Fantasies of abuse(54 Posts)
Not a pervy thread, I promise! I'm posting here because I'm really, really struggling to articulate what I mean, and if anyone can put this into better words it's you lot. It's a really delicate area, so if I'm coming across as victim-blaming or dismissing experience, please tell me off because that's not even slightly where I'm coming from.
(For full disclosure, I'm also trying to write a blog post about this)
Okay. So here are some disjointed thoughts.
Fifty Shades of Grey, Twilight, etc. Romanticising abusive relationships. Classic literary trope, actually - the idea of the dominant/stalky boyfriend as true love object. Wuthering Heights, and all that.
Lots of feminist critique of these books/media. Blaming Hollywood plot lines, lazy storytelling, etc., for teaching women that controlling relationships are actually romantic. Very useful stuff, glad it exists. Important to teach young women that this is not a healthy model.
BUT. Popular culture is descriptive as well as prescriptive. And these books are targeted at, and - to our communal chagrin, I'm sure - devoured by women. So they strike some sort of chord.
There's a bit, early in The Women's Room, where young Mira is described as conjuring up elaborate sexual fantasies involving torture and rape. Which struck a chord with me, in a 'it wasn't just me!' way - and this is back when I was 12, 13, already a self-identifying feminist without any abusive or patriarchal models in my life (I was raised by an awesome single mother, with no male relatives on the scene in any significant way).
So. I guess I'm thinking that there is something about that abusive/controlling/dominant relationship model which is darkly attractive to a lot of women. Not because we're confused about consent, or because we've been lied to by Hollywood, although maybe we are those things as well. But underneath that. Why?
I mean, who knows. Chicken/egg, products of patriarchal culture, etc. I'm certainly not about to run an evo-psych argument here. But ... does anyone know what I'm trying to get at? That the reason that these storylines are so popular is not because we're confused that this is real love, but because on its own level, they tap into something that a lot of women actually do fantasise about?
almondcakes, would you have any good recommendations for solid academic criticism of evopsych theories?
Its also true that almost any complex species under less stress reduces hostility within its ranks and that could be applied to humanity on a global scale as, pound for pound, there are far less global conflicts now than in centuries past
I'm not sure either of these are true, but I'm willing to be convinced, could you point me to a source?
I can explain exactly why ice is slippery when you stand on it because that science is known and absolute
Unfortunately, no science is known and absolute. Why ice is slippery was being talked about when I was in eductaion (a few years back now) and is still being discussed by far more intelligent people than me! It's up there with "How do aeroplane wings keep aircraft up" and "Why does liquid flow through a pipe like that" in the ever questioning world of science.
Sorry that was all a bit OT, but prompted a couple of thoughts from me.
'I can explain exactly why ice is slippery when you stand on it because that science is known and absolute, but for human psychology and behaviour the only things that can ever be put forth by anyone, as far as I know, are ideas.'
All ideas are not equally likely to be plausible. Some are based on an evidence base and a credible theory, while others are not. You can use Physics and Chemistry to explain why ice is slippery, but somebody else could use the language of Physics and Chemistry but use the theory of crystal healing to explain why ice is slippery. Most people would consider your idea the better one. So you using the language of evolutionary biology doesn't make your idea a good one if you are not actually working from the evidence base or using any kind of evolutionary theory. Merely saying the word 'evolution' doesn't suddenly trump people offering theories about social construction from an evidence base.
1. 'But I would make the case that, given context of how badly human females seem to have been treated as a gender by human males through recorded human history, that there is plenty of reasonable evidence to infer that, pre recorded history, females had to co-exist with one hell of a lot of males who wanted to have sex with them and kill other males.'
Humans didn't evolve in recorded human history. How people have behaved from farming onwards is evidence of how people behave within the context of a series of social and technological constructions that are not present during the period of time when hominids evolved. The arguments of how people in societies like that behave is relevant to explaining how some people have evolved since the development of those societies, so why some groups are less likely to be lactose intolerant, for example. Unless of course you are making the argument that people who have a long exposure to farming and the societies that have developed from it have innately different brains to hunter gatherers, and (quite apart from the racism of that idea) there is no evidence for it.
