Talk:Motivation for rape

Page move
I moved this section from the rape page. It needs editing of course but it's a good topic to discuss (sure to be controversial). I am following a recommendation from a wiki editor in fact to start some new pages to reduce the rape page length.

--Survivor 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the occurrence of male-male and female-female rape, where genes cannot be passed down at all, would seem to contradict the evolutionary theory of rape.

What kind of non-sense logic is this? There is no "male-female rape" gene. Anybody who knows their share of genetics can see that this reasoning is flawed. The potential for aggressive behaviour is the important thing here, not the sexual orientation. Bisexual rapists would be evolutionarily as feasible as heterosexual ones. Homosexual rapists would be a dead end, but that wouldn't contradict the theory -- if the rapist ends up being homosexual, that may be a wasted gene for the pool, but in terms of cost/benefit that wouldn't really matter. Of course this theory does not require rapist potential to be a genetic factor -- behaviour can replicate without genes, and genes may still just affect the tendency to show a certain kind of behaviour (which may be completely nullable through social factors nevertheless). This is not a nature vs. nurture argument, but merely an evolutionary thought experiment. And evolutionarily, rape works. Or at least it works good enough to surface every now and then without becoming extinct or the norm (at least for humans -- some specie may be more or less prone to it than us).

IMO every human is a potential rapist, murderer or plain criminal. Any argument to the contrary easily proves moot. The interesting notion is that not every human acts on that potential and that they have peculiar reasons not to. Ethics and genetics (i.e. predisposition), and, likeliness of getting caught and severity of punishment (i.e. consequences) are just two parts of the equasion -- and at least the first part seems almost impossible to influence without giving up our humanity.

Also, I'm outraged by the amount of feminism (implied or direct) present in this and related articles, although I have come to accept that kind of discrimination (both, against men, and, through backfiring, against women) in international media.

Lastly I'd like to point out this article was bloated to twice its size because someone apparently copied nearly the entire article and pasted it in the subsection with slightly different wording here and there. I can't be arsed to find out whether there are any real differences between both copies, but it even lists the same prototypes etc, so it seems to be as identical as it gets. &mdash; Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of non-sense logic is this? There is no "male-female rape" gene. Anybody who knows their share of genetics can see that this reasoning is flawed. The potential for aggressive behaviour is the important thing here, not the sexual orientation. Bisexual rapists would be evolutionarily as feasible as heterosexual ones. Homosexual rapists would be a dead end, but that wouldn't contradict the theory -- if the rapist ends up being homosexual, that may be a wasted gene for the pool, but in terms of cost/benefit that wouldn't really matter. Of course this theory does not require rapist potential to be a genetic factor -- behaviour can replicate without genes, and genes may still just affect the tendency to show a certain kind of behaviour (which may be completely nullable through social factors nevertheless). This is not a nature vs. nurture argument, but merely an evolutionary thought experiment. And evolutionarily, rape works. Or at least it works good enough to surface every now and then without becoming extinct or the norm (at least for humans -- some specie may be more or less prone to it than us).

