The morals of sexuality [Archive]

Xev

01-13-03, 09:42 PM

Rowen:
I agree people should stop associating sex with love. And people should stop thinking of sexuality in terms of serious love. People should overall lighten up and enjoy themselves. Who cares if someone is horny or dirty or sexually promiscuous. I guess that was my biggest point. Why do people make it out to be something so serious. Why should someone wait for a while after being dumped to find someone else and have a bit of casual fun?

Precisely.

Adam:
Experience is the only thing that can really teach you otherwise. I really hope you do have such an experience. Otherwise, that's kinda sad.

How is it sad that I can love without having to fuck?

I don't demand sex in order to feel something for the person I love. My emotions are based on more than a brief ecstacy of pleasure dredged like a pheonix from the depths of indescribable agony. There are a thousant more sublime feelings than the brief neurochemical wash of an orgasm.

I do not love because my lover is useful for me. I love because of my partner's mind, their quirks, their nauseating flaws and their sublime strengths.

Unlike you, I actually care for my lover as a human, not as a sentient sex toy.

I feel sorry for you. Someday, maybe you will learn that humans are more than effigies of flesh to be toyed with. Most are, but a few very special ones are not.

*Edit*

Straight up, Marquis.

Adam

01-14-03, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by The Marquis
Adam assumes that if someone doesn't agree with his moral values it could only be because they haven't had the experience to do so. Rather pathetic.

Actually, I assume that one who has not experienced a thing, yet denounces that thing as pathetic, is ignorant and sad.

Adam

01-14-03, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Xev

I don't demand sex in order to feel something for the person I love. My emotions are based on more than a brief ecstacy of pleasure dredged like a pheonix from the depths of indescribable agony. There are a thousant more sublime feelings than the brief neurochemical wash of an orgasm.

I do not love because my lover is useful for me. I love because of my partner's mind, their quirks, their nauseating flaws and their sublime strengths.

Unlike you, I actually care for my lover as a human, not as a sentient sex toy.

I feel sorry for you. Someday, maybe you will learn that humans are more than effigies of flesh to be toyed with. Most are, but a few very special ones are not.

Everything you said there is based on assumption. You make many assumptions and baseless assertions. Your words have no value.

Xev

01-14-03, 02:10 PM

Adam:
Everything you said there is based on assumption. You make many assumptions and baseless assertions. Your words have no value.

What assumptions?
I know how I love.
I know how I fuck.
I know that you have claimed that you see a lover only as a sexual object (in your criticism of my belief in the existance of romantic love without sex).

What assumptions do I make?

Actually, I assume that one who has not experienced a thing, yet denounces that thing as pathetic, is ignorant and sad.

Yes, you are ignorent and sad, as you have no idea what I've experienced. So shut up.

Bebelina

01-14-03, 03:05 PM

Well, when it comes down to it sex is first of all a biological function and need, then we can attach the feeling of our choice to it, may it be love or may it be power. I prefer love.

Xev

01-15-03, 01:17 AM

Well, when it comes down to it sex is first of all a biological function and need, then we can attach the feeling of our choice to it, may it be love or may it be power. I prefer love.

Interesting, Bebelina. It comes close to my own view about sex and sexuality - that everybody has a basic libido, an urge to fuck, but that as humans we try to attatch a meaning to it (I state badly).

Are love and power impossible to express at the same time? I would think so, but I'm interested in why you assume so? :m:

*Edit*

Have been corrected on the expression of love and power. They are not incompatible.

James R

01-15-03, 08:36 AM

Interestingly, evolutionary psychology suggests that romantic love is rather intimately tied to genetic imperatives. If this is true then we cannot actually separate sex from romantic love. This seems to be born out by the high incidence of behaviours such as sexual jealousy and de facto monogamy.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

Bebelina

01-15-03, 08:57 AM

Love and power can of course be combined, if you are interested in playing games while you're having sex.
But in some cases the need to express power while having sex has its roots in a persons insecurity, it becomes a cover up for the real feelings.

Bebelina

01-15-03, 09:04 AM

Although it has less to do with feminism, but much to do with schauvinism! How many feminists go out and rape people? Rape is the ultimate expression of power through sex.

:mad:

James R

01-15-03, 09:19 AM

Rape is the ultimate expression of power through sex.

Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is only about power. In fact, the evidence suggests that it is often very much about sex, with power only being one motive.

The Marquis

01-15-03, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by James R
Interestingly, evolutionary psychology suggests that romantic love is rather intimately tied to genetic imperatives. If this is true then we cannot actually separate sex from romantic love.

What we need to do here is separate biological evolution from social evolution. Love is a response which probably did arise from biological evolution. It firstly pulls a couple together, and then afterward prevents one or the other from leaving during the formative years of a child, or more importantly (in animal terms), it keeps the male or female from leaving at a time the child is most vulnerable and needs protection. The so-called "7-year itch" corresponds more or less exactly with the time in which a child might be reasonably expected to have a survival chance without both parents being present. Modern society has ensured a child has that chance regardless of it's age, but biology doesn't pay too much attention to that, does it?

