# Why do some women fantasize about being raped?



## Spooky

*Rape, Fantasies, and Female Arousal*
Posted Monday, January 26, 2009 8:24 AM | By William Saletan 


Do some women fantasize about rape? Do some become aroused during rape? If so, what does it mean?

Daniel Bergner, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, raises those questions in the magazine's current issue. Obviously, Bergner's a guy. So am I. But the evidence and theories in the article come from women who have been researching female sexuality. For instance, Meredith Chivers, a psychology professor at Queen's University,
has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes.

Moreover,

According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving "the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will," between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

How could anyone want something done to her against her will? Isn't that self-contradictory? And if she doesn't want it, why would she become genitally aroused?

The answer, some of these researchers propose, is that women's sexuality is split. In one of Chivers' studies, for example, "men's minds and genitals were in agreement" while watching sexual videos. But among women, genital blood differed sharply from self-reported arousal: "During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more." Even lesbians, while watching videos of men, "reported less engagement than the [blood-flow monitors] recorded."

Chivers speculates that female sexuality might be split between "physiological" and "subjective" systems. This could explain the rape data:

[T]o understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary "to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. ... Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring." Evolution's legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.

In other words, part of the female arousal system is designed for self-protection and is particularly well-suited to what we now regard as abuse. Sounds horrific, right? But Marta Meana, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada, offers an arguably more disturbing theory. She points to research suggesting that 1) "in comparison with men, women's erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it"; 2) "as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men"; and 3) "within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex." These and other findings fit her theory that female desire is driven by "being desired."

So does reproductive logic, according to Chivers:

[O]ne possibility is that instead of it being a go-out-there-and-get-it kind of sexuality, it's more of a reactive process. If you have this dyad, and one part is pumped full of testosterone, is more interested in risk taking, is probably more aggressive, you've got a very strong motivational force. It wouldn't make sense to have another similar force. You need something complementary.

And here's where it gets icky.

A symbolic scene ran through Meana's talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana's vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. ... [Meana] spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take.

Does this mean women want to be raped? No. Both theories assume the opposite. And that's a pretty safe assumption, given the logical impossibility of willing a violation of your will. The challenge is to explain the data on rape fantasies and arousal from sexual assault, given that nobody literally wants to be raped. What part of rape or the idea of rape is arousing? And what part of the woman is aroused?

The first theory, lubrication, suggests that rape-related arousal is purely physical and reflexive, leaving the will untouched. Your vagina says one thing, your brain says another, and (this is the crucial part for men to understand, morally and legally) your brain is what matters. But that doesn't explain the data on rape fantasies. Fantasies imply brain arousal. And that, in turn, implies that we should be asking not which part of the woman is aroused, but which part of the rape fantasy is arousing.

The second theory, which Meana frankly calls narcissism, posits a clear answer. We generally define rape as sex against the victim's will. But a woman mentally aroused by a sexual assault fantasy isn't thinking about the victim's will. She's thinking about the perpetrator's. She's imagining being wanted. That's what she wants—and the fact that she wants it exposes the fantasy, by definition, as not really rape. The imaginary act arouses her not because the woman in the scenario doesn't want it, but because the man does.

But if that's what these fantasies are—one person drawing her will from the will of another—what does it say about us? If derivativeness of will is, as some of these researchers posit, a fundamental difference between male and female arousal, what does it say about equality between the sexes? Are women, in this sense, inherently less autonomous?


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> Consider this an extension of the _What happened to all the nice guys?_ thread.
> 
> YouTube - CHOKE Clip - "What's the safe word?"
> 
> *Rape, Fantasies, and Female Arousal*
> Posted Monday, January 26, 2009 8:24 AM | By William Saletan
> 
> 
> Do some women fantasize about rape? Do some become aroused during rape? If so, what does it mean?
> 
> Daniel Bergner, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, raises those questions in the magazine's current issue. Obviously, Bergner's a guy. So am I. But the evidence and theories in the article come from women who have been researching female sexuality. For instance, Meredith Chivers, a psychology professor at Queen's University,
> 
> has confronted clinical research reporting not only genital arousal but also the occasional occurrence of orgasm during sexual assault. And she has recalled her own experience as a therapist with victims who recounted these physical responses. She is familiar, as well, with the preliminary results of a laboratory study showing surges of vaginal blood flow as subjects listen to descriptions of rape scenes.
> 
> Moreover,
> 
> According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving "the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will," between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.
> 
> How could anyone want something done to her against her will? Isn't that self-contradictory? And if she doesn't want it, why would she become genitally aroused?
> 
> The answer, some of these researchers propose, is that women's sexuality is split. In one of Chivers' studies, for example, "men's minds and genitals were in agreement" while watching sexual videos. But among women, genital blood differed sharply from self-reported arousal: "During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more." Even lesbians, while watching videos of men, "reported less engagement than the [blood-flow monitors] recorded."
> 
> Chivers speculates that female sexuality might be split between "physiological" and "subjective" systems. This could explain the rape data:
> 
> [T]o understand arousal in the context of unwanted sex, Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire. Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary "to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. ... Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring." Evolution's legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.
> 
> In other words, part of the female arousal system is designed for self-protection and is particularly well-suited to what we now regard as abuse. Sounds horrific, right? But Marta Meana, a psychology professor at the University of Nevada, offers an arguably more disturbing theory. She points to research suggesting that 1) "in comparison with men, women's erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it"; 2) "as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men"; and 3) "within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex." These and other findings fit her theory that female desire is driven by "being desired."
> 
> So does reproductive logic, according to Chivers:
> 
> [O]ne possibility is that instead of it being a go-out-there-and-get-it kind of sexuality, it's more of a reactive process. If you have this dyad, and one part is pumped full of testosterone, is more interested in risk taking, is probably more aggressive, you've got a very strong motivational force. It wouldn't make sense to have another similar force. You need something complementary.
> 
> And here's where it gets icky.
> 
> A symbolic scene ran through Meana's talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana's vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders. ... [Meana] spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take.
> 
> Does this mean women want to be raped? No. Both theories assume the opposite. And that's a pretty safe assumption, given the logical impossibility of willing a violation of your will. The challenge is to explain the data on rape fantasies and arousal from sexual assault, given that nobody literally wants to be raped. What part of rape or the idea of rape is arousing? And what part of the woman is aroused?
> 
> The first theory, lubrication, suggests that rape-related arousal is purely physical and reflexive, leaving the will untouched. Your vagina says one thing, your brain says another, and (this is the crucial part for men to understand, morally and legally) your brain is what matters. But that doesn't explain the data on rape fantasies. Fantasies imply brain arousal. And that, in turn, implies that we should be asking not which part of the woman is aroused, but which part of the rape fantasy is arousing.
> 
> The second theory, which Meana frankly calls narcissism, posits a clear answer. We generally define rape as sex against the victim's will. But a woman mentally aroused by a sexual assault fantasy isn't thinking about the victim's will. She's thinking about the perpetrator's. She's imagining being wanted. That's what she wants—and the fact that she wants it exposes the fantasy, by definition, as not really rape. The imaginary act arouses her not because the woman in the scenario doesn't want it, but because the man does.
> 
> But if that's what these fantasies are—one person drawing her will from the will of another—what does it say about us? If derivativeness of will is, as some of these researchers posit, a fundamental difference between male and female arousal, what does it say about equality between the sexes? Are women, in this sense, inherently less autonomous?


