What is "Rape Culture"?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 8, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No idea. Depends on what you are talking about. Do you have something to say, some point to make?

    The Pinker in that video segment, the Ted talk, is dealing with a particular complex of sociological invalidities (that rape has nothing to do with sex, among other unlikelihoods) - which he traces to a root in a "blank slate" presumption, as a matter of historical record. He uses that to tie the matter to the rest of his talk, which concerns the blank slate presumption rather than any one sociological theory of rape.

    That has nothing to do with this thread, in which the intellectual history of whatever arguments appear is largely unknown and universally irrelevant hearsay anyway. Since nothing here depends on a blank slate presumption except the denialist strawman, what Pinker is saying does not conflict with it in the least.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    That isn't what I was asking.

    I quoted the part I was asking you about when you said you agreed with Pinker.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Ark Adrift

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Just, you know, because: Do you think maybe you could try making your point on the front side?

    Because quite honestly, given my posting history, I resent the general question as presented without any shade of context; it is as if you haven't been paying attention to what you're responding to ... for years.

    Honestly, I get sick and tired of this dumbassed cat-and-mouse shit, because it really does seem as if the whole point is to disrupt the thread; we can talk about anything but the thread subject.

    But, to begin to answer your question, I would beg you recall, say, a decade ago or so; or more, if you prefer, or less. I'm after the idea of traditionalists trying to talk about being gay as some sort of fashion choice.

    Because then I think back to Byron. You know, just for instance. And sure, we can crack some emo and goth jokes, but his society killed over buggery. The proposition that one would choose a despised, even mortally hated societal minority for a lark or thrill just never made sense.

    And, yes, I know this tradition; it's all the difference in the world when it comes to street harassment. If I talk to a guy like that without knowing he is available and receptive, it may be the twenty-first century but I'm still risking something fierce.

    And, yeah, you know, it might actually take women standing their ground in a lethal way. I would hate to think that's what kind of society people want, but some would assert a male prerogative to try.

    But that part is a digression. Or it's all tied together, anyway.

    Still, though, why would one choose a hanging-offense "lifestyle" for a lark?

    Similarly:

    "Do you think men are superior?"

    Why I would envy that which I find inferior?

    That is the first question to mind.

    I'm not saying there isn't an answer; I'm not saying there isn't a good answer. But I have no idea what it is. Nonetheless, if you do, it might be helpful to us all if you include that specific point on the front side, since the general proposition runs smack into an obvious question arising from what is already on the record.

    It's just a really, really dumb question if it's coming from a general pretense of ignorance.

    Was a time when I would have said, "Of course not", but been able to find a seed of acculturated supremacism. I've spent the last nine and a half years not just abandoning all that but raising it up to burn sosobra↱.

    I loathe that part of the psychonalysis↗ but I am also pretty confident about how the ego defense complex works. To the other, I loathe it, so if it means nothing to those who would ask such questions under a pretense of general ignorance, the best route I can think of is to just skip those questions.

    Nor am I going to go scraping through the last nine years of my posts just to make the point. To the one, there's no reason to presume you'd pay attention, since the pretense of your question suggests you haven't for the last couple years as we discussed and disputed. To the other, I just don't feel like doing a bunch of annoying legwork just to drag this thread off topic.

    So start with this, please: What ever happened to Fay Wray?

    And why would I envy what I hold inferior?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Envy can also be used as a backhanded compliment. "I wish I was a woman. Their lives our so much easier."

    Besides, aren’t you reasserting male sophistication by treating my reaction as naïve? You’re demonstrating your superior morality and judgment by scorning a female reader’s supposed naïveté. If I don't understand you, I'm naïve. If you don't understand me, I'm naïve.
    I don't know. I’m wrestling with this. Help me understand the cultural aspects of rape.

    Do we need to teach men not to rape or just stop teaching them to rape?

    "For a behavior to be considered cultural it must be shared extragenetically; that is, it must be taught."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_behavior

    Nature: the inherent features of something.

    Culture: attitudes, customs, and beliefs.

