Rape

[Comrada J]

wiki talk page

However, too many people mistakenly or willfully attribute our personal repugnance for the act of rape to the unthinking, amoral engine of evolution, and they refuse to consider the simple fact that if a male's qualities can be tested by physical competition with other males, so too can they be tested by physical competition with the female he is trying to mate with. Evolution does not care whether the experience is traumatic for the female, any more than it cares about the life of a male spider whose life is snuffed out for following his desire to mate. If a female is unselective about the father of her children, she will most likely have children with a mediocre father. If she is selective about the father of her children, she will most likely have children with a far more successful father. If she is even more selective about the father of her children, such that she does not choose him but he instead chooses her despite all the resistance she can provide, she will most likely have children with a father whose physical prowess is not only proven, but which exceeds hers. Anyone still thinking that this must be evolutionarily undesirable because it is personally undesirable for her is misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sociobiological_theories_of_rape



"The Enigma of Rape"

The answer may at first seem obvious. It is in a male's interest to impregnate as many females as possible - whether he is in a close relationship with another female or not. If a female does not want that male (ie she perceives him to be less attractive than other males which may be available) then he may take the opportunity to force sex (and hopefully pregnancy) onto the female. The situation however is not this simple.

Why would women not either abort, or simply not get pregnant after suffering the trauma of rape? Indeed pregnancy, or the risk of it is something which makes rape even more traumatic for the victim. There is already a biological mechanism to enable this (spontaneous abortion). Why isn't it triggered? It is such a simple thing - if it is in the interests of the woman, why has it not evolved?

The answer is that it is in the interests of the female to let the pregnancy go through. The rapist was clearly powerful enough, clever enough or fit enough to carry out the rape, and so is probably carrying very good genes.

The Vikings who raped, pillaged and plundered their way around much of the world were fit, strong, able men, and would have carried excellent genes - probably considerably better than the stunted and inbred specimens in the local villages they ravaged. A Viking man would have given good sons, who would be likely to successfully rape other women, ad infinitum. It would have been far more beneficial for the pregnant rape victim to have the child than to terminate the pregnancy.

http://bovination.com/cbs/enigmaOfRape.jsp


Personally, I think all this is garbage. No one enjoys being raped, it usually causes emotional trauma + physical injury and sometimes even death; healthy, alive females make much better mothers.

As for men, well, I'm not sure. But I am sure that I wouldn't want to be overpowered and raped by a woman with the ability to do so and I definitely wouldn't want her to have my child. Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it. It wouldn't matter if he had "good genes" or not.

Its very unlikely an individual with "good genetic stock" would need to rape; a person with traits that make them rich, good looking, smart, strong etc. should have no trouble finding a consenting mate(s). So with that I'd assume only those of "low genetic stock" (unattractive etc) would need do this which means it isn't progressive evolution at all.

Also Rape as a "genetic adaptation" does little to explain same-sex rape.

What do you people think are the causes of rape? And further more, how can we stop it?

moved from discrimination to sciences and environments - rioters bloc

[Monty Cantsin]

I don’t really buy the biological determinist stance on rape. Reading over the psychology of rapists it just doesn’t seem plausible. I think it’s more likely a hatred of women, which in my mind has to be pathological for someone to do such a thing. Not all though, a date rapist probably isn’t motivated by a hatred of women but rather wanting to climax whether or not the women consents.

As for enjoyment some women, very few do get sexually aroused - it’s involuntary though it doesn’t mean their consenting.

[Enragé]

also, define "excellent genes"

excellent genes 6000 years ago are likely to have been different than they are now.

[loveme4whoiam]

What. The. Fuck. That anyone could think like this chills me to the bone, it really does. I doubt this evolutionary crap ever enters the mind of a rapist, unless he is an ultra-narcicistic bastard who really believes he is helping women :angry:

The answer to stopping them? Neuter any bastard who thinks that he can do something as vile as rape to another person.

[ZeroPain]

Personally, I think all this is garbage. No one enjoys being raped, it usually causes emotional trauma + physical injury and sometimes even death; healthy, alive females make much better mothers.


