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)

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 jne 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 jne 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 jne 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 risqu, 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.

TragicMonkey 20th November 2017 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12084119)
It's as bad as recommending TM to somebody who just needs to learn to relax

I can be a very soothing presence. Why, my Sudden Shrieking technique has proven to increase relaxation in heart patients to the point where they have no detectable cardiac abnormalities afterwards.

dann 20th November 2017 05:43 AM

I can imagine!
Also no visible signs of excitation, except for a certain rigidity, but not where it counts. :)

dann 20th November 2017 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12084135)
I can perhaps be forgiven for thinking this might be for all time.

Well, no, that would be an exaggeration. If we go back in time, women did not have free will, they were the property of their fathers or the men who had bought them.
At least the guy in the song recognizes that it's up to her to decide if she wants to stay, he respects her free will (again: He's not a rapist), so he's just (being) a modern creep: trying to guilt her into giving in rather than forcing her to do so.
Of course, in biblical times a father would not have let his daughter be alone with another man unless she was married to him and she would have been married off or sold at 13.

calebprime 20th November 2017 07:03 AM

Ok. To be simple about it, I think you're being too harsh on this particular character, but I haven't studied the song for telling nuances, and we may be concentrating too much on 2 lines, or they might be essential.

The simple truth here is yes, if you repeatedly invite yourself over and then say your vanity is at stake, you're behaving badly.

I was assuming modern mores, equality, etc. that the song exists in.

calebprime 20th November 2017 07:42 AM

Looking over the lyrics, it seems to be carefully designed to be the rationalizations and lies of two people from the git-go, and that's the humor of it. It's set to charming music and ends in a triumphant line together.

The guy is a cad if he always lies like that.

Ron_Tomkins 20th November 2017 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12081837)
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?

Well, yeah. If you're a psychologist who dedicates himself to deal with people with such problems, or if you're a anthropologist who's making a thesis about rapists and their behavior... then, I think it makes sense for you to want to study the behavior of rapists and such, because you need that information as part of the work you're doing.

Or then again, if you're a person with a lot of time on your hands, which I'm suspecting is your case, that would be another reason ;)

In either case, knock yourself out, junior. I'm sure you're gonna crack this case sooner or later.

dann 20th November 2017 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calebprime (Post 12084299)
The guy is a cad if he always lies like that.


He's probably sincere about his hurting pride! :)

dann 20th November 2017 12:18 PM

Amazing!
My question in the opening post appears to bother Ron Tomkins so much that in just four short posts he has gone from:

Ask the rapists!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12070612)
Have you tried asking them?


to: Rape is funny!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12072688)
Actually, rape can be very funny and George Carlin already explained in detail how


to: Leave it to the rapists to figure out why they do it 'cause they'll do it anyway!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12080608)
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.


And finally to: Leave it to the professionals or people with too much time on their hands!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12084375)
Well, yeah. If you're a psychologist who dedicates himself to deal with people with such problems, or if you're a anthropologist who's making a thesis about rapists and their behavior... then, I think it makes sense for you to want to study the behavior of rapists and such, because you need that information as part of the work you're doing.

Or then again, if you're a person with a lot of time on your hands, which I'm suspecting is your case, that would be another reason ;)

In either case, knock yourself out, junior. I'm sure you're gonna crack this case sooner or later.


And ending with an insult: "junior"! Really?!

d4m10n 20th November 2017 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12074413)
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.

This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00069120

Myriad 20th November 2017 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12084686)
This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.


Or to put it much more simply: given that there's likely to be many more unwilling potential mates around than willing ones, is it surprising that pursuing the former is a viable (even if not optimal) evolutionarily stable strategy?

dann 21st November 2017 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12084686)
This is the view of at least one scholar I've known.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00069120

Quote:

We examine six testable predictions against existing data: (1) Both coercive and noncoercive will be associated with high levels of sexual arousal and performance in men. (2) Achieving physical control of a sexually unwilling woman will be sexually arousing to men. (3) Young men will be more sexually coercive than older men. (4) Men of low socioeconomic status will likewise be more sexually coercive. (5) A man's motivation to use sexual coercion will be influenced by its effects on social image. (6) Even in long-term relationships men will be motivated to use coercion when their mates show a lack of interest in resistance to sex because these are interpreted as signs of sexual infidelity.

