[matty]

First off, I want to say that I agree rape should be a crime and am not arguing against the legal definition. My post is to discuss the evolutionary psychology behind rape for pure intellectual and entertainment value.

I think many can agree that some men rape because it is one kind of a strategy to pass on their genes. The real question I have is "why is rape considered such a serious crime?" and "why is rape so emotionally damaging for a woman?" FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE.

If a woman is raped, it is probably done by someone who did not have the reproductive fitness to get her without force. Thus, it seems it is in the best interest of men who play the game fair and for women to have a fair game rule where you can't cheat by force. Women may have a mechanism to make sex more important because it is a higher reproductive cost, and part of this importance is in her psychological health. If a man were to be castrated, this would be traumatizing because he no longer can reproduce. Although a poor example, it may lead to something. Men, who traditionally have made the laws, have probably instituted rape laws due to them not wanting their own women to be raped.

After some rambling, I leave the discussion over to you guys and gals. Why is rape so serious psychologically and why does society take it so seriously?

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and "why is rape so emotionally damaging for a woman?" FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE.

are ALL YOUR FEELINGS belong to evolution?

[Distance]

Evolution would dictate that rape is not a viable evolutionary tactic since males rejected from the gene pool, should remain rejected. Human beings exude pheromones, amongst many other indicators. If pheromones 'smell' unhealthy, these males will be rejected so the only way they can enter the gene pool would be by force. This dilutes the quality of the gene pool.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First off, I want to say that I agree rape should be a crime and am not arguing against the legal definition. My post is to discuss the evolutionary psychology behind rape for pure intellectual and entertainment value.

Yes, rape is so entertaining.

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think many can agree that some men rape because it is one kind of a strategy to pass on their genes.

If that were true, only attractive women of reproductive age would be raped. They aren't. All ages and attractiveness are raped, and men as well. Premise fail.

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"why is rape so emotionally damaging for a woman?" FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE.

An individual's emotions and the process of Evolution have very little to do with each other.

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a woman is raped, it is probably done by someone who did not have the reproductive fitness to get her without force.

Considering the exceptionally poor basis for your previous premises, citations needed. For this and pretty much everything else.

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is rape so serious psychologically and why does society take it so seriously?

I'd say rape is not treated seriously enough.

[storm eyes]

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My post is to discuss the evolutionary psychology behind rape for pure intellectual and entertainment value.

I have a hard time getting past entertainment value. Could you clarify where this discussion might hold entertainment value on an intellectual level?

[spect]

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is rape so serious psychologically and why does society take it so seriously?

because rape is very traumatic. its a serious violation of personal worth, of values, of independence and autonomy, of safety, of free will and people having control over their own lives. rape causes very serious mental health problems.

were also talking about procreation, which is also one of the strongest instincts if not the most important. modern society fundamentally acknowledges this as an ultimate right to uphold and protect, a very powerful enabler both personally and collectively when its given the freedom to apply it with will.

[Polymath20]

Evolutionarily speaking:

1) Men who are better able to protect (or control) their women are more likely to be the fathers of the women's children. This creates an evolutionary pressure for men to be protective (controlling) of their women. Many rules codified by religions across the world are reflective of this, including the institution of marriage and many of the chauvinistic rules of Sharia. These rules stem from the same evolutionary/psychological pressures.

2) Rape can often result in dire physical consequences (pregnancy, death, infertility) and also significant social consequences (stoning, ostracism) and so this can create a very strong evolutionary pressure to make rape something to be avoided by a woman. Avoiding the social consequences means hiding the event, which would probably be why many women instinctively fail to report the rape. They'd rather just move on, rather than stir the pot and possibly make the situation worse. Avoiding the rape in the first place means getting with a strong man who would kill anyone caught attempting to - or proven to have perpetrated - a rape. Hence the whole Alpha Male thing.