The logic is that the stronger female will survive.


As for men, well, I'm not sure. But I am sure that I wouldn't want to be overpowered and raped by a woman with the ability to do so and I definitely wouldn't want her to have my child. Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it. It wouldn't matter if he had "good genes" or not.

Sometimes its just not possable to seek out revenge.


Its very unlikely an individual with "good genetic stock" would need to rape; a person with traits that make them rich, good looking, smart, strong etc. should have no trouble finding a consenting mate(s). So with that I'd assume only those of "low genetic stock" (unattractive etc) would need do this which means it isn't progressive evolution at all.

Your not thinking in terms of evolution, the more children a person has the more chance their lineage will survive.


Also Rape as a "genetic adaptation" does little to explain same-sex rape.

Its the same


What do you people think are the causes of rape? And further more, how can we stop it?

Rape is innate within man due to years of selective favor of agressive strong individuals. The best way to stop it is for rapeists to be kept from breeding.


I don’t really buy the biological determinist stance on rape. Reading over the psychology of rapists it just doesn’t seem plausible. I think it’s more likely a hatred of women, which in my mind has to be pathological for someone to do such a thing. Not all though, a date rapist probably isn’t motivated by a hatred of women but rather wanting to climax whether or not the women consents.

Its an animal urge to have sex, weather its consentual or not.


What. The. Fuck. That anyone could think like this chills me to the bone, it really does. I doubt this evolutionary crap ever enters the mind of a rapist, unless he is an ultra-narcicistic bastard who really believes he is helping women mad.gif


Its an animal act, we are animals, animals evolve.

[PRC-UTE]

Yet incidents of rape aren't uniformly spread throughout human cultures and societies, that is some have much more rape and some much less than others.

That would imply that biology would play a limited role and have lots more to do with social factors.

[ZeroPain]

Yet incidents of rape aren't uniformly spread throughout human cultures and societies, that is some have much more rape and some much less than others.

That would imply that biology would play a limited role and have lots more to do with social factors.

Why?

The success of different traits in different areas is most often different.

Rape is linked to traits of aggression and violence.

[which doctor]

Lot's of rapists are rapists because they link sexual pleasure with violence. They feel satisfied when they are beating a girl down while raping her. He feels power over her.

In fact, some men can't even achieve an orgasm unless there is violence involved in the sexual act. It's sad really. Since most people would not willingly enter a sexual relation with this person, the rapist seeks sexual pleasure else where. It is human nature to seek sexual pleasure.

There could be several causes as to why someone would link sex with violence. It most often develops in one's youth. Perhaps someones first sexual encounter was experimenting and raping someone. That memory will always stay with that person. Maybe the person was unwillingly molested as a child. The causes are endless, however the effect is usually the same, rape.

[PRC-UTE]

So rape would be a byproduct of a hierachal culture where males try to inflict their control over females. If it was biological, it would surface evenly, all over the planet.

[ZeroPain]

So rape would be a byproduct of a hierachal culture where males try to inflict their control over females. If it was biological, it would surface evenly, all over the planet.

Thats like saying "If black skin was biological, it would surface evenly, all over the planet.*

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it. It wouldn't matter if he had "good genes" or not.

How could you possibly know what fathers would do in the situation? Lots of people's daughters are raped, and they don't kill the rapist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Komrad [email protected] 30 2006, 04:15 AM

wiki talk page There is already a biological mechanism to enable this (spontaneous abortion). Why isn't it triggered? It is such a simple thing - if it is in the interests of the woman, why has it not evolved?

The answer is that it is in the interests of the female to let the pregnancy go through. The rapist was clearly powerful enough, clever enough or fit enough to carry out the rape, and so is probably carrying very good genes.
What's meant, presumably, is the interests of her genes. If that was true, presumably women woulda evolved instincts to not resist rape, or at least not so strongly. But they do resist, and females of many other species do as well.

