Rape - power or sex?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

This is a rather sensitive subject matter, so I am hoping people here would try to be a little . . . well, a little sensitive!:)

Anyway, I hear most people say that rape is about power rather than sex. If that's true, then what about a 'normal' fight where an opponent controls you right from the beginning? That too involves violation of your body. Like the rape victim, you too would have no control over your body, and, in fact, your body will be at the mercy of your opponent. Like rape, this fight too is about power, and who controls whom. As in rape, there is always someone who dominates in the fight, and someone getting dominated.

So what exactly constitutes rape, then? Is any violation of the body, any violation at all, rape? Or, must the violation be sexual for it to be considered rape?

[danyboy27]

This is a rather sensitive subject matter, so I am hoping people here would try to be a little . . . well, a little sensitive!:)

Anyway, I hear most people say that rape is about power rather than sex. If that's true, then what about a 'normal' fight where an opponent controls you right from the beginning? That too involves violation of your body. Like the rape victim, you too would have no control over your body, and, in fact, your body will be at the mercy of your opponent. Like rape, this fight too is about power, and who controls whom. As in rape, there is always someone who dominates in the fight, and someone getting dominated.

So what exactly constitutes rape, then? Is any violation of the body, any violation at all, rape? Or, must the violation be sexual for it to be considered rape?
yes.

[mollymae]

If rape was about sex and sex alone, why wouldn't the rapist just go hire a prostitute instead of raping someone and risking years in prison.

[Nuvem]

Um...yeah. Violation must reach sexual levels for it to be considered rape. Physical violence is painful and unpleasant but (let's assume that we're both unarmed) it's not very traumatic and emotionally scarring like rape is. Sexual assault pierces deeper than mere physical assault both literally and metaphorically.

I've been in physical fights before, I've punched and been punched in return and I've gotta say it's pretty unpleasant and not fun. But in most cases it's not so one-sided as you describe or as rape is; usually both combatants can at least give each other something to remember the other by, even if one is clearly defeated.

Rape is a different matter entirely. While simple unarmed combat can be a power issue and one can feel a satisfaction upon victory, it's simply not the same. I would argue that rape is for sexual gratification and for power, otherwise would-be rapists would simply go out and pick a fight.

[Che a chara]

It's a sickening urge. Not all rapes are based on power alone, or vice-versa, and of course the violation has to be sexual in nature for it to be considered rape or attempted rape.

It's probably mixture of both sex and power in most cases.

A rape can also be triggered in an instant, like instinct or opportunism, which basically is more about sex rather than the intention of wanting to control someone.

[Comrade Gwydion]

If rape was about sex and sex alone, why wouldn't the rapist just go hire a prostitute instead of raping someone and risking years in prison.

1) Prostitutes cost money
2) Prostitutes aren't there when you rape on impulse
3) The lady/lad you'd absolutely want to have sex with might not have an identical twin that is a prostitute.

Not saying your side of the discussion is wrong, just the argument provided.

[it_ain't_me]

it depends on the rapist, but i'm sure it is probably a little bit of both. things arguing in favor of the 'power' perspective, however, include: -the fact that otherwise hetero males engage in male-male rape in situations of a power imbalance, such as a cop raping a male detainee with a nightstick (as has been known to happen several times just that i've read of) or in prison (one prisoner/group of prisoners trying to establish dominance over another) -the fact that rapists frequently employ much more violence than would be necessary simply to subdue another person for sex -the fact that if you were desperate for sex you could find a prostitute at much less risk to yourself than by raping someone (i suppose this one argues *against* rape being about sex more than it argues *for* rape being about power)

[Sir Comradical]

I see a pattern with you, Gandhiji. You tend to change a word's meaning and then equate it to something else when there's no point. Why?

So yes, it must be sexual because that's the definition of rape.

[it_ain't_me]

I see a pattern with you, Gandhiji. You tend to change a word's meaning and then equate it to something else when there's no point. Why?

So yes, it must be sexual because that's the definition of rape. you may not like gandhiji, but the question s/he asks is an old one and is not original to him/her

[Meridian]

Yes, but only because we otherwise call it something else; "assault" for example.

