This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It is often incorrectly assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape, but scientific evidence refutes this.
Huh? Is it really an "incorrect" assumption? Why does it say "but", when the second part of the sentence is saying (basically) the same thing as the first? Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
It would appear that the parsing error is possible. I think that most people would read it correctly:
This applies the "incorrectly assumed" part to the first half of the sentence only. The other way to parse is this:
I don't think the grammar quite supports the second reading, but it's possible to apply "assumed" to both parts in your head. Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this assertion? What evidence is there actually? Can you give studies? It seems to me that a study would need to show that there are rapists who do not fantasise about rape for this to be true. (Call fantasisers X and nonfantasisers Y. No matter how small a subset of X rapists are, if Y never includes rapists, then X are more likely to become rapists. Of course, it does not follow from this that any particular member of X is going to be rapist, but it does follow that he/she is more likely to become one.)
Dr Zen 00:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY GIVEN WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enounter is more likely to be a criminal. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. All this makes it less likely that the person is in prison serving time for a crime. --A. Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 May 2006
I don't think your statistical analysis is correct. (I should be able to name the fallacy for you, but I can't find the chart offhand...I think it's an inappropriate reversal along the lines of "All lions are mammals, therefore all mammals are lions.") ETA: I just noticed that your point is slightly different from mine; I also noticed that the initial statement ("those who fantasize are more likely to") never gives the other side of the equation ("more likely than who?"); your "more likely than those who do not fantasize" is still most likely the correct reading. Anyway, the appropriate comparison is not between nonfantasizers and fantasizers; it is between the members of the group of fantasizers (the group of nonfantasizers should not affect this argument):
The above logic holds true whether the statements are true or not. In this case, it may not be true that "all rapists fantasize" (as noted below). This does not affect the above on a logic level, only on the level of premise truth, and it does not affect the conclusion that "it cannot be determined what percentage of fantasizers are rapists". Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There are rapists who do not fantasize about it. People who do it solely as a form of assualt or intimidation don't fantasize about it on a regular basis if at all. Johhny-turbo 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for repeating the move from Category:Sexuality to Category:Sex crimes. Category:Sexuality had grown to about 250 articles. I was cleaning them out and I didn't happen to remember that I had already moved this one when I moved it again.
The move to Category:Sex_crimes was actually quite intentional; I thought it would be appropriate to an article on fantasies about one particular sex crime in the list of articles about sex crimes in general. Because of the aforementioned cleaning, Category:Sexuality now only has articles which are fundamental to the subject. Everything else is relegated to subcategories, to make it possible to find things without undue effort. Rape fantasies aren't really fundamental, and they are already in Category:Sexual fetishism (which might not be the best, so if someone has a better pick, feel free to change that), so for now I'll just remove it from Category:Sexuality. If you buy my rationale above, or otherwise feel it's appropriate to do so, feel free to add this article back to Category:Sex_crimes.
-- Beland 02:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is essentially an apologetic for rape fantasy — this is not NPOV. Various problematic bits include: "It should not, however, be assumed that a rape fantasy is a wish to actually engage in the act in reality.", "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped.", the assertion that rape fantasy is a way to heal wounds, that it's a safe psychological device, that it's an outlet, the refutation about people's assumptions about rape fantasy, judgements about what ravish scenes are "healthy", and so on.
Let's be clear, this viewpoint belongs in this article, but is not (yet) presented in a neutral fashion. The article is trying to reassure the reader that rape fantasy is harmless. That's not NPOV. — Matt Crypto 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
(Starting a separate thread, since I'm replying to something from way back.)
Above, Antaeus Feldspar writes "rapists, almost without exception, have rape fantasies…" True enough, I'm sure, but trivially so. Murderers, almost without exception, have fantasized about murder, but few would say that Dostoevsky and Alfred Hitchcock are therefore pornographers of murder and accessories to crime. Many people fantasize about things they would never do; few lack fantasies about intense things that are part of their actual practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The sentence "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped." is problematic. Firstly, the tone: "it should be noted" and the emphasis of "does not". Secondly, sure, strictly speaking, the sentence is true. But so is this sentence:
(Obviously we shouldn't include that sentence!) But I don't think we need the current sentence either. — Matt Crypto 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that the statement "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape, which is a violent crime" is expressed in an NPOV way. Certainly, the sentence "Rape fantasy is not real-world rape" is undisputed. However, the sense of "it is not to be confused" is a prescriptive or corrective form of writing where the author is telling the reader how best to think. To make it more NPOV and objective, you could replace it with "rape fantasy is not real-world rape", but that's just blindingly obvious, so I decided to just remove it. Since you disagree, how about we replace it with:
— Matt Crypto 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states that:
We could do with citing a source for this. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Having read this article, and all the arguments in the talk page, I have to agree with Antaeus' version... It seems a clear description, and discusses the difference between 'rape fantasies' and rape. Just my 2 cents ;) Windsagio 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
A rape fantasy may be a mental imagining (a sexual fantasy) about rape, a fictional story about a rape, or an acted-out scene of pretend rape between consenting adults.
