Since nature has made it pretty easy to make this thing work, what the hell goes wrong for people when they have to resort to fantasies (and even worse: the reality) of sexual coercion instead? Because coercion doesn't really seem to be what nature intended (if nature could actually have intentions).

I think your confusion lies in assuming that humans only do what nature intended us to do. If that were the case, we'd likely still be a hunter/gatherer society.

Personally, I believe that an individuals who forces themselves upon another individual (be they male or female as the perpetrator) is very likely suffering from a form of mental illness caused by chemical imbalance. Hormones have been shown to be a humongous part of our sexual behavior; the act of sex itself releases endorphins, dopamine, and serotonin, among others, all chemicals designed to make you feel good. It is possible, for at least some individuals who rape others, that this chemical imbalance leads to not feeling as good when they engage in more normal sexual behaviors, and to feeling as good or better when they engage in forced sex than they do with normal sex. Is that the answer for all rapists? Probably not; but it could explain at least some of them.

In all honesty, I don't think your question even has anything remotely resembling an answer yet; there's just so much we don't understand about how our own bodies and brains work, much less when they don't. The best anyone could give you at this point is a guess, and my guess is, chemical imbalance, plus mental illness, leads to enjoyment of forcing oneself onto others. I don't think that anyone has really come up with a better answer as of yet, and likely no one will in my or your lifetime unless a LOT more is understood about how the human body works or doesn't work.

Another thing we may be forgetting is that human beings' DNA is constantly evolving, shifting, changing, and it's possible that we're simply in a stage of human evolution where defective genes could be held responsible for the more deviant behaviors such as rape, pedophilia, etc., and they'll eventually be bred out of the population. Nature is constantly experimenting, and while some things (the cockroach) have been pretty much perfected, human beings have a while before that happens for us.

Again, I don't think an answer really exists to respond to your original question, at least not with any amount of satisfaction, but those are my best guesses, so... YMMV.

dann 16th July 2018 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikewer (Post 12362668)
NPR’s The World has run a number of articles on the particularly nasty situation regarding rape in India. In some provinces, it’s endemic.
They have interviewed men who have been arrested and imprisoned, and they all reflect the cultural attitudes that sound very familiar... That it’s the woman’s fault. That women should not “dress that way” or “be out at night” or go to clubs, or whatever. That they are asking for it.
Worse, in interviewing the victims, they express the attitude from female family members that feeds into the male attitude... That “men can’t help themselves”, or that “they love you so much they just have to have it” .
Things that were heard commonly in this country not all that long ago.


I mentioned an article about Indian rapists in posts 243 and 246.

Quote:

When I started my police career in the late sixties.... This attitude was reflected in the way police tended to handle rape cases. Unless the woman had been the victim of extreme violence, officers joked about “failure to pay” rather than rape, indicating that rape victims were essentially prostitutes.
Often, such cases were “shitcanned” as quickly as possible, or the investigators would give the victim the “runaround” where she could not pin down the exact location of the incident and thus since “venue” could not be established, no investigation could continue.

There’s an ongoing scandal, especially with smaller departments, where “rape kits” taken at emergency rooms are simply tossed into the evidence locker and never submitted for testing. In some cases that have come to light, literally thousands have been discovered.

My first department had to take over one of the small municipal departments in the area after it was discovered that none of their officers met the state-mandated qualification requirements. In going through the department’s stuff, a Yard-Barn type storage shed was discovered out back and in same, along with a lot of other “evidence” that had never been cataloged, were hundreds of these rape kits.... All useless due to improper storage.

Awful!

dann 16th July 2018 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12363039)
I think your confusion lies in assuming that humans only do what nature intended us to do.


I don't think I'm confused, and I don't assume that people only do what nature intended us to do. However, if you compare with other species, it's obvious that sex is enjoyable for both men and women, which makes coercion something that nature doesn't really explain. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you will notice that many want to explain sexual coercion with nature. I'm not one of them.

Quote:

If that were the case, we'd likely still be a hunter/gatherer society.

Even early hunters and gatherers using tools (knives, bows, arrows, pots, jars etc.) and language-based cooperation had stopped being mere nature.