The statement is not claiming there is a gene for "male-female rape." The evolutionary theory of rape is more or less (from what I've gathered from the article)the idea that men may rape women as an attempt to transmit the male's genes. The more offspring you have and the more offspring your offspring have, the better it is for that male. Essentially, the one with the most offspring "win" even if that means the male has to force a female to have sex with him. The statement is saying that this theory does not give any reason for male-male or female-female rape since they cannot reproduce (I assume you know this). A male raping a male will not produce offspring neither will a female raping a female so the evolution theory would not explain the motivation behind these rapes. Sorry, I'm not a great writer but I hope I cleared it up for you. --68.3.237.14 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that reasoning is as flawed. You're basically saying the only way for rape to be evolutionarily feasible is if a) the rape is heterosexual and b) the rape results in offspring.
 * I know there are grey areas, but I would wager that the number of rapists who are direct descendents from former rapists to rapists who are not is within the statistical standard deviation.
 * Also, who says that the "rape gene" would have to be coupled with the "sexual orientation gene" so neither could mutate independently? Also, who says either gene is 100% deterministic in terms of how the creature acts on it? Apart from physical properties, most properties of living creatures are at least affected by the "environment" to some degree, so it would be absurd to end the nature vs. nurture debate by saying that genetics neccessarily have to determine anything other than "tendencies" (whether they can, OTOH, is a different story).
 * What stops the "rape gene" from appearing in an individual that is bisexual or homosexual? No offspring carrying the gene could result from same-sex rape, true, but that doesn't make it less likely for the "rape gene" appearing in a less-than-100% heterosexual (or up-to-100% homosexual, for that matter).
 * That reasoning would be simplistic and, IMO, rather blissfully ignorant.
 * It is equally absurd to claim reproduction would be a self-evident motive for reproductive behaviour (i.e. common fuckery). That is a disputed, though widespread, theory, not a fact. Reproduction is the evolutionary motive, but not neccessarily the individual's. As you were so nice to point out, homosexual sex CANNOT result in offspring and is thus inherently non-reproductive. The leading motive for sex is sex drive, not the sudden urge to pass on genes (granted, there species that do not share the sex craziness exhibited by most mammals, but even in those cases I'd find it doubtful to claim that the involved individuals are perfectly aware that their actions will result in offspring rather than that they adapt to the situations as they occur (possibly triggered by other instincts/motivations/drives kicking in as the stimulus changes)).
 * To point out the blatantly obvious: The overwhelming majority of homosexuals are perfectly aware that dry-humping or anal sex will not get either partner pregnant.
 * Therefore rape may be evolutionarily viable as a survival strategy, but not neccessarily motivated by the individual's reproductive drive. Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with the success or failure of rape, other than that homosexual rape is not particularily productive from an evolutionary perspective (maybe in terms of submission of potential rivals, but that's the only reasonable hypothesis I can think of right now).
 * Claiming that the (still, hypothetical) "rape gene" (and once again I would like to remind the audience that "gene" is a term to be applied loosely as we're actually talking about a constellation of various genetic factors which may result in tendencies towards certain behavioural patterns) must be dependent on the sexual orientation simply does not make much sense.
 * Lastly, and once again, only under the assumption that rapists DO actually show a common genetic anomality, I would like to remind you that that gene would not have to be active in the first individual to have it and pass it along. That would also explain why not every "productive" rape (i.e. one resulting in reproduction of the rapist's genes) results in a new rapist being born.
 * Either way, rape is not a standard phenomenon in human sexuality, which proves it is not, per se, a successful evolutionary strategy for man (regardless of gender and orientation). Yet it is evident that humans do show a varying tendency to be rapists (not neccessarily through the same environmental factors).
 * I am neither trying to prove that a "rape gene" exists, nor am I trying to disprove its possibility. I am merely trying to explain why it is flawed reasoning to discount the hypothesis on the basis of non-standard (i.e. evolutionarily impractical) sexual orientation (or fetishes -- there are people who only get aroused by trees, for example) resulting in a dead-end for that gene, because that does NOT contradict the evident existence of same-sex rape beyond the odd "misunderstanding" (i.e. bisexual behaviour within the standard deviation which can be assumed for humans) for the reasons I have stated.
 * Personally, I think a one-sided nature vs. nurture argument is bound to fail, as many if not most properties of an individual are determined by an array of factors, which do usually not all fall in one of both categories.
 * I hope I didn't offend anyone with this (other than anyone not believing in the validity of Evolution, which can not be avoided if arguing on the basis that genes have something to do with cross-generation long-term development as per the theory of evolution). &mdash; Ashmodai (talk &middot; contribs) 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I was simply pointing out the article was not arguing the existence of a "rape gene" but it was arguing that rape occurs because of the need for one to have as many viable offspring as possible. Now, a few things I feel a need to respond to...

"You're basically saying the only way for rape to be evolutionarily feasible is if a) the rape is heterosexual and b) the rape results in offspring."

I never said that, the article did. I never even stated my belief. I was just letting you know it was not arguing the case for the rape gene. And since much of what you said relates to the alleged "rape gene" I cannot respond to anything you said about it since it is not pertinent.

"As you were so nice to point out, homosexual sex CANNOT result in offspring and is thus inherently non-reproductive."

This comment seems loaded. I did not mean anything negative by it. I was merely trying to provide a complete way of understanding what the author of the article was trying to say by including ALL relevant facts.

"The leading motive for sex is sex drive, not the sudden urge to pass on genes"

I never said, nor did anyone else, that the leading motive for sex is the sudden urge to pass on genes. This seems like a straw man to me. And I would argue the "leading motive" for sex is to create life. In fact, I decided to look up sex drive (which was redirected to "Libido") and it says "Libido can also be classified as the urge to create life." So in turn the statement "The leading motive for sex is sex drive" begs the question as to what you actually mean by the phrase "sex drive."

