Sadomasochism and Evolution?

[snafupants]

Could there be a link between deriving pleasure from sexual violence and human evolution? That is, are women, perhaps partly because of their physical and musculature-deprived subservience to Paleolithic sex-crazed and testosterone-flushed men, conditioned neurologically to extract pleasurable feelings from violence within sexual boundaries? Once we accept adaptation and evolution as random changes in line with environmental accommodations, and reject the Judeo-Christian worldview that life has an overarching entelechy-replete purpose, these questions become less off-putting and more intriguing. The issue is thus: are they also plausible?

 

[Melkor]

How do you factor in sadomasochistic males and sadistic dominant females?

 

[snafupants]

How do you factor in sadomasochistic males and sadistic dominant females?

By largely dismissing those aberrations as contrary to biological forces. I concede their existence, and thought about their presence when drafting the beginnings of this thread, but decided jettisoning those ironic aberrations was warranted by their small numbers and improbability granted underlying hormonal factors.

Yes, there are women who enjoy doling out pain, but I wanted to focus on men giving pain and women receiving pain/pleasure as possible vestiges of an aggressive, cruel and biologically-informed past. Of course your point is a good one, but there are homosexual men who, today, muddy a picture of most men's sexuality. The issue is one of purview and not bigoted discrimination.

 

[Melkor]

I would have thought that women who genuinely enjoy pain or violent dominance are in the minority. Sure plenty of women get into self-destructive relationships, but to presume that a majority of females are 'sadomasochistic' is a bit too grand for me to take seriously.


I think it's more likely that it's a byproduct of the instinct to pursue a strong partner-hunter who will defend and provide for you. This just inadvertently leads to preferring asswipes that beat and dominate everything indiscriminately.

 

[snafupants]

I would have thought that women who genuinely enjoy pain or violent dominance are in the minority. Sure plenty of women get into self-destructive relationships, but to presume that a majority of females are 'sadomasochistic' is a bit too grand for me to take seriously.


I think it's more likely that it's a byproduct of the instinct to pursue a strong partner-hunter who will defend and provide for you. This just inadvertently leads to preferring asswipes that beat and dominate everything indiscriminately.

Actually I implied that the majority of women are not sadomasochists. You also make the mistake of comparing our past with our present. Those are innately incompatible apples-to-oranges comparisons for a slew of reasons. I never said anything about self-destructive relationships: I am strictly discussing the possibility of some women being sadomasochistic perhaps due to evolutionary events. OK, the latter paragraph does a better job at discussing the topic. Maybe in pursuing a strong partner, females frequently were beaten during coitus, which led to some selective neurological changes along the lines I am talking about? We are talking about a limited purview here. Where did I say that the majority of females today enjoy violence during sex, by the way?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I would have thought that women who genuinely enjoy pain or violent dominance are in the minority. Sure plenty of women get into self-destructive relationships, but to presume that a majority of females are 'sadomasochistic' is a bit too grand for me to take seriously.


I think it's more likely that it's a byproduct of the instinct to pursue a strong partner-hunter who will defend and provide for you. This just inadvertently leads to preferring asswipes that beat and dominate everything indiscriminately.

Yes, anything else is just latent prurience.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, anything else is just latent prurience.

Your use of the word just makes me cringe. Is anything just anything?

 

[Melkor]

I don't see any use of 'some' or 'several' in your opening post. It just says 'women', implying 'all" or 'in general'.

You said Sadomasochism sir, it's defined as sexual pleasure though pain or humiliation. :P Inflicting pain is a violent action.

 

[snafupants]

I don't see any use of 'some' or 'several' in your opening post. It just says 'women', implying 'all" or 'in general'.

You said Sadomasochism sir, it's defined as sexual pleasure though pain or humiliation. :P Inflicting pain is a violent action.

One could say ice-cream tastes simply grand even though one considered rocky road ice-cream to be, quite frankly, a poor choice; alternatively, one could be a wonk and school-crazed kid and hate history class. Perhaps my verbiage is more synecdoche than logical fidelity. Well, as far as I know, most Paleolithic women could have derived pleasure from sexual violence; regarding the present, we are beholden to the word of women that they, in fact, do not ordinarily receive sexual gratification from pain and coital violence. There is also a difference between past and present. From this point forward, let's focus on how women of the past relate to the sadomasochistic minority of women in the present, all right?

 

[Melkor]

Will there be diagrams?

 

[Minuend]

These questions are like asking "is poverty the reason men turn to theft?"