This is a pretty revolting version of this argument. It's highly questionable assertion that rapists are genetically superior, and downright glorification of Viking rapists, make it come off like a force-worshipping, Nordic-supremacist justification for rape. (And in reality, if the Vikings or any other group of people are victorious in war, its unlikely to have much to do with genetic superiority - rather with technology, tactics, and social organization.)

I'm going to take up the biological side briefly, since other people have commented on some of the other fallacies in it.

Rape is common in some animal species - and rare in others, probably most. Is there any reason to think ours is one that "instinctively" rapes? No.

To start with, sexual dimorphism - physical differences between men and women - is pretty small in Homo Sapiens. Smaller than in the ape species, for example. That's a strike against most of the other "sexism is natural, just look at chimps and gorillas" arguments. Additionally, rape - along with most other kinds of interspecies violence - is relatively rare in our species compared to most.

Rape is more common in some societies than others - rare in Japan, for example. And more common in some situations than others. War, for example.

So even if someone, for some reason, decides to credit this peculiar "rape is good for your genes" theory, the answer to stopping rape is still social. Just a matter of some societies being better at suppressing this alleged rape instinct.

[Morag]

Rape is innate within man due to years of selective favor of agressive strong individuals.

My father is not a potential rapist! Neither is my nephew, or my roommate, or my best friend. This argument is the same argument capitalists use (greed is innate because it allows people to become more secure and therefore more attractive to mates) to argue against communism. I reject it.

[Comrada J]

Originally posted by Lennie Jusche+Jul 31 2006, 01:45 PM--> (Lennie Jusche @ Jul 31 2006, 01:45 PM)
Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it. It wouldn't matter if he had "good genes" or not.

How could you possibly know what fathers would do in the situation? Lots of people's daughters are raped, and they don't kill the rapist.[/b]
Yes, it is an assumption but that's the general answer you seem to get. Either way, you wouldn't want your grandchildren's father to be a rapist.


ZeroPain
Its an animal urge to have sex, weather its consentual or not.
Luckily, we are civilized humans beings and not animals.

This isn't something I often bring up, but I was born out of rape. And as a carrier of the "rapist gene" I can tell you I've never raped anyone and personally, I find rape fucking disgusting.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Komrad J+--> (Komrad J)yes, it is an assumption but that's the general answer you seem to get[/b]

That doesn't mean that it's a 'good idea', communists should not be vigilantes.


Komrad J
Either way, you wouldn't want your grandchildren's father to be a rapist.

That is why many wom*n who fall pregnant via rape have abortions?

[Comrada J]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 31 2006, 11:58 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 31 2006, 11:58 PM)
Originally posted by Komrad [email protected]
Yes, it is an assumption but that's the general answer you seem to get

That doesn't mean that it's a 'good idea', communists should not be vigilantes.


Komrad J
Either way, you wouldn't want your grandchildren's father to be a rapist.

That is why many wom*n who fall pregnant via rape have abortions?[/b]
Why are you putting words into my mouth? I never said communists be should vigilantes. I assumed most revleft members where already pro people-power.

I don't remember saying women have abortions because their fathers tell them to either. My point was we don't want our daughters being raped.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Komrad J +--> (Komrad J )Why are you putting words into my mouth?[/b]

I'm doing no such thing.

You said:


Originally posted by Komrad J+--> (Komrad J)"Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it. It wouldn't matter if he had "good genes" or not."[/b]

That suggests vigilante justice, hence i said:

communists should not be vigilantes.

You made these statements, i'm not making them up.


Originally posted by Komrad J
I assumed most revleft members where already pro people-power.

What does being pro-people power have to do with this subject?


Originally posted by Komrad J
I don't remember saying women have abortions because their fathers tell them to either.

Now who's putting words in who's mouth? I never said that is what you were saying.

You said:


Komrad [email protected]
Either way, you wouldn't want your grandchildren's father to be a rapist.

My point was, 'grandchildren' are irrelevant - a lot of (most?) wom*n abort pregnancies that are the product of rape, so not wanting 'your grandchildren's father to be a rapist' is not really a strong point.