Geez I hate replieying to these things...but here I go anyway...

I dont see how this is a continuation of the nice guys thread? Why would 'nice guys' be thinking about this? There may well be a valid discussion about the motives of the mind during sexual assault, but that misses the point - that discussion is about sexual assault. Where is the connection between 'nice guys' and sexual assault?

The research is all bollocks anyway, its a tired old attempt by apologists for sexual violence that follows in a long line of sad attempts to throw the responsibility for rape away from men and onto women. It's disgusting. ''Oh I couldnt help myself, its the way she dressed/acted/led me on''. NO IT IS NOT. It is a man's responsibility to keep his fly zipped when his advances are rejected. What the hell has the primeval defense response of a woman's physiology have to do with this?

Someone very close and very dear to me was raped by a man, long before I met her. I do not have words to describe what I would do to him if i ever met him. There are no words. Do you think a part of her enjoyed being attacked liked that? Do you think she wanted that? Dont make an arse of yourself, you should know better. Dont play games with serious topics that hurt real people and wreck real lives. It's not funny, its not clever and it's not alright. For someone who claims to respect women you show no respect at all - by posting this you are not opening it up to debate, you are advertising it and promoting it. Your attitude is a joke.


----------



## Spooky

Actually, many women have confessed to having rape fantasies. The correlation I make to the Nice Guys thread is that sometimes women say they look for certain personality traits in men and choose guys who demonstrate the exact opposite. I'm not claiming that any woman would literally want to be raped. But who are YOU to denounce the validity of this experiment. Who are YOU to say that women don't fantasize about being raped? I don't believe I, in any way by posting this thread, made an "arse" out of myself. I realize that rape is a serious crime. Doesn't that warrant an investigation into why many women have CONFESSED to having rape fantasies? You can try to put me on a guilt trip for this, but it's not going to work.

This doesn't in any way justify rape; nor was I implying that it did.


----------



## Aurora Fire

Beloved said:


> Actually, many women have confessed to having rape fantasies. The correlation I make to the Nice Guys thread is that sometimes women say they look for certain personality traits in men and choose guys who demonstrate the exact opposite. I'm not claiming that any woman would literally want to be raped. But who are YOU to denounce the validity of this experiment. Who are YOU to say that women don't fantasize about being raped? I don't believe I, in any way by posting this thread, made an "arse" out of myself. I realize that rape is a serious crime. Doesn't that warrant an investigation into why many women have CONFESSED to having rape fantasies? You can try to put me on a guilt trip for this, but it's not going to work.


Many? Lets see some statistics please.


----------



## Spooky

Did anybody actually read the OP? I have heard women admit that they've fantasized about being raped.


----------



## Aurora Fire

Beloved said:


> Did anybody actually read the OP? I have heard women admit that they have fantasized about rape.


How many women do you know? How many have admitted that?


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> Actually, many women have confessed to having rape fantasies. The correlation I make to the Nice Guys thread is that sometimes women say they look for certain personality traits in men and choose guys who demonstrate the exact opposite. I'm not claiming that any woman would literally want to be raped. But who are YOU to denounce the validity of this experiment. Who are YOU to say that women don't fantasize about being raped? I don't believe I, in any way by posting this thread, made an "arse" out of myself. I realize that rape is a serious crime. Doesn't that warrant an investigation into why many women have CONFESSED to having rape fantasies? You can try to put me on a guilt trip for this, but it's not going to work.
> 
> This doesn't in any way justify rape; nor was I implying that.



Why should I not denounce the experiment? I have a brain and can use it. I'm not obliged to accept it word for word as gospell. Who are you to be so homerically insensitive with such a serious topic? Casually moving from women's tastes in men to sunconscious desire for rape. Once again you are trying to make all women look two faced. They are not. I am sorry, genuinely, that you have had such a bad experience with one or more women, but stop this awful crusade you have here, this vendetta to cast all females in the same mould. 

Its not a guilt trip - its a free society where you can say as you wish and so can I - we can argue, disagree, ignore, it's all fine by me - but if you feel guilty there is only one person to blame. Whether you feel guilt is up to you - but quite frankly I think you should


----------



## Spooky

Aurora Fire said:


> How many women do you know? How many have admitted that?