    Do they function separately or are they integrated?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Because you are a woman, you have no obligation to attend history, and should be taken seriously when asking stupid questions with no regard for history?

    See, to me, whether or not you're a woman has nothing to do with it.

    Additionally, were you a more honest and reliable poster, perhaps your desperate scrambling for a legitimate pretense after the fact wouldn't look so awful.

    What an interesting general statement; would you care to apply it more specifically, say, to the record of this thread?
     
  9. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Huh? What history, yours, your history?

    Wow! Why does this remind me of the times when men call us crazy? What are our choices, to shut up or be deemed?
    Huh?

    Do we need to teach men not to rape or just stop teaching them to rape? Which is it, Tiassa?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Does your womanhood somehow prohibit me from regarding you as an individual?

    Are you perpetually emblematic of all women?

    The problem is that for as long as we've been discussing and disputing various issues, you would inherently purport to have been paying attention to my posts for having responded to them. If your primary basis for asking such a question is to reset all of that discussion to square zero in order to avoid accounting for the historical record, I can only wonder why.

    I regard you as a person. An individual.

    If this is objectionable, please do let me know; and, yes, I admit it would be helpful if you would explain why.

    Both.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I'm sure that he's referring to the history of the entire community, which in this case must be the USA, or even Western Civilization.
    Why not both? Although a good teacher would easily combine them into a single lesson.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Since this one was addressed to me, I will pick up the task of pointing out that it's too stupid to take at face value.

    If you have a point, or a response to something I've posted, type it out. Take into account that human culture is an inherent feature of human beings, that human beings have to learn how to walk and talk and feed themselves and play with each other (and so they do these things differently in different cultures), and so forth.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    On this occasion, I'm referring to my own.

    The problem is ignoring the record; to wit, any number of my posts over the years, in order to ask a question from a pretense of ignorance justified by general presumption that might well be addressed in the record. And even this wouldn't so much be a problem except it's another attempt to change the subject.

    I mean, look at her response after I refer to the existing record:

    Envy can also be used as a backhanded compliment. "I wish I was a woman. Their lives our so much easier."

    So here's the thing:

    That is to say, what attracts me to the idea of actually being a woman is, in fact, twisted jealousy. And when I think about what I envy, I seriously must be crazy.

    Given that I had just pointed her to the post, the question demands: Is she speculating the antithesis because she's ignoring the record? Or is there any reason she would attend the record and then calculate such an antithetical pretense of speculation?

    And the whole point of this is to distract the topic from the larger discussion of rape culture.

    If there is a real and valid discussion our neighbor wishes to have, that is one thing. If however, the point is to cat-and-mouse the thread off topic, there is only so long any of us should play along.

    This bait routine has been going on at least since Thursday last↑

    "The question that I would have liked to see Tiassa ask, though, is 'Can we be better than we are?'"

    ―and I think it would be a bit more useful if we ever got around to the point.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You can't do much about her responses to your posts. But you can simply ignore them (as appropriate) and move forward with a coherent argument.
    So your point must be to keep the discussion on track.
    So don't. You are one of this website's best writers. You surely know how to work around the trolls. You just need to decide on what your goal is. I would suggest that it should have nothing to do with responding to statements and questions that are off-topic at best and subversive at worst.
    So what's stopping you??? That's a pretty decent question. It's on-topic, it's succinct, and it encourages a serious answer--even a deep one. I responded to it briefly, and I just got here.

    I would urge you to focus on the topic rather than the people.
     
  15. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Look here, Tiassa. I’m just going to be direct. You have links that barely show up, links with arrows, and links hidden within your photos. Your references aren’t clear to everyone. We don’t always know what’s going on in your mind. Not everyone has the time to hang on your every word.

    If Fraggle would have understood the Byron and lark reference, he would have known that you were referring to your own post history. Why don’t you tell him how stupid he is?
    I'm obviously interested in theories of rape. Sometimes my question are just that, questions. They're not meant to derail the thread. What's your plans for it anyway, to fill it with stories of rape in the news?
    I think that evolutionary theorizing can yield some useful information. A closer look at patriarchy and sexual coercion looks promising. It's a lot to think about, though. I get a little confused. If it's not natural, why would we have to teach them not to do it? If it's purely cultural, then it's being taught to them.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    What question?
     