Quote:

Personally, I believe that an individuals who forces themselves upon another individual (be they male or female as the perpetrator) is very likely suffering from a form of mental illness caused by chemical imbalance. Hormones have been shown to be a humongous part of our sexual behavior; the act of sex itself releases endorphins, dopamine, and serotonin, among others, all chemicals designed to make you feel good. It is possible, for at least some individuals who rape others, that this chemical imbalance leads to not feeling as good when they engage in more normal sexual behaviors, and to feeling as good or better when they engage in forced sex than they do with normal sex. Is that the answer for all rapists? Probably not; but it could explain at least some of them.

Do you have links to research that would make your chemical theory seem less unlikely? That hormones play a role in sexuality, yes, obviously, but that they also determine or at least contribute to a preference for coercion is far fetched. (I don't remember if it was Ron Tomkins or xjx who wanted to use endorphins as an explanation.)

Quote:

In all honesty, I don't think your question even has anything remotely resembling an answer yet; there's just so much we don't understand about how our own bodies and brains work, much less when they don't. The best anyone could give you at this point is a guess, and my guess is, chemical imbalance, plus mental illness, leads to enjoyment of forcing oneself onto others. I don't think that anyone has really come up with a better answer as of yet, and likely no one will in my or your lifetime unless a LOT more is understood about how the human body works or doesn't work.

Lack of empathy seems to be typical for rapists, but mental illness as such probably not. Again: "chemical imbalance" sounds too much like a bad excuse (much like Kurt Vonnegut's "bad chemicals" as the explanation for all kinds of atrocities in Breakfast of Champions). It seems to deny the actual thought processes that make the act of coercion seem not only acceptable but also desirable to the perpetrators.

Quote:

Another thing we may be forgetting is that human beings' DNA is constantly evolving, shifting, changing, and it's possible that we're simply in a stage of human evolution where defective genes could be held responsible for the more deviant behaviors such as rape, pedophilia, etc., and they'll eventually be bred out of the population. Nature is constantly experimenting, and while some things (the cockroach) have been pretty much perfected, human beings have a while before that happens for us.

Let me confront you with your own first sentence:
Quote:

I think your confusion lies in assuming that humans only do what nature intended us to do.

Quote:

Again, I don't think an answer really exists to respond to your original question, at least not with any amount of satisfaction, but those are my best guesses, so... YMMV.

That's the point of the thread! And I think that the NYT article about the minds of rapists already delivered some good answers.

Ron_Tomkins 16th July 2018 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12351085)
So Ron, could you at least attempt to make it probable that I don't understand or accept the possibility of people wanting to have sex with unwilling partners?

Yes, of course. It was pretty obvious from the start that that's what this thread is all about. Glad you're finally starting to see it.

Sabrina 16th July 2018 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12363622)
That's the point of the thread! And I think that the NYT article about the minds of rapists already delivered some good answers.

You missed my overall point. There IS no answer that will explain every single rapist. At this point, one can point out commonalities from rapist to rapist, yes, but every single case must also be approached from an individual standpoint. The reason The South Hill rapist raped is not the same reason as, say, Ted Bundy raped. There may be similarities, sure, but there really is no overarching answer that will explain why ALL rapists coerce or force sex from the unwilling. Given that, I don't think your question will ever be satisfactorily answered. It could be childhood abuse, it could be a chemical imbalance, it could be they're just wired wrong, there could be a genetic component we haven't isolated yet... I mean, the list goes on. We'll likely never figure it out in this lifetime.

Ron_Tomkins 16th July 2018 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12363790)
You missed my overall point. There IS no answer that will explain every single rapist. At this point, one can point out commonalities from rapist to rapist, yes, but every single case must also be approached from an individual standpoint. The reason The South Hill rapist raped is not the same reason as, say, Ted Bundy raped. There may be similarities, sure, but there really is no overarching answer that will explain why ALL rapists coerce or force sex from the unwilling. Given that, I don't think your question will ever be satisfactorily answered. It could be childhood abuse, it could be a chemical imbalance, it could be they're just wired wrong, there could be a genetic component we haven't isolated yet... I mean, the list goes on. We'll likely never figure it out in this lifetime.

Don't bother. That answer will never satisfy Dann. He's looking for the Grand-Unifying Theory of what makes every single person have sex with unwilling partners, and he won't be satisfied until he finds it. We're better off coming up with a made up answer for him, so he can finally give the thing a rest.