I have heard two women in this forum admit to it.


----------



## Aurora Fire

How many women are members of this forum? I'd imagine the statistics on the women that enjoy rape would be under 1%.


----------



## Trope

Beloved said:


> Did anybody actually read the OP?


I read it, but you have to admit the thing is pretty long. It's much easier to just post reactionary material. In that vein, I'll respond to the thread title specifically by adding a link to to a thread in some other forum.

Who's been sleeping in your head

It discusses a theoretical origin of recurring sexual fantasies in general.


----------



## Spooky

musicalpyramid said:


> Why should I not denounce the experiment? I have a brain and can use it. I'm not obliged to accept it word for word as gospell. Who are you to be so homerically insensitive with such a serious topic? Casually moving from women's tastes in men to sunconscious desire for rape. Once again you are trying to make *all* women look two faced. They are not. I am sorry, genuinely, that you have had such a bad experience with one or more women, but stop this awful crusade you have here, this vendetta to cast all females in the same mould.
> 
> Its not a guilt trip - its a free society where you can say as you wish and so can I - we can argue, disagree, ignore, it's all fine by me - but if you feel guilty there is only one person to blame. Whether you feel guilt is up to you - but quite frankly I think you should


Actually buddy, the title of this thread is "Why do SOME women fantasize about being raped?" Not "Why do ALL women fantasize about being raped?"

I don't feel guilty because I don't believe I did anything wrong by posting this thread. And I think you are displaying ignorance by outright rejecting the findings of this study simply because you don't believe it.


----------



## Spooky

Trope said:


> I read it, but you have to admit the thing is pretty long. It's much easier to just post reactionary material. In that vein, I'll respond to the thread title specifically by adding a link to to a thread in some other forum.
> 
> Who's been sleeping in your head
> 
> It discusses a theoretical origin of recurring sexual fantasies in general.


I admit that it's long, but I would appreciate it if people would actually read the whole thing before they start bashing me for being insensitive.


----------



## Trope

Aurora Fire said:


> How many women are members of this forum? I'd imagine the statistics on the women that enjoy rape would be under 1%.


There's a huge distinction to be made between enjoying rape and fantasizing about it. Most people here seem to be missing that particular point.

From the OP. 



> Does this mean women want to be raped? No. Both theories assume the opposite. And that's a pretty safe assumption, given the logical impossibility of willing a violation of your will. The challenge is to explain the data on rape fantasies and arousal from sexual assault, given that nobody literally wants to be raped.


----------



## Spooky

Aurora Fire said:


> How many women are members of this forum? I'd imagine the statistics on the women that enjoy rape would be under 1%.


The title of this thread is *not*, "Why do women ENJOY being raped?" The title of this thread is *not*, "Why do ALL women fantasize about being raped?"


----------



## moon

I don't see the connection between this & the "Nice Guys" thread, either.


----------



## Spooky

moonchild said:


> I don't see the connection between this & the "Nice Guys" thread, either.


Very well. I'll delete the reference to the Nice Guys thread.


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> I admit that it's long, but I would appreciate it if people would actually read the whole thing before they start bashing me for being insensitive.


I read the entire study, I stand by my comments.


----------



## Spooky

musicalpyramid said:


> I read the entire study, I stand by my comments.


Well, I don't imagine that you did a study on this subject, so you are free to stand by your comments. Criticizing me, however, for being an insensitive arse was unwarranted.

I notice that no women have objected to the premise of this study. This isn't an attack against women. It's an inquiry into the female psyche.


----------



## de l'eau salée

Sorry for my other post. I didn't read it before, I have a tendency to do that if the posts are long. I deleted my other post. I will now disappear *poof*


----------



## Aurora Fire

Beloved said:


> Well, I don't imagine that you did a study on this subject, so you are free to stand by your comments. Criticizing me, however, for being an insensitive arse was unwarranted.
> 
> I notice that no women have objected to the premise of this study. This isn't an attack against women. It's an inquiry into the female psyche.


Well given in your previous posts you have strongly implied your disdain for women it's difficult to believe this isn't an excuse to attack them.


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> Well, I don't imagine that you did a study on this subject, so you are free to stand by your comments. Criticizing me, however, for being an insensitive arse was unwarranted.
> 
> I notice that no women have objected to the premise of this study. This isn't an attack against women. It's an inquiry into the female psyche.


No beloved - criticising you was warranted. 

Had you posted this independently as a study on reponse to sexual assault that would have been fair. I wouldnt had had a problem with it - tho i would have still disagreed with the study, which i am in no way bound to support simply because it has been carried out.

What was objectionable was the fact you made this part of the 'nice guys' discussion, and sadly as Aurora has already said you have progressively made clear you hold women in an increasingly low regard. Then linking that into a new thread about this study makes clear an attitude that you have that I profoundly disagree with.

Again, as i said before, I have no problem with us disagreeing, even disagreeing very passionately on this. I dont mind you criticising my judgement either, becasue I have criticised yours too! that's fair. But I stand by my judgement, just as you stand by yours.


----------



## 480

I just heard the rumor... Beloved invented rape? What a bastard...

I've also spoken to women who like the idea of being raped, and oddly enough, it wasn't Beloved's fault! They didn't mention him once in the whole discussion of the fantasy.

One had her boyfriend do that for her for her birthday. He rolled up in a van, masks, kidnapping... the works. I'm pretty sure Beloved wasn't responsible for that either.

