PDA

View Full Version : Rape Prevention Technology


TheHabitatDoctor
28th-August-2013, 06:26 PM
Behold! The penis shredding condom! (http://jezebel.com/5536082/penis+shredding-condom-cant-actually-prevent-rape)

Quoting a friend: "When you have no one else to rely on [to prevent rape], sometimes you just have to fill your vagina with spikes and poison."

The article goes in depth about how such a thing doesn't actually prevent rape, but I think it's a good "last form of self-defense when you have to walk 5+ miles to a bus stop in the middle of a desert in complete seclusion and when the POLICE are sometimes the ones raping women."

Any other ideas?

GodOfOrder
28th-August-2013, 06:28 PM
These have been around since the victorian era I think

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-August-2013, 06:35 PM
These have been around since the victorian era I think
I think so too, actually... Before that even.


So we haven't invented a better rape prevention technology in like 300 years? :confused:

GodOfOrder
28th-August-2013, 06:39 PM
the gun and dagger were always good ones

Hadoblado
28th-August-2013, 07:07 PM
I used to always save up a poo while hitchhiking as a kid, but I only had one choke point to guard XD

Perfectly Normal Beast
28th-August-2013, 07:08 PM
Any other ideas?

I've always wondered what would happen if a potential rape victim convincingly pretended to be 'into' it as soon as the rapist's intentions become clear. Creepily into it.
I suppose it depends on the rapist's motivations as to whether this would put them off.

Fortunately i've never had chance to test this.

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 07:10 PM
Oral rape, lol, do the words vagina dentata mean anything?

Anyway I don't think the existence of such a thing suggests women are responsible for preventing rape because it's somehow their fault, rather the simple fact of the matter is that men in the broadest sense are animals, now most men are not rapists and look down on that behaviour, violently, as I think we all agree one should, however that behaviour is also because we're animals.

Forget what Disney taught you, in the real world rape is a naturally occurring thing (look up duck penises and vaginas if you don't believe me) which doesn't justify it, not in the slightest, but I'm not talking about ethics, what I'm saying is that there are incubators and impregnators and the genes of the impregnators that don't impregnate get breed out by those that do, so every single man on this planet is from a long legacy of men who got the job done, somehow.

Think about that for a moment.

I'm not saying men are evil, nature doesn't care about such things, what I'm saying is that no amount of education or how harsh the legal system gets this is a problem that will never go away, and it's certainly nothing new, short skirts and modern individualist ideals aren't to blame, nobody is to blame, except maybe the rapists themselves but y'know what person in their right mind would take such a risk?

I'm not saying we should pity them, it's natural that we hate them, just as natural as they exist.

Nature, now that's fucked up :borg0:

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 07:18 PM
Any other ideas?
This was suggested in the comment's section:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/05/5709c8ce4959c9ca4ff6ce2209c03993/original.jpg

It would work, there's no denying that :D

TimeAsylums
28th-August-2013, 07:20 PM
I was actually curious as to the psychological status of rapists, more specifically in what position do most victims get raped? Do rapists desire to see their "prey/fellow human/whatever" eyes or not? Probably dependent upon that certain person, but I'm sure there are some statistics...

Also, in terms of other ideas...nope, I think the article brought up anal/oral rape too. I'm relatively sure that some(most?) people will do anything at gun/knife point anyway.

Wolf18
28th-August-2013, 07:22 PM
To get to and from school, I have to walk through a bad part of town. I always carry a knife, but I've never had a problem. However, I'd have no qualms about stabbing a rapist if I had to.

SW

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 07:26 PM
This was suggested in the comment's section:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/05/5709c8ce4959c9ca4ff6ce2209c03993/original.jpg

It would work, there's no denying that :D

Gawd, that's sexeh....


To get to and from school, I have to walk through a bad part of town. I always carry a knife, but I've never had a problem. However, I'd have no qualms about stabbing a rapist if I had to.

SW

You do what you have to do.

I've gotten used to the idea of poking out someone's eyes with my keys if push came to shove. At least just enough to give me space to run and slow him down / dissuade him.

But if I carried a knife and needed it? I'd use it.

Absurdity
28th-August-2013, 07:31 PM
Oral rape, lol, do the words vagina dentata mean anything?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_(film)

Brave new frontiers in biological engineering yet to be explored.

Wolf18
28th-August-2013, 07:34 PM
I've gotten used to the idea of poking out someone's eyes with my keys if push came to shove. At least just enough to give me space to run and slow him down / dissuade him.

But if I carried a knife and needed it? I'd use it.

The keys are actually a good idea the rapist might not pick up on the possibility of using them as a weapon, and then you'd have the element of surprise. Unfortunately, I tend to leave my keys at home (my brother always carries his, so I don't really need mine). I'll try to get into a habit of carrying them.

SW

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 07:35 PM
Another idea, make all males eunuchs at birth and if women want children they can use artificial sperm, completely taking men out of the evolutionary equation.

It would cripple human genetic development but we're already good enough right?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R795KiMD4zs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR795KiMD4zs

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 07:38 PM
Another idea, make all males eunuchs at birth and if women want children they can use artificial sperm, completely taking men out of the evolutionary equation.

It would cripple human genetic development but we're already good enough right?

It's so sweet of you to suggest hastening your own obsolescence.

We'll erect a monument to you for being so upright.

Perfectly Normal Beast
28th-August-2013, 07:45 PM
Incrementally trickle oestrogen/oestrogenic chemicals into the ecosystem then sit back and wait for all the men to grow moobs and lose the rapey urges.

I think they've made a start on this one already.

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 07:48 PM
It's so sweet of you to suggest hastening your own obsolescence.

We'll erect a monument to you for being so upright.
Nah that's okay, it's all part of the plan.
http://webneel.com/daily/sites/default/files/images/project/3d-robots-by-franz-steiner%20(1).jpg
To be the one and only forevermore :twisteddevil:

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 07:51 PM
He's got a cute shiny tush. Do you think he has an OKC profile?

Incrementally trickle oestrogen/oestrogenic chemicals into the ecosystem then sit back and wait for all the men to grow moobs and lose the rapey urges.

I think they've made a start on this one already.

Will all the boys with moobs here, please raise your hands?

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-August-2013, 07:54 PM
(look up duck penises and vaginas if you don't believe me)
I believe I actually introduced you to this, amirite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwjEeI2SmiU
Brave new frontiers in biological engineering yet to be explored.
It would cripple human genetic development but we're already good enough right?
I'm sure selection would stop entirely. :rolleyes:

Duxwing
28th-August-2013, 07:59 PM
Another idea, make all males eunuchs at birth and if women want children they can use artificial sperm, completely taking men out of the evolutionary equation.

It would cripple human genetic development but we're already good enough right?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R795KiMD4zs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR795KiMD4zs

The technology needed to make artificial sperm might also enable mind uploading and thereby render the issue meaningless but for those hardcore traditionalists who would want to remain biological.

As for rape prevention, how about a twelve gauge shell that contains buckshot or a miniature TASER, sticks out the end of the vagina or anus, and is activated by the wearer's scream? Recoil would be mitigated by slippery, non-toxic padding behind and around the shell. Alternatively, the Rape-X could have copper hooks that link to a capacitor charged with an incapacitating or lethal amperage or regular steel hooks coated in fast-acting neurotoxin. A spring-loaded wire blade located at the entrance to the Rape-X and activated by pressure at the back wall could perform a total penis amputation and necessitate that the rapist immediately call emergency services lest he bleed out.

-Duxwing

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 08:03 PM
artificial sperm might also enable mind uploading
:eek: I'm not speaking to you until you've done some research.

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 08:09 PM
As for rape prevention, how about a twelve gauge shell that contains buckshot or a miniature TASER, sticks out the end of the vagina or anus, and is activated by the wearer's scream? Recoil would be mitigated by slippery, non-toxic padding behind and around the shell. Alternatively, the Rape-X could have copper hooks that link to a capacitor charged with a lethal amperage or regular steel hooks coated in fast-acting neurotoxin...

You know, sometimes I really worry about you and the state of the world around you.... :phear:

Puffy
28th-August-2013, 08:22 PM
I can only imagine this kind of rape prevention technology leading to greater rape protection technology:

bit explicit: http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/testsuo12.jpg Yeah, that was a messed up movie...

I always carry keys on me for the reason summarised above; my college law teacher taught us that, as apparently there is less legal issue using it in self-defence than wielding a knife on someone.

I guess the "snare" would work effectively depending on to what extent it incapacitated the attacker. But really you want to be able to get away - not be locked close with someone who now has a shredded penis and a special reason to be violently pissed off with you.

Duxwing
28th-August-2013, 08:31 PM
:eek: I'm not speaking to you until you've done some research.

Reread my sentence. I said "the technology needed for..." before "artificial sperm". :)

You know, sometimes I really worry about you and the state of the world around you.... :phear:

Hehehe... when I was younger, I had a lot of trouble with healthy social interaction and handling frustration; I outward turned the latter into screaming tantrums even at the ripe old age of eight, and, unable to socialize well in groups yet wanting attention, I resorted to saying such shocking things as the above idea for rape prevention technology. The feeling of power and control that I experience while imagining causes me to re-imagine others' pain as my pleasure, a thought pattern that in turn makes my imaginings all the more horrible. I also felt stronger than my peers for not reacting with empathy to the absurd, imaginary sufferings. Having chilly dominant Ti and bubbly auxilliary Ne only helped in that end. Yet I now have this whole bag of sadism inside me that I've been trying to calm down for a while: Managing my mental diet--fewer violent video games and videos--has been essential to that end, and I just fell off the wagon again.

-Duxwing

PS I nevertheless appreciate my ability to enjoy imagining doing or inventing horrible things, should I need it.

just george
28th-August-2013, 08:34 PM
Right, so instead of a rapist doing his dirty deed and leaving a deposit of sperm, he is instead going to leave a much larger deposit of blood inside a vagina whose skin is also torn, hence facilitating infection.