Sure it can be sometimes, but there is not only one answer per question. Not just one behavioral pattern to every action.

Wiki

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I do think it's possible that there are dormant sadomasochistic expectations in female genetics that are due to an evolutionary history of brutal male dominance. Though it would merely mean that the unconscious body expects it, not that the conscious mind will desire it.

 

[snafupants]

These questions are like asking "is poverty the reason men turn to theft?"

Sure it can be sometimes, but there is not only one answer per question. Not just one behavioral pattern to every action.

Wiki

Rather, I feel the framing of these issues is more thus: does our evolutionary past dealing with limited food and resources dictate modern hoarding behaviors?

 

[snafupants]

Will there be diagrams?

Do you deserve diagrams you dirty boy? or perhaps and leading to massive but definitely not any under any circumstances, and surprisingly little and for as much which is quite really.

 

[Minuend]

Well, first you should tell us more about the evolutionary significant period of time where females where being dominated by aggressive males. How was the social groups organized back then?

 

[snafupants]

Well, first you should tell us more about the evolutionary significant period of time where females where being dominated by aggressive males. How was the social groups organized back then?

That's immaterial for this discussion. Of course, men are still trying to divest themselves of their brutish, hormonally-informed past. The feminist movement of the last seventy years has attempted to subvert both gender roles by sensitizing men and transforming women into aggressive breadwinners.

I am no apologist for Paleolithic men, let alone modern males. I have even less to say about striving women who have a greater affinity for paychecks and promotions than babies. What's perhaps more significant is how women were exploited against their willful preferences by Paleolithic men.

Did women of yore internalize these sexual beatings and coital violences and learn to love the hate? This is the crux of the issue. Come on Minuend (whoops: poor choice of words) I was incubated and nurtured by a woman: I love women.

 

[Cognisant]

Hold on what are we talking about exactly?

I think "rough sex" is normal, giving someone a not-so-gentle squeeze is just a part of foreplay and from there it escalates into bruises, slightly sore pelvises and occasionally bite marks, which might not be so normal.

What clearly wouldn't be normal is outright hitting each other, scratching/biting to cause bleeding or involving toys like whips and chains.

I'll weigh in by saying I would agree that women are excited by a guy being a little rough with them in a display of strength kind of way, y'know squeezing them and holding them a bit so they can have a little fun struggling against it (a sort of non-competitive wrestling), but that's different to being domineering, indeed when it comes to pain I'm usually the one being hurt, and I like it

It's like how fizzy coke is more satisfying to drink than flat coke because carbonation bites your tongue and throat as you drink it, which somehow intensifies the pleasure.

 

[Minuend]

That's immaterial for this discussion. Of course, men are still trying to divest themselves of their brutish, hormonally-informed past. The feminist movement of the last seventy years has attempted to subvert both gender roles by sensitizing men and transforming women into aggressive breadwinners.

You're putting too much into my words. I am merely asking about this period of time you say influence our behavior today. I hear a lot about men being this and that, but nobody ever mention when this behavior took place. I am merely trying to make the details more clear, which I believe is largely relevant to your claims (as you are actually using that history to make a claim). Sure, there was probably a time when men were this and that, I am merely asking when and in what matter. When you speak of evolution, I am assuming you are referring to a period older than a 2000 years.

When looking at the wiki page about the Paleolithic Era, they don't really seem that violent and as for women:

Anthropologists have typically assumed that in Paleolithic societies, women were responsible for gathering wild plants and firewood, and men were responsible for hunting and scavenging dead animals.[2][30] However, analogies to existent hunter-gatherer societies such as the Hadza people and the Australian aborigines suggest that the sexual division of labor in the Paleolithic was relatively flexible. Men may have participated in gathering plants, firewood and insects, and women may have procured small game animals for consumption and assisted men in driving herds of large game animals (such as woolly mammoths and deer) off cliffs.[30][47] Additionally, recent research by anthropologist and archaeologist Steven Kuhn from the University of Arizona shows that this division of labor did not exist prior to the Upper Paleolithic and was invented relatively recently in human pre-history.[53][54]

Sexual division of labor may have been developed to allow humans to acquire food and other resources more efficiently.[54] Possibly there was approximate parity between men and women during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and that period may have been the most gender-equal time in human history.[43][46][55][56] Archeological evidence from art and funerary rituals indicates that a number of individual women enjoyed seemingly high status in their communities,[56] and it is likely that both sexes participated in decision making.[43]

 

[Agent Intellect]

You have your cause-effect reverses. Women are primarily in control of sexual selection. Primitive human women would have chosen males that were less violent and domineering during sex. The reason that humans are, in general, much more gentle during normal intercourse is because of this. Chimpanzee's, however, are still very brutal during sex (sometimes the female will even die).