Social evolution is a different prospect. This is merely dogma which has resulted in humanity's responses to biological evolution, and unfortunately takes a lot longer to wear off. In terms of modern society, it is not true any longer (in any advanced civilisation) that a child needs both parents present to ensure survival. However, social conditioning which became prevalent during the times when it was required is taking some time to be seen for what it is.

We can separate sex from romantic love. The problem is that we have been thoroughly conditioned over the last few thousand years not to accept that.

This seems to be born out by the high incidence of behaviours such as sexual jealousy and de facto monogamy.

Actions resulting from conditioning cannot be seen as proof of anything at all, except that conditioning works rather well.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

The distribution of power is evident in any relationship you care to name. Show me a couple, give me an hour or two to observe, and I'll tell you who's "wearing the pants". In a very few cases it's not as obvious as it may seem, to the casual observer. But it exists. the degree to which it affects a relationship, however, might vary widely.

Power as it relates to sex is an integral part of any relationship. The fact that a large percentage of "humanity" can't see it doesn't make it any less true. It's not "over-rated" - it's unavoidable. A lack of perception on the part of most people doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sexual power, given the very intimacy of it's nature, will often determine which partner is the dominant one in the relationship outside the bedroom as well - even though it may not manifest itself as obviously.

I can't really go into the "as a result of militant feminism" bit within dissolving into giggles.....

The Marquis

01-15-03, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Bebelina
Love and power can of course be combined, if you are interested in playing games while you're having sex.

Love and power are combined regardless of whether you're interested in them or not. Some recognise that, most don't. Some choose to confront it, analyse it... most don't.

But in some cases the need to express power while having sex has its roots in a persons insecurity, it becomes a cover up for the real feelings.

This, I agree with. Absolutely. In most cases, those concerned don't even recognise what they're really doing.

Bebelina

01-15-03, 01:20 PM

I don't agree that love and power must be connected Marquis, but perhaps you would like to explain why you think so and what you put in the word power.

(Q)

01-15-03, 01:30 PM

Bebelove

I don't agree that love and power must be connected

Perhaps an example is necessary.

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

:D

Xev

01-15-03, 02:46 PM

James R:
Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is only about power. In fact, the evidence suggests that it is often very much about sex, with power only being one motive.

First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.

Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.

Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism.

I've always thought of sex in these terms, and I'm hardly a militant feminist. Again, please lay off the stereotyping.

But look at bonobos and chimps and prison inmates. Look at the way the language of sex and love mirrors the language of power. As Michel Foucault put it:

"Artemidorus sees the sexual act first and foremost as a game of superiority and inferiourity: penetration places the two partners in a relationship of dominence and submission. It is victory on one side, defeat on the other; it it is a right that is excersized for one of the partners, a necessity that is imposed on the other. It is a status that one asserts, or a condition to which one is subjected. It is an advantage from which one benefits, or an acceptance of a situation from which others are allowed to benefit."
--Michael Foucault, History of Sexuality vol.3

More later, I'm late already.

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

And that *barf* is the sound of Xev barfing. :p

But yes, love and power are also connected. You love someone, they ipso facto (ipsie dixit? fuck, there goes my Latin) over you.

Absurd

01-15-03, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Xev

First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.

Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.

The gist of the evolutionary psychological approach to rape is that it could have been selected for because it allows unattractive or low status males to reproduce through forced mating. This is certainly a plausible adaptationist story about the possible evolutionary origin of rape (especially since forced mating is known to occur in nonhuman animals), but there is really not enough evidence to determine conclusively whether rape is actually an adaptation or not.

What's more, while the selection for rape would indeed have been "very much about sex" and not at all about power, it would be a manifest non sequitur to claim that rape as it actually occurs in human culture is about sex and not power. It is apparently taboo in many a conversation to try to link biological evolution to cultural "evolution", or vice versa, but failing to do so results in the bizarre attitude that if some aspect of human behavior has a biological property or explanation, it cannot therefore have another strictly cultural property or explanation. It is much more likely that human culture (which has clout over behavior, after all...) and human biology are intertwined, that biological wheels may be reinvented at the cultural level, and that evolutionary artifacts (such as rape) may be exapted by human culture to its own purposes.

For the same reason, there are biologists who, while familiar with forced mating in other species and with the evolutionary story about rape, will insist that it is not appropriate to call the forced mating behavior "rape", because rape refers to culturally contingent behavior laden with human discourse about sexuality. When male ducks mate with unwilling females, this is not rape, just as the behavior pattern that may or may not be a feature of human psychology selected for in the olden days was not really rape until it became infected with human sex and power memes.

James R

01-15-03, 08:19 PM

Xev:

First off, lay of the stereotyping. I am hardly a "militant feminist", yet I believe this.

I'm not stereotyping. What I meant by "militant feminists" is what are sometimes referred to as gender feminists. The other type are called equality feminists. Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

Note also that I did not mention you personally in any way, Xev. I don't know anything about any feminist views you personally hold or do not hold.

