Evolutionary advantages of rape in a species

[jasonwill2]

what is your definition of a deviant?

would you suppose a deviant is characteristic of the entire species they are a part of?

I don't think that rape is deviant, to be perfectly honest. "Deviant" needs some reference point, but there is none in science when morality is not objectively there but only relativistically invented by humans.

 

[Alceste]

Well, in cases of animals and people whose countries outlaw abortion, he may be able to impregnate a large enough sampling of females to tip the balance. Of course this means (in the case of humans) rape as a full time job and the non use of a condom... so a much higher likelyhood of disease (which would weaken all of the mothers of his offspring, and the offspring itself). So I dunno how that all might work out in the end.

I do - women are having WAY more sex (including unsafe sex) with partners they have selected than they are with rapists. Even the women I know who have been raped have had way more sex with men they selected than they have with rapists. Also, rape is a deviant behavior - it's relatively rare, since most men are happy with a wank, or are able to find willing partners (or both). There are far fewer undesirable males whose only mating option is force than there are attractive males who can get easily get laid with a bit of showering and a few kind words. Finally, in countries where abortion is illegal the number of "accidents" that occur with men who were selected still outnumber rape-induced pregnancies, and those who have been raped will be more likely to seek illegal remedies than those who were attracted to their mate.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think that rape is deviant, to be perfectly honest. "Deviant" needs some reference point, but there is none in science when morality is not objectively there but only relativistically invented by humans.

ok then the term rape is a wrong term..forced copulation.

rape involves psychological implications...

 

[jasonwill2]

ok then the term rape is a wrong term..forced copulation.

rape involves psychological implications...

Since morality does not exist, rape and forced copulation is not "wrong". It's just what it is, forced sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Nature does what it does, it doesn't care what is hurt or what benefits.

 

[NIX]

I do - women are having WAY more sex (including unsafe sex) with partners they have selected than they are with rapists. Even the women I know who have been raped have had way more sex with men they selected than they have with rapists. Also, rape is a deviant behavior - it's relatively rare, since most men are happy with a wank, or are able to find willing partners (or both). There are far fewer undesirable males whose only mating option is force than there are attractive males who can get easily get laid with a bit of showering and a few kind words. Finally, in countries where abortion is illegal the number of "accidents" that occur with men who were selected still outnumber rape-induced pregnancies, and those who have been raped will be more likely to seek illegal remedies than those who were attracted to their mate.

Ahhh yes, I was thinking hypothetically, and this would require MANY raping men, raping a huge number of women. I dunno how much of this kind of thing has happened over the course of history in league with war and pillaging and all, and of course women having no rights whatsoever. But certainly today in any modern country the number of rape induced births must be so small as to count for nothing. I think the rapists would (have) become the majority (already), no? If it were an evolutionary strength?

On the other hand, I think the archaic attitude of a man was he would never raise any child born from his wife that wasn't his own. So maybe many rape babies were abandoned or aborted or killed. Honestly though, I have no idea. I'm no historian, and I'm no scientist.

 

[Alceste]

I never once mentioned having rape fantasies, where did you get this idea? Least of all, that that is a fantasy of mine?

I am good at reading between the lines. It seemed clear to me that the whole "duck rape" discussion was a segue into a discussion of your personal rape fantasies from post number one. It's nothing to be ashamed of - lots of people have rape fantasies, and most people are also too embarrassed to openly discuss them. I have rape fantasies myself. I just don't succumb to the delusion that actual rape is anything like the kind of rape I fantasize about. That's because I fantasize about attractive people, who I would have sex with anyway, even if they weren't physically dominating me. Just as you probably fantasize about attractive people, who would submit to you even if you weren't dominating them. (If that's not the case, please seek help).

Actual rape is about unattractive people forcing helpless people to copulate in a psychologically traumatic, totally non-arousing way. The reason I think your musings about rapists looking for a "greater challenge" by selecting powerful, attractive victims has more to do with your fantasy sex life than the real world is that there is no evidence real rapists select strong, powerful victims.

If you like the idea of domination and you're not mentally ill, what you want to be looking into is BDSM, not rape.

I don't think that rape is deviant, to be perfectly honest. "Deviant" needs some reference point, but there is none in science when morality is not objectively there but only relativistically invented by humans.

The reference point is normal human sexual behavior. I bang guys I find sexy. That's normal. I don't force myself on guys who don't find me sexy. That would be abnormal (AKA, deviant).