Sadomasochism is a fetish. You may as well ask what the evolutionary origins of balloon fetishism or tickling fetishism are. I would say it's more of a result of the types of random mutations that natural selection acts upon - if it suddenly became beneficial to the species for people to enjoy sadomasochism, then that desire would propagate into the offspring and become predominant over time.

 

[snafupants]

You have your cause-effect reverses. Women are primarily in control of sexual selection. Primitive human women would have chosen males that were less violent and domineering during sex. The reason that humans are, in general, much more gentle during normal intercourse is because of this. Chimpanzee's, however, are still very brutal during sex (sometimes the female will even die).

Sadomasochism is a fetish. You may as well ask what the evolutionary origins of balloon fetishism or tickling fetishism are. I would say it's more of a result of the types of random mutations that natural selection acts upon - if it suddenly became beneficial to the species for people to enjoy sadomasochism, then that desire would propagate into the offspring and become predominant over time.

I knew mentioning evolutionary, however ham-handedly, would lure you here.

Now that I have you here, I was hoping you would answer some questions. Why did you select the entire human race as your focus in the first paragraph?

Do you have primatological/anthropological/ethnographical evidence to support your assertions from the first paragraph? Moreover, what evidence do you have for your deductions?

To be quite frank, hello frank, I know from research that primates vary more wildly among one another with respect to idiosyncratic mating rituals and selection than your conclusions suggest.

Why do you lampoon a disorder with neurological underlying substrates in the second paragraph? Aspergers, giftedness, ADHD and thousands of medical disorders are somewhat heritable, so why not sadomasochism?

Sadomasochism is indeed a fetish. Should we then assume that it is a fetish which can randomly affect anyone in the population? Maybe there is some commonality among this sick lot.

Would we say that someone with an under-active prefrontal cortex or Parkinson's disease or ALS or low IQ or traumatic brain injury has the same susceptibility to crime or premature death or a slew of other deleterious life events compared to his less aberrant counterpart? Probably not.

So, there is clearly a precedent for deficient or aberrant brain chemistry affecting life outcomes. You seem to be arguing that not only is sadomasochism randomly occurring but that is as related to somatic deficiencies/abundances as a balloon fetish or one getting her jollies from tickling.

That's an interesting opinion, but I wonder if any research informs it.

Beneficial to the species? Enjoyment? There's little inherently fun about childbirth and that's crucial for the species.

 

[Orja]

As AI and Minuend stated, human (and hominid as far as we can tell) mating is far more gentle and mutually consensual than that of our closest (and more distant) mammalian relatives. Perhaps because humans are capable of more abstract thought. A brutal man would not be an ideal father and an unwilling woman would not be an ideal mother. Women are inclined to seek a stable provider for her offspring, just as a man is inclined to seek a physically fit nurturer for his. How we interpret these instincts depends upon the individual's world-view. Some women do equate strength and dominance with the provider role; some women are more likely to seek emotional sensitivity and a sense of social duty; and some women have decided they neither need nor want a provider, seeking only sex and/or companionship. Some men equate motherly potential with beauty and submissiveness; some men are more likely to seek intelligence and compatibility; and some men have decided that they neither need nor want children, seeking only sex and/or companionship.

These differences account for the differences in sexual preference we see in individuals. Of course, many women prefer a partner who is a little rough. On the other hand, many men prefer an aggressive partner. It can be thrilling to combine trust and sensation with the intimacy of sex. It often increases feelings of closeness and devotion. Rough sex, light bondage, and experimentation with the pleasure/pain threshold is simply a part of intimacy for many people. As Cognisant and Melkor suggested, both genders can be found to prefer both roles and in significant numbers. To conclude, while suppressing an explanation of evolution for subject clarity: no. It is unlikely that most women enjoy sexual violence and unlikely that it is the result of an "aggressive, cruel, and biologically-informed [what?] past".

On a side-note, there is often a distinct difference between fantasy and reality in sex. Many people fantasize about an attractive/desirable person acting with sexual aggression. For both men and women, such sexual aggression is imagined to be the result of intense, mutual attraction and desire. This is not a sign that a person wants to experience sexual violence. It is a sign that the person wants to be passionately desired.