Think about this last point. In a more barbaric time, when men from your neighboring village might come and make off with your daughters/wives - what man would a woman want to be married to? The tallest, strongest, most fearsome man in the village - who also had the social standing and intelligence to organize a counter-raid. This creates a selective force for strength and propensity towards violence but also pressure for temperance and social/emotional intelligence. Given that this is not an everyday event, though, and humans were hunter/gatherers/agrarian for millions of years, this also creates pressure for people who just get along and work hard all day long.

[HeavyRain]

I have a lot of feelings on this subject, but I'm having a hard time putting them all in an easy to understand format.
So I'll just say that I'd like to think that our species as a whole has moved from the "let us just stay alive" stage to the "let us improve the quality of our lives" stage.

On a less serious note, women's purpose is to weed out the men who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce and the only reason there are still so many truly idiotic human beings on the planet is because these men have been getting away with rape. So, they're like quality control.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Evolution would dictate that rape is not a viable evolutionary tactic since males rejected from the gene pool, should remain rejected. Human beings exude pheromones, amongst many other indicators. If pheromones 'smell' unhealthy, these males will be rejected so the only way they can enter the gene pool would be by force. This dilutes the quality of the gene pool.

Took the words out of my mouth. Well done.

[Shoshana]

I understand your question. I think even from an evolutionary standpoint, it's traumatic for women because it's loss of control of mate choice. Part of women's reproductive strategy is to mate with someone who will be a good provider, or alternatively, mate on the side with someone (virile) with excellent genes and let the good provider believe the child is his.

I'm not endorsing that, or saying women are programmed to do this...but it is a historical strategy according to a lot of evolutionary biologists. So that said, getting impregnated by some random guy is risky.

Then there's the whole lack of bonding, pairing, and violent aspect of it. Who wouldn't feel violated by that? would guys feel less violated if they took it up the ____ by some stranger. Rape is traumatizing, period.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The real question I have is "why is rape considered such a serious crime?" and "why is rape so emotionally damaging for a woman?" FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE.

It would probably help in examining this question to consider the notion that women are often quite a lot like people.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

First off, I want to say that I agree rape should be a crime and am not arguing against the legal definition. My post is to discuss the evolutionary psychology behind rape for pure intellectual and entertainment value. I think many can agree that some men rape because it is one kind of a strategy to pass on their genes. The real question I have is "why is rape considered such a serious crime?" and "why is rape so emotionally damaging for a woman?" FROM AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE. If a woman is raped, it is probably done by someone who did not have the reproductive fitness to get her without force. Thus, it seems it is in the best interest of men who play the game fair and for women to have a fair game rule where you can't cheat by force. Women may have a mechanism to make sex more important because it is a higher reproductive cost, and part of this importance is in her psychological health. If a man were to be castrated, this would be traumatizing because he no longer can reproduce. Although a poor example, it may lead to something. Men, who traditionally have made the laws, have probably instituted rape laws due to them not wanting their own women to be raped. After some rambling, I leave the discussion over to you guys and gals. Why is rape so serious psychologically and why does society take it so seriously?

I have no idea how people come up with tripe that's this unbelievably unsupported.

A man with the "reproductive fitness" to overpower her? Wow, that's an amazingly strong guy :rollseyes:

Use your head. A woman in primitive times was faced with two very serious problems:
1. An absence of physical power leaves her in constant fear of physical harm and other insecurity.
2. This absence of power means that in order to lead a stable, safe life, she needs to find a safe man who's willing to commit to her and provide resources for her.

...rape is a huge issue on each front. Its a real endangerment of her physically and is also a complete abandonment of the whole reproduction-commitment need.

---------- Post added 03-01-2012 at 07:00 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It would probably help in examining this question to consider the notion that women are often quite a lot like * people.

*=annoying

[LBD]

A brief history of rape:

There are various kinds of prehistoric rape in my view:

1. Bride stealing.

This form of, well, what today we would consider rape, is basically neighboring tribes stealing young women from one another. Typically happens on raiding parties, where the girls are protected. Once the bride is "stolen" she is married to the man who stole her. This form of rape would not preclude fitness. In fact, the men who steal a bride would, culturally by their peers, be deemed fit enough to have been ABLE to acheive this feat. This kind of pairing often produces children.