Komrad J

My point was we don't want our daughters being raped.

Well i'm sure 'our' daughter(s) wouldn't want to be raped either, but what about your son(s)?

Why this emphasis on 'your daughter' and not on your son? Men are frequent victims of sexual abuse. This obsession with protecting the 'flower' of 'our' daughters, and killing any man who takes this (from 'us'?), has quite patriarchal overrtones. No one should be raped period, sex and age have nothing to do with it - 'our daughters', sons, friends, brothers, fathers, sisters whatever, but murdering rapists doesn't solve what is a social 'problem'.

[Comrada J]

That suggests vigilante justice, hence i said:

communists should not be vigilantes.

You made these statements, i'm not making them up.
I was giving an example of how a lot of (most?) fathers would feel. I never said that's what we must do.


What does being pro-people power have to do with this subject?
You mentioned vigilantism, to me vigilantism is people using power, hence the people power.


Now who's putting words in who's mouth? I never said that is what you were saying.

You said...
Stop with this nit-picking jibber-jabber.


Why this emphasis on 'your daughter' and not on your son? Men are frequent victims of sexual abuse. This obsession with protecting the 'flower' of 'our' daughters, and killing any man who takes this (from 'us'?), has quite patriarchal overrtones.
Because I was talking about children and abortions, men can't give birth. Women are raped more often and suffer much worse from this.


but murdering rapists doesn't solve what is a social 'problem'.
You have any better 'suggestions'?

[Black Dagger]

I was giving an example of how a lot of (most?) fathers would feel. I never said that's what we must do.

Now you're not, you're supporting the idea, there's no way around that, you said:


Originally posted by you+--> (you)Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it.[/b]

That is implicit in that statement, as it is in the retort at the end of your last post.

When i suggested that perhaps there were better ways to delete with rapists than to murder them, you replied:


Originally posted by you+--> (you)You have any better 'suggestions'?[/b]

As if execution was the obvious choice.


Komrad [email protected]
Stop with this nit-picking jibber-jabber.

:unsure: You accused me of putting words in your mouth, i demonstrated that this wasnt the case and that in fact you were doing this, i'm not 'nit-picking' im defending myself from a false accusation.


Komrad J
You mentioned vigilantism, to me vigilantism is people using power, hence the people power.

No, that is a bastardisation of the term 'people power' - vigilantism is not 'people power' in action, it's emotionalism and mob 'justice' in power, it's based on anger, fear, and revenge - not about trying to solve social 'problems'.

People power is about mobilising as a community, as people, to make positive changes.

Real people power in this context would be mobilising the community around the issue of sexual violence, to confront it, to try and tackle the attitudes and social conditioning that can contribute to it.

Do i have some suggestions? Yeah i do, kind of.

In the activist community where i live there was a rape, and instead of calling the po-lice, the community itself was engaged in a process akin to 'restortative justice' (though it has to be stressed that this term is very inadequate to describe what actually happened, but its the easiest way to communicate the general concept).

Some round the table discussions where set up, with both the rapist and the person who was raped, friends etc. in attendance, with a mediator. The 'victim' was able to communicate the emotional trauma of her experience to her rapist, how it effected her, other people talked about how it effected them, it was an attempt to confront the issue, and deal with it as a community (there was a lot more to the discussions and the process than just this, it was a long and taxing process). Other steps were also taken to give the two people involved space in the interests of the 'victim', whenever the rapist would turn up to a place where the person they had raped was present, they were asked to leave immediately, so as to avoid unwanted social contact.

This process, although a struggle for all involved, proved worthwhile, and the wom*n involved was glad to have chosen this route, and not that of the state, the courts, interrogation of her trauma etc.

The point is, the response was not to just kill the man who committed the rape, but to confront him, confront him with his actions and show the effects these had on the person he raped, and to confront the issue of sexual violence in the community as a general problem - to make it an issue, something that people are conscious of.