Edit: On another side note, Sadism and Masochism are mental health issues that are in and out of the DSM (for legal resons). Certain fetishes (paraphilias) are also in and out (for different, various reasons). However, they are distinct from one another. Further, Sadism (sometimes called Sadomasocism) and Masochism are far from normal or typical. While Fetishes are often the result of sexual repression or a lack of sexual awareness (as in the case of severely mentally handicapped people), Sadism and Masochism are most often the result of Antisocial Personality Disorder (the new Psychopath/Sociopath) and/or trauma/abuse/victimization.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Could there be a link between deriving pleasure from sexual violence and human evolution? That is, are women, perhaps partly because of their physical and musculature-deprived subservience to Paleolithic sex-crazed and testosterone-flushed men, conditioned neurologically to extract pleasurable feelings from violence within sexual boundaries? Once we accept adaptation and evolution as random changes in line with environmental accommodations, and reject the Judeo-Christian worldview that life has an overarching entelechy-replete purpose, these questions become less off-putting and more intriguing. The issue is thus: are they also plausible?

Yes, but not because of anything involving "Paleolithic sex-crazed and testosterone-flushed men" whose testosterone levels shouldn't markedly differ much from what would naturally occur in today's men, (except for the part where testosterone levels in today's men are lower due to longevity, endocrine disruptors, and diet).


This all relates back to the mammalian estrus cycle, which not only triggers ovulation, but chemically changes the brain, causing dramatic behavioral changes that allows copulation to occur. This is not only common but useful in most mammal species, since males are often a threat and may well get their asses kicked if they attempt to interact with a female that's not in estrous, especially if she is caring for offspring. An example would be the female jaguar, for which estrous allows a male to safely interact long enough to jump on her back and ram in a few good ones for no more than 10 seconds at a time during a period of 3-4 days a year without losing vulnerable body parts to the female's rage if he's lucky. The female's natural aggression doesn't go away, it's just chemically in competition with an estrogen override, leading to an almost instantaneously bipolar combination of the urge to kill and the urge to copulate.

"Grouchiness" when a woman is on her period is really the final remnant of this aggression mechanism, and the chemically stimulated urge to copulate, although greatly blunted compared to other species, still results in a show of submission that is the biological basis for masochism. Basically because women are constantly cycling, the amount of time devoted to copulation and aggression are reversed (or more precisely the time devoted to estrogen-induced override has increased) and human women tend to be far more behaviorally promiscuous (as opposed to promiscuity based on life history, i.e. a female jaguar mates with several males over her life mainly because she encounters them very infrequently, so she's got to get it when she can from whoever's there, provided she's in estrous).

This does have a major downside for men, however, because it has essentially completely eliminated the refractory period in women, while it is fully retained in men. This allows women to mate repeatedly with several men because an individual man is physically unable to do so until his refractory period has ended. This naturally results in competition for dominance over women by men as a means of protecting his genetic lineage. This is the direct biological link to sadism in humans.

So if women tend to be more masochistic and men more sadistic, why are the same behaviors present in both sexes? Because of the prevalence of genetic recombination allowed by selective pressures surrounding progressive evolutionary promiscuity. In short, a "masochistic" trait in male jaguars would never be passed on because a male would never be able to gain access to the female, and a "sadistic" female would never let males get close enough to mate even while she was in estrous, so neither trait would be passed on.





On a semi-related note, you'd probably be fascinated by bacula. For most mammalian species, sex doesn't exactly feel good because there's literally a bone in the boner, and that bone isn't always shaped in a manner that's very nice: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15008814

 

[Deleted member 1424]

You have your cause-effect reverses. Women are primarily in control of sexual selection. Primitive human women would have chosen males that were less violent and domineering during sex. The reason that humans are, in general, much more gentle during normal intercourse is because of this. Chimpanzee's, however, are still very brutal during sex (sometimes the female will even die).

Bonobos, while similar in relation to humans, behave in a markedly different manner.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You have your cause-effect reverses. Women are primarily in control of sexual selection. Primitive human women would have chosen males that were less violent and domineering during sex. The reason that humans are, in general, much more gentle during normal intercourse is because of this. Chimpanzee's, however, are still very brutal during sex (sometimes the female will even die).