(1) Men who coerce women to have sex are aroused, yes. And most of them, I assume, are able to get aroused by consensual sex, too. That sounds very likely.
(2) All men? Some men? How do you even test that claim?
(3) We know that the sex drive of men tends to decrease with age, but we also know that some fervent pussy grabbers are quite old, and some butt grabbers are decrepit and in wheelchairs.
(4) Crime statistics? Who gets caught? Who is able to talk/lawyer his way out of charges? Who decides not to press charges because the coercer is too powerful?
(5) So the assumption is that men of "low socioeconomic status" don't have any "social image" to protect. If the last couple of weeks have taught us anything about (some) men of high socioeconomic status …
(6) In all such relationships? (What does "a lack of interest in resistance to sex" even mean? Was "in" meant to have been "or"? Didn't anybody bother to proofread the abstract?!)

d4m10n 21st November 2017 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(1) Men who coerce women to have sex are aroused, yes. And most of them, I assume, are able to get aroused by consensual sex, too. That sounds very likely.

The study is focused on a sample of men, not a sample of men who are known for sexual coercion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(2) All men? Some men? How do you even test that claim?

You'd have to see the full article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085314)
(6) In all such relationships? (What does "a lack of interest in resistance to sex" even mean? Was "in" meant to have been "or"? Didn't anybody bother to proofread the abstract?!)

Pretty sure (6) should read "lack of interest or resistance..." in the abstract.

dann 21st November 2017 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12084832)
Or to put it much more simply: given that there's likely to be many more unwilling potential mates around than willing ones, is it surprising that pursuing the former is a viable (even if not optimal) evolutionarily stable strategy?


You can use evolution as an argument for almost anything, i.e. you can find all kinds of 'strategies', which means that it doesn't explain much about human behavior. You find rapist behavior among chimps, but it doesn't appear to be a 'strategy' favored by the consensual bonobos.
So considering the consequences that rape may entail for the rapist, the number of "unwilling potential mates" doesn't seem to explain anything, especially if you consider how easy and risk free going to a prostitute would be in comparison. Not to mention that some kind of sexual gratification rather than reproduction seems to be the driving force here. Some rapists use a condom, maybe to avoid leaving evidence behind, but still

dann 21st November 2017 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12085570)
The study is focused on a sample of men, not a sample of men who are known for sexual


But do you know what kind of test they were subjected to? They obviously can't have had these men rape anybody, and letting them watch rape porn, for instance, wouldn't be the same thing since the test subjects would probably have known that the scenes were pretence: actors playing rape.
The abstract claims that "Both coercive and noncoercive will be associated with high levels of sexual arousal and performance in men." Some men? All men?
A couple of us have expressed that we find coercion a complete turn-off, in my case also the pretend variety: 1, 2, 3. (#2 only implied)
However, I've never been clinically tested! :)

Quote:

You'd have to see the full article.

Yes, probably, but I don't have access.

Quote:

Pretty sure (6) should read "lack of interest or resistance..." in the abstract.

It's 25 years old (online since 2011), and nobody's bothered to fix it!

d4m10n 21st November 2017 09:36 AM

You asked what makes some people desire coercive sex, dann. I pointed out that there has been at least some research into that question, investigating a specific hypothetical psychological adaptation which may or may not have proliferated in our ancestral environment. Read up on it (or don't) and make of it what you will.

dann 22nd November 2017 02:26 AM

I already mentioned that
Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12085766)
I don't have access.


d4m10n 22nd November 2017 03:35 PM

Well okay, then. You can get an idea of Thornhill's hypothesis here, no paywall.

Quote:

The hypothesis of psychological adaptation to rape contends that there are psychological mechanisms that function specifically for the purpose of rape because they were designed by selection acting on males in the context of coercive sexuality. More specifically, the selection assumed by the hypothesis is as follows: During human evolutionary history, non-random differential offspring production by adult males occurred in the context of sexual access to reproductive-age females who were unwilling to mate.
It is a disturbing hypothesis, to be certain, all the more so since Thornhill does not suggest that he is talking about a rare mutation but rather an adaptation which has (hypothetically) achieved fixation in the XY human population as a whole.

dann 23rd November 2017 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12087526)
Well okay, then. You can get an idea of Thornhill's hypothesis here, no paywall.

It is a disturbing hypothesis, to be certain, all the more so since Thornhill does not suggest that he is talking about a rare mutation but rather an adaptation which has (hypothetically) achieved fixation in the XY human population as a whole.


Great! Thank you!
(And the article is not as long as I thought at first sight.)

Ron_Tomkins 23rd November 2017 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12084615)
Amazing!
My question in the opening post appears to bother Ron Tomkins so much that in just four short posts he has gone from:

Ask the rapists!



… to: Rape is funny!



… to: Leave it to the rapists to figure out why they do it 'cause they'll do it anyway!



And finally to: Leave it to the professionals or people with too much time on their hands!



And ending with an insult: "junior"! Really?!

Not sure if you had a point at all there, but you certainly have potential there to be a good forum commentator.

fuelair 26th November 2017 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12083047)
"The mouth says no, but the eyes say yes?"

If the mouth says no, trust it!!!! If only the eyes say yes, you have gone deaf on the topic. The words you hear are the ones that count.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 PM.

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