Killing people doesn't solve social problems, it does absolutely nothing to prevent rape from happening again, nothing to combat attitudes etc.

Do you support capital punishment or just vigilantes?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Komrad [email protected] 31 2006, 10:32 AM

That suggests vigilante justice, hence i said:

communists should not be vigilantes.

You made these statements, i'm not making them up.
I was giving an example of how a lot of (most?) fathers would feel. I never said that's what we must do.
OK. Anyway, in many places and times the father would kill the daughter instead....which also kinda cuts across the idea that rape is an effective way of spreading genes.

[pandora]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 31 2006, 05:24 AM
So rape would be a byproduct of a hierachal culture where males try to inflict their control over females. If it was biological, it would surface evenly, all over the planet.
Correct it is an act of suppression either by military or civilians in order to dominate, torture, and humilate another living being, male, female etc.

However it is usually an outgrowth of patriarchal hierarchal culture that it is used against women who are viewed as weaker. It is used as an instrument of social control often against individuals usually women who are seen as "uppity" or display greater assets intellectually or physically then those who feel they should be superior. This contention allows a pass in the mind of a weak individual with no moral compass for whatever reason either through environment or genetics to think that by raping the individual with power who they feel should not have power they will take the power back to where it belongs, that they are putting them back in their place and will be rewarded by society accordingly, or society will look the other way. In many places (Deep South, U.S., parts of Africa and the Middle East this is the case, in fact in some places the woman must than marry the man or be stoned, thereby he gets full power, and has no connection prior to the woman, which is insane.)

African HIV activists are saying that reversing male power structures is the only solution there to AIDS due to this power structure leaving women powerless to resist rape. Without this power balance condoms and abstience are meaningless as the woman has no power to institute these things.

We as a human race must overcome this darkness as the incidence of rape statistically seems to be increasing. Either this is due to lack of reporting in earlier eras, probable, or it is due to the rise in warfare globally and the break down of family supports due to the need to travel for work leaving women often alone in foreign and domestic cities without village support.

I think the other solution is strong community support of women and women's healthcare. I think public ad campaigns about a woman's right to say "no" and women's education and support in the community in positions of power are major needs. Also rapists should have to appear before a mostly female jury, young female, as often older women are too traditional to advocate young women's rights.

[Comrada J]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Aug 1 2006, 04:54 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Aug 1 2006, 04:54 AM)
[/b]

Now you're not, you're supporting the idea, there's no way around that, you said:


you
Another thing, if your daughter was raped, you'd kill whoever did it.

That is implicit in that statement, as it is in the retort at the end of your last post.
I've already explained myself here. You misinterpreted me. I never said murder was ‘good’ and solved the problem. That is definitely not what I meant. Stop implying that it was.

I asked you that in hopes you would add something constructive.

No, that is a bastardisation of the term 'people power' - vigilantism is not 'people power' in action, it's emotionalism and mob 'justice' in power, it's based on anger, fear, and revenge - not about trying to solve social 'problems'.

That's only your biased opinion, nothing more. Some would say anarchists are vigilantes; they both have little faith in the system and take things into their own hands etc. Your anti-vigilantism, I get that now.


Killing people doesn't solve social problems, it does absolutely nothing to prevent rape from happening again
This is absolutely wrong; a dead rapist can't repeat offend.


Do you support capital punishment or just vigilantes?
I'm not sure; it depends on the Capital or vigilantes. What I am sure of though, is that criminals just can't be left to roam the streets.

I think the first step to combating rape (and all sexual assaults) is public awareness. Most women don't report it, male victims report it even less. This leads people into thinking it's a small insignificant issue that isn't worth doing anything about. Also, a potential rapist, knowing rapes are rarely reported, would care less about the consequences with such a small chance of them being reported. This all needs to change.

[bcbm]

Most women don't report it, male victims report it even less. This leads people into thinking it's a small insignificant issue that isn't worth doing anything about. Also, a potential rapist, knowing rapes are rarely reported, would care less about the consequences with such a small chance of them being reported. This all needs to change.