Plus if the rapist was using a condom, then that is destroyed, hence spreading infections that otherwise wouldn't be.

On top of that, the man (who is obviously mentally disturbed, if they're doing any raping in the first place) is likely going to be a tad upset, and so instead of running away afterwards, might get it in his head to cave in the girls skull.

Stupidest idea ever.

If the inventor is an attention whore and just wants a bit of publicity, they should just market it as an "oopsie" revenge tool for women who secretly know that their boyfriend cheated on them or whatever it was that made them mad.

Sounds like an ENFP trying to be an inventor to me

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 08:34 PM
I guess the "snare" would work effectively depending on to what extent it incapacitated the attacker. But really you want to be able to get away - not be locked close with someone who now has a shredded penis and a special reason to be violently pissed off with you.

Yes, being serious for a moment... there's no need to be able to "beat someone" in a fight esp with the woman being at a disadvantage anyway. As long as you can disable the man long enough to get somewhere safe (and maybe get him caught), then you're good to go.

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-August-2013, 08:43 PM
Stupidest idea ever.
I don't see how the risk of infection is any higher. 1) Why do we assume the exchange of bodily fluids? 2) Penicillin.

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 08:46 PM
Hehehe... when I was younger, I had a lot of trouble with healthy social interaction and handling frustration; I outward turned the latter into screaming tantrums even at the ripe old age of eight, and, unable to socialize well in groups yet wanting attention, I resorted to saying such shocking things as the above idea for rape prevention technology. The feeling of power and control that I experience while imagining causes me to re-imagine others' pain as my pleasure, a thought pattern that in turn makes my imaginings all the more horrible. I also felt stronger than my peers for not reacting with empathy to the absurd, imaginary sufferings. Having chilly dominant Ti and bubbly auxilliary Ne only helped in that end. Yet I now have this whole bag of sadism inside me that I've been trying to calm down for a while: Managing my mental diet--fewer violent video games and videos--has been essential to that end, and I just fell off the wagon again. PS I nevertheless appreciate my ability to enjoy imagining doing or inventing horrible things, should I need it.

You would have made an interesting child to parent.
(where interesting = scary)

What video games seduced you this time around?

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 08:52 PM
JG read the article, the barbs don't cause bleeding.

Dick goes in, dick gets stuck, guy will need some scissors to get it off.
The only flaw I see is that it might be difficult to extricate the device from the vagina, but once he realises there's something on him I doubt he would get violent, not least until he gets it out and even then talk about being caught with your pants down.

If the inventor is an attention whore and just wants a bit of publicity, they should just market it as an "oopsie" revenge tool for women who secretly know that their boyfriend cheated on them or whatever it was that made them mad.
I could see that happening, though it would be a sure way to ensure nobody ever sleeps with her again, anyone who isn't a rapist is rightly terrified by even the slightest possibility that they might be falsely accused of rape.

Arguably falsely accusing someone of rape is just as or even more contemptible than being a rapist, precisely because being a rapist is such an incredibly contemptible thing.

just george
28th-August-2013, 09:17 PM
I don't see how the risk of infection is any higher. 1) Why do we assume the exchange of bodily fluids? 2) Penicillin.

Genital skin is thin. I envisage tearing of some kind. Rape usually isn't a "slowly slowly" kind of sex, especially with a mad, confused rapist.

Penicillin isn't a cure for hepatitis or HIV.

just george
28th-August-2013, 09:20 PM
JG read the article, the barbs don't cause bleeding.

Dick goes in, dick gets stuck, guy will need some scissors to get it off.
The only flaw I see is that it might be difficult to extricate the device from the vagina, but once he realises there's something on him I doubt he would get violent, not least until he gets it out and even then talk about being caught with your pants down.


I could see that happening, though it would be a sure way to ensure nobody ever sleeps with her again, anyone who isn't a rapist is rightly terrified by even the slightest possibility that they might be falsely accused of rape.

Arguably falsely accusing someone of rape is just as or even more contemptible than being a rapist, precisely because being a rapist is such an incredibly contemptible thing.

I read it, but am dubious that it would end with a quick "oh look, something is stuck on my wang, ill just leave" from a psychopathic rapist. I could be wrong, but it just seems a little too...neat for reality.

I agree about the false accusation thing btw. I know a guy who went to jail for exactly that - he had sex with a girl who had a bf and got busted. She cried rape, it went to trial (twice), and the justice system did the rest. I would be outright murderous, myself

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 09:46 PM
I dunno, generally when one feels something sharp against something sensitive one reacts by being very careful, I think getting it out would be priority one, getting it out of an angry woman's reach would be a very close priority two and getting off would be priority three, revenge would be priority four or five depending upon how close police might be. Of course I'm assuming this is an idiot, anyone with half a brain would incapacitate their target first and move them to a secure location (SOP for many professional criminal activities) so something like this would just be embarrassing and inconvenient.

Maybe this would work better?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Tenga_Male_Masturbator.jpg

It could make a guy react violently but if he's already been hurt by the other thing and/or you tell him you've got an STD it might give him something to think about, again I dunno, now I'm assuming this person is somewhat reasonable, which is unlikely, but idiot worked it would be the perfect solution.

Nobody gets hurt and he walks away with something to keep him distracted.
At least it can't be used against the owner like a weapon, lol.

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 09:54 PM
Just needs some lubricant.

http://cdn.weinterrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/superglue.jpg

:D

Fukyo
28th-August-2013, 09:56 PM
I read about this some years ago. I think the main purpose is to shame the rapist by making him go to a doctor to have it removed, which would instantly label him as a rapist to everyone present. It should also theoretically give the victim time to get away while the perpetrator is in pain/confused.

This would absolutely not work in a number of scenarios though, like gang rape (the inventor of this iirc has intended it for women in places where rape is endemic like Africa, but I think that gang rape is more likely to happen there anyway), the victim being isolated, tied or date raped.

Other than that a few other things to consider.

That "condom" looks sort of large, it's probably not as comfortable to wear as a tampon. Who knows whether it's actually safe to wear.

For it to work, the woman has to be penetrated, which is still rape, even though (in theory) stds and pregnancy would be avoided. The victim would still get stress and trauma from the event.

Duxwing
28th-August-2013, 10:02 PM
You would have made an interesting child to parent.
(where interesting = scary)

Tack on having just one friend until the fourth grade, sitting alone at recess, ADD, not studying or listening to authority figures, flavor of Aspies, several small health problems, and an interest in home-made explosives, and you have lived decades of misery that my intelligence, good memory, bravery upon the stage, and slight drawing talent might curb.

Adopt me! :p Polaris doesn't feed me or hug me!


What video games seduced you this time around?

Battlefield 3 :( It's so pretty...

-Duxwing

Adaire
28th-August-2013, 10:05 PM
This may be a valid tactic in Africa. Ultimately it's the women's decision to wear such a device. All the what-ifs and debates don't really mean anything, unless there are grounds for making the device illegal. It's a personal decision.

If there was an anal rapex condom I wonder if men who felt vulnerable in prison would wear them? If I was man in an American prison, I would.




I'm not saying men are evil, nature doesn't care about such things, what I'm saying is that no amount of education or how harsh the legal system gets this is a problem that will never go away, and it's certainly nothing new, short skirts and modern individualist ideals aren't to blame, nobody is to blame, except maybe the rapists themselves but y'know what person in their right mind would take such a risk?
:

Not really. You just have to stop rape from inducing a successful pregnancy.
That's not hard at all for anyone with access to modern contraception. Evolution doesn't play by the same old rules anymore.

Plus your typical rapist take considerable measures to minimize risk. They're just as rational as regular people. That's why they would rape a drunk person, a young child, or someone that's easy to physically intimidate and emotionally vulnerable. While that's all morally repugnant it also shows that that there are successful deterrents. The idea that rape is completely repugnant and not just a property crime is very new and not common to all modern cultures. This mentality has already reduced sexual violence and the discrepancy is why something like rapex is legitimate in Africa, but not in other cultures.

It's not a Sysiphian task.
There's still the occasional case of small pox, does that makes humanity's efforts to squash it out futile?

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 10:06 PM
Pictures of really old people having sex!

Edit: The suicide rate may go up.

Duxwing
28th-August-2013, 10:10 PM
@Adaire Cognisant's point was that we guys all have the rape gene because such a gene, should it exist, would have by now thoroughly mixed into the male population. I don't know whether such a gene exists or whether rape is simply epiphenomenous.

-Duxwing

Jennywocky
28th-August-2013, 10:12 PM
Tack on having just one friend until the fourth grade, sitting alone at recess, ADD, not studying or listening to authority figures, flavor of Aspies, several small health problems, and an interest in home-made explosives, and you have lived decades of misery that my intelligence, good memory, bravery upon the stage, and slight drawing talent might curb.

Adopt me! :p Polaris doesn't feed me or hug me!

Well, at least we both have a common interest in homemade explosives. But that might not be the most beneficial connection point to be sharing.

Hmmm. Maybe I can divert you into Minecraft or something... It's more mentally interesting than TV.

Battlefield 3 :( It's so pretty...
Lol. Oh well, that's one game I have never played. I do remember playing some war game with a group of guys once, head to head to head to head, and I really enjoyed the rocket launcher... and was pretty devastating with it.

I remember once running down a stair, being surprised by someone in the dead-end tunnel about ten feet away, and I just nuked him with the launcher and the guy's head flew off when he exploded and rolled around near my feet. All the guys there were terrified of me and avoided that cul-de-sac in the future.

Adaire
28th-August-2013, 10:58 PM
@Adaire Cognisant's point was that we guys all have the rape gene because such a gene, should it exist, would have by now thoroughly mixed into the male population. I don't know whether such a gene exists or whether rape is simply epiphenomenous.