  17. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    You disagreed with me, though, didn’t you, Bells? I sided with Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne, stating that the sexual dimension of rape was painfully obvious. You threw up Thornhill, but my responses kept getting deleted. That’s why I opened a thread on Sociobiological Theories of Rape, but it was closed, and cesspooled.

    Tiassa is a gay male. I’m a straight female. There are no parallels and I’m tired of his dog and pony show.

    If you’re interested, Diane Rosenfeld has some of the required reading material in her course packet for free.

    Gender Violence, Law, and Social Justice

    http://dianerosenfeld.org/about/

    Duh.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Meanwhile, Back on Topic (The Unsurprising Art)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Writing for Bookforum, Heather Havrilesky↱ decided to review Tucker Max's Mate: Become the Man Women Want. To the one, we might wonder why anyone would want to; to the other, we owe thanks that Ms. Havrilesky should sacrifice the hours and risk the psychological scarring of trying to comprehend advice about pussy slaying framed in a ghostly assertion of evolutionary psychology, and perhaps that last is the reason why.

    And even though Tucker Max has apparently lied, cheated, and vomited his way into hundreds of pairs of lady pants—an allegation that the author himself has repeated countless times—he still warns against lying to women, presumably because lying is really hard when you aren't that smart and have very little long-term memory. Plus, telling the truth will get you laid more often, because "honesty is sexy to women." But don't be too honest, guys! "By saying, 'I'm looking to have fun and meet new people,' you're NOT saying, 'I just want to slay as much pussy as possible.'" So don't say that out loud by accident, dudes—maybe tie a red ribbon on your finger so you don't forget.

    Much of Mate falls into these kinds of semantic traps. Attracting and seducing high-quality ladies depends on demonstrating your high "mate value," in part by being assertive, but also by showing genuine interest. ("Be legitimately curious about the women you interact with," Max writes, as if legitimate curiosity could arise from mere urging.) Display your intelligence, but also be solicitous: Take care of children, animals, and old people, because "nothing quickens a woman's pulse like seeing you help save someone with a weak pulse." And instead of mansplaining to infinity and beyond, "validate … her right to have an opinion."

    If you're already catching a whiff of toxic subtext implying that man awards and revokes all rights and woman is eternally grateful for his generous permission to assume a role ever so slightly above subhuman half-person, well, rest assured that this subtext is in fact the thrust of the whole book. "Your primal brain expected to find itself in a sexual culture with fun mating rituals and a decent chance of finding a girlfriend after puberty. As it should have," Max and Miller explain on the book's first page. "That kind of sexual culture had been the hunter-gatherer norm for hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, you never got any of that good stuff your ancestors got."

    ‡​

    And as difficult as it is not to feel real pity for the author—and for anyone who would take his sad, empty, man-version of The Rules seriously—the truth is that his view of masculinity is so soulless as to be downright dangerous. By reducing half the world's population to a blind army of pussy slayers, Max runs the risk of robbing impressionable men of their own rich complexity, their deepest-felt passions, their very humanity. The stories our culture tells us about men and what makes them tick aren't just reductive and brutish and unfair; they're wrong, and they teach men, time and again, to reduce their own complicated desires and need to connect with other humans to something loosely resembling a hunger for hot wings and a pair of "epic tits" (to translate them into Maxian terms).

    Men—all men—are more complex and more luminous, even in their most desperate, Hooters-happy-hour hours, than poor, damaged Max seems to recognize. Instead of emptily mimicking the puffery of easily threatened alpha males, men should be encouraged to honor and cultivate their richest potential. But for those Tucker Max clones who genuinely await instruction from their deeply insulting, callous leader, an even more accurate title might be Mate: Let's Hope They Don't.