2. Rape used as a tool of genocide/warfare.

This kind of rape rarely produces offspring, and its purpose is typically to create rifts in the society it creates. A modern day example is the Sudan, recently during the genocide and drought that was occuring. Girls would be sent out to get water from the well, with the village knowing full well they were at a high risk of being raped (deemed preferable to a man being murdered). However, IF a girl was raped, she was considered anathema and was not allowed to marry - tainted goods and all. This kind of rape has occured frequently in history, and actually does not produce a lot of children. While it is possible to father children in this way, this one off kind of contact with an unwilling woman is at a low chance of producing children. This kind of rape is often done to boys and young men, and old women and, well, everyone. This is intended to be dehumanizing. The purpose isn't children, or even sexual gratification, it is dominance and dehumanization - a "look what I can do to you" kind of thing.

3. Similar to number 1,this is where women are sold/bartered into unions, and then their husbands have frequent sex with them against their will. Again, the fitness of the man is proven by how much he has to barter as well as how able he is to dominate her while having her. This type of union also frequently produces offspring.

Honestly, historically, a woman's consent meant very little. Rape as vehicle to transmit genes has been alive and kicking throughout history, especially in societies where women are marginalized. It is very, very difficult to make any judgement on a man's genetic fitness based on the simple act of rape.

[Hariar]

	Originally Posted by Shoshana To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	would guys feel less violated if they took it up the ____ by some stranger. Rape is traumatizing, period.

Probably quite accurate (having the word "less" mind); so I am tempted to say "spot on". If OP wants to look at evolutionary psychology to answer his questions, I don't he needs to look too much at the part concerning reproduction; or does at least want to look at other aspects of it.

[thod]

	...rape is a huge issue on each front. Its a real endangerment of her physically and is also a complete abandonment of the whole reproduction-commitment need.

Who cares about her? The idea is to impregnate her and leave. If you got one pregnant and had to stick with her you waste at least nine months of your life. Much better to spend that time off raping. You could do 100 more before the first is ready again. The man that sticks with one woman is limiting himself to her slow reproductive biology and leaves fewer offspring. Who cares if the offspring die? You are playing a numbers game. It only costs a shot of sperm.

[LBD]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Who cares about her? The idea is to impregnate her and leave. If you got one pregnant and had to stick with her you waste at least nine months of your life. Much better to spend that time off raping. You could do 100 more before the first is ready again. The man that sticks with one woman is limiting himself to her slow reproductive biology and leaves fewer offspring. Who cares if the offspring die? You are playing a numbers game. It only costs a shot of sperm.

Ahhh... but if she LIKED it she would be more likely to get pregnant... Rape in that fashion is not a great way to impregnate a woman. It isn't a numbers game. Serially sexing up women, yes. Serial rape - no. Especially since stranger rape often causes women to be UNABLE to have children.

Rates of prolapse and other serious vaginal/uterine issues go WAY UP when this kind of one off rape happens. In the Congo right now, there are NGOs going in where there whole purpose is to deal with rape victims and their myriad of uterine issues which make them currently and possibly forever infertile.

[thod]

	Originally Posted by LBD To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ahhh... but if she LIKED it she would be more likely to get pregnant... Rape in that fashion is not a great way to impregnate a woman. It isn't a numbers game. Serially sexing up women, yes. Serial rape - no. Especially since stranger rape often causes women to be UNABLE to have children.

Yea, carry a vibrator to make her cum after you have filled her up.

	Rates of prolapse and other serious vaginal/uterine issues go WAY UP when this kind of one off rape happens. In the Congo right now, there are NGOs going in where there whole purpose is to deal with rape victims and their myriad of uterine issues which make them currently and possibly forever infertile.