To demonstrate that humans evolved to have a particular trait you would either have to demonstrate it is universal by including hunter gatherers. If you want to present an idea about how people behaved during the evolution of humans you would have to provide evidence from a. the behaviour of hunter gatherers who still experience similar evolutionary pressures to those that existed for our early ancestors and b. evidence based directly on human evolution in the past.
2. 'a base human survival mechanism formed millennia ago where a female was required to attempt to form a bond with an ideally strong as possible male in order to best ensure the chances of personal survival of herself and offspring.'
If females select a certain type of mate, whose traits had an evolutionary advantage, those traits would become more common in the population. For your idea to be supported, there would have to be evidence that hominid males were or became, at some point, bigger and stronger than their ancestors. This has never happened, as far as we know, from the hominid remains we have to work from, in any hominid species including our own.
High sexual dimorphism (the extent of differences between males and females) is a common trait where males fight between themselves for access to females. Hominids have always had low levels of dimorphism. There has never been a hominid species that had high levels of sexual dimorphism or any any of the traits (large canines etc) associated with male aggression. When Attenborough claims (and I haven't watched the tv series) a level of co-operation, that is because the actual physiology of hominids is one found in co-operative species and not usually in species where being an aggressive male is an advantage.
Hominids have never had high sexual dimorphism indicative of male aggression, so as far as we know, it is incompatible with bipedalism, unless a new, highly sexually dimorphic biped suddenly turns up. Pongids may well have included aggressive males, but traits associated with aggressive males were not those selected for our ancestors to evolve into hominids.
Being strong is not, in itself, an advantage in having surviving offspring. It may be incompatible with other more advantageous traits, it may simply by random not be present in those carrying other advantageous traits, and it always has an energy cost in keeping the strong body alive (energy requirements for food etc) that may outweigh the benefit of being able to get more food or fight off aggressors. At some point, weaker pongid males must have been selected for our weak male species (and all the other hominids) to exist.
Added to which, hunter gatherers now or that we have evidence of from the historical period, who actually live under similar environmental pressures to those of our ancestors, tend to be more egalitarian, including gender equality. They also don't have one common way of creating social relationships for gaining resources. In some societies, women bond with sexual partners to get food, in some with their mothers, in some with a wide community. We don't know which social relationships were most common in the past for pregnant women.
In Pre-historic hunter gatherers, there is no evidence for aggression to be a common experience. There are very few examples of females who have injuries as a result of violence, while injuries as a result of accidents, fractures from walking on uneven ground etc, are very common.
3. 'Behaviour that became entrenched in human thinking through evolution?'
Very little behaviour is entrenched in human thinking through evolution. The evidence for that is the vast diversity of human societies and ways of life that exist across the globe. What human have evolved is the ability to move into a massive and disparate range of ecological niches through socially constructing the world. That means we can change those social constructions, and inevitably will do.
On a separate note, I also think it is worth pointing out that according to psychologists, most women don't have rape and abuse fantasies most women don't read Twilight or similar abusive story line romances. Whether anybody believes it is innate, or a tendency that happens to come out in women in certain conditions, or in everyone in certain conditions (as supported by the research in the book on societal Stockholm syndrome), it is a behaviour that is not shown in most women, and I think explaining why women don't have these fantasies is as interesting as explaining why they do.
What's the evopsych theory on why men as a class are abusive?
This evopsych bullshit is just victim blaming.
You might as well blame a woman for being in an abusive relationship. I mean, rather than blame the man for being abusive.
The question I ask as a feminist is not so much why do women end up with abusive men or have fantasies about abusive situations, but; why do men as a class abuse women? Why have they historically abused us and why do they continue to abuse us and when are they going to stop?
It's obvious why women put up with it and why we attempt to shed positive light on it - as has been outlined on this thread; survival, internalized misogyny, socialization, thousands of years of conditioning via male conceived sadistic customs and rituals, trauma reenactment, processing, attempting to grapple a semblance of control, fear of male violence, fear of rape, fear of pregnancy, fear of ostracization, fear of escalating male violence particularly towards one's offspring. Because we don'y have a choice. Because we don't have another viable option.
I'm sure there are more.
