Rape?

[Alceste]

Sociobiological theories of rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal coercive sex [edit]

Further information: Animal sexual behaviour#Coercive sex, Sexual selection, and Sexual conflict
It has been noted that behavior resembling rape in humans is observed in the animal kingdom, including ducks and geese, bottlenose dolphins,[1] and chimpanzees.[2] Indeed in orangutans, close human relatives, copulations of this nature may account for up to half of all observed matings.[3] Such behaviours, referred to as ‘forced copulations’, involve an animal being approached and sexually penetrated whilst it struggles or attempts to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations and the extension of theories based on them to humans. “Thornhill introduces this theory by describing the sexual behavior of scorpion flies. In which the male may gain sex from the female either by presenting a gift of food during courtship or without a nuptial offering, in which case force is necessary to restrain her.” [4]

Does the scorpion has a kink?

Meh. There are many animal behaviors that human social groups also display. My point was that in primates (IOW, us), violence is the consequence of violent natural inclinations. In general, those displays are usually about power, the enforcement of social norms and social status. An alpha male chimp is usually the most aggressive male and has no shortage of non-violent mating opportunities. Their status is established and maintained by violence, including sexual violence. The evolutionary explanation for this behavior is that violent male primates have more opportunities to pass on their genes and behaviors. You can measure and observe that these power relationships are established and maintained by violence (both sexual and non sexual) but how can you measure how horny apes are, and what specific horniness threshold pushes non-alpha apes beyond the brink of sexual violence?

 

[Me Myself]

Meh. There are many animal behaviors that human social groups also display. My point was that in primates (IOW, us), violence is the consequence of violent natural inclinations. In general, those displays are usually about power, the enforcement of social norms and social status. An alpha male chimp is usually the most aggressive male and has no shortage of non-violent mating opportunities. Their status is established and maintained by violence, including sexual violence. The evolutionary explanation for this behavior is that violent male primates have more opportunities to pass on their genes and behaviors. You can measure and observe that these power relationships are established and maintained by violence (both sexual and non sexual) but how can you measure how horny apes are, and what specific horniness threshold pushes non-alpha apes beyond the brink of sexual violence?

Do you think the scorpion got a kink from humilliating his victim while raping her?

 

[dust1n]

I dont think you followed. Today we have 7 billion humans. To calculate about all humanity ever we would first need to know how many human beings have been born and died to this day, and then extract a sample size from that. Then again, that wouldnt tell us if it is impossible in the future, for the future we would need to speculate on future human population numbers and add them.

I didn't followed because you didn't mention specifically you were referring to all people. And it doesn't even follow, or seem important to me at all to use the population of all humans who have ever existed, or who might ever exist. If I want to determine the variation in a coin toss, you don't consider all previous coin tosses that ever existed or that might ever be tossed in the future. It's really irrelevant. If the distribution shows some significant marking in all of today's population, it's really rather irrelevant what people we were like in the past or will be in the future. We live in today's population.

But, in case you were interested...

There has been 107,602,707,791 people to have existed: How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth? - Population Reference Bureau

Of course, that is a rough estimate, eh? Even so... that would be 53801353895 males. So the required sample size at the same confidence interval and margin of error would still only be 16641. Of course, a random sample size would be impossible of all people who ever existed, since you couldn't study people who no longer exist. But, only 16641 random males from history is all I would need to extrapolate rather confidently about all male humans to have existed.

All of that without even taking into consideration that a social study that is more than 7 years old is considered outdated already.

A study isn't considered outdated by age, it's outdated by new material. Not that I understand what any of that has to do with an appropriate sample size. You asked for the appropriate sample size, and I gave it to you.

 

[Alceste]

I don't know. In the case of bullying or gay bashing, perhaps social vindication from their peers who are bigoted jerks. In the case of the various forms of abuse, perhaps it's misplaced anger, violent outbursts that might be heaped upon helpless victims, rather than the true intended target.

