Male 'pervertedness' a natural rape instinct?

As it always takes two to tango what would be the point of evolution developing men to be perverts cos women always recoil at men glaring at them?

I was thinking one possible explanation is cos of rape and in the old days men developed this eye for a fresh piece of meat which may have strayed from the pack so that they could rape her. In that case it would negate the two to tango issue.

Nowadays since we can’t rape women we still have that evolved ‘rape instinct’- in the form of slobbering over any young nubile specimen which passes by us but get chastised or locked up if it is expressed so it must be subdued in this day and age -similar to violence. Violence and anger are also evolved instincts but we would suffer similar consequences for just acting on impulse.

That is the best evolutionary explanation I can thusfar think for it. Evolution is extremely economical about these things so wouldn’t have built it over millenia for nothing.

I don’t think this phenomenon has all that much to do with rape. Rape is a social construct; its definition has changed drastically in the last 100 years, let alone over the course of human evolution. In order to have evolved an ‘instinct’ for it, ‘it’ would need to be constant force over human history.

What you’re really saying is that men have evolved to ignore the negative social aspects of ogling women who don’t want to be ogled, because the positive evolutionary impact has been generally greater. You explain this because, you allege, in evolutionary history men could always just rape the woman. But a much easier explanation is the one that Churo offers: most women don’t mind being ogled. An additional supposition would have to be that the consequences of ogling a woman who does not want to be ogled are less negative than the consequences of not ogling a woman who does want to be ogled (or who would be receptive to sexual advances like being ogled).

Both of these seem better suppositions than that there is a strong rape instinct, both because of the flimsy ontological status of rape, and because the two seem to mesh with our experience: women wear most revealing clothing, they wear make-up, they are generally the sex that is advertising*; and ogling without being wanted even today has almost no negative social consequences, and through our evolution had even less. (It’s worth noting that rape has long had highly negative social consequences; even if the definition had been constant, it would most likely be selected against).

Churo, I’m not sure what you meant to show by pointing out that many women fantasize about rape, but if there is an evolutionary argument being made, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all women are sexually abused at some point in their life, and there are few avenues for dealing with the trauma. Taking your statistic at face value, we still can’t say whether there is an instinct for fantasizing about rape, or whether rape fantasy is an internalization of traumatic sexual experience.

*This is changing, and for good reason. In many other animal species, males are the ones who display. The reason for the difference across species is that the sex that advertises is determined by the relative abundance of access to the opposite sex. In many other species, because females bear a limited number of offspring at a time, there is an abundance of males and a scarcity of females, so males advertise to differentiate themselves. In humans, reproduction is a less valuable resource than social power, so women advertise to men to try to secure influence for their offspring. As women become socially enfranchised, men have begun advertising more.

Just a couple of quick comments:

I think we need to qualify this if we’re going to put it out there; I’d have to say this is almost entirely dependent upon the situation. It is one thing to have an attractive man give you the once-over at the local tavern; it is a completely different experience to walk past a group of low-lifes leering and making obnoxious gestures. I don’t know of any woman who finds that the slightest bit “flattering.”

And as for the rape fantasy comment, total non sequitur. A “rape fantasy” is not at all comparable to an actual rape.

OK, Anita… Are you ready for another three pages? Rape is nothing more than violence toward an individual or group. Who “advertises” is context laden. Ever watched the strutting peacocks at a beach? Males “advertise” just as much as any woman. Watch men suck in those guts when an attractive woman walks into the room. It would be hilarious if it weren’t pathetic. Men have to wear the right clothes, drive the right car, be seen flashing cash, etc. Males and females alike know the subtle “no vacancy” signs when they see them. But advertising “available” is equal for both sexes.

Rape is sex as a weapon used to denigrate, intimidate, and throw fear into an indivual or group. Rape is a tool. Remember Bosnia? What do you see in Darfur? There is no such thing as a “natural rape instinct”.

Yea I don’t buy the women advertise thing.

Fact is both sexes advertise to try and maximise their reproductive values, just in different ways. Women with their bodies, men with their resources- I include confidence and charisma etc. into resources for men as they are indirect indicators of resources which is why women like these traits.

I am fine to accept that the oogling is not a rape instinct if someone offers up a better argument for why it exists.

More than just oogling, going back to the it takes two to tango issue, why did evolution not evolve so that we both wanted it at the same time? I don;t mean in terms terms of why isn’t the sky dark red but more how did things come to be this way rather than a more economical way? You might say because we can’t be shagging all the time but if so why not just let men have a lower sex drive? I know that might be oversimplifying things but even so if that seems a naive question to ask, why is it so? Why are men always more after immediate gratification whereas women take more wooing to be ready for shagging- ? I mean more why has it evolved to be so rather than things being more harmonious?

The taking two to tango is my main bone of contention here cos to me this is a large discrepancy due to my aforementioned observation of evolution’s otherwise great economy; so it requires some explanation.

evo bio. says it’s cos women have higher risk when getting pregnant if the man shags and leaves her with child. I guess that answers my question actually. Now I think back to the evo bio books I’ve read they say that men will want to copulate as much as possible (due to low effort it takes to spread the seed) while the women will always be more choosy due to the high risk factor. It also says only the most high status men will ever get to satisfy their wandering eye (i.e. kings who can acquisition harems) as most men don’t have the resources for women to be willing to shag them.