I would argue that it's not about women intentionally selecting non-aggressive males, but women using promiscuity as an evolutionary advantage that would allow them to secure several men to take care of them and their offspring. Both types of men have value to women: aggressive men had "better" genetics (better used in the context of being an advantageous adaptation during that time period), while nonaggressive men were better caretakers of children and suppliers of food, and were therefore also available to provide more consistent protection.

Mating with both types simultaneously guaranteed offspring with the best genetics and best parental care, since neither male could know whether a given child was his. The key point is that over time, nonaggressive males were valued more than aggressive individuals to a certain degree, due to selective pressure that acted upon women, who then chose men with progressively lower levels of aggression. In effect, women select for themselves by selecting men. Even among chimpanzees, non-dominant individuals will sneak in a few humpings here and there behind the dominant male's back, which maintains the number of nonaggressive individuals and secures their role in the future.

However, all of this occurred after the evolutionary process I previously briefly described regarding the transition from the estrous cycle in humans.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Bonobos, while similar in relation to humans, behave in a markedly different manner.

They've also developed far more positions, given their arboreal attributes that let them hang about sideways and such...

 

[snafupants]

As AI and Minuend stated, human (and hominid as far as we can tell) mating is far more gentle and mutually consensual than that of our closest (and more distant) mammalian relatives. Perhaps because humans are capable of more abstract thought. A brutal man would not be an ideal father and an unwilling woman would not be an ideal mother. Women are inclined to seek a stable provider for her offspring, just as a man is inclined to seek a physically fit nurturer for his. How we interpret these instincts depends upon the individual's world-view. Some women do equate strength and dominance with the provider role; some women are more likely to seek emotional sensitivity and a sense of social duty; and some women have decided they neither need nor want a provider, seeking only sex and/or companionship. Some men equate motherly potential with beauty and submissiveness; some men are more likely to seek intelligence and compatibility; and some men have decided that they neither need nor want children, seeking only sex and/or companionship.

These differences account for the differences in sexual preference we see in individuals. Of course, many women prefer a partner who is a little rough. On the other hand, many men prefer an aggressive partner. It can be thrilling to combine trust and sensation with the intimacy of sex. It often increases feelings of closeness and devotion. Rough sex, light bondage, and experimentation with the pleasure/pain threshold is simply a part of intimacy for many people. As Cognisant and Melkor suggested, both genders can be found to prefer both roles and in significant numbers. To conclude, while suppressing an explanation of evolution for subject clarity: no. It is unlikely that most women enjoy sexual violence and unlikely that it is the result of an "aggressive, cruel, and biologically-informed [what?] past".

On a side-note, there is often a distinct difference between fantasy and reality in sex. Many people fantasize about an attractive/desirable person acting with sexual aggression. For both men and women, such sexual aggression is imagined to be the result of intense, mutual attraction and desire. This is not a sign that a person wants to experience sexual violence. It is a sign that the person wants to be passionately desired.

Edit: On another side note, Sadism and Masochism are mental health issues that are in and out of the DSM (for legal resons). Certain fetishes (paraphilias) are also in and out (for different, various reasons). However, they are distinct from one another. Further, Sadism (sometimes called Sadomasocism) and Masochism are far from normal or typical. While Fetishes are often the result of sexual repression or a lack of sexual awareness (as in the case of severely mentally handicapped people), Sadism and Masochism are most often the result of Antisocial Personality Disorder (the new Psychopath/Sociopath) and/or trauma/abuse/victimization.

There seems to be a nuanced difference of magnitude between the carried DNA messages that we are each discussing, which is fine. As I've stated quite often before, sadomasochism is certainly an anomaly in respect to transmitted genes and evolution. That word, evolution, seems to have disoriented and analytically paralyzed some folks. I am party to blame for this misunderstanding: I should have been more clear and, accordingly, streamlined my verbiage. In some ways, however, I purposefully remained ambiguous because I wanted the thread to steer itself. This turned out to be a disastrous and regrettable notion. Edit: After reading other recent posts I partly rescind my original conclusion: some folks are actually originally thinking and have, thus, taken on a decidedly less swaggering tone. I've decided to live for another day.

 

[Minuend]

There haven't really been any swaggering in this thread.

If you are referring to me, I don't see my posts as swaggering. If so, you must have projected an attitude that wasn't there.

You are asking AI to back up his claims, I was trying to get you to tell us more about the part of human history that you were referring to. "Some point in time" is too vague for my liking. How can we set assumptions on a ground we haven't even built?

Such a vague topic is rather like trying to find Waldo.

 

[snafupants]

There haven't really been any swaggering in this thread.

