Rape culture then and now.

I really hope I can adequately translate my thoughts here, but its gonna be tough not to be misunderstood with the subject matter.


Modern anthropologists have turned the idea of pre- historical nuclear families on its head.

The present theories all speculate that the nuclear family arose along side agriculture as humanity transitioned from hunter gatherer societies and there is a lot of evidence to back this up. There are a lot of biological triggers that suggest we were not only polyamorous for the vast majority of human history, but had absolutely no consept of monogamy.

When compared to the other great apes , From penis shape and size , to orgasm frequency, to the comparison of body size from male to female and many others it's obvious we have far more incommon with our polyamourous primate kin than we do with the OBO which is monogamous.

Also almost none of the still existing hunter gather cultures (such as in the amazon) practice monogamy and also most consider both males and females equal.

While looking into the subject it made me wonder how such an anchient society would deal with rape??

Without the post agricultural cultural training we have all received, would sex and things like rape hold the same significance??

In modern times some one who is raped , male or female is devastated!! Filled with feelings of violation and like they have been permently scared and/or ruined.

Well without our social conditioning was that always the case?? Or was it once no big deal to have sex with dozens of people some of which were against your will??

If you remove the societal triggers would ancient man have viewed rape as no different than the way we presently view being punched in the nose???

Sure getting punched hurts, but it doesn't carry any lasting psychological damage..

No one would consider them selves ruined for life after taking one on the chin...

Is all of the negative psychological effects of rape 100% do to more advanced civilizations attempts to individually own property , which placed a premium on insuring any offspring you raised were actually yours so they could inherit said property??

These new frontiers of anthropology are just intensely fascinating.....there are a thousand things we just assume is part of the human condition which really might be way more human conditioning..

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.

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.

Old Testament law equates the victim of rape with the victim of murder;
"To the young woman you shall do nothing... for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbour"- Deuteronomy ch22 v26

The natural version of reproductive liaison in humans is likely a haram-type system-- one male having access to a multitude of females whilst lesser males are basically deprived of access until they either reach full maturity or achieve some kind of dominance or alpha status.

This dynamic is clearly visible in orangutans, close relatives of ours. "Flanged males" (I.e. males with flanges) are physically far larger and more imposing than unflanged males, and retain almost exclusive access to the females of social group. The flanges serve as a kind of "peacocking" effect or ostensible signifiers of that male's sexually dominant status. There is even a very strange dynamic whereby unflanged males will forcibly "stealth-mate" with females (basically what we might call rape) in order to have reproductive access.

This idea is very uncomfortable for most people to entertain, and our cultural conditioning makes it basically taboo. But rest assured that all the bromides about everyone being equal in the capacity for (sexual) romance and the capacity to be the object of (sexual) romantic love are utterly false at a fundamental level.

I encourage you to make that other thread, should be interesting.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Old Testament law equates the victim of rape with the victim of murder;
"To the young woman you shall do nothing... for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbour"- Deuteronomy ch22 v26

A: the Old Testament was WELL after agriculture.. like millinia after.

B: that was referring to sleeping with a free married woman. It was about how the male involved had been dishonored. It was not because of the act of rape. Highlighted by the fact raping your slaves was legal and raping your wife was legal.

C: adultery was also considered an executionable offense in the Bible.

So the Bible doesn't have a problem with rape...it has a problem with banging another guys wife (property).

originally posted by: Talorc
The natural state of reproductive liaison in humans is likely a haram-type system-- one male having access to a multitude of females whilst lesser males are basically deprived of access until they either reach full maturity or achieve some kind of dominance of alpha status.

This dynamic is clearly visible in orangutans, close relatives of ours. "Flanged males" (I.e. males with flanges) are physically far larger and more imposing than unflanged males, and retain almost exclusive access to the females of social group. The flanges serve as a kind of "peacocking" effect or ostensible signifiers of that male's sexually dominant status. There is even a very strange dynamic whereby unflanged males will forcibly "stealth-mate" with females (basically what we might call rape) in order to have reproductive access.

This idea is very uncomfortable for most people to entertain, and our cultural conditioning makes it basically taboo. But rest assured that all the bromides about everyone being equal in the capacity for romance and the capacity to be romantically loved are utterly false at a fundamental level.

I encourage you to make that other thread, should be interesting.

Nope...


You can tell the difference there with the ratio of body size compared to the other primates.

Male Gorillas are twice the side of females because they have a Haram
type system. Only the biggest and strongest alpha males breed so there is a premium on size amongst males. Also gorillas have super tiny penises because all infasis is on combat to be the alpha male.


Obos are monogamous and have the same size males and females and small penises. Because being monagamous there is no competition.. no need to be bigger or have a bigger winki.


The apes we match are all polyamourous, everyone is banging everyone.. that's why we are slightly bigger than females but also have huge penises (from personal experience..jk lol). Because we would all gangbang each other so longer penises meant your closer to her eggs when you pop..a little bigger to deal with the inter tribal jealousies amongst males.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I honestly doubt it, I don't think you can prove your thesis as easily as I can.