Other than that, I'm really not sure what to make of your response. Still, I was only letting you know the article mentions nothing of a "rape gene." Perhaps it needs to be rewritten. Maybe a sentence or two should be taken out. But talking about the "rape gene" is not relevant. Again, the article is saying rape may exist as an attempt for the male to pass his gene's on. It admits that it is flawed because of male-male and female-female rape. So if you wish to continue this discussion anymore please limit the discussion to that topic only. --Tooiha 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Existence of male-to-male or other forms of rape definitely doesn't contradict the evolutionary theory of improving procreational success. After all with regards to sexual relationships the same principles apply for gay people as they do for heterosexuals. Why shouldn't that be true for rape as well? Just because a gay person doesn't procreate, doesn't mean some of them wouldn't want to have sex with as many people as possible, just like some heterosexuals do. I as a gay person am probably drawn towards attractive men just because I am urged to create healthy offspring, even though that's probably never gonna be a result of my efforts ;-)

That is why I think the part criticizing the evolutionary theory is faulty and should be modified/deleted.

Stefan, Germany

The scientifically pursued notion of a "genetical predisposition" towards rape, homosexuality, insanity or any other "abnormal" forms of behavior is ultimately a politically motivated enforcement of materialistic ideology. The innitial psychological value for coping with a possibly shaming experience is grossly outweighted by the implied genetical inferiority of such a "claimed" genetic disposition. The biological ability to rape, be gay or mad can be detected in all human races and cultures. Yet in the oldest prevailing forms of human cultures men have little say in choosing their mates and have little notion towards aggression. Anyway the assumption that intra-species aggression leads to an evolutionary advantage is a social-darwinistic artefact. Animals usually do not harm others of their kind. If they would, it would be a disadvantage for the other individual in exchange for offsprings that maybe have a higher inclination towards intra-species aggression. The fierce male lion can be frequently seen to jump and kill animals of far greater proportions, yet when two adolescent males meet, even with females in heat around, there is seldom more than posing involved. Also the notion that it could have been difficult for our ancestors to conceive is hilarious. Not conception is difficult but nourishment of offsprings. The perceived difficulty to successfully procreate stems from the inventions of ownership of land/recources and labour for nourishment. Before that time intra-species aggression might have been useful as deterent/didactic. Then, when we arrive at inter-species violence of noticable levels, i wonder how genetics can assume the replacement of one individual for another to be of evolutionary value and how they define that value to be of evolutionary proportion. Breed and cull might be the correct term here. Incidentally woman do not fancy being raped and frequently show strong avoidance behavior. Since the world is full and flight takes money they have to settle for the "security" of associating with "successful" individuals or groups emitting the right kind of aggression/power. Suggesting that this could have been a successful tactic in early years when space was plenty, food was free and brothers and sisters numbering in the dozens is beyond me. Dominating in western cultures these phaenomenons have nothing to do with evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.89.237 (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph needing to be removed or completely rewritten
This paragraph should be removed

"Some rapists rape because they have an emotional need to feel and act powerful during sex. Some rapists rape because they crave sadistic sex. Some rapists rape because they are pedophiles, and can't legally have relations with those they physically desire. Some rapists rape because they are flooded with hormones, and are overwhelmed with sexual desire. These rapists are typically teenagers who engage in acquaintance rape or date rape. Some rapists rape because they have few morals and little respect for the law, and they find a "crime of opportunity," meaning a victim in a situation where chances of getting caught are slim, and/or the consequences slight. Some rapists rape because they feel angry toward all women for the way one woman treated them. Some rapists rape because they themselves were raped. Some rapists rape because they feel sexually inadequate."

