Why is rape such a big deal?

[Cornfed]

But still, humans are the only animals that have this notion of rape. Other animal species rape each other all the time and that's just how sex happens. The circle of life. Kumbaya!

Yeah, the whole modern notion of rape is utterly ridiculous if you actually think it though. But that is exactly what the elite want so they can criminalize all sexual contact between females and non-elite men.

[Cornfed]

Incidentally, perhaps someone could help me resolve an apparent paradox in the apparent majority opinion of posters on this forum. When I pointed out that male stupid assholes had the highest reproductive fitness and therefore Western skanks wanted to be impregnated by them in another thread, most posters seemed to agree that this indeed was the situation, agree that this was a problem and perhaps agree that the problem would destroy society if left unchecked. Yet in this thread, when I propose the only known antidote to this problem (and express views fully consistent with every major traditional religion) this is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic by most people. What gives?

Is it possible that most posters here are actually feminist religious fanatics and, like all good religious fanatics, believe that the tenets of their religion (e.g. that women should whimsically decide when to have sex on a case by case basis) should be practised regardless of the consequences? If so, perhaps someone could explain why. Islamic suicide bombers are prepared to end their own lives presumably because they believe it will net them a bunch of virgins and comfy chairs in the hereafter. What exactly is the payoff for feminist religionists? Why are they prepared to advocate things they know will ruin their own society?

[rudder]

Incidentally, perhaps someone could help me resolve an apparent paradox in the apparent majority opinion of posters on this forum. When I pointed out that male stupid assholes had the highest reproductive fitness and therefore Western skanks wanted to be impregnated by them in another thread, most posters seemed to agree that this indeed was the situation, agree that this was a problem and perhaps agree that the problem would destroy society if left unchecked. Yet in this thread, when I propose the only known antidote to this problem (and express views fully consistent with every major traditional religion) this is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic by most people. What gives?

Is it possible that most posters here are actually feminist religious fanatics and, like all good religious fanatics, believe that the tenets of their religion (e.g. that women should whimsically decide when to have sex on a case by case basis) should be practised regardless of the consequences? If so, perhaps someone could explain why. Islamic suicide bombers are prepared to end their own lives presumably because they believe it will net them a bunch of virgins and comfy chairs in the hereafter. What exactly is the payoff for feminist religionists? Why are they prepared to advocate things they know will ruin their own society?

I was just thinking about that particular post. That is the reason I came on here. I remember thinking it was very clever. Can you post a link to it?

[Cornfed]

I was just thinking about that particular post. That is the reason I came on here. I remember thinking it was very clever. Can you post a link to it?

viewtopic.php?t=20929

[FreeWanderer]

Its a couple of things-

1. Rape can be massively confusing for a woman, especially if she has had very little sexual experience prior to the rape. As opposed to men, whose brain drives their bodies (most of the time), women are vessels whose bodies drive them, and there brains are after thoughts trying to make sense of what body is deciding. In the event of rape for a woman, the woman will be experiencing sexual intercourse and all of the feelings and sensations that go along with it; Many woman are ashamed to say that they actually "enjoyed" sex with their rapist, meaning they did feel some sort of "pleasure" amidst the attack. The memory of the rape does not go away- if she is a virgin, the rape will become her "defining" experience with sex- which means she will have all kinds of conflicting feelings about sex for the rest of her life. Imagine- perhaps "fear" or extreme aggression become for that victim woman, the prerequisites for arousal? Maybe humiliation will become inextricably tied to her sexual feelings?

2. The SHAME of Rape is more damaging than act of rape itself. The media and everyone else keeps repeating how rape is the worst thing in the world, and these victim ladies take this shame to heart. Couple that with the fact that subject of rape is brought up EVERY DAY- and you have woman who have been raped, constantly thinking about that rape, reliving it, and then living with shame that they are damaged, violated, tainted- it does not lead to a healthy mindset. The memory of rape is always lurking in the background because our society makes it impossible for these women to move on.

3. It is a violation of women's illusion of control- in western society, women have been brainwashed into thinking that they are autonomous, independent women who can do anything and everything for themselves- they don't need a man! The violation of rape reveals just how vulnerable these women are. Their delusion of security is forever shattered because a man approached her, took what he wanted, and she had no say in the matter. THAT is why most women truly fear rape most of all, especially in western countries. If we are to look at muslim countries with a more fair-minded perspective, we would see that men over there care about their women MORE than we do in this country, because the men there know that women are weaker and more susceptible to rape, which is why it is ILLEGAL for women to be out in public by herself- its for her own damn protection!