Second, what evidence? I'm kinda curious, haven't heard much scientific (unbiased!) work in this area.

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

MacZ

01-15-03, 09:22 PM

"Artemidorus sees the sexual act first and foremost as ... a relationship of dominence and submission. It is victory on one side, defeat on the other"

Well maybe he sees it that way. That doesn't mean that's how it is (obviously).

Why not simply one person giving and receiving pleasure and the other person giving and receiving pleasure. Same-same? Or wouldn't that be "interesting" enough for people who have to attach a theory to everything?

Similarly:

Bebelina loves Q with every fiber of her existence. Therefore, Q will have complete control over Bebelina. Now thats power!

Yes, but how about the fact that at the same time Q loves Bebelina with every fibre of his existence. Again, all balanced out, if you insist on this element of power.

But it's my own experience that the more dominant feeling in love is one of extreme security - you feel safer, in all senses, with that person than you do with anyone else. Power - and the "dangers" of being messed with - just doesn't come into it, at all.

Tyler

01-15-03, 10:07 PM

"Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him."

Just a point - but what you've just said in no way proves his statement (or even gives evidence that his statement) is false.

"When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power."

Question; You say when rapists honestly tell why they rape?? For one, I never thought everyone understood themselves well enough to answer that question. I can hardly tell you why I get up in the morning yet a rapist is suppose to know exactly their own nature? Especially considering I'm willing to bet a healthy number of them don't have the background in psychoanalysis to have an educasted view into their nature?

James R

01-15-03, 10:32 PM

Tyler:

Just a point - but what you've just said in no way proves his statement (or even gives evidence that his statement) is false.

You're right, of course. Nor does quoting him in the first place prove his statement.

Question; You say when rapists honestly tell why they rape??

Yes, because a rapist might misrepresent his intentions or thoughts if he thinks he will benefit from doing so. I'm talking about cases where the rapists have nothing to gain by lying.

For one, I never thought everyone understood themselves well enough to answer that question. I can hardly tell you why I get up in the morning yet a rapist is suppose to know exactly their own nature?

No, they are not supposed to know their own nature. They are supposed to know how they felt and what they were thinking at the time. Reasonable, wouldn't you say?

Tyler

01-15-03, 11:02 PM

"You're right, of course. Nor does quoting him in the first place prove his statement."

Nope. Xev mearly posted it, I believe, to add to the discussion another educated person's view.

"Yes, because a rapist might misrepresent his intentions or thoughts if he thinks he will benefit from doing so"

No, not quite. I'm talking about the fact that nobody (for all intents and purposes) knows exaclty why they act the way they do. So I question of what use this person's answer is; besides to better understand how they view their actions consciously.

"No, they are not supposed to know their own nature. They are supposed to know how they felt and what they were thinking at the time. Reasonable, wouldn't you say?"

Ay. Unfortunatly, I fail to see how this truly provides much insight into "why rapists rape". It may help us understand how a rapist views his motives. It may indeed help us understand why a rapist thinks he rapes. Heck, it helps us greatly in telling how an underlying cause can be related to the conscious thought. However, how does it even come close to helping us understand underlying cause?

Absurd

01-15-03, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by James R

Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

I can hardly imagine any serious feminists pushing the "all men are evil oppressors" line (though one hears stories, I guess). That feminists sometimes uncover what they take to be forms of male dominance which men do not regard as such does not mean that said feminists are out to create amazonia. But when you say that feminists who think that rape is only about power and not about sex [sic] are so-called "militant feminists", this is the fallacy that you seem to commit. I know (and know of) many feminists who think that rape is primarily about power, but they would find your "they think men are evil" accusation hilarious.

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

I frankly cannot make heads or tails of this. There are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only about power". Obviously, not all men who like to place themselves in relationships where they hold power over women rape. Even more obviously, most instances of rape require that the man be aroused (well, that settles it - rape is about sex after all). If some rapist honestly tells you, "I fucked her because I was horny," this does not mean that the rape was "about sex". When people are aroused by watching or fantasizing about or, ultimately, committing rape, this could tell us something about their psychology - something that they may not want to admit, or something that they simply may not know.

When rapists report, however truthfully, what they feel or think when they rape, this does not constitute some kind of psychological self-examination on their part any more than truthful reports of paranoid feelings constitute an explanation of paranoid schizophrenia. Figuring out all the cognitive and environmental causes of that particular mental state at that particular time is something left for us to do.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

Lo, a new brand of feminism. So are postmodern feminists the common sense type or the amazonian type? :bugeye:

Postmodernism is a stupid label appropriated by hippie relativists to describe a century-plus old philosophical tradition. Most of the figures typically associated with the movement, like Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, and etc, want nothing to do with its excesses (nor, for that matter, do they want anything to do with the label). At any rate, I assure you that Foucault is no fan of amazonia, and calling someone a postmodernist just doesn't do as a criticism.