As for people who actually do rape others, it is always an expression of power, even if it is sexual in nature or not. Consider prison rapes, for example. These are people with nearly zero power over their lives (as they are incarcerated). In those circumstances people get frustrated and angry. Not that this is an excuse to rape anyone, though. But the whole idea behind legal imprisonment is insane.

[Agnapostate]

I'd say the common assumption that motivations for rape are primarily a desire for power and control as opposed to a socio-sexual one related to physical and emotional lust are dubious.

I would recommend that interested parties consult E. Kanin's work in An examination of sexual aggression as a response to sexual frustration and Date rapists: Differential sexual socialization and relative deprivation. The abstract of the latter is particularly revealing:


Deviant sexual behavior has often been portrayed as the consequence of the frustration of legitimate sexual outlets. This study of date rapists reveals that these men, as a result of a hypersexual socialization process, are sexually very active, successful, and aspiring. These exaggerated aspiration levels are seen as responsible for instituting a high degree of sexual frustration. This acute relative deprivation, it is hypothesized, is a significant process responsible for precipitating these rape episodes.

Hence, deviant sexual behavior (specifically, sexual coercion), is likely precipitated by exaggerated sexual aspiration levels. Though these men may experience little in the way of actual sexual deprivation, the relative deprivation that they experience likely results in sexual frustration, as Kanin noted. On those grounds, sexual coercion can be observed to be related to some degree of sexual frustration, which indicates a motive of extreme lust, not a mere desire for power or control.

Moreover, analyses of the motivations of rapists, specifically of the sexual response of rapists to alternate depictions and narratives of consensual sexual encounters and coercive sexual encounters have indicated that they are typically not more stimulated or aroused by violent encounters than by nonviolent ones, as opposed to non-rapists, who were most stimulated by narratives of nonviolent encounters and least stimulated by narratives of violent encounters. This research has been conducted in studies such as Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, and Guild's The components of rapists' sexual arousal and Quinsey, Chaplin, and Varney's A comparison of rapists' and non-sex offenders' sexual preferences for mutually consenting sex, rape, and physical abuse of women.

In Quinsey and Chaplin's Stimulus Control of Rapists' and Non-sex Offenders' Sexual Arousal (http://psycserver.psyc.queensu.ca/quinsey/pdf/offenders/QuinseyChaplin1984BehavAssess169-176.pdf), they document the following:


Fifteen rapists and fifteen non-sex offenders’ penile circumference responses to audiotaped narratives were compared. These narrative involved neutral heterosocial scenes, consenting heterosexual activity in which the female partner was active or passive, and rape scenes. The rape scenes varied according to whether the victim assertively refused or pleaded for mercy and according to whether the victim ultimately experienced pain or pleasure in the assault. Non-sex offenders responded most to the consenting sex narratives and least to the stories in which the victim suffered whereas rapists’ responses did not vary over the various categories of consenting and nonconsenting heterosexual activity. These data are consistent with the theory that nonrapists’ sexual responses are inhibited by nonsexual cues given by the female whereas those of rapists are not.

If rapists were motivated primarily by desires for domination and control of women, then they would have experience greater arousal from the audio narratives of violent sexual encounters, but there was no indication of any variation between their responses to narratives of violent sexual encounters and consensual sexual encounters, indicating a sexual motive, a proclivity for rape being related to a lack of inhibitions regarding the use of violence or coercion.

[synthesis]

Well, here we go again... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

[eyedrop]

Um...yeah. Violation must reach sexual levels for it to be considered rape. Physical violence is painful and unpleasant but (let's assume that we're both unarmed) it's not very traumatic and emotionally scarring like rape is. Sexual assault pierces deeper than mere physical assault both literally and metaphorically.
This whole post reeks of someone whom has never been physically assaulted. (Being in a fight doesn't count.)

"Not very traumatic and emotionally scarring" isn't true at all.