And let's not forget that in cases where it is reported, the police will often not take it seriously or attempt to blame the person who was raped!

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Komrad J+--> (Komrad J)Some would say anarchists are vigilantes; they both have little faith in the system and take things into their own hands etc. [/b]

:lol:

No communists, anarchists or marxists have no 'faith in the system', and all desire to 'take things into their own hands' - it's called revolution, but that doesnt mean we act on irrational states of emotion, lynch, and murder people to solve our problems.

Vigilantes are the anti-thesis of justice.


Originally posted by Komrad [email protected]

Your anti-vigilantism, I get that now.

And you're not?


Komrad J

This is absolutely wrong; a dead rapist can't repeat offend.

Yes, but killing people does not solve anything. Killing rapists is not a deterrent, it contributes ZERO to helping society understand why people rape, and how we can tackle the issue as a community. It keeps rape 'taboo', you rape you get killed, there's no talk, no discussion, no reflection, just revenge, that's a hopelessly barbaric way for society to function.

[TC]

-on the origional post:

Even the wacky psudo-scientific evolutionary psychologists who suggest that rape has an evolutionary origin, don't suggest anything remotely as absurd as the wikipedia talk page.

Most men can physically overpower most women simply because of the average size and muscle differential caused by different hormonal levels, this doesn't demonstrate anything about their genetic fitness compared to other men so it can't possibly play a role in natural selection...it isn't *selective*.

In fact, every human society has a strict taboo against rape, and considers it more offensive than other forms of physical or sexual assault that use equal or even greater violence, not only among women but among men as well...and some evolutionary psychologists (which again, is a stupid and unscientific field) have suggested that this is because the physically undesirable and therefore genetically unfit men who rape people prevent the larger, stronger men with more pronounced testosterone depedent physical features, who are therefore both sexually attractive and socially influencial, from reproducing...so the strongest, most dominant and sexually attractive males produce the most offspring by preventing rape. So, the hypothesis is that humans of both genders evolve a strong emotional reaction against rape because it bypasses sexual-selection that produces healthier, stronger offspring, so populations that are more tolerant of it are genetically less adapted and have a competitive disadvantage.


Anyways this is just one of the examples of why wikipedia is a shitty source.


I'll respond to the comments later.

[Big Bill Haywood]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 2 2006, 10:28 AM

Yes, but killing people does not solve anything. Killing rapists is not a deterrent, it contributes ZERO to helping society understand why people rape, and how we can tackle the issue as a community. It keeps rape 'taboo', you rape you get killed, there's no talk, no discussion, no reflection, just revenge, that's a hopelessly barbaric way for society to function.
The men who gang raped my wife, IMO, deserve to die.

She was a carefree happy, trusting person, who was sitting outside of a bar and went along with these two fellows who asked if she would accompany them to the corner store to buy some cigarettes.

They viciously raped her and beat her severely.

She did not contact the police...big mistake as with DNA technology today, perhaps they could be identified retroactively.

How hard is it to pick up a girl in a bar? Easy of course.
They chose her for sadistic "fun" not just to cum.

Judging by what she has told me of this incident, I am quite certain that these two "Men" had raped before and in all probability did so again.

I hate them with perfect hatred. ( Sorry to get old testament here, but it describes my feelings 100%)

If I knew who they are, I would slay them with no remorse or regard for my own freedom and 25 years to life would not deter me whatsoever.

Is there a patriarchial/property relation base to my hatred and fury at the rapists?
Yes, if I am totally honest, I fear there may be.
Irregardless, the short yet savage attack upon her has essentially destroyed her life. She has recurring nightmares, panic attacks, she ballooned up to almost 300 pounds as a defense so men would not find her attractive, she almost didnt leave our home for 8 months, she cannot stand to be around blonde men, and more.
I also have become victimized in that, my sex life is almost non existent and I must have eternal patientce and understanding for her. I am not complaining, she is worth it, but the impact of rape trancends the original victim to affect her family and friends also.

Sorry BD, but dead men dont rape.