Your question doesn’t make sense.
It impresses the chicks for some reason.
How effective would rape even be for impregnation? The likelihood that a given woman is ovulating is pretty low. Wouldn’t having sex multiple times over the course of a month make more sense from a biological perspective?
Sure it does. I’m a cave chick and I want stuff. Is the most efficient route to get impregnated by the local looter/pillager and hope he’s enough of a family guy to stick around and give me stuff? The truth is that in these settings, women did an enormous amount of resource production supporting daily life for herself and her kids. Men did plenty, too, of course. But not having men around has never stopped women from successfully raising children.
Looting is result of political forces, specifically, it happens when political entities want to have organized militaries, but cannot afford to or choose not to pay them directly. Like most of our gender roles, it’s more a reflection of agriculture than anything else. Pre-agricultural societies no doubt engaged in opportunistic theft, but before people were sedentary there wouldn’t have been a lot to steal- certainly not enough to make much of a difference in reproduction.
Still not making any sense.
The whole point of being a looter/pillager was not to do it locally and not to stick around; same with the raping part. For men, contribution to the gene pool was maximized by impregnating as many women as possible. Having sex with a large number of women (even if only a fraction of them were fertile) and then gettin’ the hell outta Dodge before the hunting party came home, was a reasonable strategy. And although I’m sure you would have been an independent and successful cave chick, if you consider the species overall, a woman that was protected and supported by a male companion was likely to successfully raise more offspring than a pregnant single woman with a two-year-old in her arms and a four-year-old at her feet.
Examples?
“Resource production,” yes – that is, doing handicrafts, and gathering food and stuff that’s just lying around – but, women’s physical and/or psychological characteristics have usually prevented them from “looting and pillaging” anything that anyone else would claim and defend. If that’s gonna get done, you’ll have to rely on the men to do it.
How much protection is he providing me if he is off looting and raping all day?
In every pre-industrial society I’ve seen, women and children live semi-autonomously, with the man splitting supplemental gifts among his wives but keeping much of his earnings for his own pleasure. Women live through gathering, kitchen gardens, small scale home industries and working as a community to address childcare. This isn’t about being groovy or independent- it’s a pretty ugly system.
Hasn’t the whole ‘rape can be an evolutionarily beneficial strategy’ been called into serious question though? There was a modeling paper based on some data from Paraguay that suggested that except for the very lowest status men, the cost of rape (to the rapist) would have been much greater than the benefit. (Rapists risk getting caught and killed, or having their children identified and killed).
This was the case traditionally in much of Africa, but not everywhere in the world. Among the Arctic native peoples, for example, food production was entirely monopolized by men.
Well, yes. I would imagine foraging was not a huge contribution to the diets of people who live in places without forageable food. That doesn’t change the reality that in most hunter-gathered societies, “food that happens to be lying around” provides the bulk of calories.
I can’t see where anyone covered it in a way that actually made sense.
Of course it does. You seem to be expecting everyone to take it on faith that women don’t derive the same benefit from looting and pillaging that men do.
The odds of catching one of eight women ovulating at any given time are the same as the odds of catching one woman ovulating in eight attempts. With the latter method, you are more likely to get it on at an appropriate time once, obviously, but that is offset by the improved odds of getting it on multiple times if you’re nailing multiple potential breeding partners.
For a second I thought you were going with a “the female body has ways of shutting that thing down” line with that post. 
There’s a lot I don’t agree with in your assertions, but let’s start with this: it depends on what a given society defines as a crime. In 16th-17th century Europe, witchcraft was a criminal offense, and, says Wikipedia:
because
From this article: Witch trials in the early modern period - Wikipedia
Nowadays we don’t consider witchcraft as a crime, and indeed Wikipedia characterizes the witches as victims. Yet at the time the male clerics, judges and executioners saw themselves as the moral sex, and women as intrinsically evil.
The notion of women as the moral sex came about, if I remember correctly, in the 19th century. Previously, the prevalent opinion, used to validate patriarchy and misogyny, was that women were not only intellectually inferior to men, but also morally deficient.
Blake has refuted this convincingly in the very next post. Women kill children, especially theirs, and especially their own newborns, as exemplified by several cases the world over. Women kill the elderly and the disabled, as shown by numerous examples of female serial killer nurses. In summary, women hurt innocent people who are physically weaker, and when they can get away with it. This doesn’t support the theory of an innately moral superiority.
When you were single and spreading your seed, I would assume that you inserted your penis into a woman’s vagina, right? Why would you do that? It seems pretty silly if you think about it from a rational level. You both can achieve orgasm in a variety of other ways. What is it that makes males and females engage in genital to genital contact? It is the urge to procreate.
As you noted, you consciously do NOT want to procreate in those circumstances. The LAST thing you want is to have a child with some hottie you just picked up. But the reason that you have an innate desire to insert your penis into her vagina is to, wait for it: procreate. Your rational brain says “I don’t want to get this chick pregnant.” Your animal brain wants to do the only thing that can get her pregnant.
I wonder if Queen Vickie had anything to do with that paradigm shift.
If your trying to write erotica, don’t quit your day job.
Well, yes. But mostly only because I couldn’t get her to blow me.
The bulk of calories, not necessarily the bulk of protein. Anyway, you didn’t restrict your remark to hunter gatherer societies, and your remark isn’t even true of all hunter gatherer societies. It’s true that in many premodern cultures women are mostly responsible for providing for their own sustenance, and this is especially true in Africa (which is one reason polygyny is more common in Africa than elsewhere), but it’s certainly not true everywhere.
Perhaps there’s a reason they remained in a state of miserable pre-industrialization while the rest of the world moved on. That they have an inferior culture which is not representative for the majority of humanity.