[Decolonize The Left]

This thread is worrisome.
Perhaps it is the case that the majority of those posting in this thread are not personally familiar with violence and/or rape, as they have not been assaulted/raped or someone very close to them has not. Or perhaps it is the difficulties of the internet and communicating via text that hampers our ability to properly dialogue over this issue...

Regardless, rape is not comparable to physical violence as it necessarily involves physical violence, yet supersedes this as it involves sexual violence and the blatant violation of personal autonomy, dignity, space, and worth.

- August

[Dimentio]

This is a rather sensitive subject matter, so I am hoping people here would try to be a little . . . well, a little sensitive!:)

Anyway, I hear most people say that rape is about power rather than sex. If that's true, then what about a 'normal' fight where an opponent controls you right from the beginning? That too involves violation of your body. Like the rape victim, you too would have no control over your body, and, in fact, your body will be at the mercy of your opponent. Like rape, this fight too is about power, and who controls whom. As in rape, there is always someone who dominates in the fight, and someone getting dominated.

So what exactly constitutes rape, then? Is any violation of the body, any violation at all, rape? Or, must the violation be sexual for it to be considered rape?

I think there is varying definitions depending on what national law is in used where you live. Here, any form of involuntary penetrative action upon another person's body with the usage of a body part or an object is considered a rape. Therefore, if two robbers would put an apple into the mouth of a bank clerk, it would technically be considered a rape.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Therefore, if two robbers would put an apple into the mouth of a bank clerk, it would technically be considered a rape.

:laugh: :laugh:

Prosecutor: How did you rape her?
Defendant: With an apple, of course!
Prosecutor (reddening): I want the truth.
Defendant: You can't handle the truth. Here, have some apples instead.

[synthesis]

Well, here we go again... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

Allow me to explicate on this rather brief statement of mine. When I say the question in the OP was a false dichotomy, I don't mean there's a third option, but that the question itself is poorly framed.

My problem is that the OP asks, "Is rape about power or sex" - as if it can't be both.

Sex itself is often "about power." Consensual sex, for example, can also incorporate power dynamics - dominance, not just BDSM or "rough sex," but more complex psychological undertones of which even the participants may not be fully aware.

Any answer that simply chooses one option from the two is bound to be incomplete. It is generally a mix of both. The question in the OP may be a fruitful topic for discussion - that is, it provokes strong opinions and emotion - but it is not necessarily going to help us achieve any meaningful understanding of the subject itself.

[Agnapostate]

I've said that rape probably evolved as a reproductive strategy, which has been misinterpreted by the shallow-minded as some kind of ethical endorsement, as though such a thing as the naturalistic fallacy didn't exist.

[synthesis]

I've said that rape probably evolved as a reproductive strategy, which has been misinterpreted by the shallow-minded as some kind of ethical endorsement, as though such a thing as the naturalistic fallacy didn't exist.

I empathize with your frustration with people that can't tell the difference between explanation and justification, but you should still read this (http://web.archive.org/web/20020217090106/http://www.geocities.com/i_sang_holy_holy/time_essay.html).

There is a difference between rape and sexual aggression, at least in terms of evolutionary strategy.



Thornhill and Palmer aren't endorsing rape, of course. In their article in the latest issue of the Sciences -- which is already generating a high volume of buzz although their book, A Natural History of Rape, won't be out until April -- they say they just want to correct the feminist fallacy that "rape is not about sex" it's about violence and domination. The authors argue, among other things, that since the majority of victims are women of childbearing age, the motive must be lust and the intent, however unconscious, must be to impregnate. Hence rape is not an act of pathology but a venerable old strategy for procreation. What's "natural" isn't always nice.


Now, there are people who reject any attempt to apply evolutionary theory to human behavior, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go back to composing their annual letters to Santa Claus. Obviously, humans have been shaped by natural selection (though it's not always known how). We are not the descendants of the kindest or wisest of hominids -- only of those who managed, by cunning or luck, to produce a few living offspring. But is rape really an effective strategy for guys who, deep down in their genes, just want to be fruitful and multiply?