Sabrina 16th July 2018 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12363805)
Don't bother. That answer will never satisfy Dann. He's looking for the Grand-Unifying Theory of what makes every single person have sex with unwilling partners, and he won't be satisfied until he finds it. We're better off coming up with a made up answer for him, so he can finally give the thing a rest.

Which is impossible, essentially.

Each rapist, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, has their own reason(s) (I neglected to note in my previous post that there could be more than one reason for instigating rape, depending on the individual) for raping. It's entirely possible that they themselves may not even be aware of all the reasons they do it, so even if we ask them and they respond truthfully, we could still be missing something. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to just one-off an answer when it comes to a subject as serious as this; if ALL the reasons a person rapes another cannot be identified, then clearly no, as you put it, Grand-Unifying Theory can reasonably be identified to explain why ANYONE rapes another person, much less why ALL of them do it.

Ron_Tomkins 16th July 2018 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12363961)
Which is impossible, essentially.

Each rapist, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, has their own reason(s) (I neglected to note in my previous post that there could be more than one reason for instigating rape, depending on the individual) for raping. It's entirely possible that they themselves may not even be aware of all the reasons they do it, so even if we ask them and they respond truthfully, we could still be missing something. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to just one-off an answer when it comes to a subject as serious as this; if ALL the reasons a person rapes another cannot be identified, then clearly no, as you put it, Grand-Unifying Theory can reasonably be identified to explain why ANYONE rapes another person, much less why ALL of them do it.

Just in case I wasn't clear: I'm agreeing with you on everything you're saying. I'm just telling you, don't bother wasting time explaining this to Dann, when pretty much everyone has been telling him this already over 8 pages, and he still doesn't understand it.

Sabrina 16th July 2018 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12364154)
Just in case I wasn't clear: I'm agreeing with you on everything you're saying. I'm just telling you, don't bother wasting time explaining this to Dann, when pretty much everyone has been telling him this already over 8 pages, and he still doesn't understand it.

No you were clear, and I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I still think, given the subject matter, that it's important to continue to try and get that fact through dann's mind. I'll probably give up at some point, I'm sure, but until I get so frustrated I reach that point, I intend to keep trying.

Ron_Tomkins 17th July 2018 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12364407)
No you were clear, and I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I still think, given the subject matter, that it's important to continue to try and get that fact through dann's mind. I'll probably give up at some point, I'm sure, but until I get so frustrated I reach that point, I intend to keep trying.

Aahh, I see. Well, that's where you and I disagree, because I don't think Dann is interested in having an actual discussion to find out the actual truthful answer to his question. My personal rule of thumb is, if a poster still doesn't get it after more than 4 pages, it's a pointless battle. Good luck, though :)

Sabrina 17th July 2018 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12364972)
Aahh, I see. Well, that's where you and I disagree, because I don't think Dann is interested in having an actual discussion to find out the actual truthful answer to his question. My personal rule of thumb is, if a poster still doesn't get it after more than 4 pages, it's a pointless battle. Good luck, though :)

Well to be fair, I AM coming into this discussion seven or eight pages in; I wasn't participating in the earlier discussion. ;)

dann 17th July 2018 09:17 AM

That you never participated in the earlier discussion is the one thing you have in common with Ron Tomkins. Maybe you should ask him to tell you "the actual truthful answer" to my question, you know, the "it" that I still don't "get" "after more than 4 pages". :)

dann 17th July 2018 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12350987)
So, have we yet figured what is the internal cerebral mechanism that makes someone want to have sex with unwilling partners, and that would allow Dann to finally understand/accept that it is possible for other people to want to have sex with unwilling partners, so that he can finally get some sleep and peace of mind?


Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12351085)
It was obvious from the very beginning that my question bothered (not only) Ron Tompkins' peace of mind immensely but that of many others too, which is why I specifically asked people to avoid the strawman that he now finds it necessary to repeat: "… would allow Dann to finally understand/accept that it is possible for other people to want to have sex with unwilling partners."