-Duxwing

Using the idea of an 'x gene' completely discredits you scientifically.

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 11:21 PM
It wouldn't be a single gene, more likely a combination of factors like decades of sexual frustration, a history of violence, inebriation, rare opportunity, maybe even genuine misunderstanding (to an extent) all of which would make someone desperate and dumb enough to try, y'know we're talking about the 0.1% who go off the rails, every male may potentially be a rapist but the vast majority find the idea abhorrent.

I see serial rapists on the news and I wonder how anyone could get to that point and why they don't just shoot them, but a inebriated and testosterone addled teen or young adult with sexual frustrations in the presence of likewise inebriated and vulnerable young women is a recipe for disaster, or from a biological perspective an opportunity.

Doesn't matter if he gets himself killed if he gets the job done.

Duxwing
28th-August-2013, 11:22 PM
Well, at least we both have a common interest in homemade explosives. But that might not be the most beneficial connection point to be sharing.

:D


Hmmm. Maybe I can divert you into Minecraft or something... It's more mentally interesting than TV.

Incidentally, I played Minecraft for a year a year ago. After a while, I grew bored and moved on to Kerbal Space Program, which is slowly but surely weaning me off warfare.


Lol. Oh well, that's one game I have never played. I do remember playing some war game with a group of guys once, head to head to head to head, and I really enjoyed the rocket launcher... and was pretty devastating with it.


Rocket launcher, you say? Ever fired the 120mm smoothbore of an M1? Or perhaps the GAU-8 Avenger of an A-10? Behold!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqMcZW7sTH0



I remember once running down a stair, being surprised by someone in the dead-end tunnel about ten feet away, and I just nuked him with the launcher and the guy's head flew off when he exploded and rolled around near my feet. All the guys there were terrified of me and avoided that cul-de-sac in the future.

Grisly. *shudders*

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
28th-August-2013, 11:23 PM
Using the idea of an 'x gene' completely discredits you scientifically.
^:kinggrin:
It wouldn't be a single gene, more likely a combination of factors like decades of sexual frustration, a history of violence, inebriation, rare opportunity, maybe even genuine misunderstanding (to an extent) all of which would make someone desperate and dumb enough to try, y'know we're talking about the 0.1% who go off the rails, every male may potentially be a rapist but the vast majority find the idea abhorrent.
Or maybe it's a part of human nature that doesn't need a genetic excuse to hide behind...

I'll argue that the urge to rape is much more prevalent in society and is only abated by a combination of social stigma and sexual alternatives, specifically porn.

Cognisant
28th-August-2013, 11:31 PM
Storming the beaches of Normandy in 1942, Lee-Enfield in hand, pistol by my side, machine gun fire raining down around us as artillery shells flew overhead, jumping over barbed wire and taking cover in the craters, we scaled those cliffs with men dropping like flies, sharpshooters taking out machine-gunners and each other, as we approached the fortifications nazi grenades killed all the men around me but I made it in, shot one in the face, got another with my sidearm and knifed a third as he came round the bend.

Kids these days and their grenade launchers, in my day you took a flag and counted yourself lucky if you had any ammo left for the next.

TimeAsylums
28th-August-2013, 11:49 PM
I'll argue that the urge to rape is much more prevalent in society and is only abated by a combination of social stigma and sexual alternatives, specifically porn.

Why?

Jennywocky
29th-August-2013, 01:13 AM
I'll argue that the urge to rape is much more prevalent in society and is only abated by a combination of social stigma and sexual alternatives, specifically porn.

Why?

Good question.

I am not sure how someone can reasonably quantify "the urge to rape." It's internal and ambiguous and spread out over 300 million people (or a third that or whatever, if you assume women and kids generally don't have the "urge to rape").

TimeAsylums
29th-August-2013, 01:19 AM
Good question.

I am not sure how someone can reasonably quantify "the urge to rape." It's internal and ambiguous and spread out over 300 million people (or a third that or whatever, if you assume women and kids generally don't have the "urge to rape").

Yes, I'm expecting a psycho/social theory rather than any empirical evidence. Still curious.

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-August-2013, 03:47 AM
Why?
Good question.

I am not sure how someone can reasonably quantify "the urge to rape." It's internal and ambiguous and spread out over 300 million people (or a third that or whatever, if you assume women and kids generally don't have the "urge to rape").
Yes, I'm expecting a psycho/social theory rather than any empirical evidence. Still curious.
Well, you'll get your psycho-social theory... My logic is as follows:

1) Ethics are merely social constructs. 2) We're born without ethics. 3) Rape is unethical. 4) We naturally do what feels good. 5) Rape feels good to the perpetrator.

So I posit that the carnal urge to rape exists ubiquitously and is suppressed to varying degrees by adherence to ethics.

But I wouldn't limit the urge to males only. Females seek pleasure as well.

Correctness is ultimately a question of the validity of ethics. The act of rape limits the freedom of the victim, so it's not a desirable thing to do unless the "victim" wants it. Now, don't confuse this with that "she deserved it because she wore a skirt" bullshit. I'm talking along the lines of submissive BDSM-type individuals. They do exist.

ApostateAbe
29th-August-2013, 04:08 AM
Behold! The penis shredding condom! (http://jezebel.com/5536082/penis+shredding-condom-cant-actually-prevent-rape)

Quoting a friend: "When you have no one else to rely on [to prevent rape], sometimes you just have to fill your vagina with spikes and poison."

The article goes in depth about how such a thing doesn't actually prevent rape, but I think it's a good "last form of self-defense when you have to walk 5+ miles to a bus stop in the middle of a desert in complete seclusion and when the POLICE are sometimes the ones raping women."

Any other ideas?
I was shopping for that device just now. Unfortunately, it is not available for sale on the Internet. I have a friend who is desperately poor, a single mother of two and living with a flatmate who has already sexually assaulted her and is perpetually sexually harassing her. I would love to have him fuck that thing.

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-August-2013, 04:15 AM
I was shopping for that device just now. Unfortunately, it is not available for sale on the Internet. I have a friend who is desperately poor, a single mother of two and living with a flatmate who has already sexually assaulted her and is perpetually sexually harassing her. I would love to have him fuck that thing.
hmmm.... Super glue, fish hooks, and a diaphragm?

ApostateAbe
29th-August-2013, 04:20 AM
hmmm.... Super glue, fish hooks, and a diaphragm?
I don't have a vagina, but I would be nervous about sticking such a home-made device up mine.

TimeAsylums
29th-August-2013, 04:26 AM
I'll argue that the urge to rape is much more prevalent in society and is only abated by a combination of social stigma and sexual alternatives, specifically porn.Why?1) Ethics are merely social constructs. 2) We're born without ethics. 3) Rape is unethical. 4) We naturally do what feels good. 5) Rape feels good to the perpetrator.

So I posit that the carnal urge to rape exists ubiquitously and is suppressed to varying degrees by adherence to ethics.

Yes, I imagined it would be something like this, and I generally agree. However, my question was focused on the "more prevalent in society" part. You said that the social constructs (ethics) suppresses the urges which would either mean -> the urges are suppressed and therefore less, or are so suppressed that they lash out even more; of which you thought you didn't clarify.

Puffy
29th-August-2013, 04:32 AM
Well, you'll get your psycho-social theory... My logic is as follows:

1) Ethics are merely social constructs. 2) We're born without ethics. 3) Rape is unethical. 4) We naturally do what feels good. 5) Rape feels good to the perpetrator.

So I posit that the carnal urge to rape exists ubiquitously and is suppressed to varying degrees by adherence to ethics.

But I wouldn't limit the urge to males only. Females seek pleasure as well.

Correctness is ultimately a question of the validity of ethics. The act of rape limits the freedom of the victim, so it's not a desirable thing to do unless the "victim" wants it. Now, don't confuse this with that "she deserved it because she wore a skirt" bullshit. I'm talking along the lines of submissive BDSM-type individuals. They do exist.

Devil's advocate here; you've given me an interesting logic to think through, so incomplete thoughts.

But is carnal pleasure the be all and end all of 4) We naturally do what feels good?

I'd wager that there are more than carnal desires; perhaps you'd peg stuff like the "desire to please" as a domain of ethics -- as it comes under being "correct", in a sense, in someone elses view?

I wonder if recognition goes deeper than ethics though, that there is a certain loneliness to our existence that reaches out and desires bonding as a kind of mutual validation of being. As something deeper than matching a construct of who you "should" be, more like a validation of "being there" and being there together. Ontology trumps ethics? :confused:

I guess that's not a critique of saying "everyone has carnal desires they repress" more of "carnal desires trumps all," which to me couldn't be true. I guess at the very least things come back to survival; if you rape and break the ethical code you experience more than shame (being "incorrect") you experience exile and are left to fend for yourself...

TimeAsylums
29th-August-2013, 04:38 AM
But is carnal pleasure the be all and end all of 4) We naturally do what feels good?

I'd wager that there are more than carnal desires; perhaps you'd peg stuff like the "desire to please" as a domain of ethics -- as it comes under being "correct", in a sense, in someone elses view?

I think this is defeated by the statement "We naturally do what feels good." It doesn't say that carnal pleasure is the only thing that feels good, as you have mentioned even the "desire to please/recognition/validation" may feel good. So, whatever "feels good" is what "feels good."

Edit: if you are actually meaning to critique the "urge to rape exists ubiquitously" I can see where you're coming from, if not then ^^.

Puffy
29th-August-2013, 04:44 AM
I think this is defeated by the statement "We naturally do what feels good." It doesn't say that carnal pleasure is the only thing that feels good, as you have mentioned even the "desire to please/recognition/validation" may feel good. So, whatever "feels good" is what "feels good."