There are plenty of evolutionary psychologists who would answer with are sounding no. They emphasize the evolutionary value of the human male's" parental investment" -- his tendency to stick around after the act of impregnation and help out with the kids. Prehistoric dads may not have read many bedtime stories, but, in this account, they very likely brought home the occasional antelope haunch, and they almost certainly played a major role in defending the family from four-legged predators. In contrast, the rapist generally operates on a hit-and-run basis which may be alright for stocking sperm banks, but is not quite so effective if the goal is to produce offspring who will survive in a challenging environment. The children of guys who raped-and-ran must have been a scrawny lot and doomed to end up on some leopard's lunch menu.


There's another problem with rape -- again, from a strictly Darwinian perspective. Even if it isn't "about violence" as feminists have claimed, it almost always involved violence or at least the threat thereof; otherwise, it isn't rape. Thornhill and Palmer downplay the amount of physical violence accompanying rape, claiming that no more than 22% of victims suffer any "gratuitous" violence beyond that necessary to subdue them. But we are still talking about appalling levels of damage to the mother of the rapist's prospective offspring. Most rape victims suffer long-term emotional consequences -- like depression and memory loss - that are hardly conducive to successful motherhood. It's a pretty dumb Darwinian specimen who can't plant his seed without breaking the "vessel" in the process.


Thornhill and Palmer's insistence that the rapist isn't a psychopath, just an ordinary fellow who's in touch with his inner caveman, leads some dubious prescriptions. They want to institute formal training for boys in how to resist their "natural" sexual impulses to rape. Well, sure, kids should learn that rape is wrong, along with all other forms of assault. But the emphasis on rape as a natural male sexual impulse is bound to baffle those boys -- and I would like to think there are more than a few of them out there -- whose sexual fantasies have never drifted in a rape-ward direction.


As for the girls, Thornhill and Palmer want them to realize that since rape is really "about sex," it very much matters how they dress. But, where is the evidence that women in miniskirts are more likely to be raped than women in dirndls? Women were raped by thousands in Bosnia, for example, and few of them were wearing bikinis or bustiers.


Yes, rape is "about sex," in which one person's pain, and possibly permanent injury, is the occasion for the other one's pleasure. What most of us mean by sex is something mutual and participatory, loving and uplifting or at least flirty and fun. In fact, making the world safe for plunging necklines and thong undies is a goal that enlightened members of both sexes ought to be able to get behind. As for those guys who can't distinguish between sex and rape, I don't care whether they're as "natural" as granola, they don't deserve to live in the company of women.

[Agnapostate]

I empathize with your frustration with people that can't tell the difference between explanation and justification, but you should still read this (http://web.archive.org/web/20020217090106/http://www.geocities.com/i_sang_holy_holy/time_essay.html).

There is a difference between rape and sexual aggression, at least in terms of evolutionary strategy.

I read that essay in the same Opposing Viewpoints volume where I was first introduced to Thornhill and Palmer's perspective. She doesn't seem to understand the material very well when she says that "the rapist generally operates on a hit-and-run basis which may be alright for stocking sperm banks, but is not quite so effective if the goal is to produce offspring who will survive in a challenging environment. The children of guys who raped-and-ran must have been a scrawny lot and doomed to end up on some leopard's lunch menu."

Rapists "run" because of the criminalization of rape that comes in more advanced forms of social organization, and the threat of capture and punishment from law enforcement. You won't find animals that violently impregnate mates running; what exactly do they have to run from?

[GreenCommunism]

i don't like that essay. they come to conclusions like they think woman shouldn't wear mini-skirts and that kind of crap. they make some good criticism of it though. i don't know the author's politics, i don't know if they are reactionary. but i think they jump to conclusions far too much. albeit if thornhill and palmer actually said how a woman dresses matter. then they can go to hell.


Rapists "run" because of the criminalization of rape that comes in more advanced forms of social organization, and the threat of capture and punishment from law enforcement. You won't find animals that violently impregnate mates running; what exactly do they have to run from?

because rapist gorilla are not beaten the shit out of them by the tribe. which is what would happen in a human tribe i think.