So Ron, could you at least attempt to make it probable that I don't understand or accept the possibility of people wanting to have sex with unwilling partners?
(That it's not only a possbility but an actual fact that some people not only want to have sex with unwilling partners but insist on having it was the starting point of this thread!)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12363713)
Quote:

So Ron, could you at least attempt to make it probable that I don't understand or accept the possibility of people wanting to have sex with unwilling partners?
Yes, of course. It was pretty obvious from the start that that's what this thread is all about. Glad you're finally starting to see it.


You are not even trying, Ron.

Sabrina 17th July 2018 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12365149)
That you never participated in the earlier discussion is the one thing you have in common with Ron Tomkins. Maybe you should ask him to tell you "the actual truthful answer" to my question, you know, the "it" that I still don't get after more than 4 pages. :)

I think I've already answered that in my post. It's that there IS no one, single, all-encompassing reason why anyone wants to engage in forced sex with another person. Apparently others have propositioned that idea several times in this thread, albeit probably using different language, and you've pooh-poohed the idea, perhaps? If so, can you explain WHY you don't think that's the correct answer to your question? If not, can you explain your reasons why you don't (if that is the case) ascribe to my theory that there is no all-encompassing reason for anyone raping another person?

dann 17th July 2018 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12363790)
You missed my overall point. There IS no answer that will explain every single rapist. At this point, one can point out commonalities from rapist to rapist, yes, but every single case must also be approached from an individual standpoint. The reason The South Hill rapist raped is not the same reason as, say, Ted Bundy raped. There may be similarities, sure, but there really is no overarching answer that will explain why ALL rapists coerce or force sex from the unwilling. Given that, I don't think your question will ever be satisfactorily answered.


You seem to have missed my overall point - and you've already mentioned that you missed the whole discussion, and now you're guessing at what that discussion may have been.
You seem to think that my question in the OP was: Which one thing and one thing only makes some people want to have sex with unwilling 'partners'?
It wasn't.

Quote:

It could be childhood abuse, it could be a chemical imbalance, it could be they're just wired wrong, there could be a genetic component we haven't isolated yet... I mean, the list goes on. We'll likely never figure it out in this lifetime.

No, it couldn't be childhood abuse. No, it couldn't be a chemical imbalance, it couldn't have been that they're just wired wrong (whatever that's supposed to mean) and it couldn't have been a genetic component that we (?!) haven't isolated yet ... unless you have some valid reason to assume that any of these things make people enjoy raping. But it's a waste of time asking you to come up with links to research that renders any of those ideas at least probable. I already asked you to do so (post 287), but you prefer to repeat yourself instead.

And this is what your guessing game looks like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabrina (Post 12365188)
I think I've already answered that in my post. It's that there IS no one, single, all-encompassing reason why anyone wants to engage in forced sex with another person. Apparently others have propositioned that idea several times in this thread, albeit probably using different language, and you've pooh-poohed the idea, perhaps?


Come on! You want me to explain to you why I may have "pooh-poohed" an idea that others apparently probably have propositioned? No, I think that you should read the thread before you come up with any more hypoteses about it.

Quote:

If so, can you explain WHY you don't think that's the correct answer to your question? If not, can you explain your reasons why you don't (if that is the case) ascribe to my theory that there is no all-encompassing reason for anyone raping another person?

At this stage your theory seems to be that I have demanded an "all-encompassing reason" in the first place. Your assumption is wrong, and you'd better start at the beginning!

Butter! 17th July 2018 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12365452)




No, it couldn't be childhood abuse. No, it couldn't be a chemical imbalance, it couldn't have been that they're just wired wrong (whatever that's supposed to mean) and it couldn't have been a genetic component that we (?!) haven't isolated yet ... unless you have some valid reason to assume that any of these things make people enjoy raping. But it's a waste of time asking you to come up with links to research that renders any of those ideas at least probable. I already asked you to do so (post 287), but you prefer to repeat yourself instead.

And this is what your guessing game looks like:




Come on! You want me to explain to you why I may have "pooh-poohed" an idea that others apparently probably have propositioned? No, I think that you should read the thread before you come up with any more hypoteses about it.

What the hell is this. Dann, if you think you are making sense, you are not. No offense intended. But seriously, you are mocking people for giving you answers you consider flippant while seemingly going out of your way to be as inscrutable as possible. The highlighter isn't helping matters.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:26 AM.

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