This is incorrect information. If it's between consenting adults, it can't be called rape—it can only be called rape if one or more parties do not consent.
Hezaa 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It says pretend rape between consenting adults - i.e., it's not being called "rape", it's being called "pretend rape". Mdwh 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cf. the Hypnofetish FAQ @ http://www.p-synd.com/winterrose/mind_control.html#4.3 -- Primary elements of erotic mind control or "hypnofetish" fantasies are power/control, and the rationale for hypnofetishist fantasizing is "getting to know their shadow" or "dark side." For these reasons, hypnofetishism, which has been experiencing an explosion in popularity the last twenty or so years, is usually classified under BDSM, under which rape fantasies would probably also be classified, though the "whips and leather" motiff does not usually figure prominently in the literature and media of this community.
Another common motiff is the mind controlled character's (and sometimes, the mind controller's) surrender to sublimated or otherwise repressed sexual urges. For example, many stories describe the destruction of a character's individual personality or ego: the person is turned into a "mindless sex zombie" (to quote one of the least colorful descriptions available in the literature).
These elements, and the frequent characterizations of the mind controllers as deviants or monsters (sometimes maniacal individuals, sometimes forces demonic, technological, extraterrestrial, etc.), might point toward a similarity in essence if not in outward form between erotic mind control and rape fantasies.
However, another motiff is of Dracula-esque seduction, wherein the controller is almost predatorial: cool and calculated, always in command of themselves, where passion is not so much the goal as satiating some kind of real or metaphorical hunger. This more sinister mind controller typically prefers to take over the inner voice of the character. For example, the story, "Does Free Will Exist?" wherein the villain, evidently unable or unwilling to master the heroine by coercion, simply changes her logic. This motiff of cognition alteration makes the classification of hypnofetishism even murkier. Can consent be conjured? And if so, then would erotic mind control fantasies be rape fantasies?
Anyway, you can tell I've given this a lot of thought. I've been an avid hypnofetishist for many years, but lately and increasingly I've been bothered by its moral implications. Everyone's thoughts on the subject? User: The New Yorker 19 April 2006
THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY RANDOMLY SELECTED WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely TO find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enCounter is more likely to be in prison serving time. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, the person's demeanor, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. --A. Non Emoose
It is really sad how few people have the ability to think logically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 May 2006
I know people who actually fantasize about really being raped. Some of these people (granted a very small number) actually put themselves in a position where they know it is very likely they will be raped. They may want this to happen because they enjoy this kind of sex. A few people like it really rough.
People often become imprinted by their first sexual experience. If a young female is raped by her step-father, she may develope a lifelong attraction to much older men, and to forced sex. I know this from having talked to a lot of survivors, and from having met such people. It is admittedly rare. But there are cases.
Testosterone not only creates the desire for sex, it also produces aggression. Male mammals in "rut" are often very very aggressive. Female mammals are attracted to aggressiveness. Some human females are attracted to aggresive males. Testosterone and other androgens can induce in some males sexual aggression. That is why chemical castration and surgical castration decreases recidivism among sex offenders.
--A Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 May 2006
To quote this article: "those willing to rape and/or be raped were more likely to have their genes passed on."
Like much in this article, this line appears to be utter nonsense to me. How can one be willing to be raped? Blaise Joshua 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"What is questionable logic, actually, is to reduce the entire issue down to whether males and females are of similar physical strength and then presume to refute the entire theory based on that false reduction, but then again, to look at this section is to look at a whole fiesta of questionable logic put forth by those who find a particular theory unnerving in its implication and who would rather find a straw man ..."
