Talk:Rape fantasy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fantasy

It is often incorrectly assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape, but scientific evidence refutes this.

Huh? Is it really an "incorrect" assumption? Why does it say "but", when the second part of the sentence is saying (basically) the same thing as the first? Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Yes, it is an incorrect assumption. I'm not sure how you're parsing the sentence that makes it unclear.

"It is often assumed that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape" -- the first part of the sentence notes that the assumption exists out there, that many people believe it.

"It is often incorrectly assumed" -- this modifier inserts the information that the assumption, though widespread, is incorrect.

"but scientific evidence refutes this." -- the second part of the sentence inserts the information on how we know that the assumption is incorrect.

There's no contradiction there. If the first part of the sentence had said "It is often correctly assumed" then there'd be contradiction, but I don't see where there's a problem in saying "Lots of people have this incorrect belief, but here is how we know that belief to be incorrect." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would appear that the parsing error is possible. I think that most people would read it correctly:

• It is often incorrectly assumed:
  • that people who fantasize about being a rapist are at a higher risk of actually committing rape,
• BUT scientific evidence refutes this.

This applies the "incorrectly assumed" part to the first half of the sentence only. The other way to parse is this:

• It is often incorrectly assumed:
  • that people who fantasize [are more likely to rape]
  • and that, however, the previous assumption has been scientifically disproven.

I don't think the grammar quite supports the second reading, but it's possible to apply "assumed" to both parts in your head.Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this assertion? What evidence is there actually? Can you give studies? It seems to me that a study would need to show that there are rapists who do not fantasise about rape for this to be true. (Call fantasisers X and nonfantasisers Y. No matter how small a subset of X rapists are, if Y never includes rapists, then X are more likely to become rapists. Of course, it does not follow from this that any particular member of X is going to be rapist, but it does follow that he/she is more likely to become one.)Dr Zen 00:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY GIVEN WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enounter is more likely to be a criminal. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. All this makes it less likely that the person is in prison serving time for a crime. --A. Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs) 08:46, 21 May 2006

I don't think your statistical analysis is correct. (I should be able to name the fallacy for you, but I can't find the chart offhand...I think it's an inappropriate reversal along the lines of "All lions are mammals, therefore all mammals are lions.") ETA: I just noticed that your point is slightly different from mine; I also noticed that the initial statement ("those who fantasize are more likely to") never gives the other side of the equation ("more likely than who?"); your "more likely than those who do not fantasize" is still most likely the correct reading. Anyway, the appropriate comparison is not between nonfantasizers and fantasizers; it is between the members of the group of fantasizers (the group of nonfantasizers should not affect this argument):

• Say a toy company makes two dolls, the Buddy and the ActionMan. And it can give red or blue clothing to either. But in actuality ActionMan only comes in red (never blue). And say that ten percent of the Buddy figures are also sold in red, whereas 90 percent are sold in blue.
• Now, say the company produces one million Buddy dolls annually, and only one hundred ActionMan dolls. If I know the type of doll I have is ActionMan, I can say for certain that it has red clothes. (If I knew it was a Buddy doll, I could make no conclusions about clothes, unless I knew some percentage factor, which adds nothing to this discussion.)
• If, however, I know only that the doll has red clothes, what facts can I establish? I cannot know for certain which doll I have (from logical analysis). However, I can tell probabilities based on how many dolls the factory creates:
• Ten percent of the Buddy dolls are dressed in red. Ten percent of one million is one hundred thousand. One hundred percent of the ActionMan dolls are dressed in red. One hundred percent of one hundred dolls is one hundred. For each ActionMan doll produced, one thousand red-clothed Buddy dolls are produced. Therefore if you know only the color of the clothes, you should realize that your chances of getting a Buddy doll are much, much higher than your chances of getting an ActionMan.
  • If all A are B (all rapists fantasize)
  • and some C are B (some people (including the subset rapists) fantasize)
  • and some C are not B (some people do not fantasize)
  • it follows that those C that are not B are not A (since all rapists fantasize, those people who do not fantasize are not rapists)
  • and that some C are not A (some people are not rapists - these may or may not fantasize)
  • but it does not follow that all B are A (all fantasizers are rapists) or even that most B are A (most fantasizers are rapists). The percentages are unknown from context.