For one, there seems to be a naturally protective or "possessive" tendency in humans that presumably be absent in a fully polyamorous species. Plus the fact that there actually is a fairly significant difference in male-to-female proportions, which may even have been 'more' pronounced in prehistory.

We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

originally posted by: Talorc
The natural state of reproductive liaison in humans is likely a haram-type system-- one male having access to a multitude of females whilst lesser males are basically deprived of access until they either reach full maturity or achieve some kind of dominance of alpha status.

This dynamic is clearly visible in orangutans, close relatives of ours. "Flanged males" (I.e. males with flanges) are physically far larger and more imposing than unflanged males, and retain almost exclusive access to the females of social group. The flanges serve as a kind of "peacocking" effect or ostensible signifiers of that male's sexually dominant status. There is even a very strange dynamic whereby unflanged males will forcibly "stealth-mate" with females (basically what we might call rape) in order to have reproductive access.

This idea is very uncomfortable for most people to entertain, and our cultural conditioning makes it basically taboo. But rest assured that all the bromides about everyone being equal in the capacity for romance and the capacity to be romantically loved are utterly false at a fundamental level.

I encourage you to make that other thread, should be interesting.

Also about the equality thing, most hunter gather cultures have equality amongst the sexes... or at worst the separation of the sexes where all the women and men click up and support each other.

There is an modern hunter gatherer society in the amazon (I think) where every morning all the women run around camp singing "bring us meat" and then banging in a guys hut to tell him " hey if you bring home meat today from hunting I will bang you."

Then the men go hunting separately but meet up before returning to camp and split up the meat so everyone has some when they return to the village....and everyone gets laid!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
If you remove the societal triggers would ancient man have viewed rape as no different than the way we presently view being punched in the nose???

Sure getting punched hurts, but it doesn't carry any lasting psychological damage..

But it can carry lasting psychological damage. Victims of (nonsexual) assault have most of the same exact symptoms of rape, including anxiety of the environment and introversion from contact. For at least a few months every noise and sudden movement will trigger their traumatic response. People become very nervous and wary in this time.

So, you're making an incorrect assumption and comparing it.

This is all not to even cover the topic of sacred sex, ie the Indian, Cambodian, many ancient cultures view that sex is sacred. Being punched in the face is not even comparable to having the temple defiled so to speak. I understand you're arguing that that is solely because of culture, but I disagree. We can even look to modern male dominated culture like in India and even though women are expected to obey, they don't react differently to activities against their will.

Also, homosexuality exists in animals, so that thread is already dead.

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I honestly doubt it, I don't think you can prove your thesis as easily as I can.

For one, there seems to be a naturally protective or "possessive" tendency in humans that presumably be absent in a fully polyamorous species. Plus the fact that there actually is a fairly significant difference in male-to-female proportions, which may even have been 'more' pronounced in prehistory.

We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

Then why do gorillas have super small penises and we have huge ones..relatively lol??

Why are the haram apes way bigger than the 20% bigger human males are??

What is it only the polyamourous primates that have big penises?

Most inportanltly why do we have plunger shaped penis heads?? The prevailing theory is to scoop the previous guys sperm out during thrusting?

Why do still existing hunter gather cultures not use harams?


If I'm right yours is the previously held ideas that modern anthropologists are disproving.

You know, this is an interesting read...

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

originally posted by: Talorc
We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

Our modern society isn't really monogamous, that's the ideal, but not the reality.
Research has shown that almost 60 percent of men and over 45 percent of women will cheat at some point in their marriages. Affairs affect 1 out of every 2.7 couples. That's more than a third.
I know quite a few men who have more than one woman in their lives. Legitimately, without cheating. Its called being polyamorous, I myself have practiced polyfidelity and those type of relationships make me very happy. I know you're thinking with two women, who wouldn't be, but it was the shared love of each other that brought the happiness, the crazy threesome sex was just a bonus. So its the bonding, not the sex. It also decreased the approaches by predatory single men, because generally they couldn't understand why the women were so happy and when men don't understand something, they have a tendency to ignore it. So I think from personal experience in truly poly cultures, rape wouldn't be so prevalent.

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
If you remove the societal triggers would ancient man have viewed rape as no different than the way we presently view being punched in the nose???

Sure getting punched hurts, but it doesn't carry any lasting psychological damage..

But it can carry lasting psychological damage. Victims of (nonsexual) assault have most of the same exact symptoms of rape, including anxiety of the environment and introversion from contact. For at least a few months every noise and sudden movement will trigger their traumatic response. People become very nervous and wary in this time.

So, you're making an incorrect assumption and comparing it.

This is all not to even cover the topic of sacred sex, ie the Indian, Cambodian, many ancient cultures view that sex is sacred. Being punched in the face is not even comparable to having the temple defiled so to speak. I understand you're arguing that that is solely because of culture, but I disagree. We can even look to modern male dominated culture like in India and even though women are expected to obey, they don't react differently to activities against their will.