[Agnapostate]

albeit if thornhill and palmer actually said how a woman dresses matter. then they can go to hell.

They said that in a sense of explanation rather than justification, as Kun Fana said. It's along the lines of advising someone against walking through a crime-ridden area with hundred-dollar bills hanging out of his or her pockets, for lack of a more lumpen-friendly analogy at the moment.


because rapist gorilla are not beaten the shit out of them by the tribe. which is what would happen in a human tribe i think.

It's a matter of pre-human hominids that anatomically modern humans later evolved from, to some extent. I don't know why you believe that all anatomically modern humans were peaceable social beings, though; numerous roving bands were violent and lacked well-defined legal systems in their earliest manifestations.

[Dimentio]

Orwell:



w w w . george-orwell.org/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London/35.html

Such a man who loses control and commits rape is starved for something, but not power, and maybe not even sex.

Alright, and that tramp article had something to do with rape? At all? Rape is not entirely a class issue, as not only destitute males are rapists. Actually most rapes are happening within relationships.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sex itself is often "about power." Consensual sex, for example, can also incorporate power dynamics - dominance, not just BDSM or "rough sex," but more complex psychological undertones of which even the participants may not be fully aware.

If the participants are not aware of it, and I presume that it is also otherwise undetectable to external observers, how can anyone possibly know it's there? Sounds like fluffy-minded psychobabble to me.

[GreenCommunism]

i think rape has more to do with mysogeny than power. as for jail rape i would say yes it is power but also humiliation. it's alot about keeping domination over inmates who are either weak or humiliating a strong minded one.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I'd have to say power, dominance, and to some extent, sadism.

[synthesis]

If the participants are not aware of it, and I presume that it is also otherwise undetectable to external observers, how can anyone possibly know it's there? Sounds like fluffy-minded psychobabble to me.

Then I phrased it wrong, or you misunderstood. I'm saying that people might act in "dominant" and/or "submissive" ways during sex without consciously doing so, and furthermore, without being conscious of the psychology behind such behavior.



Rapists "run" because of the criminalization of rape that comes in more advanced forms of social organization, and the threat of capture and punishment from law enforcement. You won't find animals that violently impregnate mates running; what exactly do they have to run from?Good point. I think she was just saying that a rapist, by nature, is probably not going to be concerned about the fate of the child or the mother, and also that the physical and mental trauma would decrease the mother's ability to care for her child. None of this, however, is conclusive evidence against the 'evolutionary strategy' argument.

[NGNM85]

I think the correct answer is; 'both.' Rape is a form of subjugation, dominating a human being, but saying the sexual impulse has nothing to do with it is ridiculous.

[GreenCommunism]

Good point. I think she was just saying that a rapist, by nature, is probably not going to be concerned about the fate of the child or the mother, and also that the physical and mental trauma would decrease the mother's ability to care for her child. None of this, however, is conclusive evidence against the 'evolutionary strategy' argument.

what about gorilla who rape?do male gorilla care about their offpsrings?


I think the correct answer is; 'both.' Rape is a form of subjugation, dominating a human being, but saying the sexual impulse has nothing to do with it is ridiculous.
sex has alot to do with power in the human psych.

[Robinhoodist]

Alright, and that tramp article had something to do with rape? At all? Rape is not entirely a class issue, as not only destitute males are rapists. Actually most rapes are happening within relationships.

The bolds were to make sure you didn't miss the point. Epic fail I guess. I woulda preferred if you just don't approve the post than disembowel it and make sure everyone sees you do it so you can mock it and get thanks.

Orwell didn't say it was entirely a class issue. He showed that a hetero male can be so beat down by the system that he might as well be castrated too. And if he rapes in frustration, it's bad, and vile, and criminal, and deserves severe punishment, but he didn't do it for power over the woman. Maybe not even for sex. Read the bolds again. Read the whole page. Orwell shows how the tramp is stripped of his humanity by the system. Maybe that's what he's craving. We can't pin it down to 'power or sex'. It can be more complicated.

But I won't waste time attempting to post again so no worries, gatekeeper.