I recall a study of how vaginas moistened at the merest suggestion of any sexual activity (they really tested this). It's all automatic and is a defence mechanism to prevent vaginal injury. Such a mechanism evolved because that woman in the cave never knew when a returning hunter would try to stick it in.

Not sure why uterine issues would arise. Perhaps those Congolese have enormous whangers and they push the cervix into the chest. Most men can thrust as deep as they can without causing injury. But then again who cares if they become infertile. Women are disposable condoms. You don't need much of hit rate to outdo the non-rapist.

[LBD]

Numbers do come into it - but your numbers are wrong.

A man in a serious, stable sexual relationship is actually evolutionarily far better off.

If a man stays with one women, he is very likely to get her pregnant. Before birth control families of 10 children were common. Moreover, because he is there to assist in care of the children, MANY of his children are likely to survive and produce more children.

The next best is the serial (pleasure) sexer - this man sexes up a lot of women, but it is still hit and miss as to whether he gets her pregnant. If, and only if (historically), she has another partner who is cuckholded, the children of these unions have a good chance of living to adulthood and having children of their own.

Evolution does not care how many kids you have - it cares about how many GRANDKIDS you have. Your children must be high enough status to have more children, and they MUST survive to adulthood.


The serial rapist has a few hits against him - his children are very likely to not survive - if he has many, since violent rape has the least likelihood of success in impregnating women, AND, the child has only one parent, who, in many societies is ostracised and actually severely limited in her ability to have a child live to adulthood. Historically, people lived in fairly small groups, and men wouldn't even have access to a hundred women in a year to rape - serial rapists nowadays don't exactly have a whole lot of kids - actually often serial rapists' ONLY children are with their SPOUSE (who they are not raping and are in a stable relationship with..)

Finally, a serial rapist is more likely to be murdered, by either his victim, or her family... That actually jeopardizes the likelihood of his legitimate children surviving to adulthood to have children of their own.

Pretty sure you are tongue in cheek here, but hey. Still need correcting.

Ignoring ultimately, the morality of it all... if you have NO POSSIBILITY whatsoever of a long term relationship or any type of consentual sex, it is more than a 0% likelihood of passing on your genes. So violent rape wins out over celibacy. Whoo hoo.

[zibber]

Rape and evolution.. If one rapes, isn't that spreading one's seed? Isn't raping skill very beneficial to evolutionary fitness?

	Originally Posted by matty To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Men, who traditionally have made the laws, have probably instituted rape laws due to them not wanting their own women to be raped.

Seriously, though. It's 2012.

[Seablue]

About the "viability" of using rape as a strategy to pass on your genes, I think LBD summarized it very well in her posts. And Distance mentioned why it's not a good for the group as far as evolution is concerned.

Now about the emotional trauma of rape and how it's linked to evolution and reproductive strategy, I don't know. It might be a part of it. Risking to get pregnant outside of a relationship fares badly for your ability to later enter a relationship and have more children who would have a good status in the group and reach adulthood. Getting raped, even without getting pregnant, could also lead you to being rejected by your partner who would suspect you of "having cheated on him" or doubt that you really "fought hard enough".

But mostly, rape is an emotional trauma for everyone. Men, old women, sterile women, women who were anally or orally raped, women who were raped by fingers or objects or a man wearing a condom, and of course, children : all these people have no risk of getting pregnant and their trauma is going to be just as big. Same thing for women who are raped by their partner/husband even though if they got pregnant the kids might reach adulthood and all that. It's a physical assault, a breach of intimacy, it's damaging for your ability to trust others, it's dehumanizing, it can lead you to being rejected or ostracized by society, etc, the list goes on and on. Not a big mystery here as to why it's such a destructive event.

[larkin]

I sincerely hate purported "evolutionary" (biology/psychology/sociology) arguments. Isn't everything we do evolution? Or by the same token, is everything you do related to survival and/or spreading your seed? I went to Starbucks today, tell me, what's the reason behind that? From an evolutionary psychology perspective, though?