I'll take a stab at a real answer. Lets look back to the caveman days, I mean I'm sure a few people picked some flowers, and had dinner and a movie and stuff... but I'm guessing sex was mostly unconsensual. I also believe that some people, both male and female, have a stronger connection to the primal urges that were commonplace in humans in those days. The same urges that at one point ensured not only the survival of the person... but the whole species. Life was tough, you couldn't nip down to the Super Walmart for groceries. You ended up having to fight for food against things that had larger and sharper teeth than you, and they were just as hungry and bent on surviving as you. Murderous bloodlust savagery ensured you got the meal... and lived another day. And for humanity to continue you needed babies. Babies were more important than whether or not you could get a date because you haven't showered since the last time it rained, or that you're not the most charming caveman around. Quite frankly, babies were more important than whether or not the female wanted to have sex at all. 

Today is different, but some of us still have those drives... because we're not so very different, but we're getting there. Impulses and urges that were the lifeblood of an entire species are no longer required to a large degree. And they are being breed out of us, one generation at a time. Please be patient while this process is progress and I do apologize for any inconvenience or discomfort. I do see somewhat of a connection to the nice guy thing, for the simple reason that we as humans are torn. We have those drives... and society tells us they are bad... we're confused... we want two things and don't understand why.

I personally live a somewhat tormented life. I have drives, and impulses and urges and imagery in my head that prompts me to do some very terrible things. Rape is just a drop in that bucket. That connection so what was is very strong in me. But... so far in my life I've managed not to rape, kill, or brutalize anyone. I think I can manage for the rest of the time I'm here to keep the streak alive.

None of that is Beloved's fault either.


----------



## snail

I don't fantasize about it anymore. The reality isn't about being desired. It is about being hated and abused, which is horrible. I think a lot of my childhood fantasies were ways of dealing with fear. I would get a yucky feeling in my third chakra whenever I heard about certain subjects, like child abuse, torture, serial killers, genocide, etc. In order to avoid feeling like I had something burning painfully under my ribcage every time I had to deal with the realization that the world was a horrible, terrifying place, I learned how to shift the feeling downward and convert it into something equally intense, but less painful. That was the beginning of my fetishes about violence, and it all started when I first heard that some children had parents who spanked them. The thought was so appalling to me that I couldn't stand to know it. It is exactly how I felt when I first learned that some men commit rape. By the time I first heard about rape, I was old enough that I valued my virginity, hoping to give it to my life-partner someday, and the thought of someone stealing it was unbearable. I developed a fear of it happening to me, and I had to displace the feeling to keep it from being painful, just as I did when I first knew that some parents used violence to control their children. The problem with shifting the feeling to the second chakra was that it turned it into a perverted lust. It was never the warm glow of a positive attraction. It was a frantic desperation to release the feeling as quickly as possible, and even when it was converted into something pleasurable, it was a sinister, heavy, dark kind of pleasure. Since experiencing the real thing, I have been unable to fantasize about it. Instead of being able to convert it, I have panic attacks when I think about it too much or watch movies in which a character is raped.


----------



## banja

The article makes sense to me. It has to do with being desired, uncontrollably desired, I think.
Real life rape has little to do with that.


----------



## Spooky

Finally, we're actually getting some feedback from women who admit that this study might be valid afterall.


----------



## Spooky

Aurora Fire said:


> Well given in your previous posts you have strongly implied your disdain for women it's difficult to believe this isn't an excuse to attack them.





musicalpyramid said:


> No beloved - criticising you was warranted.
> 
> Had you posted this independently as a study on reponse to sexual assault that would have been fair. I wouldnt had had a problem with it - tho i would have still disagreed with the study, which i am in no way bound to support simply because it has been carried out.
> 
> What was objectionable was the fact you made this part of the 'nice guys' discussion, and sadly as Aurora has already said you have progressively made clear you hold women in an increasingly low regard. Then linking that into a new thread about this study makes clear an attitude that you have that I profoundly disagree with.
> 
> Again, as i said before, I have no problem with us disagreeing, even disagreeing very passionately on this. I dont mind you criticising my judgement either, becasue I have criticised yours too! that's fair. But I stand by my judgement, just as you stand by yours.


On the contrary, I don't disdain women at all. I'm disappointed that many women choose jerks over nice guys who genuinly want a committed relationship, but we've already discussed that. What you perceive as a disdain for women actually stems from a deep admiration for women. An admiration that was based in idealism, not reality. I had placed women on a pedestal and, in some ways, regarded them as the superior sex. Then came the disillusionment and the reality that women have just as many flaws as men; and they're a lot more complicated and difficult to understand, even amongst themselves. As "the friend" of many of my female friends growing up, I tried to become the exact opposite of the jerk they always came to me and cried on my shoulder about. Sure, there were girls who liked me, and I could've slept with a number of them; but I was hoping to find one, just one, who saved herself for me. Needless to say, it didn't happen!


----------



## Ikari T

I laughed at the title. Even if this is true, i doubt they'll like real life rape. I've seen the news. Sometimes killing comes after rape. Rape and beating comes hand in hand as well. Nobody likes to be beaten.


----------



## Spooky

Ikari T said:


> I laughed at the title. Even if this is true, i doubt they'll like real life rape. I've seen the news. Sometimes killing comes after rape. Rape and beating comes hand in hand as well. Nobody likes to be beaten.


Who in their right mind would enjoy being raped, male or female? I find it interesting though that SOME women fantasize about it. And probably some men too.


----------



## DayLightSun

Beloved said:


> Who in their right mind would enjoy being raped, male or female? I find it interesting though that SOME women fantasize about it.


Not me
-__________


----------



## slowriot

When it comes down to it most fantasies are about control or loss of control. Here the fantasy is for the female not to be in control but controlling when it will happen plus as the article suggests a feeling of being desired, which I still would put in under control. But still it is nothing more than a SM thing and that is a diverse subject. And Im not sure how this thread would help one understand the female psyche since it is not a general fantasy of all women. Or a recurrent fantasy of all women.

edit: Oh and I find the article interesting. Even if it is a topic that can be very controversial. Where did you find it?