The Marquis

01-16-03, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Absurd
The gist of the evolutionary psychological approach to rape is that it could have been selected for because it allows unattractive or low status males to reproduce through forced mating....
What's more, while the selection for rape would indeed have been "very much about sex" and not at all about power, ...

If you subscribe to this theory, doesn't this mean that a low-status male, not having the power in a social situation to get sex, then take it by force? in other words, power is an integral part of this situation, rather than it being "not at all about power". The desire for sex is only a prelude to a power issue.

Rape is a very simple thing. A female says, "I don't want to have sex with you". She is asserting her power of choice.
A male then says, "I don't care what you say, I'm going to have you anyway". Thereby demonstrating the power to take regardless of her choice. His reasons for doing so are probably many, and varied, but the end result is the same.. an expression of power over another.

Xev

01-16-03, 01:12 AM

James R:

Again, I do not unnecessarily stereotype you as a prudish geek by your discomfort with profanity and your knowledge of physics. I'd ask you not to stereotype me as a psychotic feminist for my beliefs about sex.

I'm not stereotyping. What I meant by "militant feminists" is what are sometimes referred to as gender feminists. The other type are called equality feminists. Equality feminists advocate equal rights for men and women; few enlightened people disagree with equality feminism. Gender feminists take the "all men are evil oppressors" line.

How nice for you. I was not referring to myself, more that you've labelled the defenders of one idea (rape primarily a power function) as a certain thing (militant feminist).

When rapists honestly tell why they rape, it is often for a combination of different reasons. One of those reasons is sex. Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that rape is not only about power.

Do you care to cite a source?

I was not aware, also, that rapists (with a vested interest in looking good for parole boards) were so good at self analysis.

I also see sex in terms of power relations, and yet it took some years for me to realize this. If you had asked a 16 year old Xev what she thought of sex, she would have replied simply that sex was an agreeable activity, nothing more. And yet even then my particular tastes were fairly established.

Few people are good at true self analysis. If it took me (I do fancy myself rather decently read on psychology and philosophy) years of thinking of sexual relations as enactment of dominence and submission, to finally come to the realization, then I doubt that some inbred fool rapist is going to realize this.

I would, however, be quite ecstatic to realize that rape is merely the pursuit of sex at all costs.

Michael Foucault, BTW, is a poster-boy of post-modernist feminism, and I'm not at all surprised by the extract you quoted from him.

Actually, I think he's summarizing a Greek philosopher. But your ad hominem is duly noted and ignored.

Marquis:

But then, you would be looking it from the simple perspective, not from the googly-moogly "let's make this more complicated for better grants" perspective. ;)

James R

01-16-03, 02:56 AM

Tyler:

I'm talking about the fact that nobody (for all intents and purposes) knows exaclty why they act the way they do.

I agree.

So I question of what use this person's answer is; besides to better understand how they view their actions consciously.

When you put the testimonies of many people together, you can begin to build up a picture.

Unfortunatly, I fail to see how this truly provides much insight into "why rapists rape". It may help us understand how a rapist views his motives. It may indeed help us understand why a rapist thinks he rapes. Heck, it helps us greatly in telling how an underlying cause can be related to the conscious thought. However, how does it even come close to helping us understand underlying cause?

Of course it helps. We can't examine an action like rape and hope to determine causes without considering why rapists think they do it, surely?

Absurd:

I can hardly imagine any serious feminists pushing the "all men are evil oppressors" line (though one hears stories, I guess).

You'd be surprised.

That feminists sometimes uncover what they take to be forms of male dominance which men do not regard as such does not mean that said feminists are out to create amazonia.

I agree.

But when you say that feminists who think that rape is only about power and not about sex [sic] are so-called "militant feminists", this is the fallacy that you seem to commit. I know (and know of) many feminists who think that rape is primarily about power, but they would find your "they think men are evil" accusation hilarious.

You've got your causation around the wrong way. I am not saying that everyone who thinks rape is about power is a militant feminist. I'm saying that everyone who is a militant feminist thinks that rape is about power. See the difference?

There are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only about power". ... If some rapist honestly tells you, "I fucked her because I was horny," this does not mean that the rape was "about sex".

Yes it does. I'm not claiming that power is irrelevant - just that it is not the only thing which is relevant, as some people seriously try to claim.

When rapists report, however truthfully, what they feel or think when they rape, this does not constitute some kind of psychological self-examination on their part any more than truthful reports of paranoid feelings constitute an explanation of paranoid schizophrenia.

I agree.

Lo, a new brand of feminism. So are postmodern feminists the common sense type or the amazonian type?

Perhaps not the best choice of words on my part. However, I see a definite correlation between militant feminism (as I have used the term above) and support for views usually described as post-modernist. Again, causation only goes one way on this one - don't get me wrong again.

Postmodernism is a stupid label appropriated by hippie relativists to describe a century-plus old philosophical tradition.

You are, of course, entitled to your view. However, the label seems to be commonly applied to describe a certain range of views and their proponents.

At any rate, I assure you that Foucault is no fan of amazonia, and calling someone a postmodernist just doesn't do as a criticism.

I'm not criticising postmodernism here (yet :)).