The above logic holds true whether the statements are true or not. In this case, it may not be true that "all rapists fantasize" (as noted below). This does not affect the above on a logic level, only on the level of premise truth, and it does not affect the conclusion that "it cannot be determined what percentage of fantasizers are rapists".Kilyle 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There are rapists who do not fantasize about it. People who do it solely as a form of assualt or intimidation don't fantasize about it on a regular basis if at all. Johhny-turbo 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true--while many rapists perform the act as a way of asserting force or exulting in violence, that does not mean that they do not fantasize about the act--fantasies can be (and often are) non-sexual. Mance 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Category changes

Sorry for repeating the move from Category:Sexuality to Category:Sex crimes. Category:Sexuality had grown to about 250 articles. I was cleaning them out and I didn't happen to remember that I had already moved this one when I moved it again.

The move to Category:Sex_crimes was actually quite intentional; I thought it would be appropriate to an article on fantasies about one particular sex crime in the list of articles about sex crimes in general. Because of the aforementioned cleaning, Category:Sexuality now only has articles which are fundamental to the subject. Everything else is relegated to subcategories, to make it possible to find things without undue effort. Rape fantasies aren't really fundamental, and they are already in Category:Sexual fetishism (which might not be the best, so if someone has a better pick, feel free to change that), so for now I'll just remove it from Category:Sexuality. If you buy my rationale above, or otherwise feel it's appropriate to do so, feel free to add this article back to Category:Sex_crimes.

-- Beland 02:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sexual fetishism actually is a surprisingly appropriate category (among others, of course, given the scope of the article) to place this. You would be surprised I suppose how many women write stories where their Mary Sue gets raped by some ravishing young bad boy and enjoys it (for that matter, let's not forget The Fountainhead, with that dysfunctional Dominique Francon character that enjoys her "rape"), with them ostensibly living happily ever after (no, seriously. There's pretty much a whole subgenre, nay, multiple subgenres depending on how explicit or romanticized it is, that fit under this in fan fiction romance and erotica stories. Google such things as "Romance rape", "NonCon" and the like, you'll see what I mean. Somewhat disturbingly common, actually... though from a slightly more optimistic standpoint, at least it probably means most of the girls who write this stuff - they're usually pretty young, it seems - have never actually been raped or sexually assaulted...). In literary, film, artistic, etc. terms this is a very legitimate category for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

POV problem

This article is essentially an apologetic for rape fantasy — this is not NPOV. Various problematic bits include: "It should not, however, be assumed that a rape fantasy is a wish to actually engage in the act in reality.", "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped.", the assertion that rape fantasy is a way to heal wounds, that it's a safe psychological device, that it's an outlet, the refutation about people's assumptions about rape fantasy, judgements about what ravish scenes are "healthy", and so on.

Let's be clear, this viewpoint belongs in this article, but is not (yet) presented in a neutral fashion. The article is trying to reassure the reader that rape fantasy is harmless. That's not NPOV. — Matt Crypto 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fact one: No scientific evidence has ever been presented to show that those who have rape fantasies are in any way more likely to rape or to be raped.

Fact two: The belief is nevertheless widespread that this must be the case, that those who have rape fantasies must be rapists waiting to happen, despite the fact that no evidence supports this.

When I saw your edit summaries, I thought, "Oh, he wants to make this article more NPOV." Then I looked at your actual edits and realized, no, you don't want the facts described in a more neutral manner, you want facts that conflict with your biases removed. Right in the very introduction, that's made clear. "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape, which is a violent crime." That's one of the sentences you removed. It is also 100% fact; one is a physical act and one is a figment of the imagination. Even if we focus on the area where those two overlap (i.e., being a rapist is a probable indicator of having rape fantasies, unlike the frequently assumed converse) they are still two entirely different things, period. The next sentence you removed: "Because [real-world rape is a violent crime], some people may feel very disturbed that pretend rape can be a subject of sexual fantasy to others." This is a statement of fact -- pretend rape is a subject of sexual fantasy to some people, and the fact that it is a subject of sexual fantasy is very disturbing to others. The only possible explanation I can see why someone would want it not treated as a statement of obvious fact would be if they were trying to argue the completely unproven premise that rape fantasy is a predictive indicator of rape and that those who are disturbed by others having fantasies of rape are disturbed because they recognize this as a danger sign.

