Rape & Human Evolution

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
30,611
Location
Haverhill, UK
It's disturbing to think about but rape was probably a huge part of human evolution. Wars of conquest, killing the conquered males & "acquiring" their female booty (pardon the pun) were likely to be part of the evolution of humanity on every "corner" of the Earth. Even chimps are seen to do this (killing the males of "enemy" "tribes" and kidnapping the females), though not on as large a scale as humans.

It makes some sense, as a female who's tribe/village/nation has been overthrown & who's husband has been murdered to switch allegiance to her rapist, a man who has proven himself her husband's superior in the most primal way (survival of the fittest).
It's not really pleasant to think about & perhaps legalized & safe abortion and (hopefully) the diminishment of both organized genocide & peer-to-peer rape (not as part of ethic cleansing. It's something it makes sense to think about as a father to a little girl who I obviously want to protect.

There does seem to be a strong attraction among females towards predator like males, like the 50 Shades of Gray type who literally bind them & force them to submit (I haven't read the book so if you have please correct if this is a misinterpretation of it).
Among males there seems to be both an intense disgust towards & in some, secret admiration towards powerful predatory males. In boarding school one night in a room of four, my bunkmates were up talking, one asked "Say you were in a city & a beautiful girl walked by & you could have sex with her in the alleyway against her will & no one would know, there'd be no way you'd be found out, would you do it?". I was the only one to say I would not. Granted this was a group of adolescent boys, at least one of whom had never been with a woman (two if you count me) & likely they might have been trying to impress the guy who asked the question. This story is neither here nor there, just something that made me trepidatious & one that can't be dismissed out of hand when you hear dozens of anecdotes from women thruout your life who's dealt with some sort of sexual abuse they never reported.

The culturally accepted male ideal is the strong man who protects women against violation (though of course he is always accepted as a lover himself, if he was shunned after performing his heroics one wonders how he would behave...).

I'm sure this subject has been brooded & commented upon in much more sophisticated fashion that the treatment I've given it. If anyone has any books to recommend on it I'd be curious to devour them.

Sadly CFC doesn't have much of a female population, I'd be curious to hear what women's thoughts are on this sensitive subject.
 
You know, anatomically modern humans evolved long before we had stuff like tribes or villages.
 
Rape. Evolution. I'm hungry.
 
This just shows the moral vacuum evolution leaves behind,.

You can find the same in the Bible:

“When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Kill the men, rape the women. Is this the moral vacuum of religion?
 
Sadly CFC doesn't have much of a female population, I'd be curious to hear what women's thoughts are on this sensitive subject.
You're not off to a good start in the thread. It seems to veer toward Christianity bashing. I would've bet on a more feminist attack against a perceived sexism in the OP - 'There's no general sexual submissive trait in women'.
Evolution doesn't justify rape.
Does evolution justify anything? Does it condemn rape?


I've got no more RD material to contribute :)
 
This just shows the moral vacuum evolution leaves behind,.
Unless you're talking about artificial selection, evolution and morality have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Nature doesn't care about good and evil. Nature just is.
 
There does seem to be a strong attraction among females towards predator like males,
There are other arguably more significant reasons women often like assertive or even aggressive men.
For one there's the mate selection criterion of confidence, which for somewhat complicated reasons heterosexual men often don't care about as much.
And then heterosexual women often have a special talent with the two-factor theory of emotion.
So the behavior you are referring to does not necessarily have to be directly related to rape.
You know, anatomically modern humans evolved long before we had stuff like tribes or villages.
Yeah, it's oddly phrased. But it's not really the point.
And modern humans aren't unchanged over time either, paricularly in respect to things somewhat relevant to mate selection.
 
I don't know what much there is to discuss, although i read the Op carefully 4-5 times. Yes, there is a strong urge to mate with alpha males among heterosexual women. That's like a fact. There are femme fatale alpha type women too on the other side.

rape is what it is - forced sex.

One of the first things i taught to my little sister when she was about 9 was what to do when you are about to get raped. That's something each mother/older sister tells her younger female relative.