I guess my point is that rape is inherently anti-social (unless it's a BDSM situation, etc), where I was asking if "we naturally do what feels good" could include social desires, and in turn whether those desires are examples of things ingrained by a "constructed" ethics, or whether there is something more innate to them.

lol nvm, 2 deep 4 convo about penis shredders

TimeAsylums
29th-August-2013, 04:48 AM
I guess my point is that rape is inherently anti-social
I think this might actually vary depending on the society/civilization in time...assuming we're speaking of modern times, yes. Probably.
I was asking if "we naturally do what feels good" could include social desires, and in turn whether those desires are examples of things ingrained by a "constructed" ethics, or whether there is something more innate to them.I suppose it could be personal "feelings."

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-August-2013, 08:49 AM
You said that the social constructs (ethics) suppresses the urges which would either mean -> the urges are suppressed and therefore less, or are so suppressed that they lash out even more; of which you thought you didn't clarify.
They're suppressed and then increasingly let out into acceptable realms. Porn is the obvious outlet, but I'll also argue that the increased prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality and women's rights also contribute.
I wonder if recognition goes deeper than ethics though, that there is a certain loneliness to our existence that reaches out and desires bonding as a kind of mutual validation of being. As something deeper than matching a construct of who you "should" be, more like a validation of "being there" and being there together. Ontology trumps ethics? :confused:

I guess that's not a critique of saying "everyone has carnal desires they repress" more of "carnal desires trumps all," which to me couldn't be true. I guess at the very least things come back to survival; if you rape and break the ethical code you experience more than shame (being "incorrect") you experience exile and are left to fend for yourself...
I'd define pleasure as anything that causes a dopamine release, the "objective" measure of the subjective experience, which can certainly be quite twisted and convoluted as is the case with pleasure derived from pleasing others, which is rooted in either faith in future pleasure or the escape from pain/guilt.

I'd agree with the loneliness thing in that we're all one, and we desire to experience everything simultaneously. Ontology is the derivative of the sum of both pleasure and pain. Loneliness is, in a way, us looking for a mirror of ourselves. We want to validate ourselves more than anything.
lol nvm, 2 deep 4 convo about penis shredders
Agreed. Let's go back to talking about surgically implanting woodchippers and what not.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 10:13 AM
They're suppressed and then increasingly let out into acceptable realms. Porn is the obvious outlet, but I'll also argue that the increased prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality and women's rights also contribute.

I've felt the urge to rape in the abstract during a fantasy a few times, but my primary sex drive remains oriented to mutual pleasure and bonding because I don't find rape enjoyable--even while momentarily ignoring guilt--and I've never felt the urge to rape someone. What about you guys?


I'd define pleasure as anything that causes a dopamine release, the "objective" measure of the subjective experience, which can certainly be quite twisted and convoluted as is the case with pleasure derived from pleasing others, which is rooted in either faith in future pleasure or the escape from pain/guilt.

When I pleasure others--especially loved ones--I do so at my own pleasure: I simply feel some of their pleasure with them.


I'd agree with the loneliness thing in that we're all one, and we desire to experience everything simultaneously. Ontology is the derivative of the sum of both pleasure and pain. Loneliness is, in a way, us looking for a mirror of ourselves. We want to validate ourselves more than anything.


Data? I can see wanting to be validated, but we need to data to prove your claims about ontology and all of us being one (albeit, we don't need to prove them in order to prove your point).

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-August-2013, 10:46 AM
Data? I can see wanting to be validated, but we need to data to prove your claims about ontology and all of us being one (albeit, we don't need to prove them in order to prove your point).
:storks:

walfin
29th-August-2013, 12:55 PM
I should think this is an immensely practical device in India or South Africa.

All arguments about whether it'll work aside, the best way to see if it does is to see if the rape rate actually falls or the rape conviction rate actually rises as a result.

I remember that for the original version, the inventor's inspiration was a woman who said I wish I had teeth down there. :eek:

Jennywocky
29th-August-2013, 02:48 PM
Well, you'll get your psycho-social theory... My logic is as follows:

1) Ethics are merely social constructs. 2) We're born without ethics. 3) Rape is unethical. 4) We naturally do what feels good. 5) Rape feels good to the perpetrator.

So I posit that the carnal urge to rape exists ubiquitously and is suppressed to varying degrees by adherence to ethics.

What do you mean by "feels good"? I mean, obviously you mean sexual stimulation, but an overall feeling of bliss is tempered by many things, only one of which is getting your rocks off during sexual congress where you are physically dominating a willing or unwilling partner.

Maybe we are socialized very early in life, but are all men really not rapists simply because of that socialization? Is sex really more pleasurable if your partner is unwilling, or is it pleasurable as a net sum gain at all in that context, or is it pleasurable in the base way but not really that great after you add in all the negatives to the experience?

Correctness is ultimately a question of the validity of ethics. The act of rape limits the freedom of the victim, so it's not a desirable thing to do unless the "victim" wants it.

Well, if she wants it, it's not rape. But would you then try to say that the only reason she doesn't want it is because of socialization?

Socialization is also not just about ethics, it's also about being educated about the full extent and ramifications of one's choices. There are practical reasons as well as ethical and emotional reasons for the decision to not want to have sex with a partner, it's not all about whether you just want to be sexually stimulated in a particular situation.

I'm talking along the lines of submissive BDSM-type individuals. They do exist.

Of course they exist, but as of what portion of the larger group?

...woodchippers ...

ha, I see what you did there. ;)

Cognisant
29th-August-2013, 02:52 PM
It would be ironic if this was used as a BDSM sex toy.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 04:50 PM
What do you mean by "feels good"? I mean, obviously you mean sexual stimulation, but an overall feeling of bliss is tempered by many things, only one of which is getting your rocks off during sexual congress where you are physically dominating a willing or unwilling partner.

He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.


Maybe we are socialized very early in life, but are all men really not rapists simply because of that socialization? Is sex really more pleasurable if your partner is unwilling, or is it pleasurable as a net sum gain at all in that context, or is it pleasurable in the base way but not really that great after you add in all the negatives to the experience?


But they would not naturally so be and instead be conditioned not to rape. However, empathy could just as well be natural, and if so, then guiltless men would by definition likely comprise only a tiny, diseased minority of the entire male population. The answers to those questions vary from person to person: not having had sex, I cannot back my answers with experience, but my most enjoyable fantasies involve passion, love, and mutual pleasure and little else.


Well, if she wants it, it's not rape. But would you then try to say that the only reason she doesn't want it is because of socialization?


:confused: Would you please rephrase that?


Socialization is also not just about ethics, it's also about being educated about the full extent and ramifications of one's choices. There are practical reasons as well as ethical and emotional reasons for the decision to not want to have sex with a partner, it's not all about whether you just want to be sexually stimulated in a particular situation.


See my idea regarding empathy being natural.


Of course they exist, but as of what portion of the larger group?


The numbers are unclear, ranging from >1.8% to >28%.


ha, I see what you did there. ;)

Hahaha! I didn't notice that at first. Thanks. :)

-Duxwing

Jennywocky
29th-August-2013, 06:10 PM
He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

I don't care about one thing you might think he is saying, I'm trying to understand the range of his perspective.

The latin is a cute touch, though.

But they would not naturally so be and instead be conditioned not to rape. However, empathy could just as well be natural, and if so, then guiltless men would by definition likely comprise only a tiny, diseased minority of the entire male population. The answers to those questions vary from person to person: not having had sex, I cannot back my answers with experience, but my most enjoyable fantasies involve passion, love, and mutual pleasure and little else.

Well, thanks for explaining how you would feel about sex and what you need. Only 3.8128317923173 billion men to go.


:confused: Would you please rephrase that?

No.

I re-read it.
It's clear as-is.

See my idea regarding empathy being natural.

What you said was simply that empathy COULD be natural.
Which really isn't saying anything at all; I'm no further than where I started.

Cherry Cola
29th-August-2013, 06:16 PM
Saying ethics are merely different social constructs feels like irrelevant semantics. Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. It feels like some people should read up a little on biology, maybe take a look at the Bonobos.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 06:25 PM
I don't care about one thing you might think he is saying, I'm trying to understand the range of his perspective.

The latin is a cute touch, though.

Ok then.


Well, thanks for explaining how you would feel about sex and what you need. Only 3.8128317923173 billion men to go.


Oi. I should have noted that I was presenting a counterexample to THD's assertion that all men are rapists.


No.

I re-read it.
It's clear as-is.


Ok. That was oddly out of character.


What you said was simply that empathy COULD be natural.
Which really isn't saying anything at all; I'm no further than where I started.

It likely is natural because empathy greatly improves the mating, parenting, and society of the greatest number of humans (in other words, free-riders and sociopaths excluded) and because while empathy could be cultural and is certainly modified by culture it seems remarkably prevalent across cultures and through time. Absent a full, scientific proof, I think that we can safely assume empathy to be natural and healthy until otherwise proven.

-Duxwing

Jennywocky
29th-August-2013, 06:34 PM
Oi. I should have noted that I was presenting a counterexample to THD's assertion that all men are rapists.

Yes, in response to my question to THD. Not sure how it's connected.

Ok. That was oddly out of character.

... which leaves me wondering what character you think I'm supposed to be playing.

It likely is natural because empathy greatly improves the mating, parenting, and society of the greatest number of humans (in other words, free-riders and sociopaths excluded) and because while empathy could be cultural and is certainly modified by culture it seems remarkably prevalent across cultures and through time. Absent a full, scientific proof, I think that we can safely assume empathy to be natural and healthy until otherwise proven.

So we're up to "likely natural" now.

On what grounds?
Because it (1) COULD be useful and (2) because it's prevalent.

All I can say is that #1 states nothing substantial, and #2 flies in the face of the universal capacity for human beings to separate from and then consistently destroy, exploit, and abuse other human beings, to a degree that can rival any altruism we witness.

So I think I am not yet convinced and more discussion is needed, rather than just making this particular, convenient assumption.