NPOV means treating all POVs fairly. It does not mean, as people sometimes assume, treating unequal POVs as if they were equal. The fact that no scientific research has supported the "having rape fantasies means that you're more likely to be a rapist" theory must not be removed from the article under the mistaken notion that this is just being 'fair' to that unsupported theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm, please don't presume that you know what I want, because it's a little rude, and you really can't know me and my motivations from only two edits. One approach to NPOV is to delete POV bits; another approach is to reword it. I would hope that we both want this article to be NPOV, so let's work towards it. Remember, you can thread together a series of 100% facts together in such a way that they make a very biased argument. Specifics below. — Matt Crypto 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

False balance is not NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

But nor is writing an article with a clear agenda, as this one has (that is, the agenda of convincing people that rape fantasy is normal and healthy). — Matt Crypto 08:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could possibly be normal and healthy. What is the scientific consensus on rape fantasy? If it really is healthy and normal, why shouldn't the article be written that way? (I am also inclined to think that fantasies are perfectly healthy, since no one is being harmed. The idea of 'unhealthy' thoughts, to me, is rather draconian.)--Mtrisk 04:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that rapists, almost without exception, have rape fantasies; however, they are greatly outnumbered by the population of people who have rape fantasies and who exhibit no tendencies towards rape or other sexual deviancy, so the notion that rape fantasies must be a warning sign of a tendency to rape or of a sick mind is purely a mistake committed by folk psychology. However, Matt Crypto wants that folk psychology belief to be placed on an equal footing with scientific consensus, because wanting to publish facts rather than folk belief is apparently "a clear agenda". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Agenda" is a word with aggressive connotations, and I regret using it. But I do believe that the article was written in a such way as to present the topic of rape fantasy in a positive light, arguing that it was normal, healthy, and perfectly OK, despite the likely initial preconceptions of the reader. Any negative views the reader might have had about it were countered (the italicised orders about what the reader should note was particularly irritating and indiciative of the article's problems). Essentially, the article presents a defence or apology for the topic. This is a problem for NPOV reasons, because not everyone believes that rape fantasy is healthy or normal or OK. A significant proportion of people in the world believe that simple lust is wrong and unhealthy — that is, fantasies about consensual sex, let alone fantasises about rape. — Matt Crypto 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if the truth of the matter is that rape fantasies are, in fact, found in a significant percentage of the population (enough to justify calling it "normal") then the article should be written as such. Wikipedia is not supposed to cater to preconceived notions. As for whether or not such fantasies are healthy, we should, as I have stated before, defer to the scientific consensus to gain a NPOV. Any belief held is simply a point of view. A perfect model we should follow is the one found in the Masturbation article, which, contrary to what Matt Crypto seems to be advocating here, reduces the "sex is bad" mindset to one line: "Nevertheless, people from a socially conservative or religious background and other sensitive persons may experience feelings of guilt during or after masturbation." I think that's all that's needed here. It displays the topic in a "positive light, arguing that it was normal, healthy, and perfectly OK, despite the likely initial preconceptions of the reader," and yet I would no more call it a "defense" or "apology" than an article on a medicinal drug. --Mtrisk 06:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I do think the Masturbation article is pretty neutral, by contrast. But the fact remains that a significant proportion of people would have a problem with this on a moral basis, even if presented with scientific studies on the frequency of its occurrence among the general propulation. My problem with this article, and particularly the version at the beginning of this month, is with the tone of the article, which I still maintain was written in the style of a "defense"/"apology" for rape fantasy. It was very much written along the lines of "despite what you might think, rape fantasy is not bad, it's totally normal and OK, and can actually beneficial". We should keep the content, just express it differently, I guess. It's sometimes difficult to detect biased writing when you agree with that POV. By the way, there's a significant difference between a "sex is bad mindset" and having reservations about the wholesome goodness of rape fantasy. — Matt Crypto 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also a difference between "having reservations about the wholesome goodness of rape fantasy" and inserting in the very introduction "Some see rape fantasies as disturbing, unhealthy or even a predictive indicator of rape" without regard for the fact that the first is a value judgement and the second two are hypotheses that no scientific evidence has been provided to support. The fact that "a significant proportion of people would have a problem with this on a moral basis" should be covered; in fact, I seem to recall it was even before you started "NPOVing" the article. However, there is a difference between noting the fact that many people have moral objections to rape fantasies, and placing their mistaken hypotheses about what rape fantasies mean about the mental health of the fantasizer on an equal footing with just about the whole field of sexology which says that people fantasize about a hell of a lot of things and it doesn't mean they'd ever do them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see what you're both getting at here. The solution I see, is to leave any text concerning whether or not rape fantasies are harmful, or fine, or any other opinion/moral/value judgement, out of most of the article, and address the issue in a seperate section. It could be headed "Controversy" or something similar, at least until an expert comes along. --Mtrisk 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The judgments, in both directions, should be there, but with citations, not in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Rapists have rape fantasies"

