The Unwelcome Truth about Rape

[TheywontletmehavethenameIwant]

I thought I'd post a link to this interesting article, it's likely to be received with hostility by those who bother to read it.

But I think it makes important points and might call for a complete rethink on how we as a society think of 'rape', especially in these day of increased VAWG. We can't protect against it if we can't identify it.

The Scientists Persecuted for Their Rape Research

"In their work, Thornhill and Palmer excuse nothing and absolve no one. They simply remind people that sexual violence has something to do with biology and that ignoring that fact means—at best—misunderstanding the nature of rape and, at worst, harming victims. In the face of such heresy, the outrage machine went into overdrive. There were defamatory articles, bad-faith readings, insults, and even threats from which the researchers needed police protection. At the end of it all, both their lives had been irreparably damaged."

Louise Perry has written and spoken about this also as I recall.

Not read the article, but have read a few heated discussions on here about the motivations for rape. One thing that is never differentiated between is the motivations of the commanders/senior military vs the men on the ground.

The leaders will no doubt encourage the men to rape and plunder as a means to suppress and intimidate the opposition, but I feel like for at least some of the men on the ground the motivations are likely to be sexual - they've just been given carte blanche to indulge in whatever degenerate behaviour they want.

Despite them targeting women of all ages, it's seems that when a woman is held prisoner and abused for an extended time it's usually a young attractive woman rather than an overweight middle aged woman or a granny. I think the higher command likely weaponise the strong sex drive and sexual frustrations of the young men who have been away from their girlfriends and any female contact for long periods of time.

Either the linked article's very badly written, or these blokes' thesis is full of holes (or both). Palmer claims that his interest was revived by a neighbour's rape and murder then goes on to expound his idea that rape is motivated by desire, not power/anger/hatred.

Unclear whether he considers murder part of the sex act, desire as a legitimate motive for murder, or has managed to dismiss the murder part of this crime as irrelevant

I thought it was fairly well accepted that such crimes tend to be perpetrated by men who have been, or would be, sexually rejected by their victims and are extremely angry about it. There are all sorts of other rapes, clearly, ranging from partners who won't stop when asked, through stranger rapists to rampaging soldiers (and more).

You can't take the sex component out of rape, that would be ridiculous. But to assume sex always indicates desire for the victim is equally absurd - it's actually naïve, in its way! But without the element of power/anger/hatred, it wouldn't be a crime. It would just be sex.

I've known a couple of feminists who argued that PIV is always an act of aggression, the desire being to overpower and dominate rather than for mutual enjoyment or emotional bonding. It's a fringe view, hardly likely to have informed policy anywhere.

I dont think that the motivation is different.

It is just about who have a postion of power and who doesn't.

The attitude is the same.

And there has for a long time been an acceptance of the use of drugs which no doubt even further losens any "social" inhibitions is soldiers.

ie war, conflict and famine create the perfect "play ground" for men to escape the irritating social norms they are required and can adhere to (ie quite able to "control" themselves) and see all women and children as valid prey.

Historical Examples

World War II:

• Nazi Germany: The Wehrmacht widely distributed Pervitin (methamphetamine) to its troops. From April to July 1940 alone, German forces on the Western Front received over 35 million Pervitin pills to enable them to fight for days without sleep during the Blitzkrieg. The drug was nicknamed "Panzerschokolade" (tank chocolate) by tank crews.
• Allied Forces (US and British): British and American militaries issued amphetamine (Benzedrine) to their soldiers and aircrews, especially for long missions or during critical campaigns like the North African campaign. The purpose was to promote wakefulness, increase confidence, and elevate morale.
• Experimental Nazi Drug D-IX: Near the end of the war, German chemists developed an experimental compound called D-IX, which contained oxycodone, cocaine, and methamphetamine. It was tested on concentration camp prisoners, who reportedly could march for 90 kilometers (about 56 miles) without rest. The war ended before it could be widely produced.
• Vietnam War: The U.S. military heavily used drugs during the Vietnam War, which has been called the "first pharmacological war".
• Amphetamines: U.S. troops were issued amphetamines, mostly Dexedrine, in their medical kits. A 1971 government report found that the armed forces had used 225 million stimulant tablets between 1966 and 1969. These "pep pills" were often distributed before long-range reconnaissance missions or ambushes.
• Other substances: Soldiers also received codeine (an opiate) and some received anabolic steroid injections before patrols.