And I do not condone rape, I find it repulsive. Its just that I find everything fascinating, its part of my nature. LOL


----------



## Spooky

So I guess my question regarding the female psyche is, do women in general have an innate desire to be dominated and controlled? And if so, is that why a lot of women are attracted to controlling, dominant jerks despite claiming to want a nice, compassionate gentleman? Just a thought... I realize not ALL women are this way.


----------



## LadyJava

People are dual-natured. What our civilized selves want is quite different from what our wild selves want. People fantasize about things we would never actually want to do or have done to us. We are civilized - but just barely. Think Lord of the Flies.


----------



## Spooky

java_monkey said:


> People fantasize about things we would never actually want to do or have done to us.


I'm not saying this to be self-righteous because I certainly have my own flaws, but I don't fantasize about doing anything that I don't want to do or have done to me.


----------



## LadyJava

Beloved said:


> I'm not saying this to be self-righteous because I certainly have my own flaws, but I don't fantasize about doing anything that I don't want to do or have done to me.


I find that very hard to believe. You've never fantasized about punching someone out? Never fantasized about putting sugar in someone's gas tank? Never thought about letting the air out of someone's tires? Never fantasized about a married woman?


----------



## Spooky

java_monkey said:


> I find that very hard to believe. You've never fantasized about punching someone out? Never fantasized about putting sugar in someone's gas tank? Never thought about letting the air out of someone's tires? Never fantasized about a married woman?


I have fantasized about kicking the sh*t out of certain people, but I actually wanted to do it. No, I've never fantasized about a married woman. Why would I, when there are so many single women out there?


----------



## LadyJava

Beloved said:


> I have fantasized about kicking the sh*t out of certain people, but I actually wanted to do it. No, I've never fantasized about a married woman. Why would I, when there are so many single women out there?


So you actually kick the shit out of people?


----------



## Spooky

java_monkey said:


> So you actually kick the shit out of people?


Depends on the circumstances. I actually do want to sometimes. I don't fantasize about things I don't want to do.


----------



## moon

Beloved said:


> Depends on the circumstances. I actually want to sometimes. I don't fantasize about things I don't want to do.


I do. Sometimes, when I have scissors in my hands at work, I think... I could stab someone, right now. I could.


----------



## LadyJava

Whatever. My wording confused the issue. I should have said "would not do or want done" rather than "*want *to do or have done"


----------



## Spooky

moonchild said:


> I do. Sometimes, when I have scissors in my hands at work, I think... I could stab someone, right now. I could.


You're damn right you could. And I wouldn't put it past you. :wink:


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> For the record, that's 5 women in this forum who've admitted to having rape fantasies. I suspect there are more who simply haven't replied to this thread. I should've made it a poll instead.


We've already established it's not rape if you want it to happen. Therefor it's not a 'rape fantasy' but a violent sexual fantasy or s&m fantasy. Big difference.


----------



## Spooky

musicalpyramid said:


> We've already established it's not rape if you want it to happen. Therefor it's not a 'rape fantasy' but a violent sexual fantasy or s&m fantasy. Big difference.


Actually, you're wrong! It's not rape if she gives her consent, *not* if she wants it to happen. The women who've replied to this thread want men to force themselves on them despite being told not to. 

Suppose there is a circumstance where a man forces himself on a woman. The woman said "No", but she really wanted it and the guy knew it. We've already established that women are saying the exact opposite of what they want. So what if she changes her mind later and decides that she regrets the sexual encounter? Because she said "No," she has an alibi. The consent was in her mind, it was never verbalized, therefore she never actually gave her consent in the first place. He raped her; even though, at the time, she wanted it.


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> Actually, you're wrong! It's not rape if you give your consent, not if you want it to happen. The women who've replied to this thread want men to force themselves on them despite being told not to.
> 
> Suppose there is a circumstance where a man forces himself on a woman. The woman said "No", but she really wanted it and the guy knew it. We've already established that women are saying the exact opposite of what they want. So what if she changes her mind later and decides that she regrets the sexual encounter? Because she said "No," she has an allibi. The consent was in her mind, it was never verbalized, therefore she never actually gave her consent in the first place. He raped her; even though, at the time, she wanted it.


What you dont understand is that what starry described earlier is what happens between two people who are very attracted to EACH other and both want to have sex, and in that instance the woman says 'no' forcing the guy to take matters into his own hands and control the encounter. He feels like he is controlling her but she feels like she is controllign his needs, either way it happens because they both want it to, and they both know before hand that that is the case. I completely identify with that - unstoppable attraction between TWO people. The game of saying 'no' is fine, because the environment is safe bewteen them. Its not an unwanted stranger. If the girl said ''no really, i mean it, please stop and lets go out instead'' the guy would stop, no question. You only know those rules as part of the couple. There is no rape element here. Control yes, rape no.

It is totally different to two people that dont know each other and a man forces himself on the woman and she doesnt want him to, no connection at all.


----------



## snail

Beloved said:


> Actually, you're wrong! It's not rape if you give your consent, not if you want it to happen. The women who've replied to this thread want men to force themselves on them despite being told not to.
> 
> Suppose there is a circumstance where a man forces himself on a woman. The woman said "No", but she really wanted it and the guy knew it. We've already established that women are saying the exact opposite of what they want. So what if she changes her mind later and decides that she regrets the sexual encounter? Because she said "No," she has an allibi. The consent was in her mind, it was never verbalized, therefore she never actually gave her consent in the first place. He raped her; even though, at the time, she wanted it.


Okay. I'll buy that. If this occurred outside of the context of a committed relationship, and if a woman were to do that, it could fit neatly into the "to guiltlessly fornicate" category, which is a tempting attitude, especially for a P type who dislikes being decisive or taking responsibility. 