Yep, I agree with that. Maybe I have a narrow perspective, but it just seems to me that it it still more likely that a woman will be approached even if there is a not-so-subtle “no vacancy” sign. Not that there aren’t women out there who will sexually harass a man, they are out there too.

I’m sorry but I still refuse to believe that it all comes down to this. Yes, there are those for whom this is the bottom line.

But there are those men and women for whom actual caring takes precedence over looks and resources. There are women who value character over salary, and men who believe the inner person is more important than the outer. I’m not saying looks/income are ever completely irrelevant, just that they aren’t necessarily the top factor.

The question is, is that way of prioritising part of their nature, or have they simply been deciplined/conditioned into letting some things take precedence over others?

Are they fighting their own instincts, in order to do so?

I didn’t say that other qualities were NOT a priority… only suggesting that they may not naturally take precedence, and that we might be elevating their position on our list of priorities forcefully or through circumstance.

Imagine you were looking for a one night thing… would you value looks over personality?
Imagine now that you were looking for a long term thing… would you value looks over personality?
Does it matter in which context you evaluate?

And when you do… what do you mostly look for, personality or looks?

So doctors and scientists… very kinky!

This is OT from OP but I’ll follow this line anyhow, however I predict it is going to incite another ‘back and forth’ but still might learn a thing or two so let’s go . I never disputed that personality was not also a quality.

For the record though whether you like it or not it is about an 80/20 split in favour of looks vs. personality for men and vice versa for women.

Sure in long term relationships men will be more interested in screening for personality but it’s still only 20% overall.

Survival and replication pwns all!

Men only rationalize ‘oh I ONLY go for intelligent women, I can’t bear airheads’ cos they are betas and so can’t get airheads and so make excuses to the effect of ‘I didn’t want that type of girl anyway’. Watch how quick such rationalizations would go out the window should he get a genuine opp. to mate with one of said airheads. Just as a thought experiment how many UGLY airheads do you know? Sure I know plenty of dumb people- probably 98% of the population but the ugly dummies generally have had to develop their personalities at least a bit more, to develop some amicable qualities so as not to be totally judged on their looks and crushed by the cruel and unjust survival and rep instinct of others. I mean the uglies are still dumb but they must develop qualities such as friendliness and loyalty vs. the airheads who have a callous disregard for any human who doesn’t offer them something (i.e. high status). This is the same for all humans I won’t deny but for them the status issue it is amped up to the max.

Again a thought experiment- how many scholarly HOT MODELS have you come across (perhaps some will say I am being grossly judgmental and beneath their plastic exterior lies boundless depths of wisdom and intellect )? Maybe one or two of natures ‘lucky hits’; ones like Ivanka Trump who were born with looks but also with wealth and parents who encouraged them to also get a good mind (not saying trump is an intellectual cannon but an example of a bit more development than the average vacuous soul who skates only on her looks) but this is an extreme minority and in general as selection pressures select so strongly for looks in women.

Yes I am making the ‘broad generalization’ that the hotter the girl the more of an airhead she is. This comes from thousands of interactions I have had so is based in solid empirical data not just my ‘misogynistic bent’. To say it is not so is just wishful thinking. If someone has good genetics and are female they are going to be shunted into scenes which encourage them to not train their mind; similar to how if someone had immense genetics for running say then it’s quite likely they would get selected for into some kind of athletic pursuit. Following the analogy of the world class runner, even thoguh they, just like airhead women, have the potential to become intellectual prodigies they do not because their ‘particular excellence’ (as Aristotle would say) lies in running, and primping ones looks for women. This goes just the same for said intellectual prodigies- they develop their minds at the expense of social experience that is why so many like Newton are lifelong virgin and otherwise extremely socially awkward- aka NERDS. Stereotypes abound but from my experience we live in a world of stereotypes and it is only the rarest of nature’s lucky hits, who ‘resist categorization’ (to take a Nietzschean term) who are those higher men/women who allow me to retain at least a shred of hope for humanity knowing it is not solely a vacuous abyss- but these are so few from my experiences that I could probably count them on one hand.

Thing is with hot women their genetics are in broad daylight 24/7 (unless caught w/o makeup, lol!) so this is going to be a constant selection pressure rather than for something more hidden like a person’s genetics for speed/intelligence or whatever.

Where is cyrene, the stalwart of evo. bio? I want him to weigh in on this.

Animals don’t rape, in fact such an action may be seen by the pack as good behaviour in their more socially limited environment because it makes them more evolutionarily fit and in return becomes a part of their instinct. I know its been said before but the question should be posed only in terms of the social construct in which it happens. That said rape isn’t a natural instinct, lust is though clearly, self control is seen as a virtue therefore.

There is nothing perverted about lust it is why there are nigh on 7 billion of us on the planet. But rape is an act of “theft” or “property violation” that is intrinsically seen to be wrong by almost all societies, because of the far reaching effect it has beyond the crime itself.

