Rape culture then and now.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
You know, this is an interesting read...

BUT . . . where is the OP's sources? What archaeological studies are showing this?

I've seen quite a few documentaries and articles but this is what made me do the thread.

rss.earwolf.com...


A cracked interview with an anthropologist.

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You also can't deny that we are far and away the most violent, destructive, and vindictive form of ape, and violence is traditionally and naturally the sphere of males moreso than females. Bonobos, conversely, don't seem particularly combative or violent at all.

Bonobos are monogamous though right? So we are both agreeing that wasn't the earliest form of human culture.
Edited: nevermind bonobos are theorized and genetically the closest to us.

Maybe it is an obo that's monogamous..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You also can't deny that we are far and away the most violent, destructive, and vindictive form of ape, and violence is traditionally and naturally the sphere of males moreso than females. Bonobos, conversely, don't seem particularly combative or violent at all.

Bonobos are monogamous though right? So we are both agreeing that wasn't the earliest form of human culture.

I assumed they are polyamorous? Maybe we'll need to check that.

But in any case, we're both agreeing that monogamy wasn't the norm. I would concede a degree of polyamory, but not to the degree of this "prehistoric free love" narrative that they are trying to push (probably with some political motivations). There was still a defined hierarchy, it wasn't sexual equality like some people might suggest. I doubt "every dude got some" to the same degree, I think certain "dudes" "got some" to a far greater extent than others.

Hmmm, this would seem pretty conclusive to me. I know it's after the invention of agriculture, but it still seems very significant:

psmag.com...

I've also read the statistic somewhere that only 20% of all male Homo sapiens ever passed on their genes (i.e. we are only descended from 20% of male Homo sapiens that ever existed) meanwhile 60% of females passed on their genes to us. So this means that according to the overall historical trend, only 20% of males ever successfully reproduced while 60% of females were able to reproduce.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Monogamy is a weaponized lie designed to propagate the fairy tale of "morality".

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Monogamy is a weaponized lie designed to propagate the fairy tale of "morality".

All the trite, constantly repeated clichés jam-packed into a single insipid one-liner post. Congratulations, sir.

Please continue and tell us about how "religion kills people", and how "everything is relative." Etc Etc. We certainly need some more of these highly original insights on this website.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Interesting topic, but it probably isn't going to go over too well.

This type of topic requires one to completely push ALL emotion aside in order to discuss, for 99.9 percent of people that is impossible.

I've often tried to discuss such things, and similar topics involving sex and attraction from a subconscious biological(programmed) perspective. VERY few people do not get immediately angry or emotional about such subjects.

Just wait my next one is going to be on the absence of homosexuality in hunter gather cultures.. which deserves way more elaboration than this post will give lol.

Your post will be surprised at the material I have on it.

a reply to: Talorc

And your comments are not trite and cliched either?

In the war of the cliche, the idiot is the one who believes they have something new to say under this glorious sun of ours.

I think the hypothesis of penis size in determining which male reproduces is erroneous. Just because sometimes the alpha male "might" be larger is quite irrelevant.
There are a number of parameters that have to be took into consideration before you could even correlate any theory.
1. the comparison between humans and animals cannot be used as humans use sex for pleasure and only a few animals do.
2. You must differentiate sex. Sex for pleasure or sex for procreation.
As with most animals sex is used solely for procreation and happens at periods when the female is receptive. Rape in the animal kingdom could only be construed as forced sex when the female is not in heat, therefore will reject any male including the alpha. Yet when in heat she will, as been shown in studies, have sex with other males superstitiously without the alpha knowing.
Whereas humans, in ancient times, had sex with the males who could provide for them. ie. food and shelter.
I think the monogamous part came in when they discovered (to use the Bible even though you don't like it) that unlike the animal kingdom where incest is the norm that sticking to one mate reduces the chances of in breeding and therefore a healthier tribe.
Rape therefore (And the devastating effects) could be laid to how society "blames" the victim and how the victim sees themselves being treated in said society. The majority of the time rape is a power thing not a sexual thing.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Monogamy is a weaponized lie designed to propagate the fairy tale of "morality".

This is probably the truest thing I have ever read anywhere ever, thanks

originally posted by: FHomerK
In the war of the cliche, the idiot is the one who believes they have something new to say under this glorious sun of ours.

I have always said that there are no new stories, there are just old stories retold

originally posted by: Talorc
Hmmm, this would seem pretty conclusive to me. I know it's after the invention of agriculture, but it still seems very significant:

psmag.com...

I've also read the statistic somewhere that only 20% of all male Homo sapiens ever passed on their genes (i.e. we are only descended from 20% of male Homo sapiens that ever existed) meanwhile 60% of females passed on their genes to us. So this means that according to the overall historical trend, only 20% of males ever successfully reproduced while 60% of females were able to reproduce.

That's interesting.. I wonder if they can tell genetic bottle necks occurred or how long trends lasted...

200000 years is plenty for variation

originally posted by: crayzeed
I think the hypothesis of penis size in determining which male reproduces is erroneous. Just because sometimes the alpha male "might" be larger is quite irrelevant.
There are a number of parameters that have to be took into consideration before you could even correlate any theory.
1. the comparison between humans and animals cannot be used as humans use sex for pleasure and only a few animals do.
2. You must differentiate sex. Sex for pleasure or sex for procreation.
As with most animals sex is used solely for procreation and happens at periods when the female is receptive. Rape in the animal kingdom could only be construed as forced sex when the female is not in heat, therefore will reject any male including the alpha. Yet when in heat she will, as been shown in studies, have sex with other males superstitiously without the alpha knowing.
Whereas humans, in ancient times, had sex with the males who could provide for them. ie. food and shelter.
I think the monogamous part came in when they discovered (to use the Bible even though you don't like it) that unlike the animal kingdom where incest is the norm that sticking to one mate reduces the chances of in breeding and therefore a healthier tribe.
Rape therefore (And the devastating effects) could be laid to how society "blames" the victim and how the victim sees themselves being treated in said society. The majority of the time rape is a power thing not a sexual thing.

It's not about women choosing larger penises for pleasure, it's about creating a suction to remove the previous persons sperm and release yours as close to the egg as possible.

We also have only been discussing primates which do have sex for pleasure and rape... at least chimps do.

Pertaining to rape the banobo and chimps are both our closest relatives and chimps are lead by the males and have rape and infanticide.... the banobos are led by the females and have never had a documented case of either.

The saying goes that "chimps use violence to get sex and banobos use sex to stop violence."

Super interesting stuff.

Plus incest genetically is WAY over played in modern society.

We think it would cause like a 40% defect rate amongst kids when the rate is really only a couple percent more than your average birth.

thread closed for staff review