The hypothesis is basically that if a man is a prolific rapist who impregnates many women, then the women who get pregnant will have kids who are more likely to become rapists who procreate more than non-rapists, which means that the women who are more likely to get pregnant from rape (have an orgasm) have a survival advantage and therefore that trait persists in the species if rapists have more children than men who do not rape.
There are several flaws with this theory.
For one, a child of rape will have no paternal investment, and questionable maternal investment. That could counterbalance whatever benefits there are to this strategy.
Ducks are prolific rapists, but female ducks have evolved defenses against rape, not evolved to get impregnated by rape. So in at least one other species, rapist behavior by men results in the evolution of anti-rape physiology by females, not the evolution of physiology likely to increase fertilization. But I’m sure there are other species that have done the opposite.
There, in theory, should be a division between rapists. A male rapist who is weak and ineffective with 1-2 victims is not the same as one who is strong and has 100+ victims. Getting pregnant by the first wouldn’t give much advantage, in theory the second could give advantages. But how are women supposed to know the difference?
A male rapist who has enough victims runs the risk of being killed by the friends and families of his victims. So this is not necessarily a good strategy for him.
The theory that orgasm increases fertilization is not clear cut, there is evidence for and against it.
I’ll take, “Things people say to keep sex sacred” for $200, Alex.
Some rape is about power. *Some *rape is about a horny person who doesn’t give a shit if the other person wants to have sex or not. And *some *rape is about people who are raised to think that only repeated screams of “NO!” and attempts to claw one’s eyes out really means no, and that any more muted response means their victim “wanted it” and the sex was consensual.
That article is clearly about the first, as it’s about a serial rapist who raped strangers. For Reginald Williams and his ilk, rape is about control and power. That’s not the only, or even the most common, kind of rapist.
You’re welcome. It’s one bit of repeated “wisdom” that really boils my noodle. I suppose it may provide some comfort to a certain subset of victims who don’t want to call what happened to them “sex.” But at the same time, it provides one more excuse for every rapist out there who really wanted to have sex and wouldn’t take no for an answer. If their actions were about getting sex, but rape isn’t about sex, then what they did couldn’t have been rape, right? Wrong.
I agree with the first part. But how do you know that serial rapists of strangers are about power? I associate the “power” aspect with the men who rape women they know in order to “punish” them for a perceived transgression, which is, I believe, one of the most common types of rape.
I have heard that serial rapists often have sexual problems and they can only get aroused during violent acts, thus their rapes may be solely about sex.
Because the linked article is about interviews with a serial rapist, and how his motives were largely control and power. He even wrote a book about it. Similar motivations are often admitted to by serial rapists and stranger rapists, but I think it’s a huge mistake to extrapolate that to all, or even most, rapists, even if it makes us feel better.
But mostly because quite a bit of actual research reveals that rape isn’t about power, it’s about sex, (Hamilton and Yee, 1990; Rapaport & Burkhart, 1984; Ellis, 1989; Koss & Leonard, 1984; Mosher & Anderson, 1986) and because the claim that rape is about power, not sex, was a theory put forth without evidence by feminists in the 1970s who had a vested interest in blaming everything wrong with society on the power imbalance between men and women, and has limited support in actual research. It’s popular because it’s often repeated by authorities, not because it’s been proven correct.
And, last but not least, personal experience and listening to the experiences of both rapists and rape victims for many years. My rapist didn’t desire power over me; he wanted sex, and didn’t care or notice that I didn’t. That’s a very common theme in rape stories, especially the kind of acquaintance or partner rape that isn’t often reported to authorities or investigated by scientists.
There are several proposed theories by which simultaneous orgasm may lead to greater pregnancy rates through greater retention of sperm. One is the “in-suck” phenomenon, where the rhythmic contractions of the pelvic floor cause the cervix to open a bit and dip down and create suction to slurp the sperm past the os. Another is reduced acidity in the cervical mucus created by the vaginal lubrication, allowing greater sperm survival. I’ve even read one theory that the post-coital exhaustion after a good orgasm keeps women lying down longer, allowing the sperm a longer time to pass through the vagina and os into the uterus before she stands and the semen drips out.