To prevent such a situation, my recommendation would be to avoid having sex with any girl who says "no," whether you think she means it or not. Having a partner who appreciates your respect for her boundaries should be preferable to having a partner who just wants to sin and get away with it, or a partner who would rather be physically desirable than respected.

I have been thinking about play-wrestling in this new context, trying to figure out how it fits in. I know that when cryptonia was here, we wrestled around a bit, and when he pinned my wrists and tickled my ribs, even though the act was not overtly sexual, I felt sexually excited by it. This morning, I woke up thinking about it, and determined that it was a trust issue. I like the fact that he _could_ have abused his position, using his physical strength for selfish purposes, but _wouldn't_. Allowing myself to be pinned is a demonstration of faith, a sacrificial act, and the fact that he did not have sinister intent increased my trust. Of course, there is also the obvious element of the bodies being in close proximity, but as I have already stated, that alone is not enough to produce a sexual reaction in my case.


----------



## Spooky

musicalpyramid said:


> What you dont understand is that what starry described earlier is what happens between two people who are very attracted to EACH other and both want to have sex, and in that instance the woman says 'no' forcing the guy to take matters into his own hands and control the encounter. He feels like he is controlling her but she feels like she is controllign his needs, either way it happens because they both want it to, and they both know before hand that that is the case. *I completely identify with that - unstoppable attraction between TWO people. * *The game of saying 'no' is fine, because the environment is safe bewteen them.* Its not an unwanted stranger. If the girl said ''no really, i mean it, please stop and lets go out instead'' the guy would stop, no question. You only know those rules as part of the couple. There is no rape element here. Control yes, rape no.
> 
> It is totally different to two people that dont know each other and a man forces himself on the woman and she doesnt want him to, no connection at all.


I think I heard a statistic once that said most rape cases involve a boyfriend or an acquaintance instead of a stranger. I could be wrong about that so don't quote me on it.

The point I'm trying to make is, you don't really know what someone is thinking unless they tell you. You might be 100% convinced that you do, but in reality, you don't.

I guess I don't understand the game of saying "no". If two people have an unstoppable attraction and they both want sex, then what's the point of saying no?


----------



## musicalpyramid

Beloved said:


> I guess I don't understand the game of saying "no". If two people have an unstoppable attraction and they both want sex, then what's the point of saying no?


Well the 'no' part i've never experienced myself, more an unspoken equivalent, but if you do know what the other thinks and feels then you play along with something like that. It would be weird if it was just after you got together as a couple - but after you were very comfortable it would be fine, cos you would know when she was lying and when she was genuine. It could be a very enjoyable 'game' for both about total desire.

I do agree with you tho that it isn't apropriate for outside of a relationship, where you dont know these rules/boundaries. Then, 'no' has to be assumed to always mean no.


----------



## starri

Beloved said:


> I guess I don't understand the game of saying "no". If two people have an unstoppable attraction and they both want sex, then what's the point of saying no?


please don't take this the wrong way.. but if your lover says no to you in a playful way, runs away, waits for you to catch her... and u just don't..

is it a low self esteem thing from ur side?


----------



## Spooky

StarryNights said:


> It's not the rape.. it all comes to this: Female gaining pleasure from pleasing man. From being desirable. From having a passionate man! If every man treated his woman like a sexual goddess that drives him to the heat of passion and makes him lose control of all his social refines.. aaah what a beautiful world. [...]
> 
> I have fantasized about a lover who comes home from work overwhelmed by the heat of missing me that he comes in and ravishingly takes me! Because him wanting me makes me want it.. provided we are in a consenting loving relationship.. and he knows my boundaries from beforehand.


Many of the most passionate men would be considered "nice guys" or "pussies" in the eyes of some women. The very man you just described has probably been rejected by women countless times because they view him as weak. You said you're looking for a man who would treat you like a *sexual goddess*? Well, that's exactly the kind of guy I used to be. I idolized women to an extent and had a tendency to put certain women on a "throne" if you will. But the truth is...women don't respect men like that. I think, because women have an innate need to be submissive and dominated. If a man holds you in such high regard then he has made himself vulnerable to you, and you ultimately have power over him, thus rendering him weak in your eyes. This is why you can't have a man who is SUPER strong and SUPER affectionate and emotional. And by strong, I mean emotionally detached because you, yourself, said you want a man who's "been through the fire, but hasn't been burned." Passion is like fire. If a man has never been burned, it's because he doesn't have that flame of passion inside of him.


----------



## Ungweliante

Beloved said:


> Actually, you're wrong! It's not rape if you give your consent, not if you want it to happen. The women who've replied to this thread want men to force themselves on them despite being told not to.


Any man who tries to force himself on me will find himself either thrown out my apartment or much worse. His testicles will resemble a mixture between mincemeat and salsa-sauce after that. 

However, if I'm unable to do that, I'm going to report him to the police immediately after it happening, as soon as I get there. And I won't even wash myself, for that extra happy DNA evidence. So anyone planning on raping me and not going to get prosecuted for that better kill me. Then, of course, he will be prosecuted for murder.

I would also like to add that I don't believe women getting orgasms when raped. A female orgasm is very much a psychological thing. Such reported things have probably come from a more complex setting. A lot of women fake their orgasms and also a lot of women don't even know what an orgasm feels like, since they've never consciously had one. Also, some who have first consented to sex blame the guy for raping them afterwards, which can also be due to a variety of reasons.

Sexuality is very much a thing based on passion and letting your inner animal surface. Considering that, I can get very turned on by for example the scene in Dracula, where he takes a werewolf form and "rapes" Lucy on the altar. However, there Lucy has been first charmed by him and she didn't exactly fight back when "raped" either. 