But okay, in terms of playing along, I think Distance summarized it quite well. But I'll add this - from the simple genius of the evolutionary biology perspective, aren't human beings overpopulating the planet, currently? In terms of our own survival, don't we actually benefit from fewer unwanted pregnancies by now?

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Rape and evolution.. If one rapes, isn't that spreading one's seed? Isn't raping skill very beneficial to evolutionary fitness?

Jesus.

This explains that whole fucking PUA thing.

[blatimir]

The subject actually has a fair amount of research behind it. However, a lot of the research is stifled because many people find the idea as extremely unpalatable.

If you have a serious interest i'd recommend researching the sociobiology of rape and reading the following article:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[joliet]

matty - I entirely agree with your first post. Taking what you have already said and adding to it, the "warrior" or other aggressive genes that are passed down that would make a man more prone to violent solution rather than rational or social solution are being locked up, with some hope that they do not continue to be passed down. They are, otherwise, being educated and conditioned out.

---------- Post added 03-03-2012 at 03:54 PM ----------

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Who cares about her? The idea is to impregnate her and leave. If you got one pregnant and had to stick with her you waste at least nine months of your life. Much better to spend that time off raping. You could do 100 more before the first is ready again. The man that sticks with one woman is limiting himself to her slow reproductive biology and leaves fewer offspring. Who cares if the offspring die? You are playing a numbers game. It only costs a shot of sperm.

The man who is attempting to spread the seeds does not care about her, but society in general--for the growth of society itself--does. If successful, the rapist is passing down aggressive genes that society does not want. The rapist is only thinking about the preservation of his own genes; society is thinking of society's collective genes for the best possible growth. It is to the benefit of society to protect the livelihood of women who contribute social, intellectual, and physical contributions to society (which includes their own future children who will continue to contribute to society themselves,) and lock up those (the rapists) who threaten that potential.

---------- Post added 03-03-2012 at 03:58 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by blatimir To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The subject actually has a fair amount of research behind it. However, a lot of the research is stifled because many people find the idea as extremely unpalatable. If you have a serious interest i'd recommend researching the sociobiology of rape and reading the following article: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Took a quick look. Keywords: "to the male's own reproductive advantage." That is a myopic advantage--it is not necessarily to society's advantage.

I don't think it's a question about whether or not rape has actually helped men spread their seed. There is a pretty obvious answer that yes, it does.* But is it actually beneficial, and do we want that? No. Society does not. Rape no longer, through both biological and social interpretations, has a beneficial purpose.

*My cruel opinion is that the research is stifled not because it's offensive, but because it lacks a long-term purpose, is rewashed and unoriginal, and doesn't deserve funding for. It annoys me when thousands of dollars are put into research down a road we've already verified and cleared brush out of. Doing maintenance for society doesn't require a lengthy repeat of the entire process.

[thod]

	The man who is attempting to spread the seeds does not care about her, but society in general--for the growth of society itself--does. If successful, the rapist is passing down aggressive genes that society does not want.

Aggressive genes are very beneficial to society. Almost all the tribes occupy their current position through displacement of previous tribes. It is the contest for resources that forces different groups into mortal combat. Whoever controls the resources is able to grow. What you call society actually consists of competing groups. The males of one group have everything to gain by raping the females of other groups whilst protecting their own females from rape.

The rapist is only thinking about the preservation of his own genes; society is thinking of society's collective genes for the best possible growth. It is to the benefit of society to protect the livelihood of women who contribute social, intellectual, and physical contributions to society (which includes their own future children who will continue to contribute to society themselves,) and lock up those (the rapists) who threaten that potential.

The risks of mortal combat are such that men will only engage in it if the rewards are equally as great. If women are free to mate with many men, then no man has any interest in her protection. Let them rape her, It is not worth risking injury. The only reason men have to intervene is if they have exclusive access to females that they wish to protect (placing restrictions on her). Men without females are always better off raping.