This paragraph really needs to be rewritten by somebody who knows about this topic and can actually write or just be completely deleted. Statements such as "Some rapists rape because they are flooded with hormones" and "Some rapists rape because they have few morals and little respect for the law" and especially "Some rapists rape because they feel angry toward all women for the way one woman treated them." There are logical fallacies and statements without any proof in this paragraph but I don't even think they are worth pointing out because the writing in general is just so horrible. I myself cannot write very well nor do I know much on this topic. So if there is somebody that can rewrite this (even completely change it) please do. If it is not rewritten or deleted in 14 days I will delete it. If anyone has a problem with me deleting this, let me know before that. Thank you.--68.3.237.14 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The paragraph needs direct citation, but I don't believe it's poorly written and I don't sense the "logical fallacies" you allude to. You should point them out, because when we discard the writing quality, it's the basis of your objection.  I'm not an expert on the subject either, but it seems like a reasonable overview of motives. Don't be lazy and delete it because of a vague objection.--Son of Somebody 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More than anything I believe the lack of citation is what makes this paragraph bad. All the reasons listed seem to be the stereotypical reasons people say rape occures. Claims such as " Some rapists rape because they feel angry toward all women for the way one woman treated them" seem like its from a Law and Order episode. Although this may be true, without proof I do find it hard to believe. Since this article is from a psychological perspective and the exact causes of rape seem to be vague, pointing out causes that seem to originate as anecdotal evidence is not a good idea. Some of the statements made I believe are obvious reasons people may rape but still I would like to see a citation. . Even making the phrase "Some rapists MAY rape because.." would be a big improvement. The article leads the reader to believe these ARE the reason rapists rape. The main basis of the objection is there is no proof or citation for these claims not so much logical fallacies as that can be fixed with better wording. Lastly, I do not see why we would "discard the writing quality" as a reason since I still believe it is not written well. I do not want to delete this article (and I will not delete because of your objection) I just would like to see it improved and have citations.--Tooiha 12:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Added Fact. I would be astonished if research contradicted the assertions, though.--Son of Somebody 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made an attempt at cleaning up the paragraph. More work needs to be done though as the tone is not objective.  Most, if not all, of the bullet points appear to be conjecture needing citation or are redundant having been posited earlier in the article. Geneffects 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of cites of the form "(Prior, 2006)": but without information about which paper, by which person called Prior, they are useless, and, worse, gives a misleading impression that full references are available. Can we have proper cites to books and journal articles, please?

Citations and References from main rape article vis a vis causeality
I pulled in references from the main rape article which were not moved here when this article was moved. I weeded out most of the non-cause related references. Prior or maybe it is Pryor seems to citation you need here. Many other references seem to be here now too but I am not sure about all of them

Also, did this article start off as a cut-and-paste from somewhere else, and the original source have the necessary references in it somewhere? -- Anon.

Properbility of beeing raped again
"Being the victim of child sexual abuse doubles the likelihood of adult sexual victimization ..."

Maybee this is just written in a bad way, but I can't see, how the fact that somebody has been raped before increase the odds of beeing raped again ? I would agree, that a person might be so traumaticed from prior rape, that the person would not resist, but that does not increase the properbility.

please specify / correct this.

Possible racist slur

 * That is not all that is here. What does "being a Native American" have to do with this ? That could be seen as a racist slur, so I'm removing it. Martial Law 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The history tab reveals where I found the racist slur. Martial Law 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Placed proper wiki-ref. to this matter. Someone reading this article, and when he/she sees (before removal) the section "being a Native American" will think that is a racist slur. Just stating a major concern. Martial Law 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, what does "...being a Native American..." have to do with Causes of rape ? Martial Law 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Society
What about society? I'm not a specialist on this topic or anything, but isn't it obvious that certain aspects of western society such as advertisments where women are depicted as objects and sleazier and sleazier fashions contribute somewhat to a mentality which may justify the idea of rape in the rapist's mind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.48.201 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

hmm
just wanted to mention that throughout the article there is recognition of the fact that rape is perormed by men and women against both men and women and that is good. But sometimes it only says he or male or men, and three lines later reverts back to Male/Female. I going to edit it where I can.