Instead of going on about how strange it is that people disagree with this article, why don't you rather answer my argument?
Regarding your claim that I was reducing things to strength, I was not. I was arguing within the framework that you proposed, where things already were reduced to strength (a female resisting until a male overcomes her). The concept is flawed because such resistance would be in all cases futile, due to males' natural physical superiority.
If females were to select passively through rape (as you proposed), it would not at all increase their chances of ending up with a better partner. It is therefore unlikely that it is a mechanism of selection, as it is not conductive to the production of better offspring/genes.
Anyway, this isn't a place for debate or research. What we need are published findings on the subject. Mth105 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, way to dodge the subject and stray off topic. Just give up. You are clueless. 198.54.202.218 09:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states:
"Regardless, the presence of rape fantasies in a community or individual cannot be taken to imply that the fantasizers in reality condone rape, desire to rape others, or wish to be raped themselves. While actual rape is an act of control with sex being the chosen medium of that control, and by its nature exclusively an act of the rapist, rape fantasy is essentially sexual and indulged in from both the point of view of the rapist and, even more frequently, the victim."
This paragraph presents a rather weak argument. Stating that someone with a rape fantasy does not wish to be raped in reality is hard to justify rationally, and there is no proof of the reasoning behind this claim -the distinction made between fantasy and reality does not suffice. This does not seem to be NPOV. Can someone provide any research to support or refute this claim?
Given the abundunce of "Citation Needed" tags throughout the text, I think that the whole article should have an Original Research tag.
It would be really interesting to read about a serious survey about rape fantasies. Unfortunately, the link to mentalhelp.net is kinda broken, and it isn't possible to see the survey anymore.. we have those percentages in the article and we don't know where they belong, it's disappointing. If someone knows about a new source where to get reliable data, i'd be grateful if they could add it to the article, thanks. Sorry for my broken english. 82.58.169.151 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it rather ironic that shortly after the sociobiological implications of rape are mentioned (thus implying rape is sexual in nature) a sentence appears that states something to the effect of "Rape is about control, not sex." I for one would prefer to get rid of that old legend of feminism, but since that isn't very likely, perhaps it should be qualified in some fashion-"Some theorists believe that..." etc.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It is often incorrectly assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape, but scientific evidence refutes this.
Huh? Is it really an "incorrect" assumption? Why does it say "but", when the second part of the sentence is saying (basically) the same thing as the first? Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
It would appear that the parsing error is possible. I think that most people would read it correctly:
This applies the "incorrectly assumed" part to the first half of the sentence only. The other way to parse is this:
I don't think the grammar quite supports the second reading, but it's possible to apply "assumed" to both parts in your head. Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this assertion? What evidence is there actually? Can you give studies? It seems to me that a study would need to show that there are rapists who do not fantasise about rape for this to be true. (Call fantasisers X and nonfantasisers Y. No matter how small a subset of X rapists are, if Y never includes rapists, then X are more likely to become rapists. Of course, it does not follow from this that any particular member of X is going to be rapist, but it does follow that he/she is more likely to become one.)
Dr Zen 00:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY GIVEN WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enounter is more likely to be a criminal. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. All this makes it less likely that the person is in prison serving time for a crime. --A. Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 May 2006
I don't think your statistical analysis is correct. (I should be able to name the fallacy for you, but I can't find the chart offhand...I think it's an inappropriate reversal along the lines of "All lions are mammals, therefore all mammals are lions.") ETA: I just noticed that your point is slightly different from mine; I also noticed that the initial statement ("those who fantasize are more likely to") never gives the other side of the equation ("more likely than who?"); your "more likely than those who do not fantasize" is still most likely the correct reading. Anyway, the appropriate comparison is not between nonfantasizers and fantasizers; it is between the members of the group of fantasizers (the group of nonfantasizers should not affect this argument):
The above logic holds true whether the statements are true or not. In this case, it may not be true that "all rapists fantasize" (as noted below). This does not affect the above on a logic level, only on the level of premise truth, and it does not affect the conclusion that "it cannot be determined what percentage of fantasizers are rapists". Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There are rapists who do not fantasize about it. People who do it solely as a form of assualt or intimidation don't fantasize about it on a regular basis if at all. Johhny-turbo 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for repeating the move from Category:Sexuality to Category:Sex crimes. Category:Sexuality had grown to about 250 articles. I was cleaning them out and I didn't happen to remember that I had already moved this one when I moved it again.