Also, homosexuality exists in animals, so that thread is already dead.

Are Cambodians still hunter gatherers? We are talking pre agriculture.

The VAST majority of people assaulted are not scarred for life by the incident.

The majority of rape victims are..or at least that is considered to be the case. I can't speak from personal experience one way or the other.

Which is why rape is a felony that carries tears and permently kills your social status, while getting punched is a mistermeaner that is doubtful to be prosecuted.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I couldn't really argue for or against the penis stuff, I haven't looked into it enough.

But, it may be a mistake to assume that modern Amazonian tribes are a perfectly pristine and anachronistic example that can be compared to early humans in the Paleolithic. Sure, they are a better comparison than any other modern group, and their mode of subsistence is the same, but it seems likely that they've probably developed their own distinctive cultures and tribal customs that might partly explain that odd "meat" custom you're referring to. These people have not existed in some kind of stasis for thousands of years; there wouldn't be an exact correlation with our distant ancestors.

Here is some science in support of my argument:

evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu... oduction-wobber-et-al-2013.original.pdf

It turns out that make bonobos have consistent testosterone levels throughout their lifetimes, not much affected by infancy and adolescence vs. full maturity. They do not undergo a "testosterone storm" during adolescence and early maturity. Human males, by contrast, get hit hard with a testosterone surge during puberty and the levels increase dramatically from childhood to adulthood.

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I honestly doubt it, I don't think you can prove your thesis as easily as I can.

For one, there seems to be a naturally protective or "possessive" tendency in humans that presumably be absent in a fully polyamorous species. Plus the fact that there actually is a fairly significant difference in male-to-female proportions, which may even have been 'more' pronounced in prehistory.

We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

Polyamory would be dead in the middle of a monogomous and a haram style culture lol.

The polyamourous apes still get in tussles over women and such. Haram style only the alpha breeds. With polyamourous maybe the alpha breeds first, but everyone else does as well.


Also how much of our present jealousy has evolved since agriculture?? That's 10,000+ years of societal evolution to change the possession from a tribal (everyone is possessed by everyone) to a family unit (I only possess my family).

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Talorc
We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

Our modern society isn't really monogamous, that's the ideal, but not the reality.
Research has shown that almost 60 percent of men and over 45 percent of women will cheat at some point in their marriages. Affairs affect 1 out of every 2.7 couples. That's more than a third.
I know quite a few men who have more than one woman in their lives. Legitimately, without cheating. Its called being polyamorous, I myself have practiced polyfidelity and those type of relationships make me very happy. I know you're thinking with two women, who wouldn't be, but it was the shared love of each other that brought the happiness, the crazy threesome sex was just a bonus. So its the bonding, not the sex. It also decreased the approaches by predatory single men, because generally they couldn't understand why the women were so happy and when men don't understand something, they have a tendency to ignore it. So I think from personal experience in truly poly cultures, rape wouldn't be so prevalent.

From what I've observed, human females tend to form preoccupations and attachments to specific males more easily than males do the converse. This would also lend support to the idea of a mild haram-type tendency, in that it's easier for multiple females to share a male than vice-versa.

Modern culture throws a wrench into though and distorts things. Women are basically told now that its "cool" to be a nympho when young and this affects their behavior.

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.

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.

But how much of that predates agriculture??


In a polyamourous tribal society you would still have "wars" with competeing tribes and fights over who got to get laid first.

A haram society wouldn't allow other males to breed at all if he can help it, and then tends to kill any kids it doesn't think are his.

With polyamory all kids are assumed to be everyone's kids and everyone is allowed to breed , just still in an alpha order.

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Talorc
We aren't really like bonobos. Not like gorillas either, likely somewhere situated in the "middle."

Our modern society isn't really monogamous, that's the ideal, but not the reality.
Research has shown that almost 60 percent of men and over 45 percent of women will cheat at some point in their marriages. Affairs affect 1 out of every 2.7 couples. That's more than a third.
I know quite a few men who have more than one woman in their lives. Legitimately, without cheating. Its called being polyamorous, I myself have practiced polyfidelity and those type of relationships make me very happy. I know you're thinking with two women, who wouldn't be, but it was the shared love of each other that brought the happiness, the crazy threesome sex was just a bonus. So its the bonding, not the sex. It also decreased the approaches by predatory single men, because generally they couldn't understand why the women were so happy and when men don't understand something, they have a tendency to ignore it. So I think from personal experience in truly poly cultures, rape wouldn't be so prevalent.

From what I've observed, human females tend to form preoccupations and attachments to specific males more easily than males do the converse. This would also lend support to the idea of a mild haram-type tendency, in that it's easier for multiple females to share a male than vice-versa.

Modern culture throws a wrench into though and distorts things. Women are basically told now that its "cool" to be a nympho when young and this affects their behavior.

To me that would prob have shifted with agriculture modern hunter gatherers don't seem to have the same level of possessiveness.