Warning signs of potential rapists
I don't know where to begin, so I won't. Calling this section unencyclopedic is a grave understatement. While I have the utmost respect for its intent, it needs to be completely purged and rewritten.
 * * Chemical dependency counselors - Beware of certain counselors if you are undergoing treatment for chemical dependency issues. For the most part, the majority of them mean well. However, keep in mind that some of them were once people with their own chemical dependency problems, and some, have only managed to "mask" their anti-social tendencies rather than resolve them completely. What's worse is that some are well-respected members of the community who are skilled at evading the radar, primarily by shifting the blame onto you. Things to look out for are counselors who are overly-friendly and want to go well out of their way to help you with anything. This signifies a lack of respect for your personal boundaries, privacy, and autonomy as a person, and is not conducive to a healing environment. A counselor who means well, would not promote a clingy or co-dependent attachment, as they would clearly see the potential danger and inevitable whiplash in such a predicament. The potential rapist counselor can look like anyone and come from any walk of life. They are in love with the idea of playing the hero or rescuer in your life, but are doing so only to serve their interests. There are strings attached, oftentimes sexual in nature. They are honing in on you (the safer target) to satisfy the unmet needs in their personal lives, mostly romantic difficulties and/or marital problems. These counselors will prey on your life history, rearrange it, and are gifted at locating and exploiting your personal weaknesses (i.e. your self-reported character defects at meetings). Beware especially if you are the survivor of sexual abuse. Some will attempt to misuse program jargon to manipulate you into a sexual relationship, often claiming that they are the man you have been waiting for. A common tactic used is the "admitting to being powerless is powerful." Yea it is powerful, to the perpetrator salivating like Pavlov's dog in the corner after hearing you announce your vulnerability that is.

This subsection being a prime example. Ignoring the inscructive first-person engagement with the reader, this is case-specific to the point of absurdity! It is tantamount to warning against people who have had a corrective surgery for a double hernia at the age of four. It is also an example of association fallacy.

I'm in favour of deleting all uncited content from this entire section: i.e, everything, and starting from scratch. Intuitively, I'd say it has probably been plagiarized anyway.

The only immediate action I'm taking is in deleting the example subsection listed above. -Etafly 06:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Female-male rape
I changed the sentence in the opening paragraph, "all forms of male-female rape or female-male rape". This is redundant. What the heck? Women can't rape men. They can molest, commit sexual battery, even commit "statutory rape" but a man needs an erection to have sexual intercourse, (rape is forced sexual intercourse) and it's very hard to force an erection.

72.64.142.97 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ.Women are just as capable of rape as men.What about the recent sex scandels among adult female teachers and their male students? Does the name Debra Lefave(or whatever her last name is) ring a bell?? she and many other adult women have been have sex with underage boys and yet many in soceity have yet to give many of these offenders the same sentences for such crimes as the law would for if these feamle teacher had been men and the victims had been girls.

Molestation,sexual battery,rape it the same thing!!! when it's all said and done the person who assaulted someone (be they male or female) they have committed a crime.Either Both adults reguardless of gender should get equal punishment for the crime of stautory rape and spend time in prison without a 'slap on the wirst' by the courts or we as a society have to investigate wither or not someone in this situation is truely classified as:a pedophile or situational offender then set out punishments that would satisfy the court,the victim,the victim's family,and soceity. Moreover,we need to realize as a society that everyone is responsible for his or her own behavior and that blaming an innocent victim for something that happened to them through no fault of their own and continuing with these gender stereotypes is counter-productive and a waste of time,money,resources we could use to help educate the victim's family on how to act around them and not make the victim feel any worse then they already do.

From what I read form you little rant it appears you have missed the point:ANYONE CAN GET RAPED! Be they:woman,Man,or child,young,old,rich,poor,white,black,ect...And your try to justify the myth that women can't be rapists or sex perverts just shows how much we as people need to wise up and use our brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.237.167 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I know this is the subject of some disagreement but I think it is acceptable to say that women CAN rape men. Saying "its very hard to force and erection" is to general, when I think mens' capability of arousal is just as varied as womens'. That is to say some have much trouble others do not, and still more can get an erection involuntarily due to any stimulus at all. In any case an erection or an orgasm does not constitute consent whatsoever, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsendeSLO (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Greathings, and please spare my English. I’m a Psychollogyst from Latin America, and at least in Spanish the word “rape” implies sexual penetration from the rapist to the victim. A woman can sexually abuse a man, but is physicly unable to rape a man unless is using a foreign object. Under that view, men can rape women and other men, but women can only rape men by using an external object. Now, we all know that erection is a biologycal response and don’t implie consent from the men, so men can be sexually abuse by women. Another thing about this article that I believe is a missundertanding and a myth is the idea de power and anger are the most common reason for rape. That’s a theory that hasen’t been completly proven nor is universally accepted by the scientific community. Actually many scientist believe that sexual motivation is the most common reason for rape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer2000 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

re: "its very hard to force and erection", this is untrue. Female victims also display the physiological changes generally associated with sexual arouse including sometimes orgasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbazumba (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