(Starting a separate thread, since I'm replying to something from way back.)

Above, Antaeus Feldspar writes "rapists, almost without exception, have rape fantasies…" True enough, I'm sure, but trivially so. Murderers, almost without exception, have fantasized about murder, but few would say that Dostoevsky and Alfred Hitchcock are therefore pornographers of murder and accessories to crime. Many people fantasize about things they would never do; few lack fantasies about intense things that are part of their actual practice. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing "...Again it should be noted...does not mean..."

The sentence "Again it should be noted that just because someone is writing or reading fictional rape accounts, even if they are aroused by it, does not mean they actually wish to rape or be raped." is problematic. Firstly, the tone: "it should be noted" and the emphasis of "does not". Secondly, sure, strictly speaking, the sentence is true. But so is this sentence:

"It should be noted that that anyone who enjoys fictional rape accounts might wish to go out and rape someone in the real world".

(Obviously we shouldn't include that sentence!) But I don't think we need the current sentence either. — Matt Crypto 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Contrary to popular belief, this change of color is not only an adaptation to the surroundings but also an expression of the physical and physiological condition of the lizard." That's from Chameleon. Should we tell them that they do not need to address the fact that the reader might be coming to the article with a very widely held belief which happens to be wrong? I don't think so; it clearly makes sense that when a reader is highly likely to come to the article with a widely-held but incorrect belief, the article should directly address the fact that this prominent popular belief is in fact not correct. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Replacing "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape"

I don't believe that the statement "[A rape fantasy] is not to be confused with real-world rape, which is a violent crime" is expressed in an NPOV way. Certainly, the sentence "Rape fantasy is not real-world rape" is undisputed. However, the sense of "it is not to be confused" is a prescriptive or corrective form of writing where the author is telling the reader how best to think. To make it more NPOV and objective, you could replace it with "rape fantasy is not real-world rape", but that's just blindingly obvious, so I decided to just remove it. Since you disagree, how about we replace it with:

To some, rape fantasies are seen as disturbing, unhealthy or even a predictive indicator of rape. Others argue that rape fantasies can be — and usually are — normal, healthy and uncorrelated with a prediliction towards sexual violence.

— Matt Crypto 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Because this puts an undeniably true statement, "A rape fantasy inside one's head and an actual act of sexual aggression in the real world are two completely different things", and the unsupported prejudice "People who have rape fantasies must be prone to committing rape", on an equal footing, as both statements that "some believe". Guess what? "Some believe" that they are polymorphed dragons; that doesn't mean their beliefs should be put on the same footing as all the evidence that they are in fact human beings. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rape fantasies as therapy for the sexually abused

The article states that:

"For some who have actually been sexually abused, rape fantasy may be a way to heal past wounds by exploring in a safe environment with a sense of control."

We could do with citing a source for this. — Matt Crypto 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

outside view

Having read this article, and all the arguments in the talk page, I have to agree with Antaeus' version... It seems a clear description, and discusses the difference between 'rape fantasies' and rape. Just my 2 cents ;) Windsagio 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll second Windsagio's thoughts on the slightly outdated polemic between Matt and Antaeus. The article, as of March 8, 2006, is as NPOV as it's gonna get. Nicolasdz 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "as NPOV as it's gonna get." The introduction still states that "Some see rape fantasies as [...] a predictive indicator of rape" without mention that this view is without support in the scientific literature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Intro... "Some see rape fantasies as disturbing, unhealthy or even a predictive indicator of rape. Others argue that rape fantasies can be normal, healthy and uncorrelated with a predilection towards sexual violence."... These two sentences appear to give "NPOV" (equal time) to both sides, BUT do not acknowlege the scientific consensus; by presenting it in this way, it appears to me that Wikipedia is giving "equal weight" to (1) a biased perspective lacking evidence, and (2) to the best information available from professionals who have studied the matter. I would rather see BOTH sentences eliminated, than have them persist in this format.