Xev:

Again, I do not unnecessarily stereotype you as a prudish geek by your discomfort with profanity and your knowledge of physics. I'd ask you not to stereotype me as a psychotic feminist for my beliefs about sex.

When did this become a discussion about you? I have at no time stereotyped you, and in fact have specifically denied doing so. You personalise things far too much.

How nice for you. I was not referring to myself, more that you've labelled the defenders of one idea (rape primarily a power function) as a certain thing (militant feminist).

Can you show me it is not that thing? (BTW, there's more to militant feminism than a single claim.)

Again, it is nice that you were not referring to yourself. I was not referring to you either. So we're both happy, right?

I was not aware, also, that rapists (with a vested interest in looking good for parole boards) were so good at self analysis.

See my replies to Tyler.

I would, however, be quite ecstatic to realize that rape is merely the pursuit of sex at all costs.

I never claimed it was that.

Actually, I think he's summarizing a Greek philosopher. But your ad hominem is duly noted and ignored.

Ad hominem at whom? Foucault? I didn't attack him at all.

Xev

01-16-03, 04:20 AM

James R:
When did this become a discussion about you? I have at no time stereotyped you, and in fact have specifically denied doing so. You personalise things far too much.

Let's not get sidetracked. I was not referring specifically to myself, only making a point.

Can you show me it is not that thing?

Shifted burden of proof fallacy.

Ad hominem at whom? Foucault? I didn't attack him at all.

M. Foucault is wrong because he may or may not have been a feminist? This is a fallacy, luv.

Now, before we play logic games (and my latin is ever so rusty), do you care to cite actual evidence?

James R

01-16-03, 05:25 AM

Xev:

Let's not get sidetracked. I was not referring specifically to myself, only making a point.

What was your point, exactly? Forgive me. I am but a prudish geek. ;)

Shifted burden of proof fallacy.

Let's review this, shall we? You said:

You've labelled the defenders of one idea (rape primarily a power function) as a certain thing (militant feminist).

In fact, what I said was that militant feminists believe rape is solely a power thing. I then asked you:

Can you show me it is not that thing?

All you need to do is to provide some examples of militant feminists who do not think rape is a power thing, and you will have effectively refuted my argument. But the best you can do is:

Shifted burden of proof fallacy.

In fact, I am not shifting the burden of proof on you to prove a negative. I am asking whether you have any counter-evidence. You have asked me to present support for my claim. I have not yet done so because I don't have the relevant references at hand. However, off the top of my head, I can refer you to a book called A Natural History of Rape. I forget the author. Also well worth looking at on this issue is Steven Pinker's recent book The Blank Slate, which you can take as my primary source in this particular instance if you wish to pin me down to one thing.

M. Foucault is wrong because he may or may not have been a feminist? This is a fallacy, luv.

It would be, if I had ever said that. But I didn't.

Asguard

01-16-03, 05:38 AM

why should anyone give a dam what feminists think rape is about???????

surly if you actully want to know you should be asking a pycologist\pyciatrist who works with rapists

i doubt even if the victioms would be able to answer it

hell the rapists probably couldnt

so i dont see how a group of winging woman would (the feminists NOT the rape victoms)

James R

01-16-03, 05:57 AM

Asguard,

You're undervaluing feminism. Feminism has given women the vote and is working towards things such as equality of pay and opportunity for women. Feminist commentary on rape is certainly worthwhile.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of my position here. I support equality feminism. I think gender feminism is counter-productive and in some cases just plain wrong.

Asguard

01-16-03, 06:02 AM

i HATE feminists because they work for the best for themselves

i like PEOPLE who work to TRUE equality for EVERYONE

Absurd

01-16-03, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by The Marquis
If you subscribe to this theory, doesn't this mean that a low-status male, not having the power in a social situation to get sex, then take it by force? in other words, power is an integral part of this situation, rather than it being "not at all about power". The desire for sex is only a prelude to a power issue.

Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you construe "power". If rape is an adaptation, then rape is clearly about sex insofar as it was selected for because it allows males to reproduce in otherwise unfavorable circumstances. In and of itself, this does not amount to a power relation. Qui bono in the forced mating behavior? Not the male, but the male's genes. Reproduction need not be useful to the individual organisms that reproduce, and the male is not in any sense empowered by the behavior.

So males rape because rape is an adaptation to an environment where it is difficult to reproduce.

The reason why I say that this is no good, and why I agree with you that "the desire for sex is only a prelude to a power issue" is that this is an idealized scenario that excludes from the analysis the most significant aspect of the human phenotype - culture. We humans will necessarily incorporate aspects of our biology into our way of life. We will attach meanings and values to them that Darwinian selection could not. Sometimes this will reinforce the biology, and other times this will overpower it (culture will always be on Wilson's leash, but the leash is infinitely long). One can easily imagine a primitive society that places high value on reproduction: a society where the amount of progeny influences social standing, say. Males disposed to rape (for mindless evolutionary reasons) will quickly discover positive reinforcement for their behavior, and the rape-power relationship will develop from that point on.