[HouseMD]

Incidentally, perhaps someone could help me resolve an apparent paradox in the apparent majority opinion of posters on this forum. When I pointed out that male stupid assholes had the highest reproductive fitness and therefore Western skanks wanted to be impregnated by them in another thread, most posters seemed to agree that this indeed was the situation, agree that this was a problem and perhaps agree that the problem would destroy society if left unchecked. Yet in this thread, when I propose the only known antidote to this problem (and express views fully consistent with every major traditional religion) this is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic by most people. What gives?

Is it possible that most posters here are actually feminist religious fanatics and, like all good religious fanatics, believe that the tenets of their religion (e.g. that women should whimsically decide when to have sex on a case by case basis) should be practised regardless of the consequences? If so, perhaps someone could explain why. Islamic suicide bombers are prepared to end their own lives presumably because they believe it will net them a bunch of virgins and comfy chairs in the hereafter. What exactly is the payoff for feminist religionists? Why are they prepared to advocate things they know will ruin their own society?

Every religion is down with rape? Muslims consider rape so defiling they often kill a family member if they hear she had been raped, because she has lost her honor and will be damaged for life. Christians consider only sex within marriage to be acceptable. Maybe that means you could rape your wife from a Christian perspective, but no other woman.

Religions aren't really on the rape train, any more than you are on the sanity train.

[Cornfed]

Every religion is down with rape? Muslims consider rape so defiling they often kill a family member if they hear she had been raped, because she has lost her honor and will be damaged for life.

In those cases it is the loss of virginity that is the problem, rather than rape as such.

Christians consider only sex within marriage to be acceptable.

Bullshit, Christianity clearly endorses p4p and expresses no opinion on raping stray females, same as the Old Testament.

Maybe that means you could rape your wife from a Christian perspective, but no other woman.

Sex between husband and wife is not rape by definition.

[Winston]

Questions:

Is rape something natural to men? Why is it that in all ancient wars and battles, the troops that won would usually rape the women of their opponents? Even in WWII, it was reported that 2 million German women were raped by Russian soldiers, which led to some of them committing suicide.

Why is it that winning soldiers feel the need to rape women as well? Is it because if a man knows he can get away with raping a woman, and other men around him are doing it too, that he will do it?

If so, does that mean rape is somehow natural to men who want to take out their aggression on women or are horny after a long march and battle?

If you guys were part of an army that won a battle, and all the soldiers in your group were raping women, would you do it too? I know all of you will answer no to that, of course, but it's an interesting question to ask yourself.

[Cornfed]

Questions:

Is rape something natural to men? Why is it that in all ancient wars and battles, the troops that won would usually rape the women of their opponents?

Such behavior has obvious survival advantages for the species. When an enemy tribe attacks, the women of the defending tribe will hide and let the men fight it out. If the enemy wins, the women will immediately forget about their dead men and spread their legs for the conquering heroes. This ensures not only that the women survive, but that they gain a place in the hierarchy of the winning tribe and breed with the stronger and more cohesive men. Hence the breeding base is preserved and the quality of future generations is enhanced. (This also explains why men tend to be protective and public-spirited while women are almost universally cynical, selfish jerks. Such behavior in the respective sexes is selected for in such situations.) It is debatable whether what occurs constitutes rape, voluntary sex or some mixture. Really, the whole modern Western concept of rape hinging on "consent" is nonsense with no meaningful real-world application.

[Winston]

That's a great insight and explanation Cornfed. But that only explains the captured women's willingness to spread their legs. What about the motivations of the soldiers? Why would they rape the women? Weren't they taught by their parents and societies that rape was wrong?

Also, the women had no choice in the matter. So I wouldn't say that they were willing to spread their legs. They loved their husbands, so they would not be glad to submit to being raped by enemy soldiers just because they won. These are wives and human beings, not gremlins. Come on now.

[Cornfed]

That's a great insight and explanation Cornfed. But that only explains the captured women's willingness to spread their legs. What about the motivations of the soldiers? Why would they rape the women?

Why wouldn't they? - they get to have fun and spread their genetic material for free, and as stated their behavior will on average improve the gene pool.