 

[waitasec]

Since morality does not exist, rape and forced copulation is not "wrong". It's just what it is, forced sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Nature does what it does, it doesn't care what is hurt or what benefits.

ok i see where you are going. yes, nature doesn't care.
however, because we are emotional beings who are affected by psychology morality does exist, not objectively but in our subjective understanding of what it means to overpower another person and why i brought up the term deviant. there are many societies where humans are not known to just get up and rape another human at will...because as a part of our evolutionary progression we have been able to conjure up an idea called societies and solidarity

 

[jasonwill2]

I am good at reading between the lines. It seemed clear to me that the whole "duck rape" discussion was a segue into a discussion of your personal rape fantasies from post number one.

Damn, your too smart.

It's nothing to be ashamed of - lots of people have rape fantasies, and most people are also too embarrassed to openly discuss them.

I am not embarrassed by it, I just don't wanna get screamed at in every other post. I am very comfortable knowing what I am into.

I have rape fantasies myself. I just don't succumb to the delusion that actual rape is anything like the kind of rape I fantasize about. That's because I fantasize about attractive people, who I would have sex with anyway, even if they weren't physically dominating me. Just as you probably fantasize about attractive people, who would submit to you even if you weren't dominating them.

I am fully aware that there is a huge difference between fantasy and reality.

(If that's not the case, please seek help).

Actual rape is about unattractive people forcing helpless people to copulate in a psychologically traumatic, totally non-arousing way. The reason I think your musings about rapists looking for a "greater challenge" by selecting powerful, attractive victims has more to do with your fantasy sex life than the real world is that there is no evidence real rapists select strong, powerful victims.

Ted Bundy wasn't ugly.

If you like the idea of domination and you're not mentally ill, what you want to be looking into is BDSM, not rape.

I was thinking of actual rape for this topic, but I do have rape fantasies, BDSM I do not like so much.

 

[Alceste]

Ted Bundy wasn't ugly.

Ted Bundy ate people. That's not what I would consider "attractive" in a potential mate.

I was thinking of actual rape for this topic, but I do have rape fantasies, BDSM I do not like so much.

In fantasy land, rape is usually BDSM. The most common "rape" fantasies are about a loss or a gain of control over what happens to who, and when. We don't usually fantasize about sex with people we don't find attractive, or who don't find us attractive, or who are sickened and permanently traumatized by the encounter.

 

[jasonwill2]

In fantasy land, rape is usually BDSM. The most common "rape" fantasies are about a loss or a gain of control over what happens to who, and when. We don't usually fantasize about sex with people we don't find attractive, or who don't find us attractive, or who are sickened and permanently traumatized by the encounter.

While I don't want to traumatize anyone I don't agree with all of that and I can't comment on the rest of that without it being only Ero's room appropriate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"Deviant" needs some reference point, but there is none in science when morality is not objectively there but only relativistically invented by humans.

Deviance can be defined by a given moral system, but in the US, Europe, and a number of other places which share the social scientific framework, it typically isn't. A moral system means you can call things "wrong", "bad", "sins", etc. Deviance automatically does have a reference point, because it quite literally refers to behavior relative to norms, and as it is impossible for any social group to exist without these, there will always be a range of behavior which can be deemed within the "normal range" (in particular, as most societies today are large enough that behaviors and views tend to approximate a normal distribution, it is relatively easy to locate a range to use as a reference point).

The fact that it is relativistic only means that (barring word from on high or something) deviant behaviors are immoral only to the extent that they a given society holds them to be so, and that deviance itself is not fixed but at best is grounded in commonalities shared by all humans (e.g., language, some socio-political system, etc.; Pinker's The Blank Slate includes as an appendix a list of universals, although I'm not sure how many would agree with certain entries).

Although what constitutes "rape" changes depending on the culture and time period (it was not that long ago that a husband couldn't rape his wife, because she had no right to refuse), it has always been considered deviant, and is certainly deviant today, whatever philosophical stance one wishes to take on the applicability of the term "morality" granted that morality is relative.

 

[painted wolf]

I was reading a link someone gave me earlier, and this seems to account for some rapes:

It is hypothesized that rape is homologous to similar behavior in other animals. “Human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction.”[4]

source: Sociobiological theories of rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any thoughts?

Poppycock and useless "evolutionary psychology" claptrap...

Evolutionary Psychology Deserves Criticism | Psychology Today
Evolutionary psychology for the masses « Why Evolution Is True

Bundy is a perfect example of how rape is not based on reproductive fitness.

In reality serial rapists are about power. It is far more likely that it is due to aberrant brain chemistry than evolution.

For example: Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia - 21 October 2002 - New Scientist

wa:do