I did a fix to the intro; does that help alleviate the matter? I think it stresses the fact that scientists say rape fantasies are healthy without totally undercutting the social perception of a rape fantasy. -Mance 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Consenting Adults"

A rape fantasy may be a mental imagining (a sexual fantasy) about rape, a fictional story about a rape, or an acted-out scene of pretend rape between consenting adults.

This is incorrect information. If it's between consenting adults, it can't be called rape—it can only be called rape if one or more parties do not consent.

Hezaa 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It says pretend rape between consenting adults - i.e., it's not being called "rape", it's being called "pretend rape". Mdwh 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mdwh is right. No one is consenting to an actual rape, as that would obviously make it not rape; what the consenting adults are consenting to is to act out a pretend scene together, with rape being the subject of their make-believe. Can we find a better way to phrase the sentence to avoid that confusion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are talking about two different things here, and getting confused. Rape is rape. Some people fantasise about either being the victim or the perpetrator, and can do so for various motives good or evil. This is not the same as 'consentual' rape, which can range from a serious premeditated role-play, to simply a case of a person 'pouncing' on his (or her) partner, which I believe is very common and totally unconnected. Maybe we need a new category.160.84.253.241

I thought the point of that sentence was to point out that the term "rape fantasy" can refer to all three of those things - which, linguistically, is true, since "rape fantasy" is used fairly often to refer to any given one of those things (a simple sexual fantasy about such a situation; a story such as your typical "bodice ripper" in which what's usually considered rape - in the context of not being at least initially consented to - or sexual assault is treated as merely an act of acceptable lust or method of seduction; or a roleplaying situation with the aforementioned "pretend rape"). I'm not sure where you're getting this whole angle of "there's a difference between rape, playful 'pouncing' and sexual roleplay" angle, unless you're reading more into that than I'm sure the author of the sentence intended. Taken literally and at face value, the statement is actually 100% accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Hypnofetishism = rape fantasy?

Cf. the Hypnofetish FAQ @ http://www.p-synd.com/winterrose/mind_control.html#4.3 -- Primary elements of erotic mind control or "hypnofetish" fantasies are power/control, and the rationale for hypnofetishist fantasizing is "getting to know their shadow" or "dark side." For these reasons, hypnofetishism, which has been experiencing an explosion in popularity the last twenty or so years, is usually classified under BDSM, under which rape fantasies would probably also be classified, though the "whips and leather" motiff does not usually figure prominently in the literature and media of this community.

Another common motiff is the mind controlled character's (and sometimes, the mind controller's) surrender to sublimated or otherwise repressed sexual urges. For example, many stories describe the destruction of a character's individual personality or ego: the person is turned into a "mindless sex zombie" (to quote one of the least colorful descriptions available in the literature).

These elements, and the frequent characterizations of the mind controllers as deviants or monsters (sometimes maniacal individuals, sometimes forces demonic, technological, extraterrestrial, etc.), might point toward a similarity in essence if not in outward form between erotic mind control and rape fantasies.

However, another motiff is of Dracula-esque seduction, wherein the controller is almost predatorial: cool and calculated, always in command of themselves, where passion is not so much the goal as satiating some kind of real or metaphorical hunger. This more sinister mind controller typically prefers to take over the inner voice of the character. For example, the story, "Does Free Will Exist?" wherein the villain, evidently unable or unwilling to master the heroine by coercion, simply changes her logic. This motiff of cognition alteration makes the classification of hypnofetishism even murkier. Can consent be conjured? And if so, then would erotic mind control fantasies be rape fantasies?

Anyway, you can tell I've given this a lot of thought. I've been an avid hypnofetishist for many years, but lately and increasingly I've been bothered by its moral implications. Everyone's thoughts on the subject? User: The New Yorker 19 April 2006

Well, I think you should only get worried about moral implications if it actually changes your behavior. And if the way it changes your behavior is to relieve your frustrations in a safe fantasy environment where absolutely no one real is harmed, chances are that your behavior towards real people is actually better because of your fantasy life.