Modern Conflicts:

• ISIS: The psychoactive drug fenethylline (Captagon) has been used by ISIS fighters in combat, reportedly to suppress fear and increase aggression.
• Somalia and Yemen: In some conflicts in these regions, combatants use the traditional stimulant khat to produce a feeling of invincibility and an increased tendency for violent behavior.
• Modern Military Policy: The use of performance-enhancing drugs is now strictly regulated by modern militaries. However, the U.S. Air Force has approved the use of modafinil (a wakefulness-promoting drug) as a "go pill" for certain missions, replacing older amphetamine use. There have also been recent reports and investigations into the use of illicit performance-enhancing drugs, such as anabolic steroids, among U.S. Navy SEAL candidates, although this use was not officially sanctioned or distributed by the military.

(AI generated)

are you one of the two male researchers who appear to have zero understanding of the subject?

It’s not an either or. Sexual desire for an unattainable girl/boy/woman/man can be a motivation for targeted rape of an individual. Control, humiliation, revenge, opportunity, money- these can also be motivations for rape. In my opinion, rape has as many different motives as murder. There is no “one” motivation.

Similarly, when we look at weapons of war. Mass rape can be weaponised to cause the civilian populace to flee as much as massacres so troops can then occupy the recently vacated land.

Also, rape of girls/women is a tool often used in crimes against humanity- especially ethnic cleansing. History is full of examples.

I don’t know why the aspiring academics mentioned received death threats- no one should be subjected to that. However, I do think their narrow mindedness in thinking that rape is always about sexual desire and is biologically determined is not only wildly unscientific and incorrect, but offensive. They really were not suited to critical thought and I’m glad they never passed their degree courses. The one guy was probably much better being a lobster fisherman than a university student.

Men can easily satisfy their sexual needs using their own hands. Rapists choose not to, but they choose to take multiple steps and commit acts they know to be illegal and dehumanising.
Rape is an act of sexual sadism, about using power over others, and boundary violation.

@GarlicRound
”Unclear whether he considers murder part of the sex act, desire as a legitimate motive for murder, or has managed to dismiss the murder part of this crime as irrelevant ”

Great post of yours, I think the article was implying that he thought the murder was unintentional as it says “a sexual act gone horribly wrong” as the cause for the rape, then murder.

In most of history the conquered men and boys were simply killed.

The point of rape in war isn’t to get the girl/woman pregnant. It is to destroy her fertility and ability to ever bear children in the future and it is to cause waves of refugees to flee before the army so there is no opposition as they continue their ground advances. Most families hearing of an army rolling into the next town and raping all the girls/women, shooting a few boys and men won’t wait for the army to get to them. They will pack what they can and flee.

Pregnant women are often targets for rape in war, they get raped and beaten until they miscarry.

Dear me, that dead horse is still being flogged?

The point of rape in war isn’t to get the girl/woman pregnant. It is to destroy her fertility and ability to ever bear children in the future

Yes. The Ukrainian victims asserted that the Russian perps actually told them that the purpose was to leave them so traumatised that they could never have sex again, and so would not bear Ukrainian babies in the future.

And that's before you consider the STIs, UTIs that can so easily become kidney infections, and internal injuries that can physically impair her fertility.

Sources:

• https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/15/rape-in-ukraine-criminals-often-say-it-s-so-the-victims-won-t-have-any-more-children_6674842_4.html
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61071243

Yes, partly it is. Raping the women of the enemy has several reasons behind it: genocide, humiliating the enemy, and sexual pleasure of the soldiers etc doing it, which is seen by some armies as a way of letting men under pressure let off steam without harming their own side. So, yes, sex has a lot to do with rape. It's also a power trip, of course.

'But without the element of power/anger/hatred, it wouldn't be a crime. It would just be sex.' Rape is rape. If one party - usually a woman - doesn't consent, it's a crime (and sex).
I tend to agree with Thornhill and Palmer. There is a sexual element to rape - it is desire, and rape happens in nature e.g. ducks are gang-raped by the drakes who sometimes drown the duck in their desire to mate with her. Primates rape as well - e.g. when an alpha male takes over a troupe he and his supporters (who may/will later be turned on and outsted) kill the previous alpha's off-spring and rape the females. The same with other mammals e.g. big cats. Nature is neither good nor bad, and - as Hobbes said - a state of nature is generally nasty, brutish and short. Because something is natural it is not necessarily good (and something good is not necessarily natural which is why we have laws and religions). The idea of the noble savage is nonsense, too.

I have read the article (it's not very good) and if Thornhill and Palmer are saying that rape is sexual and it is natural that is fine by me. I am not infuriated by that idea. Just because something is 'natural' that does not make it good. I thought the tabula rasa idea of human nature had died the death, btw (it's John Locke). Rousseau has a lot to answer for with 'natural = good' and I have long disagreed with him.