Whatever it is, and none of it is defensible, I believe it's more than simply the delight in causing others pain or the high of establishing one's dominance. Those things are part of it, but I don't think it's the whole picture.

Ok. We need to have a working hypothesis if we are seriously committed to solving the problem. So far, psychological research on convicted rapists and other violent offenders has given us loads of useful information we can communicate to those who wish to limit their risk of being selected by violent human predators.

"I don't know" is not useful information for a woman who thinks a short skirt makes a bigger difference to her attractiveness to violent predators than a confident stride. We do know. It is irresponsible to promote the myth that openly expressing one's sexuality or capitalizing on one's attractiveness through flirting, dress, make-up, etc. heightens the risk of being selected by a sexual predator.

 

[Alceste]

Do you think the scorpion got a kink from humilliating his victim while raping her?

Do you think the human mind is identical to the scorpion mind?

 

[Me Myself]

Of course, that is a rough estimate, eh? Even so... that would be 53801353895 males. So the required sample size at the same confidence interval and margin of error would still only be 16641. Of course, a random sample size would be impossible of all people who ever existed, since you couldn't study people who no longer exist. But, only 16641 random males from history is all I would need to extrapolate rather confidently about all male humans to have existed.

What? Why? Why would you reduce the actual sample size needed, you already saw the actual sample size needed is greater than the amount of humans on Earth today.

 

[Me Myself]

Ok. We need to have a working hypothesis if we are seriously committed to solving the problem. So far, psychological research on convicted rapists and other violent offenders has given us loads of useful information we can communicate to those who wish to limit their risk of being selected by violent human predators.

"I don't know" is not useful information for a woman who thinks a short skirt makes a bigger difference to her attractiveness to violent predators than a confident stride. We do know. It is irresponsible to promote the myth that openly expressing one's sexuality or capitalizing on one's attractiveness through flirting, dress, make-up, etc. heightens the risk of being selected by a sexual predator.

Even when the motivation is sex, confidence is the best protection. Muggers also try to attack weak victims. This is not because they seek dominance in itself, but because weaker looking victims are less likely to fight back.

Muggers dont want victims fighting back so they can mugg more easily, rapists dont want victims fighting back so they can rape more easily. I am not following what point you think you are trying to make.

 

[Alceste]

What? Why? Why would you reduce the actual sample size needed, you already saw the actual sample size needed is greater than the amount of humans on Earth today.

You're really hung up on the idea that maybe one guy in the whole history of humanity just got so horny he had to rush out and rape somebody.

Fine. Let's accept your premise and move on. Yes, maybe once in the whole of human history a human being raped another human being because they were horny for consensual sex and couldn't get it.

Now, can we move on to discussing what is generally true of most rapists? Specifically, can we discuss the fact that they usually a) plan their assaults weeks in advance, b) select victims they feel will be unlikely to fight back, and c) are usually motivated by a strong antipathy toward whichever social group the victim begins to?

 

[Alceste]

Even when the motivation is sex, confidence is the best protection. Muggers also try to attack weak victims. This is not because they seek dominance in itself, but because weaker looking victims are less likely to fight back.

Muggers dont want victims fighting back so they can mugg more easily, rapists dont want victims fighting back so they can rape more easily. I am not following what point you think you are trying to make.

If muggers weren't primarily motivated by the desire to intimidate and terrorize the source of their funds, they'd be burglars. Burglary is easier than robbery.

 

[Me Myself]

You're really hung up on the idea that maybe one guy in the whole history of humanity just got so horny he had to rush out and rape somebody.

Fine. Let's accept your premise and move on. Yes, maybe once in the whole of human history a human being raped another human being because they were horny for consensual sex and couldn't get it.

Now, can we move on to discussing what is generally true of most rapists? Specifically, can we discuss the fact that they usually a) plan their assaults weeks in advance, b) select victims they feel will be unlikely to fight back, and c) are usually motivated by a strong antipathy toward whichever social group the victim begins to?

