The question that follows is “why does THAT bring sexual pleasure?” I agree with you, but just so we see how this argument usually goes…
Well, to start, the floral and jewelry industries would collapse.
Friction and orgasm. After all, that’s the principle behind sex dolls.
This is correct. Big kudos to even sven for rescuing this thread from ignorance and Eurocentrism.
Folksingers Robin and Linda Williams went on the Mountain Stage radio program (or was it Prairie Home Companion?) and sang:
Man is tinder
Woman is fire
And the Devil is a mighty wind
attributing greater lust to men. But in 1990 when I was a librarian cataloging Arabic books, I found an Arabic book full of misogyny titled al-Mar’ah fi al-mir’ah (Woman in the Mirror), loaded with negative stuff about women. I found there an Arabic version of the same lines sung by Robin and Linda Williams, but with a significant switch: the Arabic version said woman is tinder, man is fire. To Arabs, women’s lust is “naturally” assumed to be greater.
Rape is ALWAYS about dominance - otherwise, it wouldn’t be rape.
As to the question regarding my attacker, I assume that his motives were more related to violence than any sexual gratification on the basis of the other abuse I suffered. There was no evidence of ejaculation. Perhaps rape is sometimes associated with desire for sex - the deciding factor, though, is that any control of the situation is involuntarily taken away from one participant.
Let’s take prison rape - for example. 1 in 10 men in prison are sexually assaulted. A small percentage of reports accuse security officers and other authorities. Of these reports, most of the accused are men. In these cases, is it about sex, or is it dominance?
1 in 4 women in prison report sexual assault. A larger percentage of rape claims in women’s facilities are blamed on male authorities enjoying their personal harems, but still considerably less than half. Most rapes in these places occur between women.
And what of cases of men being raped? If it’s about sex drive, how is this possible? Even if he is mobbed by a group of women, or manipulated, or held at gunpoint, if sex drive and not control determines rape, then if he can get it up, he’s willing.
What about (eew, sorry in advance) bestiality and necrophiles? Infantophilia?
By that logic, theft is about dominance, computer viruses are about dominance, murder about dominance - in fact, the majority of crime is about dominance. I don’t buy it. It’s selfishness, not dominance in most cases IMHO.
Sex. When someone is frustrated and lusty enough, he’ll have sex with all sorts of things. Basically, these men ( or at least many of them ) are using each other as masturbation aids.
No, like I said, all you do is strangle him. He can be dying and still have an erection.
Some people have abnormal attractions to abnormal things, that’s all.
It wouldn’t be rape if it weren’t about sex, either. 
That’s not a motivation, that’s the definition of rape: sex against the victim’s will.
I’d say sex.
I don’t know what that question means. Are you suggesting the people who rape men don’t have sex drives?
First, an erection doesn’t always indicate sexual willingness or even interest.
Second, again, you’re pointing out the definition of rape–what separates it from consensual sex–not the motivation.
If a group of women are aroused by the thought of raping a man, so they abduct him, stimulate (or strangle) him, and have sex with him against his will, that’s rape motivated by sexual desire. If they perform the exact same actions, but they do it because they want to show dominance over him and their magic 8-ball told them to do it through sex (rather than, say, a beating), then it’s rape motivated by domination.
What about them? Some people are attracted to animals, corpses, and infants, or perhaps just find them to be a more convenient outlet for their sexual tension. Do you think a person who has sex with a corpse is doing it as a sign of dominance or power?
Well, in my experience, and in the experience of hundreds of others with whom I’ve spoken, the sex was incidental. In my case, I would have been more than willing to go along with just sex. Great, fine, I like sex, it gets me off, I STILL like it. Especially if it meant I didn’t have to be beaten within an inch of my life and drugged to unconciousness for three days.
The loss of control, the degradation of self was what hurt. The sex was just lagniappe.
When there are other options, men and women still rape. Not always, but a lot. That is why I think that it is the urge to dominance that is the prime motivator for all acts of sexual assault.
I do concede that for examples such as those I referenced earlier, mental illness is a likely factor. Even when no instability is present, these things happen (ick!). Many boys are still counseled or treated for “excessive” masturbation. In these cases, the sex drive may well be a factor, but the desire for control is missing.
As far as people getting off sexually in ways not normally associated with sex, again, it’s not about ejaculation. There are fetishists the world over who will happily explain this to you.
If sexual gratification for you means simply ejaculation, I truly pity you.
Going back to the OP (but not really answering it; sorry!) - testosterone levels play a part in both male and female libidos, and testosterone patches have been touted as the “female Viagra”. A few women have taken high levels of testosterone, either for body-building or social reasons, and this does give rise to a higher libido, as well more aggression, a moustache and an enlarged clitoris.
Interestingly, the testosterone levels in women temporarily rise quite dramatically as a result of drinking lots of alcohol, while the testosterone levels of men tend to fall slightly.
That said, I’m not sure if women are less horny than men, on the whole. It’s just that, if anything, the contexts tend to be a little different.
This is “Great” Debates?
And yet, when there are other ways to show dominance, men and women still rape. If all they want to do is show dominance, why would they do it through sex?
I have no clue where you got the idea that anyone in this thread thinks that.
I’m surprised to hear you say that. If I said the same thing about a woman, I think it’d be considered pretty offensive.
Ahhh… the old “rape isn’t about sex” canard. We don’t have that many untouchable sacred cows left on the Board, but the “rape isn’t about sex” thing certainly qualifies as one of the Few, the Shameful, the Just-Plain-Wrong.
I think this Board usually does a great job at fighting ignorance, but with some subjects the emotions run so high that common sense (and science) often suffers.
Please, please try to understand that most rapes are primarily about sex. Admittedly the rapes involve violation of the victim either emotionally or physically or both and CERTAINLY legally, but just because your emotions want something to be a certain way does’t make it so. I’m sorry.
Other things that may qualify as “as-of-yet unvanquished sacred cows” are:
-
It never a person’s fault if they are fat.
-
Monotheistic, anthropomorphic God-belief in the face of no evidence whatsoever.
What would happen if women were as horny as men?
What leads you to believe they’re not just as horny as men, but have higher standards?
Britney.
Touché!
It isn’t. But it’s something that wouldn’t happen if the rapist didn’t have a high sex drive.
For practical purposes, in relations between the sexes, it comes to the same thing.
That’s what I meant by “sociobiology” (see link in OP).
Why?