Absurd

01-16-03, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by James R

You've got your causation around the wrong way. I am not saying that everyone who thinks rape is about power is a militant feminist. I'm saying that everyone who is a militant feminist thinks that rape is about power. See the difference?

This will not do. Let's refresh our memory of your comments:

First you say,

"Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism."

Next you say, in reply to "rape is the ultimate expression of power through sex,"

"Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is only about power."

Now you may act indignant and insist that all you wanted to contribute to the discussion was the trivial and largely irrelevant fact that "everyone who is a militant feminist thinks that rape is about power," but apparently, me, Xev, and Marquis see what looks to be an obvious implication to the effect that only, or mostly militant feminists believe this, or at the very least, that anyone who believes this must have been influenced by militant feminists. So we all voice our disagreement.

Another poor choice of words on your part, I guess. :o

There are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only about power". ... If some rapist honestly tells you, "I fucked her because I was horny," this does not mean that the rape was "about sex".

Yes it does. I'm not claiming that power is irrelevant - just that it is not the only thing which is relevant, as some people seriously try to claim.

I think we can all agree that in the majority of cases, there is no rape without sex, but again, this seems like a trivial point to me. Perhaps we could frame the question as, "what is it that distinguishes men who rape from men who do not?" I doubt "wanting sex" will sound like a plausible answer then.

James R

01-16-03, 11:44 PM

Absurd:

Let's review your review.

I said: "Power as it relates to sex is perhaps currently over-rated, mostly as a result of militant feminism." and "Militant feminists would have us believe that rape is only about power."

You say:

Now you may act indignant and insist that all you wanted to contribute to the discussion was the trivial and largely irrelevant fact that "everyone who is a militant feminist thinks that rape is about power,"...

Look again at what I did contribute (see above). I said that militant feminists think rape is only about power. I note you conveniently miss the point yet again by ignoring the most important word: "only". Obviously, if my point was "trivial and largely irrelevant" we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

...but apparently, me, Xev, and Marquis see what looks to be an obvious implication to the effect that only, or mostly militant feminists believe this, or at the very least, that anyone who believes this must have been influenced by militant feminists.

I agree that anybody who believes rape is only about power has been influenced by militant feminism. It is a pity that you, Xev and Marquis didn't read carefully enough to note the word "only".

Another poor choice of words on your part, I guess. :o

Not at all. My words were chosen very carefully. Poor reading on your part. :o

Perhaps we could frame the question as, "what is it that distinguishes men who rape from men who do not?" I doubt "wanting sex" will sound like a plausible answer then.

Wanting sex is part of the answer, just not the whole answer. Admitting that sex comes into it is a starting point which you should consider.

Xev

01-17-03, 01:24 AM

James R:
In fact, I am not shifting the burden of proof on you to prove a negative. I am asking whether you have any counter-evidence. You have asked me to present support for my claim. I have not yet done so because I don't have the relevant references at hand. However, off the top of my head, I can refer you to a book called A Natural History of Rape. I forget the author. Also well worth looking at on this issue is Steven Pinker's recent book The Blank Slate, which you can take as my primary source in this particular instance if you wish to pin me down to one thing.

I don't have the time to read the book, although I've heard of it. Do you have any evidence?

I cited chimps, which often ritualize sex as a relation of dominence. I'd also note the language in popular culture ("fuck you"). I'd also wager that I'm nowhere near alone in thinking of sex so heavily in terms of power relations.

However, I'm quite willing to stipulate that power is not always a primary motivation, just that it likely often is.

James R

01-17-03, 06:46 AM

Xev:

Remember that I am arguing against the view that rape is only about power here. I am not and have not claimed it is not at all about power. Bearing that in mind...

Pinker makes two points:

1. Men often want to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them.
2. Some men use violence to get what they want.

I doubt many people would dispute either of these points. Put them both together and we shouldn't be surprised that some men use violence to get sex. Yet, strangely, militant feminists dispute that rape has anything to do with sex, other than in a purely mechanical sense. For them it is only about power. It is that view which I find unsustainable.

Adam

01-17-03, 06:54 AM

Personally I think much of the talk about rape being about power stems from rape counsellors and self-help books trying to convince victims. Rather than the power idea having anything to do with the attacker, it is because the victim feels powerless after the event, and there is an industry built around that feeling.

I have no doubt that some rapists want power over their victim. But I suspect the primary urge is sexual.

James R

01-17-03, 07:20 AM

Adam, you're welcome to that view, but for the benefit of others who are already confused, I'd like to note here that I do not agree with you that the prime motive for rape is necessarily sexual. It is probably more complex than that.

Adam

01-17-03, 07:26 AM

Think about our millions of years of evolution. Think about the role rape might have played in it. Whether you believe humans lived in packs with an alpha male, or lived always with pairings, rape would have been the method by which those normally without the opportunity to breed got their chance.

The Marquis

01-17-03, 09:05 AM

OK, This I find interesting.