As for the rest -- well, looking at it objectively, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that hypnofetishism is at the very least in the same family as rape fantasies. The subject of the mind control never gives conscious consent; even if her consciousness is altered so as to give in to the demands of her subconscious, it's still violating her right to have her consciousness protecting her from her own subconscious. There is, perhaps, at the very limits of control that are only available in fiction, a possibility that a person could actually be so thoroughly reshaped through mental control that the person is now wholly agreeable to the sexual act on every level. While it could be argued that in such a situation, consent has been conjured, I would suggest that what has actually happened is that the person who did not consent has been destroyed, and replaced with a new person created for the purpose of consenting.

However -- let's not forget, this is all fantasy. It may be disturbing and challenging to trace out the moral implications that would apply if the power of erotic mind control was possible in this world and if particular actions were taken with that power. The idea that fantasizing about and enjoying fantasies of those actions, however, carries anywhere near the same moral implications, is a ridiculously false one -- I'd say "laughable" except it isn't funny the fiftieth time you run into some self-righteous idiot who takes it for granted that whatever people do in their imaginations, to figments of their imagination, must be exactly what they would do to actual people... despite, y'know, there being a very large difference between figments of the imagination and flesh-and-blood people. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Anteaus. I must admit, while I agree with you that there is a difference between reality and fantasy, nevertheless it's begun to disturb me. Anyway, I don't want this conversation to stray too far from the topic of the discussion, so I'll leave it at that. The New Yorker 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

THAT IS LIKE SAYING SINCE BLACKS ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES THAN WHITES, THEREFORE CLERANCE THOMAS IS MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME THAN ANY RANDOMLY SELECTED WHITE. It is very likely true, if you pick one person at random from all people with rape fantasies, you are more likely TO find someone who will rape, then if you picked someone from the general population. But if you have some knowledge of the person before you, it may not be true that that person will more likely rape. For example, if the person standing before you is 40 years old and has not commited a crime, that person is less likely to become a rapist than someone chosen at random from the general population. If you have any reason to believe the person before you is generally a law-abiding citizen, that immediately changes the odds of the person becoming a rapist. So, yes it is true, if you pick a black at random from a list of all blacks, that person is more likely than a white person picked from a list of all whites to be in prison serving time for some crime. But that doesn't mean that every black person you enCounter is more likely to be in prison serving time. Everything about that person that you observe changes the odds. The person's age, the person's gender, the person's education level, the person's demeanor, even the fact that the person is not in jail serving time. --A. Non Emoose

It is really sad how few people have the ability to think logically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 May 2006

Rape fantasy can merge with reality.

I know people who actually fantasize about really being raped. Some of these people (granted a very small number) actually put themselves in a position where they know it is very likely they will be raped. They may want this to happen because they enjoy this kind of sex. A few people like it really rough.

People often become imprinted by their first sexual experience. If a young female is raped by her step-father, she may develope a lifelong attraction to much older men, and to forced sex. I know this from having talked to a lot of survivors, and from having met such people. It is admittedly rare. But there are cases.

Testosterone not only creates the desire for sex, it also produces aggression. Male mammals in "rut" are often very very aggressive. Female mammals are attracted to aggressiveness. Some human females are attracted to aggresive males. Testosterone and other androgens can induce in some males sexual aggression. That is why chemical castration and surgical castration decreases recidivism among sex offenders.

--A Non Emoose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 May 2006

Nonsense

To quote this article: "those willing to rape and/or be raped were more likely to have their genes passed on."

Like much in this article, this line appears to be utter nonsense to me. How can one be willing to be raped? Blaise Joshua 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, the phrasing is very bad. However, the point isn't nonsense, even if the temptation is very strong to believe it is such because of its disturbing implications. To illustrate the point, suppose we have a particular female of a particular species, and we have ten males who are potential breeding partners for her. However, there is a tough winter; three of those ten males are killed by the cold. Her remaining potential partners are likely to be hardier, and whatever genetics played a lot in making them hardier are going to be passed down to her children, making them more likely to survive to pass on her genes. The area is also rife with predators; four of the remaining seven males are killed by those predators. Her remaining potential partners, the ones who survived, are evidently faster, stronger, more cunning or simply better able to heal from injury; whatever genetic advantage let them survive predators while their competitors fell will be passed down to her children, making her genetic legacy safer.