    Jesse Singal↱, writing for New York magazine's Science of Us, reflects:

    Sure, Havrilesky is writing about Max's book in particular, but I'd argue this is an underappreciated aspect of the damage done by the cheap, click-y version of evolutionary psychology on the whole. In much the same way it often casts women as inferior to men when it comes to surviving and thriving in the modern world (like Amy Alkon arguing, in supremely silly fashion, that women aren't suited to climb corporate ladders because they "want everyone to be equal," because evolution), it's important not to lose site of what it says about men as well: that we're brutes, basically, captive to our ancient caveman urges and incapable of treating women as true co-equals.

    This is a handy way to approach life if you're Tucker Max and trying to make a lot of money by selling books about "slaying pussy" to adolescent males, emotional and actual, but for the rest of us it's a depressing, inaccurate worldview that strips everyone of their full humanity.

    Evolutionary psychology is not without its potential benefits, but by and large its instability is temporal and contextual, a specific and inevitable product of perspective. That is, if we say (A) leads to (B) meaning (C), to what degree are (B) and (C) determined by proximate demand?

    The real function of something might well include what we attribute to it, but why do we define that attribute as we do, and can we really define the evolutionary purpose of history―such as the fact of this or that adaptation―according to contemporary market demand?

    Because doing so is how evolution justifies infidelity by men; it's also how Kim Kardashian's ass becomes an evolutionary benchmark.

    And it's how people come to defend rape culture by appealing to the frog-humping chimpanzee in every man.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Havrilesky, Heather. "Male-Order Brides". Bookforum. December/January 2016. Bookforum.com. 1 December 2015. http://bit.ly/1Nmv4z2

    Singal, Jesse. "Lame Evolutionary-Psychology Arguments Hurt Men, Too". New York. 1 December 2015. http://sciof.us/1Npd23K
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    That's probably due to the kinds of music you listen to and TV you watch.
    Most likely not. Most songs like that (when sung by women who have experienced such things) are decidedly anti-rape.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Firstly, I don't know if you are addressing this to me or to Tiassa, since you are responding to Tiassa..

    Secondly, yes, I do disagree with you on Pinker. For obvious reasons. Pinker advocates rape prevention on the part of the potential victim, instead of on the potential rapist. The onus for him is and always has been on women acting differently in whatever shape or form, to prevent their own rape and never on men behaving differently to not rape. There is also the conflict he naturally raises, because if we were to take him seriously, then all men are potential rapists, while he complains that his belief of rape culture as he believes feminists see it, sees all men as potential rapists. It's ridiculous in the extreme.

    Of course there is a sexual dimension to rape, since rape involves a forced sex act. But to rely solely on that and disregarding what rapists get out rape, is dangerous. Men don't rape because they simply feel like getting some or because they are horny. Men who rape do so because they can take what they want, and they don't care if she says no. And yes, I do disagree with him because I have seen and experienced enough to know first hand that rape is about power and domination. And yes, I disagree with him because I do believe that it is our role to teach our sons to respect other people and to respect if someone says no to something and to teach our children that not everything or everyone is there for the taking.

    As for the 'coursework' reading material, I'll get to it later (possibly in the coming days).
     
  21. Secular Sanity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    That’s something that you got from a blog, not from his work, remember?

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...dice-and-necessity.141802/page-6#post-3199527

    Steven Pinker never said anything about relying solely on the sexual dimension of rape. Jerry Coyne didn't, either. I didn't. I don't think that anyone did.

    I don’t think he's the bad guy that you make him out to be. He's a feminist, too.

    “I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years. I believe that the two waves of the feminist movement in the 20th century are among the proudest achievements of our species, and I am proud to have lived through one of them, including the effort to increase the representation of women in the sciences.”—Steven Pinker

    Just forget it. Let Tiassa control the conversation.

    Hopefully, you'll find Diane Rosenfeld's work interesting and helpful.

    Good day to you, Bells.
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    To Borrow a Moment

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Evolving: "Little girl has learned a lesson, today; she has a value." (Floater)

    If I might take the moment to wonder about a few things.