[Dimentio]

The bolds were to make sure you didn't miss the point. Epic fail I guess. I woulda preferred if you just don't approve the post than disembowel it and make sure everyone sees you do it so you can mock it and get thanks.

Orwell didn't say it was entirely a class issue. He showed that a hetero male can be so beat down by the system that he might as well be castrated too. And if he rapes in frustration, it's bad, and vile, and criminal, and deserves severe punishment, but he didn't do it for power over the woman. Maybe not even for sex. Read the bolds again. Read the whole page. Orwell shows how the tramp is stripped of his humanity by the system. Maybe that's what he's craving. We can't pin it down to 'power or sex'. It can be more complicated.

But I won't waste time attempting to post again so no worries, gatekeeper.

Gatekeeper? :blink::lol::thumbup1:

In general, I don't think hoodlums are more prone to rape people than others. No statistics are indicating that. Assault rapes are also a minority of rapes in most countries. The typical rapist is generally a male who is in a relationship with the woman he is raping.

If something, rape could be seen as associated with patriarchy and with the dominance behaviour and values attached to the idea that the person who is doing the penetration is superior than the person being penetrated.

[Agnapostate]

I think she was just saying that a rapist, by nature, is probably not going to be concerned about the fate of the child or the mother, and also that the physical and mental trauma would decrease the mother's ability to care for her child. None of this, however, is conclusive evidence against the 'evolutionary strategy' argument.

I still don't see how that would go. A certain degree of physically abusive or controlling behavior against mates seems to be a relatively common attribute of male mammalian behavior that dwindles to a greater extent when more advanced social structures are developed, though generally not to the level of violent assault, since as you mentioned, that would cause reproductive problems. But Thornhill and Palmer made it clear that sexual assaults are orchestrated without excessive violence because of the focus on lust.

[Adi Shankara]

I know this may be off topic in a slight way, but I have been active in a Dom/sub type lifestyle for some time now; it doesn't interfere with my beliefs in social equality, because I believe the woman's rights movement gives one to choose; my ex (we have parted due to distance) and I were deeply involved in Dom/sub where I basically dictated to her what she was to wear, rules she had to follow, etc. but none of this was forced on her; she had the right to leave any moment she wanted, and she entered into this relationship by asking me to "own" her, not vice versa. and yes, we practice "rape play" but it's fully consensual.

personally, I think sex is such a primitive, most human of all things, that it's best to leave politics out of the bedroom unless it directly infringes on the rights of others, of which BDSM and Dom/sub relationships do not.

[Foldered]

I think the correct answer is; 'both.' Rape is a form of subjugation, dominating a human being, but saying the sexual impulse has nothing to do with it is ridiculous.
I agree. I'm not entirely sure why it needs to go beyond that; it's an interaction of power/dominance/violence and sex.

And Thomas_Sankara, practicing "rape play" and fantasizing about rape (etc) isn't even related to actual rape in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with people getting off on staged rape or on the false feeling of being violated or on the false feeling of dominating.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

I know this may be off topic in a slight way, but I have been active in a Dom/sub type lifestyle for some time now; it doesn't interfere with my beliefs in social equality, because I believe the woman's rights movement gives one to choose; my ex (we have parted due to distance) and I were deeply involved in Dom/sub where I basically dictated to her what she was to wear, rules she had to follow, etc. but none of this was forced on her; she had the right to leave any moment she wanted, and she entered into this relationship by asking me to "own" her, not vice versa. and yes, we practice "rape play" but it's fully consensual.

personally, I think sex is such a primitive, most human of all things, that it's best to leave politics out of the bedroom unless it directly infringes on the rights of others, of which BDSM and Dom/sub relationships do not.

Thanks for an honest, straightforward post.:)

On another note, I also wonder whether 'domination' and sexuality may have anything in common. Suppose a man wants to be dominated by another man (and only by a man), is it simply a fetish that turns him on? If so, why doesn't he want a female to dominate him and instead prefers only male? The fact that he not only prefers domination but specifically male domination . . . doesn't that hint at some sort of sexual preference rather than just a fetish?