...and who wouldn't like sex with a mystical, otherwordly beast anyways?


----------



## Perseus

In Barbara Wicks, "The Inner Self" it is calling on Hitler. Rape with permission. 

I could not hack reading through all the other replies.


----------



## starri

Beloved said:


> Many of the most passionate men would be considered "nice guys" or "pussies" in the eyes of some women. The very man you just described has probably been rejected by women countless times because they view him as weak. You said you're looking for a man who would treat you like a *sexual goddess*? Well, that's exactly the kind of guy I used to be. I idolized women to an extent and had a tendency to put certain women on a "throne" if you will. But the truth is...women don't respect men like that. I think, because women have an innate need to be submissive and desire dominance. If a man holds you in such high regard then he has made himself vulnerable to you, and you ultimately have power over him, thus rendering him weak in your eyes. This is why you can't have a man who is SUPER strong and SUPER affectionate and emotional. And by strong, I mean emotionally detached because you, yourself, said you want a man who's "been through the fire, but hasn't been burned." Passion is like fire. If a man has never been burned, it's because he doesn't have that flame of passion inside of him.


1. Some women wronged you.. it doesn't mean all will.
2. The desire to be dominated is far too complex as mentioned earlier. It has alot of mandatory points that have to be achieved first.
3. I was more talking about a man who can survive to live in warzone.. our definition of burned is different. He is allowed mourning and tormented passion if that's what you mean. But to change his character and become cold hearted is what i meant. He should have the ability to heal. To still see life's lil beauties after being through hell...




Ungweliante said:


> Any man who tries to force himself on me will find himself either thrown out my apartment or much worse. His testicles will resemble a mixture between mincemeat and salsa-sauce after that.
> 
> However, if I'm unable to do that, I'm going to report him to the police immediately after it happening, as soon as I get there. And I won't even wash myself, for that extra happy DNA evidence. So anyone planning on raping me and not going to get prosecuted for that better kill me. Then, of course, he will be prosecuted for murder.
> 
> I would also like to add that I don't believe women getting orgasms when raped. A female orgasm is very much a psychological thing. Such reported things have probably come from a more complex setting. A lot of women fake their orgasms and also a lot of women don't even know what an orgasm feels like, since they've never consciously had one. Also, some who have first consented to sex blame the guy for raping them afterwards, which can also be due to a variety of reasons.
> 
> Sexuality is very much a thing based on passion and letting your inner animal surface. Considering that, I can get very turned on by for example the scene in Dracula, where he takes a werewolf form and "rapes" Lucy on the altar. However, there Lucy has been first charmed by him and she didn't exactly fight back when "raped" either.
> 
> ...and who wouldn't like sex with a mystical, otherwordly beast anyways?


I concur


----------



## thewindlistens

A person can't want rape. That's like saying they want something that they don't want. Rape is just that, in definition - something the recipient doesn't want. 

I think one of the most major problems in debates about rape is one of semantics - rape means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Quite amazingly so, actually.

There is domination and similar notions and then there is rape.

Even in 'caveman times' rape was something nobody wanted. Rape in those times was not "being dominated by members of the tribe and forced to have offspring." Nobody then would have looked at it the way people look at rape today.

~

I find it _incredibly_ sad that people look at values of today's culture as absolutes. Hundreds of years ago rape wasn't really a crime. Murder wasn't that bad either - there were far worse offenses. More centuries ago even pedophiles weren't looked down upon - they were celebrated.

I'm not saying that any of these things are OK or should be pardoned - what I'm saying is that everyone (yes, _you_) would do far better to examine these issues honestly rather than just saying "RAPE IS BAD LOL" by pure instinct and dismssing the issue entirely.

What I'm saying is create your own values from your own thoughts. Don't just spew forth the same bullshit that you were fed for all your life.

~

Not important to the post, really:

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with any of this, it wasn't ment as any kind of argument, it was simply a short and convoluted look into my (kinda drunk) train of thought after looking at the thread title and the first page or so of posts.


----------



## 480

Something I'd like to point out here in terms of biological functions and orgasm and what they do... and why...

The female orgasm serves absolutely NO purpose in the furtherance of the species. Babies still get made whether or not women enjoy the sex. The bundle of nerves that relay sexual pleasure to a man's brain is comprised of THREE cells that run the length of the spinal column. Doesnt seem like much until you learn that in a woman it is a SINGLE cell. One. That's all they get.

Why? Bunch of theory, but the thing that I've read that makes the most sense to me (and if this subject is important to you, you'll go research it and draw your own conclusions...) is that if a woman's "Sex cell" (as I shall dub it) gets damaged... evolution and the rest of humanity doesnt care much. A guy gets two "backups" because our orgasm, on the scale of continuance of species, is the only important orgasm to be had. May not feel real good to see this... but it is sobering.

Again... why?
Why do women even have the one cell if it is not important? Why this little extra biological material? Why this... "mistake"?
Some people with argue a divine being (God, Allah, whatever...) made it so. So women can enjoy it too. That _might_ be the case, so keep that in your back pocket and enjoy. I want to take a look at what actually _happens_. Things we can measure and see, not something anyone has to take on faith. I think the answer to this can be found in relationships that start off as both couples just wanting sex. Both are upfront about it. Both are sincere in that being their only desire. They end up getting married, and wonder how in the hell that happened. Why? The orgasm. It tells the brain to form a connection to the object of their pleasure. This is why women have their "Sex cell". (it works on men too....) Keep in mind my reference to cave man days... and that rape was probably very commonplace... If a man cared enough about a women to take the time to make sure she enjoyed the sex he was displaying a compassion/consideration that are traits that would make him better "father material" than the other guys. So a woman was given the urge to love him. Again, works on guys--a women tending to our pleasure and showing that meek, willing to please mentality are traits that make her a good mother. Babies are fragile and need love after all.