Originally posted by Absurd
Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you construe "power". If rape is an adaptation, then rape is clearly about sex insofar as it was selected for because it allows males to reproduce in otherwise unfavorable circumstances. In and of itself, this does not amount to a power relation. Qui bono in the forced mating behavior? Not the male, but the male's genes. Reproduction need not be useful to the individual organisms that reproduce, and the male is not in any sense empowered by the behavior.

So males rape because rape is an adaptation to an environment where it is difficult to reproduce.

If we look at this in evolutionary terms, why would rape become an adaptation in the first place though? A species reproduces by sex. In some adaptations this leads to an "Alpha Male" being the only one allowed to reproduce, which according to evolutionary theory might have come about to propagate the genes of the most "suitable" male. Would this same species then evolve again in order to allow the lower males to reproduce as well, via rape? Does evolution circle back on itself in this way? I'm still thinking my way through this. I'm trying to find a situation in which rape would have "evolved" in this way without finding ourselves in a situation as described above, where we appear to have an adaptation occuring to cancel the effects of a previous adaptation.

*edit to add - Would it be possible that rape has evolved as a social answer to a genetic adaptation? Or am I getting confused in assuming that the "alpha male" didn't evolve as a social adaptation to a biological imperative in the first place?

The reason why I say that this is no good, and why I agree with you that "the desire for sex is only a prelude to a power issue" is that this is an idealized scenario that excludes from the analysis the most significant aspect of the human phenotype - culture. We humans will necessarily incorporate aspects of our biology into our way of life. We will attach meanings and values to them that Darwinian selection could not. Sometimes this will reinforce the biology, and other times this will overpower it (culture will always be on Wilson's leash, but the leash is infinitely long). One can easily imagine a primitive society that places high value on reproduction: a society where the amount of progeny influences social standing, say. Males disposed to rape (for mindless evolutionary reasons) will quickly discover positive reinforcement for their behavior, and the rape-power relationship will develop from that point on.

I see your point here, I don't really have much argument with it. But I think we're getting a little sidetracked from the main issue. Originally, when I stated that rape is about power, I was not really paying much attention to the why's of this, but more to the fact that it is. To me, it doesn't matter much for the purposes of this discussion why rape evolved in the first place (although that is proving to be an interesting topic as well). As it has evolved, it is now an expression of power, in the sense that the male is taking something which he is, for whatever reason, otherwise denied.

I think we can all agree that in the majority of cases, there is no rape without sex, but again, this seems like a trivial point to me. Perhaps we could frame the question as, "what is it that distinguishes men who rape from men who do not?" I doubt "wanting sex" will sound like a plausible answer then.

Yes, exactly.

Tyler

01-17-03, 09:15 AM

"Of course it helps. We can't examine an action like rape and hope to determine causes without considering why rapists think they do it, surely?"

Hardly, and I won't dispute that. I mearly point out that it is not proof (or even much evidence) that rape is about sex because rapists say so. I believe studying their responses is integral, but hardly proof of any reasoning they may believe they use.

MacZ

01-17-03, 10:01 AM

Just to play devil's advocate, or whatever, here, the feeling I get is that behind the discussion is an image of the dedicated, predatory rapist - the one who makes it a mission, premeditates and all that.

I think the rapists aren't getting full consideration. That is, they could fall into any number of categories":

The opportunist burglar - finds a woman in the house
Date rapist - just can't stop himself
Husbands...

pumpkinsaren'torange

01-17-03, 12:40 PM

i'm a woman, and, i disdain anything that has to do with the feminist movement. i think they are full of hate, and, the sad thing is, they dodn't even realize it.

EvilPoet

01-17-03, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
i'm a woman, and, i disdain anything that has to do with the
feminist movement. i think they are full of hate, and, the sad
thing is, they dodn't even realize it.
"He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does
not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss
the abyss also gazes into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Bebelina

01-17-03, 01:43 PM

About power. It's one thing to have it, but it's a totally different thing to use it.

Absurd

01-17-03, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by James R

Look again at what I did contribute (see above). I said that militant feminists think rape is only about power. I note you conveniently miss the point yet again by ignoring the most important word: "only".

The reason why I "ignore" it is that I am still confused as to what your use of it is supposed to mean. As I said before, there are many banal reasons why rape cannot be "only" about power (and presumably "not at all" about sex). One such banal reason is that rape almost always involves sexual arousal on the rapist's part and intercourse. Surely there are no feminists (militant or otherwise) who would disagree with this observation. Is there any textual evidence of the existence of such people?

If what we want to express with the statement that rape is "about" this or that is a description of the act, then sex is "part of the answer". But this is not an answer that tells us something we do not already know. The desire for sex may be a proximal cause of rape, but it does not help us explain why it occurs (just as paranoid feelings are a proximal cause of behavior associated with paranoid schizophrenia, but do not help us explain it; rather, they themselves require explanation). Presumably, when we ask what rape is ultimately "about" we are looking for more distal causes that will tell us why not everyone who wants to get laid is a rapist. Obviously, the desire for sex is a nonstarter.