Cherry Cola
29th-August-2013, 06:35 PM
It likely is natural because empathy greatly improves the mating, parenting, and society of the greatest number of humans (in other words, free-riders and sociopaths excluded) and because while empathy could be cultural and is certainly modified by culture it seems remarkably prevalent across cultures and through time. Absent a full, scientific proof, I think that we can safely assume empathy to be natural and healthy.

-Duxwing

That's another thing entirely than this (which if it was what THD meant is incorrect):

He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

The quote describes the process of deciding whether to rape or not as phenomenologically involving a rational calculation of the benefits and drawbacks, which simply isn't an accurate portrayal of reality.

Such a calculation is not made rationally by any healthy individual but by natural selection, it is the biological origin of the phenomenological process involved in deciding whether to rape or not, not the actual process of deciding whether to do so or not; such a decision is more accurately described as being made on the basis of an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 07:50 PM
That's another thing entirely than this (which if it was what THD meant is incorrect):

He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

The quote describes the process of deciding whether to rape or not as phenomenologically involving a rational calculation of the benefits and drawbacks, which simply isn't an accurate portrayal of reality.

When did I say that the decision was rational? I admit that I begged the question by saying "not worth," but non-technical English is a poor vehicle for such technical ideas as theory of mind.


Such a calculation is not made rationally but by natural selection, it is the biological origin of the phenomenological process involved in deciding whether to rape or not, not the actual process of doing so, which rather has to do with emotions as well as an inner sense of right and wrong or lack thereof.

However, when I spoke of pain, I meant actual pain--e.g.,guilt, fear, broken bones--because I was describing the "actual process of doing so".

-Duxwing

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 07:59 PM
Yes, in response to my question to THD. Not sure how it's connected.

He assumed that all men were rapists while making his argument.


... which leaves me wondering what character you think I'm supposed to be playing.


Not the kind that snaps. :D


So we're up to "likely natural" now.

On what grounds?
Because it (1) COULD be useful and (2) because it's prevalent.

All I can say is that #1 states nothing substantial, and #2 flies in the face of the universal capacity for human beings to separate from and then consistently destroy, exploit, and abuse other human beings, to a degree that can rival any altruism we witness.

So I think I am not yet convinced and more discussion is needed, rather than just making this particular, convenient assumption.

Regarding grounds 1: The alternate possibility is that humans naturally lack empathy, which is the less parsimonious argument because it not only requires that humans but other such social animals as bonobos and elephants invent empathy. Why must empathy be inescapable? Other feelings can be overcome.
Regarding grounds 2: Prevalent despite vastly varying cultures.

-Duxwing

GodOfOrder
29th-August-2013, 08:10 PM
It would be ironic if this was used as a BDSM sex toy.

I don't think I want to have to shout "Ice Cream" as soon as I begin. Too much pain, not enough pleasure. Desired effect lost.

Cherry Cola
29th-August-2013, 08:14 PM
When did I say that the decision was rational? I admit that I begged the question by saying "not worth," but non-technical English is a poor vehicle for such technical ideas as theory of mind.



However, when I spoke of pain, I meant actual pain--e.g.,guilt, fear, broken bones--because I was describing the "actual process of doing so".

-Duxwing

The point is you described it as hinging on the outcome of a calculation. Ie it being made calculatively. Evolution has not instilled in man a schemata for decision making that is experienced at such, it works in the background while we consciously perceive affects. Conscious rational decision making exists as well, but is hardly phenomenologically prominent in a givens mans decision of whether to rape or not.

I'm not sure I get your last sentence, I think might've been a bit unclear in with what I meant with "the process of doing so", I've hence edited the post.

Jennywocky
29th-August-2013, 08:38 PM
Regarding grounds 1: The alternate possibility is that humans naturally lack empathy, which is the less parsimonious argument because it not only requires that humans but other such social animals as bonobos and elephants invent empathy. Why must empathy be inescapable? Other feelings can be overcome.

Empathy is such a vague word. It can be personal or broad. It can cross boundaries or be confined to one's own particular group. That's why I'm having trouble with your argument, especially when you're talking so broadly about what is a specific topic -- rape, and the ability of an aggressor to identify with a particular victim so as to be dissuaded from victimizing them. Other types of empathy seem to be irrelevant, we are specifically discussing whether this kind of very specific empathy is biologically bound, culturally instilled or... well, whatever it is.

You seem to be saying a lot, but not focused on the particular discussion... and I'm still waiting the original speaker to respond to my original post.

Regarding grounds 2: Prevalent despite vastly varying cultures.

yes, just like violence and abuse.

Again, no point has been made.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 08:40 PM
The point is you described it as hinging on the outcome of a calculation. Ie it being made calculatively. Evolution has not instilled in man a schemata for decision making that is experienced at such, it works in the background while we consciously perceive affects. Conscious rational decision making exists as well, but is hardly phenomenologically prominent in a givens mans decision of whether to rape or not.

Did I say that the decision was conscious? :confused: And I can hardly imagine that one could unconsciously rape another person (sleepwalkers?). I meant to say that one could predict how another person decides given sufficient knowledge.


I'm not sure I get your last sentence, I think might've been a bit unclear in with what I meant with "the process of doing so", I've hence edited the post.

If, for example, while you decide about doing X, you feel more badly about it than you do good about it, you will not do X: I'm trying to argue that the decision is not a calculation but rather can be predicted by one.

-Duxwing

Cherry Cola
29th-August-2013, 09:10 PM
Did I say that the decision was conscious? :confused: And I can hardly imagine that one could unconsciously rape another person (sleepwalkers?). I meant to say that one could predict how another person decides given sufficient knowledge.

He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

Yes (in your intepretation of THD's stance). I'm talking only about the decision making process here, not actual rape.

If, for example, while you decide about doing X, you feel more badly about it than you do good about it, you will not do X: I'm trying to argue that the decision is not a calculation but rather can be predicted by one.

Good then we seem to agree. Although the degree of accuracy with which such a calculation can be discussed, it's no doubt possible.

Duxwing
29th-August-2013, 10:26 PM
He may be saying that our emotions are the values by which we decide: if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

Yes (in your intepretation of THD's stance). I'm talking only about the decision making process here, not actual rape.


And you're saying that the decision process is what I said that it was?


Good then we seem to agree. Although the degree of accuracy with which such a calculation can be discussed, it's no doubt possible.

Ok! :) We would need god-like knowledge to predict it, but hey, we're in the ivory tower: we're God!

-Duxwing

Cherry Cola
29th-August-2013, 10:41 PM
Did I say that the decision was conscious? :confused: And I can hardly imagine that one could unconsciously rape another person (sleepwalkers?). I meant to say that one could predict how another person decides given sufficient knowledge.



If, for example, while you decide about doing X, you feel more badly about it than you do good about it, you will not do X: I'm trying to argue that the decision is not a calculation but rather can be predicted by one.

-Duxwing

And you're saying that the decision process is what I said that it was?



Ok! :) We would need god-like knowledge to predict it, but hey, we're in the ivory tower: we're God!

-Duxwing

You originally described the decision process as consciously calculating in a way that it isn't, but apparently that was not what you meant, so while: no; yes, I agree with what you thought you said it was. :)

But you said this:

if, for example, I knew I would feel so guilty after raping someone that the sexual pleasure were not worth the pain, then ceteris paribus I would choose not to rape.

Which isn't how things work. A rational consideration of the negative consequences and the emotions following with them would outweigh the sexual pleasure in nearly all instances. If the above was accurate an accurate portrayal of the workings of the human mind there'd be a hell of a lot less rape.

This is excruciatingly inefficient communication however :ahh04:

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-August-2013, 11:43 PM
What do you mean by "feels good"? I mean, obviously you mean sexual stimulation, but an overall feeling of bliss is tempered by many things, only one of which is getting your rocks off during sexual congress where you are physically dominating a willing or unwilling partner.

Maybe we are socialized very early in life, but are all men really not rapists simply because of that socialization? Is sex really more pleasurable if your partner is unwilling, or is it pleasurable as a net sum gain at all in that context, or is it pleasurable in the base way but not really that great after you add in all the negatives to the experience?
Well, no, not just restricted to sex. Any pleasure. Food comes to mind for a quick and dirty example, as does Freud's anal stage, tickling, etc.

So I think it's a good idea to differentiate between rape/sex before and after socialization. Before (1), "it is what it is," simple pleasure seeking, but after one is socialized against it (2), in order for many to be able to break those bounds, they need an equal stimulation in the opposite direction (3). Abuse, stress, etc. Those at 3 do believe it's more pleasurable with an unwilling partner, 2's believe the opposite, and 1's are ignorant/innocent. Type and level of pleasure experienced varies by individual. I'll wager that the developmental process behind 3 results in comorbid violent behaviors that often provide additional gain for 3's and additional pain for their victims.

And then of course there are 4's: conscious subs who want to encounter 3's.
Well, if she wants it, it's not rape. But would you then try to say that the only reason she doesn't want it is because of socialization?
It's not natural for a 1 or 2 to embrace a 3 without trauma. After all, it doesn't matter to the 3. But yes, socialization (wrongly, in my view) separates 1 from 2. 1 merely dislikes pain, 2 has an irrational fear of pleasure from 1 and a rational fear of pain from 3.
Socialization is also not just about ethics, it's also about being educated about the full extent and ramifications of one's choices. There are practical reasons as well as ethical and emotional reasons for the decision to not want to have sex with a partner, it's not all about whether you just want to be sexually stimulated in a particular situation.
Ramifications are weighed on a scale of ethics that 1's don't have. Socialization merely makes the mechanisms of pleasure into more advanced contraptions that may or may not work. More complexity creates increased delay and a higher failure rate. More work for a less secure reward.
Of course they exist, but as of what portion of the larger group?
4's are uncommon, but everyone theoretically starts off as a 1.
I personally fluctuate between a 3 and a 4. As an attempt to regain 1 status? idk It depends on the partner.
ha, I see what you did there. ;)
You're clearly the queen of the multiple entendre 'round these parts ma'am.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 12:48 AM
Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. It feels like some people should read up a little on biology, maybe take a look at the Bonobos.
Whoa. Um.... no.