I think your figures where that 72% of them plan in advance, maybe 82% I dont remember. That gives us at least 18% spontaneous rapists.

The question of the thread was if sex could be a motivation.

I havent heard of a women hating homosexual man raping women, so taking sex as a motivation is an obvious choice. If the perpetrator is not aroused by the victim, he wont attack her. I also havent heard of asexual rapists.

The reality is that there are maaaaaaaaaaaaany ways to humilliate anyone from any gender. Using sex specifically tells us something, unless we dont want to listen: There were other motivations.

Sex may not be main in most cases, but it must surely be one of the multiple motivations in most cases.

 

[Me Myself]

If muggers weren't primarily motivated by the desire to intimidate and terrorize the source of their funds, they'd be burglars. Burglary is easier than robbery.

Now you are giving their logic minds a lot of credit.

 

[Alceste]

Now you are giving their logic minds a lot of credit.

Eh? I'm acknowledging that sane people think things through and tend to select the path of least resistance to obtain whatever it is they truly want. So, if you simply want money, you steal it without risking confrontational interactions with other people. If you want the person you took the money from to KNOW that you're taking it against their will, and there's nothing they can do about it, you mug them. That's about power, not money.

 

[Me Myself]

Eh? I'm acknowledging that sane people think things through and tend to select the path of least resistance to obtain whatever it is they truly want. So, if you simply want money, you steal it without risking confrontational interactions with other people. If you want the person you took the money from to KNOW that you're taking it against their will, and there's nothing they can do about it, you mug them. That's about power, not money.

I dont know what kind of culture you live in, but here people dont tend to fight back muggers, muggers just robb you and run or make you run. Its a heck of an easy job. People dont want to die over 20 bucks and their cellphones. Burglary is way harder, they need to get in the house and out without guards or neighbours making trouble, without making too much noise, assuming the family is not at the house in which case they know the place way better than the "poor" burglar.

Burglaring takes planning and has more unknown territory in it than mugging. Burglars will generally want a car too if they want to get out fast with the stuff of the family and not just the money they would have to look everywhere around to get.

Seriously, burglary? easy? Muggin is way easier. You can mug several people a night, way less risky get around the same. Unless you want to take their TVs and similar out, in which case you ned the run away car and other logistic stuff.

Here when I hear of burglaring, it is not a low money guy, but people with money are the ones who burglar. Generally because they want even more.

Low budget criminals that want low risk crime just mug.

 

[Me Myself]

wow... mugging to be about power... the things you read.

 

[Alceste]

I dont know what kind of culture you live in, but here people dont tend to fight back muggers, muggers just robb you and run or make you run. Its a heck of an easy job. People dont want to die over 20 bucks and their cellphones. Burglary is way harder, they need to get in the house and out without guards or neighbours making trouble, without making too much noise, assuming the family is not at the house in which case they know the place way better than the "poor" burglar.

Burglaring takes planning and has more unknown territory in it than mugging. Burglars will generally want a car too if they want to get out fast with the stuff of the family and not just the money they would have to look everywhere around to get.

Seriously, burglary? easy? Muggin is way easier. You can mug several people a night, way less risky get around the same. Unless you want to take their TVs and similar out, in which case you ned the run away car and other logistic stuff.

Here when I hear of burglaring, it is not a low money guy, but people with money are the ones who burglar. Generally because they want even more.

Low budget criminals that want low risk crime just mug.

Ok. The culture I live in, we have lots of burglars and hardly any muggers.

 

[oldbadger]

Do you think lack of sex can ever lead to rape?

Hi..... Titanic!

I'm too late into this to read every page.

All I've got is questions:-
How much accurate information have we gathered from perpetrator counselling?
What do the perpetrators tell us about their crime motivations?
Do perpetrators tell us the truth, or what they think that the authorities want to hear?
Do perpetrators get slightly earlier releases if they give certain answers?
Some rapes (all rapes?) could be driven by psychosis, in which case it could just be an 'I'm randy, want sex, can do it, will do it' horror.