Someone mentioned horror films on here earlier which was interesting. What makes people watch horror films and read crime fiction? Do we think they are fantasizing about being some psycho's victim and that means that they are attracted to psychos? Or do we think that the world is a dangerous place, full of horror and that this is a way of processing that fact?
Living as a woman in a male dominated world is rather like living in a horror film. You never know when your luck is going to run out. No wonder that fucks with women's heads and has us making horror films in our own heads about male violence and abuse.
Thanks DonkeySkin, I have come across the concept of Societal Stockholm Syndrome, and it makes perfect sense to me - I didn't know the concept was laid out in that book however. I'm really looking forward to reading it.
It's not just about men, is it? You can fantasise about women being abusive, too.
Dad, I think most men are physically stronger than most women, so a man being strong enough to rape you wouldn't give good data as to whether he was strong enough to protect your family from - what? Other men? Predators?
DonkeySkin. I have no intention of making a case that human women, as a gender in our species, have 'an instinctive preference for violent and abusive mates' as you project. But I would make the case that, given context of how badly human females seem to have been treated as a gender by human males through recorded human history, that there is plenty of reasonable evidence to infer that, pre recorded history, females had to co-exist with one hell of a lot of males who wanted to have sex with them and kill other males, with consent in the back seat not the front. You want to talk human preferences of the past 40 years, sure, I see all that. Its also true that almost any complex species under less stress reduces hostility within its ranks and that could be applied to humanity on a global scale as, pound for pound, there are far less global conflicts now than in centuries past.
But I do not see evolution ever serving the preferences or desires of individuals in a species, its pretty clear male spiders 'prefer' to escape the web of a female after they mate with her, because that’s what they try to do. Some species its common to escape, others a 50/50 shot, for others its a suicide mission to reproduce.
You want to talk fantasies rather than behaviour, ok, but it need not be about fantasy in things as extreme as 50 Shades, what about Twilight? Safe for teens to read, apparently. Have not read the book myself, even though I saw it when it came out as a first edition- just another book on a shelf, not a pop culture sensation. Synopsis: Girl falls for powerful man-creature who desires her but could just as easily kill her if he loses control and fucks her. She is empowered because she wants him too but endangered by her own desires and his at the same time. Another man-creature wants her, he seems much kinder but.. oh oh... she discovers he has a darker side and his type are prone to rip the faces off the women they love if they get pissed at them. So in the movie the heroine gets to meet the facial scarred 'wolf girl' and they have a moment to empatheticly communicate to each other the ecstasy and pain of loving difficult men. Is that an accurate synopsis of that pop-culture fantasy? Mums swooned over Twilight in their droves, including my wife and a female relative who writes professional horror-erotica for... surprise... a female audience.
You bring up Societal Stolkholm Syndrome. More power to you. But which society did that first appear in? The society back in the 70s capable of engineering feats that built multi story skyscrapers, the higher intellectual society that invented the term and a better educated population that were capable of understanding its reason and explanations? Not a chance, it was not a discovery of something new, it was the recognition of something far older. Its clearly ancient and pre-history and 'evo-psyche' was all over it with theories of evolutionary survival-imperative trauma bonding.
'Under patriarchy, women are taught to eroticise their own oppression.' is what calmet wrote in this thread. I agree. The question is, to what end and to what extent and for how long has that been kicking around, because the patriarchy seems pretty old to me, damn ancient in fact. As a simple control mechanism manufactured through social intent in modern times? I doubt its that simple and neat. Even if it is 'taught' is it a lesson that women resist learning or one they easily absorb, and what are the implications of that? No facts, I can explain exactly why ice is slippery when you stand on it because that science is known and absolute, but for human psychology and behaviour the only things that can ever be put forth by anyone, as far as I know, are ideas.
You're welcome Beach. Graham's book was one long lightbulb moment for me. Her development of the concept of Societal Stockholm Syndrome is a crucial contribution to feminist thought.
Dadwashere's evo-psych hypothesis shifts the premise of the thread, which is specifically about fantasies, not behaviour.