Ok, so to tie this all together and make my overarching point...
A woman's orgasm might be psychological. But if it is, and you look at what I said above, and the fact that some women do have rape fantasies... what does that tell us? If me as a man has an urge to just grab and take, and there are women who have an strong desire to be grabbed and taken... it seems like simple math to me. Scroll back to earlier years when were are more primal and less civilized, and there are few consequences to our actions... and I'm betting these drives and desires were much stronger, deeper, and more commonplace throughout the populace.

There is nothing wrong with this, or us. We are not broken. We are just the way nature (or God if you like) made us. Perfect examples of how we should be. Naughty thoughts included. 

I'd like to wrap up with this thought..What I see is a lot of people who feel very strongly about a subject arguing their beliefs. No one is ever going to win that. You're not going to change a person's beliefs anymore than you can change facts, no matter how offensive either of those are. Please try to respect the fact that not everyone believes as you do. That is hard to do, even for me and I'm the guy sitting here saying it. What is easier for me to understand is that just because I may be strongly against rape... Beloved asked a fairly valid question, and I believe (as I hope my posts have shown) there are some very valid reasons for it. Some of you are treating him like he's a Pro-Rape poster boy.

That is just plain wrong.


----------



## Perseus

Bear said:


> Something I'd like to point out here in terms of biological functions and orgasm and what they do... and why...
> 
> The female orgasm serves absolutely NO purpose in the furtherance of the species. .


Changing the subject of debate.

I have always pondered why useless morphological features could develop and be retained in animals without any specific advantage. 

My intuition (=best guess) is that such features could develop and would remain unless there was a specific disadvantage. But any useless organ might/must incur an energy shortfall, so natural evolution might see the atrophy of useless morphs.

But this is my shortfall of evolutionary knowledge. 

I think I have tried to find the answer before and my best memory said that useless functions/morphs are not retained in the longer run of things. This would mean that your analysis is wrong, or at least there is an alternative view. I am not sticking my neck out on this as I don't know. 

And my cognitive appreciation of other types sexual experience is not comprehensive. It does sound like the Wolfman (ENTJ) agenda indicating their sexual behaviour. i.e. the truth as they see it, but not according to the Eagle (INTP) agenda. Sex enjoyment is in the brain. cf. Tantric Sex (preferred by some INTPs). 

Wisdom Teeth


----------



## thewindlistens

Bear said:


> The female orgasm serves absolutely NO purpose in the furtherance of the species. Babies still get made whether or not women enjoy the sex.


That's not true at all. A woman's orgasm will make her want to have more sex. All in all it definitely results in more children. And one of the most important functions of the orgasm is pretty much the same for women as for men - it creates much stronger social bonds between mates (as you said yourself). How you can see that as useless is beyond me.


----------



## Spooky

Bear said:


> Beloved asked a fairly valid question, and I believe (as I hope my posts have shown) there are some very valid reasons for it. Some of you are treating him like he's a Pro-Rape poster boy.
> 
> That is just plain wrong.


Thank you! I thought it was obvious that I was against rape, but apparently not.


----------



## 480

thewindlistens said:


> That's not true at all. *A woman's orgasm will make her want to have more sex. *All in all it definitely results in more children. And one of the most important functions of the orgasm is pretty much the same for women as for men - it creates much stronger social bonds between mates (as you said yourself). How you can see that as useless is beyond me.


The part in bold means absolutly nothing if a guy is free to take what he wants.... again... think caveman. They didn't ask. Her desire means nothing. Neither her desire, nor her orgasm has any relevance to whether or not a child is made either. So it has no impact on more children being made, from a biological stance.

The second half of your post is something I already said. Seeing it as useless is in an imaginary quality you're giving my words.


----------



## LadyJava

Bear said:


> *The part in bold means absolutly nothing if a guy is free to take what he wants.... again... think caveman. They didn't ask. Her desire means nothing*. Neither her desire, nor her orgasm has any relevance to whether or not a child is made either. So it has no impact on more children being made, from a biological stance.
> 
> The second half of your post is something I already said. Seeing it as useless is in an imaginary quality you're giving my words.


Now we have handguns, the great equalizer. Now our desire has relevance. :wink:


----------



## Spooky

thewindlistens said:


> A person can't want rape. That's like saying they want something that they don't want. Rape is just that, in definition - something the recipient doesn't want.


This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. 

Ask yourself these questions: 

How does a man determine if a woman wants sex? 
How does a man determine if a woman doesn't want sex?

The answer is _consent_. One of the women in this thread stated that she wishes her lover knew that when she says "No" she actually means "Yes". If there is a misunderstanding, who's to blame? :mellow:

Nevertheless, some women do, in fact, fantasize about rape. They've even confessed to it.


----------



## 480

java_monkey said:


> Now we have handguns, the great equalizer. Now our desire has relevance. :wink:


Absolutely it does... I'm not saying the caveman system is better, I'm saying we're still feeling some lingering after effects that are bred into humans as a species. We're moving away from it as we become more civilized.


Just make sure you always carry your handgun, since those can also be used to force rape. The problem with equalizers is that they make everything equal, so ironically nothing really changes.

My investment in this thread isnt pro-rape. I just think Beloved asked a valid question and got jumped on pretty harshly for it. That's going to happen when you choose controversial subject matter, and also have a history of posting fairly bitter threads along the same lines (women). This doesnt make him a rapist, or even bad person. As such, I don't think he deserved quite the flaming he got.

I do think though that if people really wanted to help him see the "error of his ways" if that is indeed the reason some of you post so angrily in response to him... that understanding, and helping him find the answers that he seems to need would be the best route. Fire _can_ promote growth, but there's nothing better than a little water, and patience.


----------