Also, the women had no choice in the matter. So I wouldn't say that they were willing to spread their legs.

It is arguably somewhat of a mutual thing in many cases. The women could often choose to run away or fight alongside their men, but instead they wait out the battle and f**k the winners.

They loved their husbands, so they would not be glad to submit to being raped by enemy soldiers just because they won.

The point is that women do not love people in the way that men do, since there is a negative survival value in it for them. Any positive feelings they might have for particular men are instantly transferable.

[Wolfeye]

Cornfed- All that applies to the "stronger & more cohesive) men, too. Ever seen American History X? Someone doesn't TECHNICALLY have to be aroused to do something like that- since in the conventional situation, it's not the PRESENCE of that part of the male anatomy, but what is DONE with it. Thus- using a rifle, warclub, spear handle, or one's own hands would all work for the same action.

By-the-way: You figure that confrontational procreation is somehow tied to survival? Not very cohesive. A second ago you mentioned it as a plus in survivability.

And that survival is important, somehow? There's no objective reason for anything, including survival. What's the big deal? So the species survives? So? This keeps the planet from being a dead rock? So? Oh, that's right- It's not about survival, you just have a taste for torture. Screwing around & rape are different, since the latter is an instance of compulsion.

[Tsar]

Why is it that winning soldiers feel the need to rape women as well? Is it because if a man knows he can get away with raping a woman, and other men around him are doing it too, that he will do it?

Many of the winning soldiers might do it because that is a way to break their losing nations' morale. Virginity was held in very high regard and all men wanted a virgin bride. By raping the losing women, the soldiers destroyed the men of the other nation in other ways. It was basically another way of telling them that they lost more than their nation, lost more than their sovereignty, and lost more than victory. They lost most of their chance at finding a pure bride. An entire generation of men might have to settle for less or go somewhere else to find a suitable bride. Also, all the women that became pregnant from that rape would be outcasts or shunned by previous suitors, many husbands would leave their wives if such a thing occurred, and some families might not even be able to tolerate it because it would bring them shame.

Some of the winning soldiers might do it just because they can or because they are somewhat immoral. However, the underlying reason is that it was a form of destroying a nation by destroying an entire generation or two generations of their women. An entire generation of men would either wait for a new generation of women, settle for non-virgins (obviously it is not fornication, they had their virginity forcibly taken but that comes with a whole set of other emotional issues and potential post-traumatic stress disorder the women might relive with a future husband), or go elsewhere and abandon their own women. So that was destroying both the men and the women of the defeated nation.

Throughout most of history virginity was prized and most married women only had sex with their husband and lost their virginity to their husband. In the past rape destroyed both the women and the men, although it did so in different ways. The rape of a fornicator or adulterous woman might be traumatic for her, but in all reality it doesn't do her any damage like it would do if she was a virgin or she was a married woman who had only been with one man. Many people in the past wouldn't care if a whore was raped, but they would greatly care if a virgin girl or respectable married woman was raped then it was a major issue and the culprit had to be found.

Also, I don't believe that the captured women were willing to spread their legs. The winning soldiers might have attacked them, threatened them, or threatened to kill them so they might have done it to survive or avoid any extra pain. The survival instinct is present in every living creature. Sometimes they were also forced down, held down, or bound.

Many of the soldiers might not have any honor or feel they can take anything they want from the defeated party.

[Wolfeye]

Another point is that this type of attack wasn't only done in an overt way. Sometimes it was more low-key, like imposed medical procedures that included penetration. Holocaust experiments & imposed abortions are notable examples from history.

Same with various security measures. Running into problems with law enforcement is a big possibility (whether they're actual cops from the other country or the soldiers are working in that capacity). The components of a methodology don't cease to exist in their own right & something doesn't have to be useless to be a problem, anyway. This could be in terms of utility to the invading side, too.

These are more subtle tactics, but the situation still consists of an imposed interface with a sexual area (specifically, a penetrative one). Also, it doesn't have to go that far to be an attack (ex: groping, imposed nudity, supervised showering, etc...). Doesn't matter what genders are involved, either. Nobody says "Well, those Catholic priest were male just like those little boys- so there's no problem." A same-sex attack is exactly that. Not everything that occurs in an assault, but the things that are sometimes get painted as innocent & that can also contribute to making things more prevalent.