Obviously, if my point was "trivial and largely irrelevant" we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

No, not quite. The point that "all militant feminists believe that rape is only about power" is trivial and irrelevant, but that is not the point I read you as making, and that is why we are having this discussion.

I agree that anybody who believes rape is only about power has been influenced by militant feminism. It is a pity that you, Xev and Marquis didn't read carefully enough to note the word "only".

I still fail to understand what it means to believe that rape is "only" about power the way you think some feminists do. Would these feminists say that sexual arousal and intercourse play no part in rape, or would you say that sexual arousal and intercourse help explain rape in some way or another that they have missed? If your point is the latter, then it doesn't seem nearly as obvious as you make it out to be.

Microzoft

01-17-03, 04:53 PM

God, ..some of you guys are really screwed and itchy about sex.

Those of you that have always enjoyed sharing sex experiences with partners that you are or have loved. Defend it and speak out laud about it, it’s an honest moral obligation.

Those that by way of child-experiences, growing up, character difficulties or simple bad luck. Have not experiences sex and share it’s satisfaction with partners. Speak out laud and get it out of your chest.

Rape is a total crime and can not be underlined with an excuse of power. If all women would have a hanging message saying “Fuck me”. There would be no rapes.

So if it was about show of power, we would be having a lot of fulfilled women and lots of self-assure powerful people, won’t we? Most probably to the contrary.

Sexuality has two mayor needs, the physical and the emotional. The physical can be compared to the need of eating or any other need of the body whereby, the lack of it, can create serious disorders. It is the physical need that triggers masturbation. The emotional need is equally important but not as necessary, it places a lot of weight in what we call “the heart” since it places in it a lot of hope, expectations and dreams. Is this part of sex that is responsible for lasting relationships and for harmony in most relations. During sex, participants are very attentive, even in the subconscious on how sincere, willing and tolerant the partner is. This intimacy experience, together with experiences build with the partner in different scenarios builds a three dimension picture of emotions.

So, …..if you’re itchy about, please indicate why and if not, if you are a defender of sex, please plaint it.

Absurd

01-17-03, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by The Marquis

If we look at this in evolutionary terms, why would rape become an adaptation in the first place though? A species reproduces by sex. In some adaptations this leads to an "Alpha Male" being the only one allowed to reproduce, which according to evolutionary theory might have come about to propagate the genes of the most "suitable" male. Would this same species then evolve again in order to allow the lower males to reproduce as well, via rape?

You are thinking too much in group selectionist terms. Organisms reproductively compete against members of their own species, not against members of other species. Rape would not be an adaptive behavior "for the species", but it would be an adaptive behavior for individuals (or, perhaps less misleadingly, individual lineages). The principles behind this are straightforwardly Darwinian: in certain environments, males with the inherited disposition to rape will have more offspring than males who do not, and so the "rape module" will spread through the population. Remember, natural selection does not have the good of the organism or the good of the species in mind; it will often pick out designs that are good for replication even if from the organism's POV they are ridiculously maladaptive.

So yes, in a way evolution does circle back on itself, because natural selection is more like an arms race than a bike race - there is no finish line towards which it strives; it simply pushes systems against each other in competition.

Re: rape and power:

I was not really paying much attention to the why's of this, but more to the fact that it is.

That's how it seems to me, as well. It is, of course, true that a male asserts power over a female simply by forcing her to have sex, but most of the heated rhetoric thrown around the debate has to do with the causes, reasons, and motives underlying this event.

Absurd

01-17-03, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Microzoft
God, ..some of you guys are really screwed and itchy about sex.

I don't think any of us are screwed (in what sense?) and itchy. Why I was just at an orgy last night. ;)

The Marquis

01-17-03, 07:38 PM

Absurd :

I knew I wasn't thinking very clearly last night.

James R

01-17-03, 09:57 PM

Marquis:

To restate what Absurd just said in slightly simpler terms: a lower-ranked male in a group has a greater interest in spreading his own genes than in the alpha male spreading his genes. While many matings will be between the alpha male and the various females, there will always be some "cheating" on the part of lower-ranked males. This benefits the genes of the lower-ranked males, even if it may be to the ultimate detriment of the genes in the entire group.

Absurd:

I still fail to understand what it means to believe that rape is "only" about power the way you think some feminists do.

I provide a quote from Susan Brownmiller's book Against our Will. Brownmiller was among the radical feminists who originated the idea that rape is only about power. She writes:

"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function ... it is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

In other words, rape has nothing to do with inadequate men wanting sex and being willing to get it by force. Rather, it is an orchestrated effort by the entire male population to control and subjugate women.

For reference, this line of thought is sometimes referred to as "second-wave feminism" or "radical feminism". It is what I loosely termed "militant feminism" in previous posts.

I do not think it is constructive to paint all men as oppressors of all women. I don't think it helps us get to the bottom of the question of why rape occurs, or ultimately to try to reduce the incidence of rape. It ignores basic facts which you yourself have referred to as "trivial". But what is trivial to you is far from obvious to radical feminists.