    It frequently occurs that something strikes me amiss about the assertion of the sexual dimension about rape, and in truth that point has been resolving a little more clearly since we were asked to consider a chimpanzee humping a frog to death.

    The sex act? Something about this presupposition bugs me.

    To wit:

    • A friend who is a therapeutic psychologist explaining that his cat "kills the mouse and then fucks the corpse"; this is not the first time I've heard the proposition about mammals getting off on their kills. Additionally, it very nearly makes sense, given the overlap in belligerent and sexual behaviors about testosterone.

    • There is also a story about this same guy, in younger years, attempting to have sex with a tree while on drugs.

    • I believe you're familiar with my assertion that a three-way with two guys simultaneously on a woman is actually a homosexual encounter between two men using a female human being as a sex toy.​

    I think of other examples; is there such thing as "distal sexual assault", insofar as if, say, the point of behaving explicitly sexually in public is because being witnessed by others is a thrill? I mean, if it's just the orgasm, whatever; but there are organized events and places for this sort of behavior―finger-banging your partner on the terrace at the baseball park is a bit more dubious, because I'm pretty sure they didn't ask other people's consent to be used as sexual enhancement tools.

    While it isn't that rape lacks a sexual dimension, I do wonder why we would presume that sexual dimension is some manner of intercourse?

    More specifically, the sexual dimension is internal; it isn't actually about the other person. That is, in a rape it would seem the sexual dimension is achieving orgasm, and the question of rape as an act of power over another individual is answered by the requirement of their participation. If it was just about the orgasm, masturbation would suffice.

    Any number of paraphilias have nothing to do with copulation itself; a pure rapist who gets off specifically on raping is a paraphiliac.

    The other person is merely a tool; instrumenti genus vocale was Varro's rendering of the "talking tool" status of Athenian slaves.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, human males did not specialize to specifically deliver seed to females in estrus; the advantageous behavior seems to be to deliver as much seed as possible in hopes that every once in a while it's around and into a female in estrus. This would seem to suggest that orgasm is the point, not copulation.

    I would however, testify to a particular challenge I experienced in the context of my own masculinity; my generation has witnessed a couple of assertions of some notion in and of itself being "sexist". I put the word in quotes not to doubt it, but because I haven't heard such formulations for a while, and, honestly, there are myriad formulations.

    Oh, hey, there we go; sorry, it's actually still unwieldy to me in general, but how about a specific? It's only been recently I've been chipping away at the idea of "women's rights"; it's problematic for me to establish the boundary. But it took about a month after ... I can't remember the issue but it wasn't so long ago. Probably during Obamacare and the whole birth control argument. But the last time I encountered the discussion between feminists about "women's rights" versus "human rights", and the question of whether or not campaigning for "women's rights" reinforces the effective reservation separate from human rights, it only took about a month before it clicked. Yeah, go ahead and roll your eyes at a fucking month; like I said, it's a particular challenge I experienced in the context of my own masculinity. And no, forty years of conditioning isn't an excuse.

    Still, though, it occurs to me that the difference between copulation and orgasm in any context asserting evolutionary considerations of rape behavior in general and its acute misogynsitic manifestation in every society on Earth would be an incredibly important distinction.

    Thus:

    • Copulation as the evolutionary drive inherently includes an obligation of female participation.

    • Orgasm as the evolutionary drive does not.​

    And, true, we can envision a difference between orgasm-seeking in primal anarchy and, well, the mere proposition of civilized society. And in civilized society, rape is a cultural definition. I mean, I perceive the basic idea of rape among fruit flies, in which the reproductive drive includes deceiving the female and requires attacking the competition. But it's Drosphilia. Attacking a superior male not to steal his food but to pick up its scent in order to attempt to deceive a female as if the weaker male actually has food of his own to offer is certainly a rape scenario, but ... really? I don't deny that my friend apparently raped a tree while on acid, but something about saying that seems to denigrate the word. I mean, come on, what am I supposed to say about penile spines? That is, I get it, it really looks and sounds like rape, but they're cats, and apparently nature is such that ... I mean ... penile spines.