 

[Me Myself]

Ok. The culture I live in, we have lots of burglars and hardly any muggers.

Back to the example then, muggers, robbers, will just go for the weakest victim in general because they dont want a fight, just their goal: money as easy as it comes.

Predators in general (predating for meat, sutaneance) do the same. We pribably did the same too when we started hunting for flesh millenia ago.

Its just basic. Go for the easy target.

 

[oldbadger]

Burglaring takes planning and has more unknown territory in it than mugging. Burglars will generally want a car too if they want to get out fast with the stuff of the family and not just the money they would have to look everywhere around to get.

Seriously, burglary? easy?

Hi.....
One of the most infamous burglars in the Dover area, responsible for over 300 (known) successful burglaries over a two year period was eventually caught (by luck and chance). He was 15 yrs old when caught (!).

During interview, and confessing to all the burglaries that he could remember (for the court to take-into-account), he was asked, 'How did you decide to burgle a particular property?'

'Drains,' he answered ,'It's yer drains, innit.'

The room was silent. Experienced detectives did not understand. So the kid had to explain.

'What? You need me to tell yers?! At 9 o'clock in the mornin, if the drains is dry, then there ain't probably nobody there, it there? So there's me, wiv a load of freebie papers and me high-visibilty coat, knocking on that door wiv a paper. An there ain't going to be a reply, which convinces me that I will be back, round the back, in about twenty minutes!'

The coppers just hung their heads.

No........ burglary does not have to be anywhere near as hard as mugging, nor as dangerous, nor carrying as long sentences (as long as there is no violence involved).

 

[oldbadger]

Seriously, burglary? easy?

The highest % of burglaries in Britain occur mid-afternoon. (not at night!).

Mid-afternoon? The school-runs are happening. The homes are empty!

Easy!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Assuming there are 7 billion people on the planet, and half are male (3.5bil), you would only need a sample size of 9578 males to reach a 99% confidence level with a 1% margin of error, assuming the sample was legitimately random.

My favorite statistician in the behavioral sciences, Rand R. Wilcox, begins chapter 1.1 of his book on hypothesis testing with "To begin, distributions are never normal." I love this because so many behavioral stats books will barely touch on this and act as if the central limit theorem were some sacrosanct given upon which to build all of behavioral science, while in fact even normal distributions can make the common tests can fail.

He gives (in one of his books) the example of sexual promiscuity, which is just barely tangential to this topic so as to somehow relate a bit but without me having to deal with a topic that I tend to become...upset about very very quickly.

There was a study in the 90s of sexual promiscuity, in which ten billion or two dozen (I have no idea but it was a largish sample size, probably ~100 undergrads) were asked how many sexual partners they wanted. The sample size was large enough to at the very least approximate college males (i.e., it was large enough to "assume" a normal distribution). They found that the average for males was over 50. Why? Mainly because one male said he wanted several thousand sexual partners. Also (and I believe this was the point of the example), even removing this outlier wasn't good enough. Because while it approximated a normal distribution, it did so the wrong way. Almost all the responses were 1 or 2, but then there were several which were a fair amount higher and several which were around 100. Here, a test using the median (something which I have never seen in any behavioral statistics book if memory serves) was a better value for a statistical test than the mean (which is what t tests, ANOVA's, and all the most commonly taught and used parametric tests use).

Most sample size estimates assume an approximately normal distribution, but this alone is not sufficient to say anything much unless you at least test in what way it approximates a normal distribution, because Tukey showed a long time ago that small departures from normality can seriously distort the very tests he developed. The problem was back then your standard computer had less power than many a high school child's calculator (TI 83, or 84, or whatever the top texas instrument calculator is today). Now, a lot of ways to test enormous amounts of data are readily down through R, MATLAB, SAS, and other software packages. However, as most colleges still use SPSS and still preach the gospel of normal distributions, we could have fully functional quantum nanobiosystems computers and it wouldn't matter.