The move to Category:Sex_crimes was actually quite intentional; I thought it would be appropriate to an article on fantasies about one particular sex crime in the list of articles about sex crimes in general. Because of the aforementioned cleaning, Category:Sexuality now only has articles which are fundamental to the subject. Everything else is relegated to subcategories, to make it possible to find things without undue effort. Rape fantasies aren't really fundamental, and they are already in Category:Sexual fetishism (which might not be the best, so if someone has a better pick, feel free to change that), so for now I'll just remove it from Category:Sexuality. If you buy my rationale above, or otherwise feel it's appropriate to do so, feel free to add this article back to Category:Sex_crimes.
-- Beland 02:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article is essentially an apologetic for rape fantasy — this is not NPOV. Various problematic bits include: "It should not, however, be assumed that a rape fantasy is a wish to actually engage in the act in reality.", "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped.", the assertion that rape fantasy is a way to heal wounds, that it's a safe psychological device, that it's an outlet, the refutation about people's assumptions about rape fantasy, judgements about what ravish scenes are "healthy", and so on.
Let's be clear, this viewpoint belongs in this article, but is not (yet) presented in a neutral fashion. The article is trying to reassure the reader that rape fantasy is harmless. That's not NPOV. — Matt Crypto 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
(Starting a separate thread, since I'm replying to something from way back.)
Above, Antaeus Feldspar writes "rapists, almost without exception, have rape fantasies…" True enough, I'm sure, but trivially so. Murderers, almost without exception, have fantasized about murder, but few would say that Dostoevsky and Alfred Hitchcock are therefore pornographers of murder and accessories to crime. Many people fantasize about things they would never do; few lack fantasies about intense things that are part of their actual practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The sentence "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped." is problematic. Firstly, the tone: "it should be noted" and the emphasis of "does not". Secondly, sure, strictly speaking, the sentence is true. But so is this sentence:
(Obviously we shouldn't include that sentence!) But I don't think we need the current sentence either. — Matt Crypto 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that the statement "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape, which is a violent crime" is expressed in an NPOV way. Certainly, the sentence "Rape fantasy is not real-world rape" is undisputed. However, the sense of "it is not to be confused" is a prescriptive or corrective form of writing where the author is telling the reader how best to think. To make it more NPOV and objective, you could replace it with "rape fantasy is not real-world rape", but that's just blindingly obvious, so I decided to just remove it. Since you disagree, how about we replace it with:
— Matt Crypto 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states that:
We could do with citing a source for this. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Having read this article, and all the arguments in the talk page, I have to agree with Antaeus' version... It seems a clear description, and discusses the difference between 'rape fantasies' and rape. Just my 2 cents ;) Windsagio 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
A rape fantasy may be a mental imagining (a sexual fantasy) about rape, a fictional story about a rape, or an acted-out scene of pretend rape between consenting adults.
This is incorrect information. If it's between consenting adults, it can't be called rape—it can only be called rape if one or more parties do not consent.
Hezaa 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It says pretend rape between consenting adults - i.e., it's not being called "rape", it's being called "pretend rape". Mdwh 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Cf. the Hypnofetish FAQ @ http://www.p-synd.com/winterrose/mind_control.html#4.3 -- Primary elements of erotic mind control or "hypnofetish" fantasies are power/control, and the rationale for hypnofetishist fantasizing is "getting to know their shadow" or "dark side." For these reasons, hypnofetishism, which has been experiencing an explosion in popularity the last twenty or so years, is usually classified under BDSM, under which rape fantasies would probably also be classified, though the "whips and leather" motiff does not usually figure prominently in the literature and media of this community.
Another common motiff is the mind controlled character's (and sometimes, the mind controller's) surrender to sublimated or otherwise repressed sexual urges. For example, many stories describe the destruction of a character's individual personality or ego: the person is turned into a "mindless sex zombie" (to quote one of the least colorful descriptions available in the literature).
These elements, and the frequent characterizations of the mind controllers as deviants or monsters (sometimes maniacal individuals, sometimes forces demonic, technological, extraterrestrial, etc.), might point toward a similarity in essence if not in outward form between erotic mind control and rape fantasies.