[Hiero]

I know this may be off topic in a slight way, but I have been active in a Dom/sub type lifestyle for some time now; it doesn't interfere with my beliefs in social equality, because I believe the woman's rights movement gives one to choose; my ex (we have parted due to distance) and I were deeply involved in Dom/sub where I basically dictated to her what she was to wear, rules she had to follow, etc. but none of this was forced on her; she had the right to leave any moment she wanted, and she entered into this relationship by asking me to "own" her, not vice versa. and yes, we practice "rape play" but it's fully consensual.

personally, I think sex is such a primitive, most human of all things, that it's best to leave politics out of the bedroom unless it directly infringes on the rights of others, of which BDSM and Dom/sub relationships do not.

The actually fantasy for people who engage in BDSM is that outside the bedroom everyday society is not one big BDSM culture, either symbolically or literally.

[Adi Shankara]

The actually fantasy for people who engage in BDSM is that outside the bedroom everyday society is not one big BDSM culture, either symbolically or literally.

What do you mean?

[Adi Shankara]

On another note, I also wonder whether 'domination' and sexuality may have anything in common. Suppose a man wants to be dominated by another man (and only by a man), is it simply a fetish that turns him on? If so, why doesn't he want a female to dominate him and instead prefers only male? The fact that he not only prefers domination but specifically male domination . . . doesn't that hint at some sort of sexual preference rather than just a fetish?

Sexuality is a very complex thing; Alfred Kinsey says that there is no such thing as a "straight" or "gay" person; that everyone is somewhere at 5 on a line between 1 and 10. That, and all sexuality is influenced by childhood. so whatever the reason to lead a male to wanting to be dominated by another male doesn't make him gay, it just makes him normal. fetishes are completely normal and healthy (except those that infringe on or harm others or the defenseless, like children), and Kinsey says that in studies he has done, almost everyone has one. it's often just hidden in their subconscious.

[RGacky3]

Mahatma Ghandi, you might want to look for answers to your questions in a more appropriate area, this is a revolutionary leftist forum, not a human sexuality study group, people here would'nt really know anymore than anyone else, this .... again, is something that is up to science.

[Adi Shankara]

Mahatma Ghandi, you might want to look for answers to your questions in a more appropriate area, this is a revolutionary leftist forum, not a human sexuality study group, people here would'nt really know anymore than anyone else, this .... again, is something that is up to science.

I don't think it's a wrong subject to talk about...I just think it's in the wrong subforum :P it should be moved to Chit-chat.

[Hiero]

What do you mean?



I were deeply involved in Dom/sub where I basically dictated to her what she was to wear, rules she had to follow, etc. but none of this was forced on her;


Some feminists and other social theorist would say that this is the norm of western society at least at some symbolic level. So then the bedroom/relationship is playing out the fantasy that is actually a lived experience for some people in mainstream society. So then isn't the fantasy that this only happens in the berdoom and the rest of society isn't a power play?

I can't imagine someone who has faced actually violence and coericion, not just at a symbolic level ie a slave, playing a fantasy game where they are a slave.

[Adi Shankara]

Some feminists and other social theorist would say that this is the norm of western society at least at some symbolic level. So then the bedroom/relationship is playing out the fantasy that is actually a lived experience for some people in mainstream society. So then isn't the fantasy that this only happens in the berdoom and the rest of society isn't a power play?

[QUOTE=Hiero;1787648]I can't imagine someone who has faced actually violence and coericion, not just at a symbolic level ie a slave, playing a fantasy game where they are a slave.

In my relationship with her, that was what made it different though; she was technically in my complete control, yes; but she wasn't. if she really didn't want to be there, she wouldn't have to be; we started out as "vanilla" (plain relationship) and then one day told me she wanted me to take more control as in "complete control over [her] everyday life".

even if this was the norm for much of society, it certainly wasn't for us, so It's not like she was held to most of society's standard. she was just naturally that way, and rather enjoyed traditional feminine roles--it bothered me at first, but she convinced me that it was her choice regardless, as there was no modern oppression that could be held at my hands; she could just leave if she really wanted to. and she was right--she just didn't want to.