If you want to argue that women have evolved an instinctive preference for violent and abusive mates, you need to have evidence that women do indeed prefer such men as partners. The evidence from the past 40 years suggests that the opposite is true. Most divorces are initiated by women, and services to help women escape from abusive men are typically over-stretched by demand. Female-on-male domestic homicides have dropped dramatically since the establishment of women's shelters, because battered women now have another option for escape beyond killing their abuser. This indicates that the vast majority of women prefer not to be hit or violently controlled by their partners.
I also fail to see how a preference for a male who is violent towards herself and her offspring could possibly give females an evolutionary advantage.
Thanks from me also for The book link donkeyskin have downloaded and will definitely read.
Okay, but that isn't clear in your question. If someone asks is A caused by B, C and D, it is isn't clear whether or not they think B and C are facts or whether the existence of B and C are being questioned.
If I ask is there is a link between many fatal accidents and feather decorated unicycle displays on main roads, it strongly suggests I think that feather decorated unicycle displays on main roads factually exist.
In your case - are abusive fantasies (A) caused by a preference for strong men (B), who are more likely to have surviving offspring (C) and this can evolve into entrenched human thinking (D) around abuse.
Where is the evidence for B,C or D, before we even start to answer the question of if they are related to A, the actual topic?
Tortoise, out of curiosity, what are these reasons exactly?
I don't particularly want to believe in evo-psych stuff, but thinking about it, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that something like sexual arousal would be partly socially determined, and partly biologically determined.
I guess my question is, is the emphasis on cultural explanations evidence-based, or is it that we discard biological explanations because we don't want them to be true?
Seems a bit harsh.
No reason to assume men weren't "kind" is there?
Why wouldn't they be?
No, because you just made up a description of the past based on no actual evidence and stated it as a fact, and then made up your own explanation of how human evolution works, and stated that as fact.
If I wanted to state it as facts I would not have bothered with question marks. It was something I thought about after I watched the doco on early human socialisation and thought Attenborough was crediting males as being far kinder to females than I imagined they might have been.
My OP specifically excludes evo psych explanations for a reason!
Have to come back and Read thread properly. Struck a chord aswhen young, christian background,wanted not to be "atfault" instigati g sinful sex. I know that sounds twisted. After abusive relationship and time to think, no more of that. Only want decent,equal sex. So Will throw my lot In with those who say it is learnt behaviour.
The strongest chance of survival would surely be to bond with a group, not with one individual.
"a base human survival mechanism formed millennia ago where a female was required to attempt to form a bond with an ideally strong as possible male in order to best ensure the chances of personal survival of herself and offspring? "
Was a female required to attempt to form a bond with a male?
What evidence is there of that?
'Is this social re-parroting of abuse/rape/redemption fantasy with powerful figures like Grey and The Beast just a hangover of a base human survival mechanism formed millennia ago where a female was required to attempt to form a bond with an ideally strong as possible male in order to best ensure the chances of personal survival of herself and offspring? Behaviour that became entrenched in human thinking through evolution?'
No, because you just made up a description of the past based on no actual evidence and stated it as a fact, and then made up your own explanation of how human evolution works, and stated that as fact.
Donkey, that book is both amazing and disturbing. I haven't even got on to the chapters about how this applies to society yet, but have just been reading the law enforcement guidance on how hostages should behave. It is so similar to descriptions of Feminity that I was shocked. The research in the book indicates Stockholm syndrome is as likely to happen to men as it is to women - that is very telling about femininity.
Transforming his cruelty into love. Another light bulb moment from Mumsnet FWR.
I agree, but what makes it a hook over a man who is not cruel to begin with? I watched a David Attenborough documentary on possible behaviours of early humanoids in social interactions. While it was flawlessly executed it was still pure speculation and the parts on mate selection, they seemed very quaint and optimistically kind, at least to me, considering that reproduction in the wider biological world has no basis at all in being 'kind' or 'thoughtful', which are evolved human conceptual ideas that have more to do with evolved empathy and the personal security of a full stomach next week.
Is this social re-parroting of abuse/rape/redemption fantasy with powerful figures like Grey and The Beast just a hangover of a base human survival mechanism formed millennia ago where a female was required to attempt to form a bond with an ideally strong as possible male in order to best ensure the chances of personal survival of herself and offspring? Behaviour that became entrenched in human thinking through evolution?
Transforming his cruelty into love.
Another light bulb moment from Mumsnet FWR.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.