However, another motiff is of Dracula-esque seduction, wherein the controller is almost predatorial: cool and calculated, always in command of themselves, where passion is not so much the goal as satiating some kind of real or metaphorical hunger. This more sinister mind controller typically prefers to take over the inner voice of the character. For example, the story, "Does Free Will Exist?" wherein the villain, evidently unable or unwilling to master the heroine by coercion, simply changes her logic. This motiff of cognition alteration makes the classification of hypnofetishism even murkier. Can consent be conjured? And if so, then would erotic mind control fantasies be rape fantasies?
Anyway, you can tell I've given this a lot of thought. I've been an avid hypnofetishist for many years, but lately and increasingly I've been bothered by its moral implications. Everyone's thoughts on the subject? User: The New Yorker 19 April 2006
THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY RANDOMLY SELECTED WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely TO find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enCounter is more likely to be in prison serving time. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, the person's demeanor, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. --A. Non Emoose
It is really sad how few people have the ability to think logically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 May 2006
I know people who actually fantasize about really being raped. Some of these people (granted a very small number) actually put themselves in a position where they know it is very likely they will be raped. They may want this to happen because they enjoy this kind of sex. A few people like it really rough.
People often become imprinted by their first sexual experience. If a young female is raped by her step-father, she may develope a lifelong attraction to much older men, and to forced sex. I know this from having talked to a lot of survivors, and from having met such people. It is admittedly rare. But there are cases.
Testosterone not only creates the desire for sex, it also produces aggression. Male mammals in "rut" are often very very aggressive. Female mammals are attracted to aggressiveness. Some human females are attracted to aggresive males. Testosterone and other androgens can induce in some males sexual aggression. That is why chemical castration and surgical castration decreases recidivism among sex offenders.
--A Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 May 2006
To quote this article: "those willing to rape and/or be raped were more likely to have their genes passed on."
Like much in this article, this line appears to be utter nonsense to me. How can one be willing to be raped? Blaise Joshua 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"What is questionable logic, actually, is to reduce the entire issue down to whether males and females are of similar physical strength and then presume to refute the entire theory based on that false reduction, but then again, to look at this section is to look at a whole fiesta of questionable logic put forth by those who find a particular theory unnerving in its implication and who would rather find a straw man ..."
Instead of going on about how strange it is that people disagree with this article, why don't you rather answer my argument?
Regarding your claim that I was reducing things to strength, I was not. I was arguing within the framework that you proposed, where things already were reduced to strength (a female resisting until a male overcomes her). The concept is flawed because such resistance would be in all cases futile, due to males' natural physical superiority.
If females were to select passively through rape (as you proposed), it would not at all increase their chances of ending up with a better partner. It is therefore unlikely that it is a mechanism of selection, as it is not conductive to the production of better offspring/genes.
Anyway, this isn't a place for debate or research. What we need are published findings on the subject. Mth105 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, way to dodge the subject and stray off topic. Just give up. You are clueless. 198.54.202.218 09:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states:
"Regardless, the presence of rape fantasies in a community or individual cannot be taken to imply that the fantasizers in reality condone rape, desire to rape others, or wish to be raped themselves. While actual rape is an act of control with sex being the chosen medium of that control, and by its nature exclusively an act of the rapist, rape fantasy is essentially sexual and indulged in from both the point of view of the rapist and, even more frequently, the victim."
This paragraph presents a rather weak argument. Stating that someone with a rape fantasy does not wish to be raped in reality is hard to justify rationally, and there is no proof of the reasoning behind this claim -the distinction made between fantasy and reality does not suffice. This does not seem to be NPOV. Can someone provide any research to support or refute this claim?
Given the abundunce of "Citation Needed" tags throughout the text, I think that the whole article should have an Original Research tag.
It would be really interesting to read about a serious survey about rape fantasies. Unfortunately, the link to mentalhelp.net is kinda broken, and it isn't possible to see the survey anymore.. we have those percentages in the article and we don't know where they belong, it's disappointing. If someone knows about a new source where to get reliable data, i'd be grateful if they could add it to the article, thanks. Sorry for my broken english. 82.58.169.151 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it rather ironic that shortly after the sociobiological implications of rape are mentioned (thus implying rape is sexual in nature) a sentence appears that states something to the effect of "Rape is about control, not sex." I for one would prefer to get rid of that old legend of feminism, but since that isn't very likely, perhaps it should be qualified in some fashion-"Some theorists believe that..." etc.