If you wear revealing clothes and a lot of make-up and you like to hitchhike, wander around in night, and you are a pretty young female, you are subject to get into uneasy situations. God bless, my sister hasn't been raped, but she is mentally ready if the time comes. It's something like death. It's just a part of life.

And men can be raped too, let's not forget that.

ps.

i have never participated in a Rd thread before, sorry mods if my input isn't up to the standard.
 
As I recall it has been established that most women have already fantasized about being raped. Or perhaps it was 40%. Or 80%? I can't remember. But such a fantasy is simply not unusual for a woman, I can say that much.
I also have read about the theory that women have a more complex ejaculation process compared to men because because it was designed for gang bangs. As in while all the men shoot off one after another the woman can keep cumming / take her time to cum. And this would be good because the more cum inside of her the better I guess.
On the other hand I also read the theory that men were more into porn than women because while men were like "Yay I wanne join the fun!" women were more like instinctively hearing alarm bells ringing because it looks kinda like rape.

In general women to me seem a bit torn on rape. They do not seem to really want it - I guess knowing that it will not actually be a lot of fun - but it also intrigues them on some level. I guess a natural mechanism to cope with the horror of a rape world?
You know, anatomically modern humans evolved long before we had stuff like tribes or villages.
Whut?
That seems absolutely implausible to me. Because don't also animals have their own tribes? I'd think such tribes gave rise to the modern human. Not some loner apes.
And then heterosexual women often have a special talent with the two-factor theory of emotion.
Women are also really good in blocking / ignoring their own sexual arousal - even though pretty much everything gets them the hotts (according to a relatively recent study). Case in point: even monkey sex worked on them, not so on the males.
 
metatron said:
And modern humans aren't unchanged over time either, paricularly in respect to things somewhat relevant to mate selection.

Sure, humans have changed somewhat overtime. But it's one thing to observe that humans are still evolving and another thing to observe that humans are evolving/evolved, in part, due to the effects of rape. The latter claim, in particular, requires some sort of evidence. I'm also awry of the sorts of time-frames Narz was dealing with. Because villages and tribes, the former in particular, are extremely new evolutionary speaking.

Terxpahseyton said:
That seems absolutely implausible to me. Because don't also animals have their own tribes? I'd think such tribes gave rise to the modern human. Not some loner apes.

It's true that early evolutionary humans worked in groups. But it doesn't follow that those groups had tribes or villages as we would understand them.

classical_hero said:
This just shows the moral vacuum evolution leaves behind,.
You sorta have a point. At least in the sense that some people are willing to use evolution as a justification for evil, in much the same way that religion can be used to justify evil. But I don't think it follows that evolution or religion are in of themselves evil.
 
The latter claim, in particular, requires some sort of evidence. I'm also awry of the sorts of time-frames Narz was dealing with. Because villages and tribes, the former in particular, are extremely new evolutionary speaking.
I'm not making an argument in favor of the latter claim.
I'm merely saying that the time frame isn't necessarily too short, for whatever effects Narz wants to postulate (i'm not exactly sure what those would be) to be significant.
(Regarding, well, "tribes". The whole arc he wants to make all the way to modern societies is a different matter, obviously).
 
Not sure humans have evolved much as a result, but the periodic forcible insertion of genes from far away I guess to some extent combats the Norfolk syndrome.

The only evolution on display would be moral, with the extent to which the perception of this as rape distinguishes us from apes or feudal peasants.

This just shows the moral vacuum evolution leaves behind,.

Ah, Keyser Söze, and with one post, he was gone.
 
Not sure humans have evolved much as a result, but the periodic forcible insertion of genes from far away I guess to some extent combats the Norfolk syndrome.
If you mean by that similarities in genes leading to mutations - that in principle was a sweet deal from what I understand. As it meant more evolution. Whereas nowadays all this gene variety involved in making offspring produces dull predictable results.

I am surprised the Soviets didn't have an in-breeding-program to create super humans.
 
Maybe it's a common fantasy among German heterosexual males in their 20's?
 
Top Bottom