If you are referring to me, I don't see my posts as swaggering. If so, you must have projected an attitude that wasn't there.

You are asking AI to back up his claims, I was trying to get you to tell us more about the part of human history that you were referring to. "Some point in time" is too vague for my liking. How can we set assumptions on a ground we haven't even built?

Such a vague topic is rather like trying to find Waldo.

I loved trying to find Waldo.

Sometimes intellectually roving and scanning and prioritizing and digging is fun for its own sake. If you find an answer, all the better!

On the contrary, I was not referring to you, and your inquiry was valid.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

On the contrary, I was not referring to you, and your inquiry was valid.

Melkor? EyeSeeCold? Cognisant? Agent Intellect? There are not many posters in the thread to grant ambiguity.

Which post(s) and poster(s) are concerned?

 

[snafupants]

Melkor? EyeSeeCold? Cognisant? There are not many posters in the thread to grant ambiguity.

Which post and posters are concerned?

When I typed the swaggering comment I had Agent Intellect in mind. That positivistic braggadocio is often as not an excuse to kick one's feet up in a delusive, absurdly reduced ontological hammock, sip Newtonian cocktails and exuberantly toast Richard Dawkins while munching on a macrobiotic diet and calling yourself original. I just want evidence and sources if he wants to play to that beat, you know? Right now, that post is all icing and no cake. That's hilarious how you referred to yourself in the third person, by the way.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

When I typed the swaggering comment I had Agent Intellect in my mind. That positivistic braggadocio is often as not an excuse to kick one's feet up in a delusive, absurdly reduced ontological hammock, sip Newtonian cocktails and exuberantly toast Richard Dawkins. I just want evidence and sources if he wants to play to that beat, you know? Right now, that post is all icing and no cake. That's hilarious how you referred to yourself in the third person, by the way.

Is it really that bad? Most everyone here is speaking from personal erudition and speculation. Minuend is the only one who referenced external sources, twice.

 

[snafupants]

Is it really that bad? Most everyone here is speaking from personal erudition and speculation. Minuend is the only one who referenced external sources, twice.

The arrogance and chronicle-before-understanding attitude does bother me slightly, yes. For the record, my comments do not subsume everyone who has contributed thus far to the thread. Speculation is fine, encouraged even, but when someone professes to have all the answers, I feel completely impelled to disabuse that entity, or at least ask for sources.

 

[Kairoh]

From talking to friends who are into BDSM - people switch roles depending on how they feel. There are some people who prefer to be one or the other, but it's definitely compromisable, and sometimes the distinctions between roles are blurred. So, I don't think we can't really suggest that this is evolution or biology at work if it easily changes depending on someone's mood or attitude toward it. I'm not really sure how someone would determine if females sub more often in general.

Also, I think people might be missing the point of BDSM. The only way in which it's actually a turn-on is if there is 100% consent between all people involved. You talk beforehand about how far you're willing to go, what the safe word is, what positions you're okay with, etc. etc., and if one person wants it to stop, it stops immediately. Each person has complete power to stop the roleplaying/sex/whatever at any time they feel like it. You get turned on by having control over your sexuality and being creative and capable with it, not having someone dictate it. I feel like this starkly contrasts the whole early-human evolution scenario in which men might go about fighting aggressively over females, and where consent isn't a factor.

If women were really somehow conditioned to find sexual violence in itself pleasurable, they'd have to find rape pleasurable, and rape is never pleasurable. So, I still think the attraction is all about control over one's sexuality.

Also, this thread is making me fairly uncomfortable. Mostly, the idea that people could believe that females derive pleasure from rough sex more often than men do. It just, reeks of rape culture and the automatic assumption that females want to be aggressively pursued, and that they'll enjoy violent sex from domineering males, thereby justifying male aggression. Do we have data on this? I know it sounds nitpicky but honestly it scares the shit out of me that people just inherently believe that females may be more likely to enjoy sexual violence. As someone who's been sexually harassed repeatedly in the past, and having friends who've been sexually assaulted and raped, I just, can't address this with the same apathetic detachment that a lot of people here are so lucky to have.

And I hate playing the rape culture card, I really hate it, but I feel like it's important to acknowledge in the assumptions we're making here. A self-aware, cultural perspective is essential in scientific discussion.

 

[Melkor]

I wanted to run, she made me crawl

Eternal fire, she turned me to straw

You know I got black eyes

But they burn so brightly for her

Mine is a blind kind of love

Owowwwwoooo the sweetest thing