[Foldered]

Mahatma Ghandi, you might want to look for answers to your questions in a more appropriate area, this is a revolutionary leftist forum, not a human sexuality study group, people here would'nt really know anymore than anyone else, this .... again, is something that is up to science.
I wouldn't generalize all the users of this forum that way (for one we have someone who is actually experienced in BDSM). Yes, this is a revolutionary leftist forum, but I imagine there are enough people here versed in human sexuality (I've done a lot of reading on the theoretical aspects of sexuality as opposed to the "scientific"--which is a very loaded term to use--aspect of human sexuality).
I'm by no means an expert, but I have a background that would allow me to have a pretty in-depth discussion on human sexuality. If you think human sexuality is entirely "scientific," I would have to disagree.

[synthesis]

I have a background that would allow me to have a pretty in-depth discussion on human sexuality.

I read this as, "I went to college." :)


I still don't see how that would go. A certain degree of physically abusive or controlling behavior against mates seems to be a relatively common attribute of male mammalian behavior that dwindles to a greater extent when more advanced social structures are developed, though generally not to the level of violent assault, since as you mentioned, that would cause reproductive problems. But Thornhill and Palmer made it clear that sexual assaults are orchestrated without excessive violence because of the focus on lust.

True, but this is somewhat of a semantics issue. Obviously, there are varying degrees of rape, from simple lack of consent all the way to vicious and harmful bodily assault.

To simply say that "sexual assaults are orchestrated without excessive violence" is partially true, partially false, but essentially bullshit (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html), in that it makes the claim that "sexual assault" is principally more "sexual" than it is "assault," an assertion for which I have not seen satisfactory evidence offered.

I hope this does not come across as a personal attack, because your stance isn't unsupported, but I don't find the evidence to be wholly conclusive at all.

[synthesis]

In general, I don't think hoodlums are more prone to rape people than others. No statistics are indicating that. Assault rapes are also a minority of rapes in most countries. The typical rapist is generally a male who is in a relationship with the woman he is raping.

If something, rape could be seen as associated with patriarchy and with the dominance behaviour and values attached to the idea that the person who is doing the penetration is superior than the person being penetrated.

As a counter-point to this argument, I definitely think there's a social aspect of rape which is poorly understood by many psychologists and feminists alike. In some instances - and I'm not just pulling this out of my ass - rape can be considered as a tragic consequence of capitalist oppression.

That is, within communities that are exploited on the basis of class and/or race, the act of rape is sometimes considered as a result of the perceived emasculation and evaporation of traditionally "male" privileges. I have mostly seen this argument presented in relation to its occurrence in South Africa, but I'm interested to hear if anyone has come across a more theoretical/scientific approach to this argument.

[Foldered]

I read this as, "I went to college." :)
Yes, and I independently study, what's your point?

And I didn't just "go to college", that sounds incredibly passive.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, and I independently study.

Before I was married I did that kind of "independent study" on any woman that would let me. :D

[Hiero]

[QUOTE=Hiero;1787648]Some feminists and other social theorist would say that this is the norm of western society at least at some symbolic level. So then the bedroom/relationship is playing out the fantasy that is actually a lived experience for some people in mainstream society. So then isn't the fantasy that this only happens in the berdoom and the rest of society isn't a power play?



In my relationship with her, that was what made it different though; she was technically in my complete control, yes; but she wasn't. if she really didn't want to be there, she wouldn't have to be; we started out as "vanilla" (plain relationship) and then one day told me she wanted me to take more control as in "complete control over [her] everyday life".

even if this was the norm for much of society, it certainly wasn't for us, so It's not like she was held to most of society's standard. she was just naturally that way, and rather enjoyed traditional feminine roles--it bothered me at first, but she convinced me that it was her choice regardless, as there was no modern oppression that could be held at my hands; she could just leave if she really wanted to. and she was right--she just didn't want to.

I was saying the play in the bedroom is staged for the fantasy outside the bedroom.