Well, it’s one part of our nature to be attracted by good looks. But it’s also a part of our nature to employ reason. We do it all the time without griping about have to “suppress our natural instincts.” Suppressing undesirable behavior IS “natural." We’ve evolved with that capability because it, too, helps us survive and propagate.

Men have to rationalize going for intelligent women? They’d prefer airheads? Good to know.

I’m curious to wonder where ‘reason’ is employed, should ‘morality’ be a natural adjunct with it? Should human rights be equated with moral and ethical aspects? Would “do unto others as you would expect to have done unto you” encompass all of those questioned assumptions?

Exactly.

So what we need here is a judgement that prioritising in our instinctive way is “undesirable”… by having them result in undesirable consequences.
But if all we do is make publicly admitting your instinctive priorities an undesirable behavior… then we get allot of really good liers.

“Wow… I love how smart you are”
Shut up and sleep with me already!
“You know, I really admire the way you handled that situation”
Nice ass
“I really feel comfortable around you, like I can be myself”
I wish!

Of course long term monogamous relationships do tend to reveal the “undesirable consequences” of hooking up with an airhead looker rather than an average looking chick who can actually keep you interested outside the bedroom.

So you might want to keep fooling around until you actually find a good looking chick with brains, before you settle down… or failing that, go for the LEAST ugly one who is also good company.

I don’t agree that exhibiting a little self-control is lying.

If you really don’t feel like going to the gym one day, but you make yourself go anyway, is that lying?

When you’d like to skip work, but you go in to the office anyway, are you lying?

When, at the end of a long, exhausting day, you read your kid a bedtime story even though you really just want to put your feet up with a glass of wine, are you lying?

If you withhold making advances toward someone you know either isn’t ready or just plain doesn’t want them, how is that lying?

We deny our own urges all the time, we sacrifice instant gratification on a regular basis, because ultimately it is in our best interest to do so.

As a number of people pointed out, I should have been more precise than the term ‘advertise’, because there is a degree of advertising done by both sexes. Rather, what I meant was that women have historically more determined by their physical assets, while men have been more determined by their social status, and these are the attributes that they advertised (again, in the past, this is becoming less true as society moves further into the technological age). JT, men do advertise physically, but this is a fairly modern occurrence, and it is still significantly less prevalent than female physical displays.

The analogy to peacocks is misleading, because for non-human animals, physical attributes and social success are highly correlated, e.g. the male deer’s antlers are large to display worthiness as a mate, and become large in response to his success in getting resources, which is essentially what determines his worthiness as a mate. In humans, very unhealthy individuals can maintain high social status, and still be desirable mates for their control of resources (like the Hapsburgs).

Anita, I don’t think Mad Man meant that going to the gym when you don’t want to is lying, but rather that making taboo to talk about how you don’t want to go to the gym will force you to lie if you don’t want to go to the gym. The point seems to be make an accepted distinction between having instinctual urges and acting on them, making one morally permitted and the other morally abhorred. Is that right, MMP?

I wasn’t really making a moral argument, but that’s the distinction I’m trying to make.

If you want to have men or women prioritise the qualities they look for in a mate differently than what is natural for them to do (and I’m not saying what the natural priorities are), then you need to make the consequences of selecting a mate via natural priorities less desirable than when they select one with the priorities you’d like them to adopt.

Failing that, you can’t make admitting your priorities the “undesirable behavior” and expect the same results.

So for example, if women end up “punishing” the guys that honestly tell them what they want from them and why they want it, yet reward the guys, who lie about it… well guess what… a great many of them will start lying!

Suddenly the better looking you are, the more you get told how smart you are or how wonderful a person you are…
Or the more rich you get, the better a lover you become…

Then please explain the stuffed codpiece of the 17th century. I’d say that the methods or content of male advertising have changed. Females weren’t accustomed to seeing hard bodies wearing thongs until quite recently, but males advertised by showing physical prowess or skills. Males strived to be the “best” at whatever they were doing. Og was the best hunter. He ALWAYS brought home the bacon. Lancealittle ALWAYS won the jousting tournament. I guess the only males that failed at advertising were the philosophers. They never got laid! I agree that females wear a little more lipstick (till recently) and their advertising is perhaps a little more visual, but men play Action Jackson for the very same reasons. Different sex, different methods.

This really belongs in the psy forum.

[b]Women are instinctively more attracted to signs of power in a male.

Men are more instinctively drawn toward signs of a means to obtain more power from a female.
[/b]
It is of course subjective from both genders (not “sexes”), but at the root, it is an issue of power being sought. When social power is on the mind, more socially powerful men (the respected) appear more attractive to the female while the male will seek out the more socially acceptable female so as to ensure his status. When hunger is on the mind, the greater hunter appears more attractive to the female, while to the male, the better assistant is more attractive. When hopelessness is on the mind, the wiser male appears more attractive to the female, while the more loving female is sought by the male. Each represents the power to achieve what is perceived as missing. It all depends on what is on their mind (and heart).

It ain’t rocket science.