Rape Prevention Technology

[ApostateAbe]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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."

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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?

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]

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

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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).

 

[walfin]

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.

 

[Jennywocky]

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]

It would be ironic if this was used as a BDSM sex toy.

 

[Duxwing]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 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]

Did I say that the decision was conscious? 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]

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]

Did I say that the decision was conscious? 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

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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.

Spoiler

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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]

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

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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]

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! A social construct need not be genetically heritable.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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

They aren't. They're social constructs.

 

[Jason43]

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]

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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. 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]

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Spoiler

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]

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. 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]

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 )

 

[Jason43]

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think that we are are just debating two possibilities of human development.

Well, no, because I actually provided evidence.

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.

.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

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 )

Interesting. What else could be added to take its place? Capsaicin?

 

[Jason43]

.

Sources.

[FONT=&quot]Boehm, Christopher, and Christopher Boehm. Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press, 2009.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
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.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Sources.

The first celebrates the sacred cow of altruism, which is inaccurate and unsustainable. This post should cover why. 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.

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 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.

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/ma...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]

Interesting. What else could be added to take its place? Capsaicin?

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.