And bonobos have ethics too. They punish each other ffs.
The quote describes the process of deciding whether to rape or not as phenomenologically involving a rational calculation of the benefits and drawbacks, which simply isn't an accurate portrayal of reality.
Yet it's exactly what we do. Consciously or otherwise. "Damn! Nasty nice bitch over there. I want her. Better not though. Looks like she has a dude with her."
such a decision is more accurately described as being made on the basis of an intuitive sense of right and wrong.
This doesn't exist. "Right and wrong" are derivatives of the urge for self-preservation. "Wrong" is a pre-emptive against the experience of pain. Empathy isn't ubiquitous to the human condition.
A rational consideration of the negative consequences and the emotions following with them would outweigh the sexual pleasure in nearly all instances.
It apparently makes sense to a lot of people, given rape statistics.

Cherry Cola
30th-August-2013, 01:11 AM
Inclusive fitness+huge society which has evolved very quickly while were stuck in tribe mode says otherwise. Are Bonobos also victims of social constructs? Hardly. Biological constructs? Likely.

There's a huge difference between what happens on a conscious level in terms of phenomenology and the underlying reasons for it.

"Damn! Nasty nice bitch over there. I want her. Better not though. Looks like she has a dude with her."

And besides this sounds like something akin to the phenomenological process rather than than Duxwings example which considered emotions but did so in a detached and planning manner.

Bah, I think I've been considering rape in a generalized contemporary sense. I'm basically wrong because it can also be coolly planned rather in a way that rationally serves the purpose of reproduction.

Still disagree on the ethics though. But I really have to sleep now due to work in the morning. Will reply later if you reply ofc.

Cavallier
30th-August-2013, 01:14 AM
I bet the mere threat of a girl using one of those shredding devices would be enough to discourage many. You wouldn't necessarily use it so much as live in a society where it is not uncommon for others to use them.

Shouting the words, "Get away from me! I've got the Bloody Nub-Chopper strapped on!" could easily strike terror into the hearts of men.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 01:15 AM
Inclusive fitness+huge society which has evolved very quickly while were stuck in tribe mode says otherwise. Are Bonobos also victims of social constructs? Hardly. Biological constructs? Likely.
There's a difference?
There's a huge difference between what happens on a conscious level in terms of phenomenology and the underlying reasons for it.
The swarm of bees is the sum of its parts.
Bah, I think I've been considering rape in a generalized contemporary sense. I'm basically wrong because it can also be coolly planned rather in a way that rationally serves the purpose of reproduction.

Still disagree on the ethics though. But I really have to sleep now due to work in the morning. Will reply later if you reply ofc.
Bwahahahaha

Duxwing
30th-August-2013, 02:25 AM
There's a difference?

Biological constructs can exist at the level of the individual: e.g., a species could evolve an altruistic emotional response to expressions of suffering by members of its own species. Humans, primates, and other advanced mammals have the brainpower to make such reactions even more nuanced and effective.


The swarm of bees is the sum of its parts.


And the relationships between the bees.


Bwahahahaha

What's so funny? :)

I bet the mere threat of a girl using one of those shredding devices would be enough to discourage many. You wouldn't necessarily use it so much as live in a society where it is not uncommon for others to use them.

Shouting the words, "Get away from me! I've got the Bloody Nub-Chopper strapped on!" could easily strike terror into the hearts of men.

Announcing one's possession of a Rape-X is a bad idea because the rapist could remove it with a finger wrapped in a sock. In fact, in a society where Rape-X's are prevalent, rapists would negate the danger by simply checking for one before penetrating.

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 02:28 AM
Biological constructs can exist at the level of the individual:
Biological constructs encompass social constructs and exist at all levels of organization of life. It's not that hard.

Duxwing
30th-August-2013, 02:31 AM
Biological constructs encompass social constructs and exist at all levels of organization of life. It's not that hard.

Ontological constructs encompass everything, so there! :D A social construct need not be genetically heritable.

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 02:34 AM
Ontological constructs encompass everything, so there! :D A social construct need not be genetically heritable.
They aren't. They're social constructs.

Jason43
30th-August-2013, 02:56 AM
Rape is usually a reproductive strategy of last resort or due to psychological trauma/an abusive relationship with a mans mother.

Simply put, if you want less rape in Africa, we should focus on improving economic conditions and on ending the constant warfare.

This is why rape is way more prevalent in combat zones, when men think they are going to die at any moment, the desire to breed with anyone available, regardless of the circumstances, makes them cease to care about social norms.

Then there is also the abuse relationship and types that need to control or overpower a woman because of some psychological issue caused by powerlessness as a child. Products of single mothers are more likely to be abused and rape than children raised in two parent or single father households. They are also more likely to be sexually abused, which can lead to sexual dysfunction.

Rape is shitty as a reproductive strategy because the woman is less likely to care for or even continue the pregnancy and the child is less likely to survive than if a male is going to be around to protect them both from other males. The same types of behavior happen in bonobos, its really not that complicated.

People always want to treat the symptoms but they rarely actually care enough to figure out and treat the disease. I find stuff like this so basically illogical that its almost amusing if the problem wasnt so completely horrible and damaging to so many.

Jennywocky
30th-August-2013, 03:06 AM
Shouting the words, "Get away from me! I've got the Bloody Nub-Chopper strapped on!" could easily strike terror into the hearts of men.

ha, that would sound even more intimidating when you imagine it in some kind of harsh Brit accent like Naomie Harris' in 28 Days Later.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 03:26 AM
Rape is usually a reproductive strategy of last resort or due to psychological trauma/an abusive relationship with a mans mother.

Simply put, if you want less rape in Africa, we should focus on improving economic conditions and on ending the constant warfare.

Rape is shitty as a reproductive strategy because the woman is less likely to care for or even continue the pregnancy and the child is less likely to survive than if a male is going to be around to protect them both from other males. The same types of behavior happen in bonobos, its really not that complicated.
Actually, it's a pretty effective strategy in damn near any species other than Homo sapiens in the 21st century, and even then it's mostly effective if we don't restrict the definition to men raping women with an assumed negative connotation. And even then it worked pretty well for Genghis Khan. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.Uh_wwBvVBPY) Seems like his harem and conquests cared pretty well for his kids...

Bonobos actually benefit from polyandry, as do quite a few species, actually. The males all assume the child is theirs and treat it accordingly while the female sits as queen. Rape is thus beneficial in the presence of other males to raise your child.

The irony with economic development is that rapes per capita were likely lower before economic improvement was desired; and rape persists in developed nations, just in a different manifestation. In fact I'd deem 6 of the top 10 to be developed: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Jason43
30th-August-2013, 03:37 AM
Biologically-

A man is naturally inclined to breed. A woman is also geared to breed as well, but a woman has to be much more selective in who she mates with because once a woman becomes pregnant, she needs a greater amount of resources, she becomes physically vulnerable and potentially risks her life during childbirth. These things are born into our brains. This is why women naturally seek 'alpha' male types who can both protect them and provide them with resources and men have an inborn tendency to 'put women and children first' and to protect women that they care about.

A male on the other hand is geared to breed with anyone who will breed with him. He is also geared to love one woman and to protect her from rival males. This instinct is there to ensure his paternity with his mate. He is also geared to mate with anyone else who is willing to mate with him because although those offspring stand a less chance of survival without his care, they are still continuing his genetics. So you have the primal mentality of protect mine, rape the rest because very coldly, you might be able to get some children out of those ones too.

This natural instinct is removed to some extent by social norms, but if society was to break down, you would see women seeking more powerful men for protection and you would see more rapes. People evolved this way but were socialized away from it to a certain extent. When I see a random woman, the first things I notice are indications that she is fertile. Hips, breasts, etc. Its pretty shitty to view people that way, but reality is what it is. When I see someone that I consider to be a potential long term monogamous mate, I am far more selective. I think this is because my psychological primate mind does not want to be stuck providing resources to or forced to be around someone that I do not like.

This is also why "no one likes a slut" men view them as available breeding material, but unreliable and not worth as much because they are less likely to guarantee paternity, and women view them as potential rivals for resources. Men are also more likely to be jealous of other men physically (paternity rivals) and women get more jealous thinking about a man being in love or emotionally bonded with a female, because then he is less likely to provide all his resources to her and her offspring.

That is my opinion of humans at their most base. We're still just apes with cool thumbs who want to hump each other.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 04:01 AM
Biologically-

A man is naturally inclined to breed. A woman is also geared to breed as well, but a woman has to be much more selective in who she mates with because once a woman becomes pregnant, she needs a greater amount of resources, she becomes physically vulnerable and potentially risks her life during childbirth. These things are born into our brains. This is why women naturally seek 'alpha' male types who can both protect them and provide them with resources and men have an inborn tendency to 'put women and children first' and to protect women that they care about.

A male on the other hand is geared to breed with anyone who will breed with him. He is also geared to love one woman and to protect her from rival males. This instinct is there to ensure his paternity with his mate. He is also geared to mate with anyone else who is willing to mate with him because although those offspring stand a less chance of survival without his care, they are still continuing his genetics. So you have the primal mentality of protect mine, rape the rest because very coldly, you might be able to get some children out of those ones too.

This natural instinct is removed to some extent by social norms, but if society was to break down, you would see women seeking more powerful men for protection and you would see more rapes. People evolved this way but were socialized away from it to a certain extent. When I see a random woman, the first things I notice are indications that she is fertile. Hips, breasts, etc. Its pretty shitty to view people that way, but reality is what it is. When I see someone that I consider to be a potential long term monogamous mate, I am far more selective. I think this is because my psychological primate mind does not want to be stuck providing resources to or forced to be around someone that I do not like.