recent edits
IMO, most of the recent edits were very good. I have restored three refs that I believe are important to the topic. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More re-writing, it's actually sourced now, though the presentation links aren't my favourite. I've removed two ELs - the geocities link on the history of rape was to geocities, and was not really about the motivation of rape, and was not even solely about rape.  The Csun link had three dead links and perhaps eight unlinked journal articles.  I didn't see the point in including it as I really, really doubt eight articles is comprehensive.  If they're good articles, find them, cite them and expand the page with them.  WLU (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good edits. I have added one book and a url to the other book. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Undid both. As stated here, further reading should not duplicate content already cited in the page; Ellis is cited three times already, which is quite adequate.  The link to the APA sales site was also removed - the reason ISBNs are provided is so there is no need to link to, and promote, a specific sales site.  There's a policy or guideline somewhere I think, I coud try to find it if you're really interested.  WLU (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree about Ellis book. Had provided this URL http://books.apa.org/books.cfm?id=4316047 to give information about the book. Please provide guideline on sales sites when you can. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Book sources, which all ISBN fields that are filled out link to. There's also WP:ELNO, #5.  I've asked an admin, but really there's just no need.  What does the sales page add?  The publisher is already in the template and wikilinked to boot.  The summary of the book can't really be added or cited, and doesn't really help the page anyway.  I really don't see the difference between linking to this page versus linking to an amazon sales page, and no-one does that.  Did the summary of contents have anything you consider really useful to the page?  Otherwise I see it as spam/advertising, even if it is to a non-profit that publishes a lot of good, reliable content.  For me, spam is spam, even if it's with good intentions (and I've no doubt of that).  If User:Jfdwolff responds to my comment I'll post you a message, or if anything else turns up, but I've a whisper of a memory that I read it in response to a dialogue on a talk page with someone, and I don't know who.  WLU (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Brownmiller and Rape
I'd like to propose adding a notation to the section relating Susan Brownmiller's theories to the effect that her viewpoints represent second-wave feminism. The reason for this is that not all feminists share her views on rape, and she is considered by some to be quite an extremist on the subject. Though I am among feminists who consider Brownmiller to be far too extreme in this regard, I do recommend her book "Against Our Will", simply for its thought-provoking nature.

Nevertheless, it would be appropriate to find some NPOV way, in the article, to note that Brownmiller does not speak for all feminists. -Kasreyn (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

== Some[who?] argue that the capacity or propensity to rape is adaptive in the sense that biologically, men with genes which increase their propensity to rape may have had more children, furthering the s ==

The scientifically pursued notion of a "genetical predisposition" towards rape, homosexuality, insanity or any other "abnormal" forms of behavior is ultimately a politically motivated enforcement of materialistic ideology. The innitial psychological value for coping with a possibly shaming experience is grossly outweighted by the implied genetical inferiority of such a "claimed" genetic disposition. The biological ability to rape, be gay or mad can be detected in all human races and cultures. Yet in the oldest prevailing forms of human cultures men have little say in choosing their mates and have little notion towards aggression. Anyway the assumption that intra-species aggression leads to an evolutionary advantage is a social-darwinistic artefact. Animals usually do not harm others of their kind. If they would, it would be a disadvantage for the other individual in exchange for offsprings that maybe have a higher inclination towards intra-species aggression. The fierce male lion can be frequently seen to jump and kill animals of far greater proportions, yet when two adolescent males meet, even with females in heat around, there is seldom more than posing involved. Also the notion that it could have been difficult for our ancestors to conceive is hilarious. Not conception is difficult but nourishment of offsprings. The perceived difficulty to successfully procreate stems from the inventions of ownership of land/recources and labour for nourishment. Before that time intra-species aggression might have been useful as deterent/didactic. Then, when we arrive at inter-species violence of noticable levels, i wonder how genetics can assume the replacement of one individual for another to be of evolutionary value and how they define that value to be of evolutionary proportion. Breed and cull might be the correct term here. Incidentally woman do not fancy being raped and frequently show strong avoidance behavior. Since the world is full and flight takes money they have to settle for the "security" of associating with "successful" individuals or groups emitting the right kind of aggression/power. Suggesting that this could have been a successful tactic in early years when space was plenty, food was free and brothers and sisters numbering in the dozens is beyond me. Dominating in western cultures these phaenomenons have nothing to do with evolution. (Sorry for reposting here and not deleting under "Page move") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.89.237 (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)