    So I find myself in mind of the proposition that rape is a social construct; then again, this is an idea that is easily, widely, and enthusiastically abused. But at some point, someone asserted something and it stuck. The proposition of rape emerged into the human heritage, and as long as we're mucking around the borders of evolutionary notions we might reasonably suggest there's a reason the assertion of rape stuck. The species is better off defining rape than not. We've had enough time; if this didn't work, it would have broken by now. Instead, the more we secure logical and observable boundaries about rape and its empowerment, it really does seem our societies improve greatly.

    And that's the thing about the question of orgasm or copulation.

    And it's also the problem about evolutionary psychology applied in the context of sociobiological demand for and empowerment of inequality.

    Evolutionary psychology is not in and of itself an inherently terrible idea; like any psychology it can be easily exploited, and if evolutionary psychology is in fact psychology it can itself be psychoanalyzed.

    But just like liberating women within the context of traditional marriage is arguably inherently sexist―one of the contexts from that misty once upon the eighties―it seems to me that any assertion of evolutionary psychology including copulation as the primary sociobiological driver is inherently faulty for presuming the male sexual behavior of delivering seed functionally requires female participation. We have specifically evolved otherwise.

    Evolutionary outcome: Humans organize collectively into societies more or less assesrting civilization.

    Evolutionary outcome: Humans have universally, within their societies, defined rules for sexual propriety.

    Evolutionary outcome: Human males are not specialized to deliver seed specifically to females in estrus, but specifically to deliver seed.

    This weird trend asserting evolutionary psychological and sociobiological contexts for rape would seem to be actually dangerous; to the one, it asserts an evolutionary explanation for sexual belligerence in human males, but, to the other, seems to ignore evolution itself.

    One more note on evolution: Men are about to become implicitly extraneous; human beings have already achieved a viable unique organism from two female mammalian gametes. Yes, it requires a laboratory to do so, but it would serve any sociobiological or evolutionary address of sexual behavior in humans very well to remember a basic reality: The Y chromosome is a mutation that became an advantageous adaptation; its sole purpose in existing is to perpetuate the X chromosome.

    So if we really want to get into evolutionary psychology, maybe one of the advocates can wake me up when we get to masculine perceptions of existential inadequacy.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Secular Sanity

    I actually got it directly from his work. You were the one who was convinced it was not from his work, despite my quoting directly from his works and providing the page numbers. You were the one who was getting his quotes mixed up, because you didn't seem to realise they were from different books. Remember? Scroll down from what you linked.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Pinker is a feminist with the full knowledge of male privilege in a patriarchal society.

    If you want an idea of how Pinker views rape, you should read the interview he gave to Srijana Mitra Das in the Times of India in the wake of the gang rape in Delhi and the massacre in Newtown. On the subject of rape:

    How do you explain violence like the Newtown shooting and the Delhi gang rape, where the vulnerable are badly hurt?

    There's no single explanation. In my book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, i identify five psychological mechanisms that impel people to commit acts of violence, together with four psychological mechanisms - the 'better angels' - which inhibit us from violence. These two atrocities have very different causes. The Delhi gang rape is easier to explain. Rape is an extreme end of a continuum of male sexuality - males pursue sexual partners more ardently and indiscriminately than females. Ordinarily, this leads men to woo, proposition, seduce - but in unregulated settings and when men are desperate, low in empathy and self-control, it can lead to harassment and rape. This can be exacerbated in cultures that practise female-selective infanticide. That leaves large numbers of unattached men, generally poor and marginalised, who prey for sexual opportunities.

    Do you think he is correct?

    And I will get around to reading what you linked earlier. Time is short at present. I'll load it on the tablet and read it before bed in the coming days.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tiassa

    One of the interesting things about those who cite "evolution" when it comes to rape, and then the comparisons between humans and other animal species, from apes to other animals is that they fail to acknowledge human evolution in and of itself.

    Sure, animals rape as a form of mating strategy. But that argument does not apply in this case as an excuse or explanation of why human males rape.
     

Share This Page