This is also why "no one likes a slut" men view them as available breeding material, but unreliable and not worth as much because they are less likely to guarantee paternity, and women view them as potential rivals for resources. Men are also more likely to be jealous of other men physically (paternity rivals) and women get more jealous thinking about a man being in love or emotionally bonded with a female, because then he is less likely to provide all his resources to her and her offspring.
That is my opinion of humans at their most base. We're still just apes with cool thumbs who want to hump each other.
Most of this is rationalized humbug, as evidenced by the fact that men have a refractory period while women don't. Humans, women especially, are biologically structured for polygamy.

Evolutionarily speaking, a woman's selection is more important and powerful when she focuses on the group at large as opposed to a single individual. Sure, she theoretically wants to breed with the biggest strongest badass in order to produce a big strong badass offspring, but when selecting additional polyandrous partners she doesn't need to be as selective because it's then a numbers game.

A balance tends to exist because big strong badass males tend to be polygynous or polygamous. Thus they actually can't care for their own young as efficiently, nor can they defend their access to all females simultaneously. When big daddy's away the little boys play, and subservient offspring are produced.

"Non-slutty" females adopt such a behavior as a means to secure resources from males, not visa versa. How else are they to compete with the "sluts"?

Also, the whole societal breakdown thing still conflicts with actual per capita rape data.
:-/

Jason43
30th-August-2013, 04:45 AM
Actually, it's a pretty effective strategy in damn near any species other than Homo sapiens in the 21st century, and even then it's mostly effective if we don't restrict the definition to men raping women with an assumed negative connotation. And even then it worked pretty well for Genghis Khan. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/#.Uh_wwBvVBPY) Seems like his harem and conquests cared pretty well for his kids...

Bonobos actually benefit from polyandry, as do quite a few species, actually. The males all assume the child is theirs and treat it accordingly while the female sits as queen. Rape is thus beneficial in the presence of other males to raise your child.

The irony with economic development is that rapes per capita were likely lower before economic improvement was desired; and rape persists in developed nations, just in a different manifestation. In fact I'd deem 6 of the top 10 to be developed: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Its is effective, but less than optimal. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape too, which is a less than politically correct twist of biology. A woman is geared to help her child survive in any case, but their survival is less likely when the father is not there to provide for and protect it. By sheer numbers, you can also rape 5000 women and have a ton of surviving offspring, but who knows how many didnt survive or were not cared for at the level that other children were.

Bonobo females have also developed a society where they ban together to defend their offspring from agressive males. They also arent as dimorphic as humans either, so that helps. When other types of ape male heirarchy changes, the new alpha males will also sometimes kill off the offspring of lactating females to be able to breed with them.

That list didnt include any of the warring African countries. The Congo is supposed to be the worst in the world and it wasnt even on there. Also, half of the Muslim countries cant even be considered because a woman can be held liable, so they arent likely to report. I think that particular list is probably of more developed countries.

Rape can stem from psychological issues as well. People in modern society arent exactly balanced anymore, anyone looking at the prevalence of anti-depressants, divorce, etc, can see how well we're doing as a whole. There are a lot of people who are just plain sociopaths.

just george
30th-August-2013, 05:18 AM
What with all this talk of "identifying rapists", is anyone else getting mental images of exploding green dye packs found in bags of cash stolen from banks?

(I have an active imagination :D)

Jason43
30th-August-2013, 05:19 AM
Most of this is rationalized humbug, as evidenced by the fact that men have a refractory period while women don't. Humans, women especially, are biologically structured for polygamy.

Evolutionarily speaking, a woman's selection is more important and powerful when she focuses on the group at large as opposed to a single individual. Sure, she theoretically wants to breed with the biggest strongest badass in order to produce a big strong badass offspring, but when selecting additional polyandrous partners she doesn't need to be as selective because it's then a numbers game.

A balance tends to exist because big strong badass males tend to be polygynous or polygamous. Thus they actually can't care for their own young as efficiently, nor can they defend their access to all females simultaneously. When big daddy's away the little boys play, and subservient offspring are produced.

"Non-slutty" females adopt such a behavior as a means to secure resources from males, not visa versa. How else are they to compete with the "sluts"?

Also, the whole societal breakdown thing still conflicts with actual per capita rape data.
:-/

I think that we are are just debating two possibilities of human development. You are debating that we developed under more of a bonobo style communal, poly-sexual groups and I think that we may have been more hierarchical like chimps or some of the other great apes. The fact that we developed governments and religion would support that at some point we became accepting of hierarchy, as that stuff cant just spring up one day. It seems to have had to develop from something.

I dont know many men that are set up for polygamy. At least not in the 'sexual access to their primary mate' sense. Yes, most men deep down want to breed with whoever, but they dont want the reverse to be true. At least not the ones that I know. I mean maybe you know dudes who let people bang their chicks out. I dont know too many.

Most women have a need to be both desired and protected. You dont have to be a body builder, and our culture has somewhat changed some of that, but they still desire higher social value male more than a beta male. The PUA bullshit artists play on this stuff, its inborn.

I would say that these types of emotional responses were bred into us because either we didnt have polygamous cultures or we had enough time to breed these things in afterwards. I dont even think there are too many indigenous tribes that support open sex, it is almost always pair bonding and then communally raised children.

I think that either is plausible and both could have occurred. Once agriculture became involved, we certainly went in the direction of hierarchies and monogamy... really exploring it would make a great thesis or book...

I think that there is a book Sex at Dawn that supports your side of that argument, although I havent had the chance to read it.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 05:34 AM
Its is effective, but less than optimal. Women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape too, which is a less than politically correct twist of biology. A woman is geared to help her child survive in any case, but their survival is less likely when the father is not there to provide for and protect it.

Which is exactly why rape is so effective in poly societies. Provision and protection aren't concerns.

Bonobo females have also developed a society where they ban together to defend their offspring from agressive males. They also arent as dimorphic as humans either, so that helps. When other types of ape male heirarchy changes, the new alpha males will also sometimes kill off the offspring of lactating females to be able to breed with them.

Well sure. Dead babies open space for new babies. Lions have this down pat.

That list didnt include any of the warring African countries. The Congo is supposed to be the worst in the world and it wasnt even on there. Also, half of the Muslim countries cant even be considered because a woman can be held liable, so they arent likely to report. I think that particular list is probably of more developed countries.

Or.... maybe the stories you hear aren't all they're cracked up to be?

Rape can stem from psychological issues as well. People in modern society arent exactly balanced anymore, anyone looking at the prevalence of anti-depressants, divorce, etc, can see how well we're doing as a whole. There are a lot of people who are just plain sociopaths.
There's actually a case to be made that incidents per capita are higher in developed countries due to higher resource availability, which alleviates the responsibilities of provision and protection in a similar manner as polyandry.

Ultimately this device is suitable for a certain type of individual to protect themselves from other classes of individuals, arbitrary political borders be damned.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 05:41 AM
I think that we are are just debating two possibilities of human development.

Well, no, because I actually provided evidence. :D

The fact that we developed governments and religion would support that at some point we became accepting of hierarchy, as that stuff cant just spring up one day. It seems to have had to develop from something.

It developed from a power fetish over resources.

I dont know many men that are set up for polygamy. At least not in the 'sexual access to their primary mate' sense. Yes, most men deep down want to breed with whoever, but they dont want the reverse to be true. At least not the ones that I know. I mean maybe you know dudes who let people bang their chicks out. I dont know too many.

Quoting House: "Everybody lies"

Most women have a need to be both desired and protected.

How's the koolaid taste?

I would say that these types of emotional responses were bred into us because either we didnt have polygamous cultures or we had enough time to breed these things in afterwards. I dont even think there are too many indigenous tribes that support open sex, it is almost always pair bonding and then communally raised children.

That's probably because we've killed them all off.

Once agriculture became involved,

^Biggest mistake in our history.
.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 05:43 AM
What with all this talk of "identifying rapists", is anyone else getting mental images of exploding green dye packs found in bags of cash stolen from banks?

(I have an active imagination :D)
Interesting. What else could be added to take its place? Capsaicin? :cat:

Jason43
30th-August-2013, 06:45 AM
.

Sources.

Boehm, Christopher, and Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press, 2009.

van Schaik, CAREL P., GAURI R. Pradhan, and MARIA A. van Noordwijk. "Mating conflict in primates: infanticide, sexual harassment and female sexuality." Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004): 131-150.


I wouldnt say agriculture was the biggest mistake we ever made. It kind of freed the time up to create everything that isnt a stone tool. Accepting the governments and religions that developed to collect the surpluses of goods are the biggest mistakes we ever made. Who knows where we would be as a species if Christianity hadnt spread and suppressed logic and science and the dark ages had never happened.



I see multiple ways in which paleolithic people could have lived. I think that there is behavioral and physiological evidence for both. Its also a long couple hundred thousand years. Its very possible that both happened at different periods or places.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 08:01 AM
Sources.
The first celebrates the sacred cow of altruism, which is inaccurate and unsustainable. This post should cover why. (http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=379436&postcount=37) It's merely the socially acceptable choice from altruism vs egoism. I'm personally not swayed by one guy's subjective interpretation which serves as little more than to pad his C.V. I mean, he only cited himself 25 times, you know. :D

Egalitarianism = stagnation. Humanity developed as a system, not due to any particular component part regardless of how overglorified that part may be on the movie screens.