Studies have been mixed as to whether any of these have an actual impact on fertilization rates.
what is your impression of the motivations of the men who drug women and then rape them? This is one of the most puzzling acts I have ever heard of. It reminds me of necrophilia.
So super creepy. I think it varies, of course. That’s pretty much my whole theme here. You can’t take what one person does and say it applies to everyone.
There was only one time that I, personally, was drugged by a stranger in a nightclub who clearly intended to bring me home to have sex. My impression was that he was looking for sex, and thought that was the best way to make it happen. He’d tried talking to me and flirting with me for a couple of hours before that, with limited results. I didn’t shoot him down entirely, but neither had I decided that I was going home with him. Then I think he got impatient, and he put ketamine* in my drink.
So…you tell me? Was that about wanting power over me, or was that about a means to get sex? I really don’t know. It seems, though, that if it was a power thing, he wouldn’t have wasted the two or three hours trying to get me to agree to sex before he drugged me.
I *do *know I’m grateful to my friends for figuring out what was happening and getting me safely away from him.
We also know that the most popular “date rape drug” is alcohol. That’s it. Not roofies or ketamine or benzos, just booze. Because booze lowers inhibitions and makes people more likely to say yes to sex, or at least to say no with less force. That doesn’t scream “power” to me, that seems like people who want sex, and lack the ethics or skills to get it from a sober person.
*I’d never taken ketamine, so I didn’t know what was wrong, but my description of the visual hallucinations led my friend, who has done every recreational drug on the planet, to identify it as ketamine. So freaky. Might have been fun if I’d known about it and wanted it, but unaware and unwanted, it was really really horrible and disorienting.
The process of seduction or persuasion can be very confusing to many males, especially those type with limited empathy for others. (i.e., most men). Combine this with an attitude of self-entitlement, or arrogance, or whatever you want to call disregard for others’ feelings and rights, and they will see force or drugs as a convenient way to bypass the tedious and longer term task of wooing.
Plus - and this in no way justifies rape - there is a social game that women play with men. Society has told them not to be “easy”, therefore they make the man work for what he wants and then may or may not give it to him. For example, in my distant single past, I recall occasions where I was engaged in the usual foreplay wrestling match on the couch - put the hand there, they move it away, kiss some more, try again. On two separate occasions, two different women, (well into their 20’s) each excused herself, went to the washroom, and when they returned to the couch to resume the play they had apparently removed their bra.
Getting to “yes” (or “no”) is a game that both sides play. Often the male has the advantage of size and strength; some poor sports will tire of the game and break the rules. There may be some question where the foul line is, but like the old saying about porn - “I can’t define for you exactly where the line is crossed, but I know it when I see it.”
I will hypothesize that rape, even date rape and drug/drunk rape, is to some extent about power. “I wanted this to enjoy myself, you were denying it to me, but see, I can do what I want and you can’t stop me.” It’s the same attitude as the bully in the schoolyard in grade school, except instead of stealing your candy bar, sex is involved.
why don’t you just talk beforehand? I’ve never been involved in a foreplay “wrestling” match, and if some man put his hand somewhere and I moved it off I’d expect him to stop and go home, not persist, and if he persisted I’d throw him out.
I see the real problem seems to be a serious lack of communication.
As to the bathroom thing, I suspect applying some kind of birth control may have been involved.
You can tell who has a compatible immune system (which will result in a healthier baby) by smelling someone’s dirty undershirt. I’m sure there are tons of unconscious signals that are being sent and picked up that we have no conscious awareness of.
Yes, they can. They don’t know what they’re looking for, but they can. Our voices get higher in pitch, our faces redden, our clothing and makeup selection changes (usually to more reds and pinks, which men find more attractive) and even our body odor changes to be more appealing. Men respond to this unconsciously and rate fertile women more attractive than those same women during infertile times, even outside the issue of rape selection.
If there ever was an OP which should have been immediately censored this is it.
Cecil adams, Ed Zotti, and all SDMB moderators are total, repeat, total assholes for letting it go.
I suggest you total assholes look yourselves in the face once in a while, so as to, maybe, improve your performances as moral human beings, as opposed to unthinking moral animals.