The second (http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/Dominance/Papers/vanSchaikEtal'04.pdf) doesn't really dispute anything I said. It merely omits the systemic mechanisms I highlighted, namely the demands placed on polygamous dominant males charged with protecting several females and the role of resource availability in determining mating structure. Also consider that women actually enjoy sex. :eek:
A different source of evidence for the effectiveness of sexual behaviour in reducing the risk of infanticide is the lower rate of infanticide in multimale groups, when controlling for the effect of takeover of dominance (Janson & van Schaik, 2000).
To some extent this reduction is obviously due to male protection because in multi-male groups defeated dominants tend to remain in the group, at least for a while (e.g., van Noordwijk & van Schaik, 1988; Perry, 1998; Borries, 2000). However, sexual strategies are implicated as well because we occasionally see protection of the infant by other resident males (e.g., Borries et al., 1999), or absence of attacks by the new dominant who was a long-term resident and had mated before with the mothers
I wouldnt say agriculture was the biggest mistake we ever made. It kind of freed the time up to create everything that isnt a stone tool. Accepting the governments and religions that developed to collect the surpluses of goods are the biggest mistakes we ever made. Who knows where we would be as a species if Christianity hadnt spread and suppressed logic and science and the dark ages had never happened.

I see multiple ways in which paleolithic people could have lived. I think that there is behavioral and physiological evidence for both. Its also a long couple hundred thousand years. Its very possible that both happened at different periods or places.
Power dynamics gave us no choice but to accept government/religious (they're the same) institutions. The suppression of information favors the retention of power.

Agriculture is really only good for one thing: feeding armies. http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race#.UiAomxvVBPY

The ingenuity myth is also.... a myth. Creativity is just as prevalent when someone's engrossed in an activity as it is when they're sitting on their ass. The "the thinker" theory is at direct odds with experiential learning.

just george
30th-August-2013, 08:05 AM
Interesting. What else could be added to take its place? Capsaicin? :cat:

Dynamite. You know, just so that the chicks could show their resolve.

In all seriousness, tiny harpoons full of a coagulant. The blood in the penis would congeal, and require immediate medical attention else require amputation.

Duxwing
30th-August-2013, 08:08 AM
Rape can stem from psychological issues as well. People in modern society arent exactly balanced anymore, anyone looking at the prevalence of anti-depressants, divorce, etc, can see how well we're doing as a whole. There are a lot of people who are just plain sociopaths.

We weren't balanced before, either, as anyone who looks at the entertainment of the past would quickly see: blackfaced Jim Crow shows and bareknuckle boxing in the 1700s-1800s, bear baiting up to the 1600s, and all manner of bloodsport up to and including gladiatorial combat during the Roman Empire. In fact, the reduction in such horrid forms of entertainment and the spread of much-needed psychiatric medication indicates that we are more balanced than ever before. Increases in female financial independence from poorly-chosen husbands mostly accounts for the increase in the divorce rate during the same time.

-Duxwing

just george
30th-August-2013, 08:16 AM
Something that hasn't been spoken about in this thread is the importance of penis size.

There is a fairly convincing evolutionary psychology theory going around that says that humans have the largest penises of all the primates because sex is important in socialization ie playing with your partner.

Hence, the smaller the penis, the more able a man is to rape a woman. By extension, the smaller the penis, the more likely that man is to have descended from a rapist. Racial differences not withstanding, of course.

Anyway I'm really curious to make a paste full of coagulant now. Thanks, OP :(

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 08:20 AM
Something that hasn't been spoken about in this thread is the importance of penis size.

Leave it to JG...

There is a fairly convincing evolutionary psychology theory going around that says that humans have the largest penises of all the primates because sex is important in socialization ie playing with your partner.

Hence, the smaller the penis, the more able a man is to rape a woman. By extension, the smaller the penis, the more likely that man is to have descended from a rapist. Racial differences not withstanding, of course.
I doubt that though. The human penis is structured in such a way as to remove the semen of other males, squeegee style. The longer they are and the bigger the mushroom head, the more efficient they are.

just george
30th-August-2013, 08:32 AM
I doubt that though. The human penis is structured in such a way as to remove the semen of other males, squeegee style. The longer they are and the bigger the mushroom head, the more efficient they are.

What do you mean, "leave it to JG"? Ungrateful creature.

Anyway along with penis structure, the human vaginal canal is equipped with folds of tissue that can impair or help semen from different males, and so affect paternity.

The theory does help explain the fascination with penis size though.

Cherry Cola
30th-August-2013, 12:23 PM
HAB: You said ethics are merely social constructs so yes there's a difference between that and ethics being innate in our species. That ethics are flexible and change according to the social context is not the same thing as ethics being merely social constructs.

The latter implies all men would rape if it wasn't for societal pressure, which is hardly true and would make humans quite unique compared to other primates.

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 12:27 PM
HAB: You said ethics are merely social constructs so yes there's a difference between that and ethics being innate in our species. That ethics are flexible and change according to the social context is not the same thing as ethics being merely social constructs.

The latter implies all men would rape if it wasn't for societal pressure, which is hardly true and would make humans quite unique compared to other primates.
Both are true. They are flexible social constructs. Instinct is innate. And I claim that under the proper circumstances all humans will commit rape, women included.

TimeAsylums
30th-August-2013, 05:05 PM
Something that hasn't been spoken about in this thread is the importance of penis size.

There is a fairly convincing evolutionary psychology theory going around that says that humans have the largest penises of all the primates because sex is important in socialization ie playing with your partner.

Hence, the smaller the penis, the more able a man is to rape a woman. By extension, the smaller the penis, the more likely that man is to have descended from a rapist. Racial differences not withstanding, of course.

Anyway I'm really curious to make a paste full of coagulant now. Thanks, OP :(

I doubt that though. The human penis is structured in such a way as to remove the semen of other males, squeegee style. The longer they are and the bigger the mushroom head, the more efficient they are.

Darn, I thought this was going to turn into a dick measuring contest which would lead to who is the most likely to become a rapist.

Edit: here are some pictures of mine, NSFW:
wtf, no.



On a more serious note, I have heard that mushroom/squeegee theory on the penis, but not the rapist's penis size theory. I know that semen can stay in the vagina for days afterwards, but attempting to remove it with your own penis...damn nature, you scarreh.

Duxwing
30th-August-2013, 06:16 PM
Both are true. They are flexible social constructs. Instinct is innate. And I claim that under the proper circumstances all humans will commit rape, women included.

Well of course, given anything, anything follows: can you be more specific than "proper circumstances"?

-Duxwing

PS No one here is suggesting that an instinct prevents humans from raping.

just george
30th-August-2013, 07:57 PM
On a more serious note, I have heard that mushroom/squeegee theory on the penis, but not the rapist's penis size theory. I know that semen can stay in the vagina for days afterwards, but attempting to remove it with your own penis...damn nature, you scarreh.
Gorilla dicks are an inch long. All gorilla sex is rape. It goes in, it goes goosh, and that's that...time to eat bananas and kidnap blonde chicks

TheHabitatDoctor
30th-August-2013, 09:59 PM
Edit: here are some pictures of mine, NSFW:
wtf, no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNgWQfOd-1M
Well of course, given anything, anything follows: can you be more specific than "proper circumstances"?

-Duxwing

PS No one here is suggesting that an instinct prevents humans from raping.
You've serially misconstrued meaning, intent, and context to the point where it's not worth responding. :phear:

Duxwing
31st-August-2013, 01:58 AM
You've serially misconstrued meaning, intent, and context to the point where it's not worth responding. :phear:

De-confusing me would be the point of responding.

-Duxwing

TheHabitatDoctor
31st-August-2013, 02:09 AM
De-confusing me would be the point of responding.

-Duxwing
Which isn't worth it.

also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/ania-lisewska_n_3831495.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&fb_source=timeline&ref=profile

^semiapplicable to the direction this thread took

BigApplePi
31st-August-2013, 04:08 AM
I was reading a review of something or other when I noticed the writer's signature line:

"Rape is not funny ... unless you are raping a clown."

worm
2nd-September-2013, 09:56 PM
Build retractable spikes in to everyone, rapists get impailed. And mutilated. And dead. Tip the spikes with poison. Add barbs. Make them alternate between freezing cold and white hot. Automatically call the police. Make them shoots darts. Poison darts.

BigApplePi
3rd-September-2013, 02:38 AM
So. The topic is rape prevention technology. Personally I don't think technology. Nor do I think rape. In order to address this one must get in a relevant mood. Advice?:confused:

Hawkeye
3rd-September-2013, 02:40 AM
So. The topic is rape prevention technology. Personally I don't think technology. Nor do I think rape. In order to address this one must get in a relevant mood. Advice?:confused:

Play RapeLay

Or watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWtO0cfgewY

BigApplePi
3rd-September-2013, 03:53 AM
I just finished watching this film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144084/

It does help get one in the mood for this thread. However now I'm so looney I cain't tipe ... ...:kodama2:

As a final word I'm against rape. Don't believe in it ... unless there is an awful lot of cooperation, but then someone must be in denial.

Jake
4th-December-2013, 06:12 AM
Maybe someone already said this but what's with the focus on penis-shredding devices? Now you've just got an injured, enraged rapist. A device that injects him with poison that renders him unconscious would be far more useful.

TheHabitatDoctor
4th-December-2013, 01:33 PM
Maybe someone already said this but what's with the focus on penis-shredding devices? Now you've just got an injured, enraged rapist. A device that injects him with poison that renders him unconscious would be far more useful.
This is a nice idea, but the effect wouldn't differ much from a shredder. An erection is possible because blood flow leaving the penis is restricted. Until the erection dies, he's free to do as he wishes.

There are also very few poisons that would act that quickly if injected into the bloodstream, and those that do tend to be expensive and relatively difficult to manufacture, which is a problem for the third world.

Also, imagine the murder rate increase with such technology. Wanna black widow your husband and swipe his assets? Poison your junk, go out on a hot date, and claim rape after the fact.

redbaron
4th-December-2013, 02:24 PM
Instead of engineering ways to stop rape when it's already happening, put a bigger focus on people being more intelligent in social activities and put more resources to addressing the reasons people rape in the first place.

Salmoneus
4th-December-2013, 03:50 PM
http://anony.ws/i/2013/12/04/nopgN.png