Customary discussion of evolution would turn at this point to more species-specific factors such as: which male does the best "mating dance"; which male brings the female the best pebbles; which male has the longest tail thus showing his resistance to prevalent diseases which would make the feathers fall out... in other words, customary discussion addresses those factors that would make the female pick a particular male. However, an analysis unblinded by sentiment (as evolution itself is unblinded by sentiment) points to an unjustified assumption: who says the female is going to be the one choosing? If a male is hardy enough to survive a harsh environment, and fast, strong, cunning enough to outrun or outfight or outwit predators... doesn't that imply he can outun, outfight, outwit a female he wants to mate with? And just as the winters and the predators weeded out the less-successful males, making those which remained a better genetic choice to father her children -- doesn't her resistance act as a similar genetic pressure? It may seem reprehensible, after all these years of civilization, to even look at forced sex as anything other than completely reprehensible. And on the human level, it may in fact be completely reprehensible. But if evolution wasn't willing to reward the reprehensible it never would have produced the cuckoo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your reply answers my objection at all. Obviously, rape has played its part throughout history in passing on genes, both in animal populations and in human. However, if you look at the phrasing of line, it could read: Those willing to be raped were more likely to have their genes passed on. In a linguistic sense and, I believe (though I am unqualified in this area), in a behavioural sense, the statement is absurd. You cannot be willing to be raped, because then it isn't rape. Blaise Joshua 09:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, Antaeus is off on a tangent - while what he proposes is feasible for developing a mating ritual among semi-autonomous animals, for a pack/social animal it would need an alpha-male social structure to work at all in in any normal human society would get the rapist killed before he got to father many offspring ... also it deals (or rather attempts to deal) with REAL rape - and the point here is that Rape fantasy is not real.

A female with rape fantasies (or a "desire to be raped") is generally one buying into a sexually repressive culture (Victorianesque or 20th century fundamentalist for example) but still feeling the several billion years of evolutionary pressure to mate -- she believes it is sinful to do anything sexual (including masturbation and especially experimentation) outside of marriage -- which may be a long way off and unsatisfying when it arrives -- and so since she cannot initiate anything without committing a sin in her own mind, she requires a lover who will force her to do what she really wants ... hence "willing to be raped" ... --Invisifan 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that rudeness, Rsmcd. As it happens, you are completely wrong, because I was not off on a tangent at all, and your blithe statement about how "in any normal human society [it] would get the rapist killed" invites one to wonder whether you actually read the passage we were discussing before adding your burble, since someone who did would have known we were talking, not about "normal human society" but Neanderthal society. Your "rebuttal" that what I am talking about deals with real rape, and thus is inapplicable to fantasy, also makes one wonder whether you actually take the time to connect thoughts together before spilling them on the page. Saying there is no connection between the possibility that there might be evolutionary advantages in a propensity to rape, or to surrender to rape after an initial resistance (so close to the classic/infamous "it starts as rape but ends as love" trope so prevalent in rape fantasies, particularly those of women) -- is as absurd as trying to say there's no relation between the fight-or-flight response evolution gave us that dumps adrenaline into our systems when we perceive ourselves in danger and the whole wide array of activities that people engage in because there's an element of danger. I could try to explain it once again, but a certain saying about teaching pigs to sing comes to mind... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I've removed the bit about women. Mdwh 22:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for rudeness, ladies and gents. However, the line is gone, and I'm glad. Whatever deep evolutionary theory it was trying to present, it was failing, offensive and absurd. Blaise Joshua 11:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "There's no need for rudeness, unless it's me being rude. I find certain ideas uncomfortable, but if I label them 'nonsense' and 'absurd' I don't have to think about them, and if I label them 'offensive' too then I can even defend my refusal to think on pseudo-moral grounds." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's only the issue I've attacked here, Antaeus. If you think I've been rude to you personally, then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but you will have to point how I have been so. Regarding your 'translation', I do believe my comments have been lucid enough without any qualifying from you, particularly as you're misrepresenting them. I have already said that it's obvious that rape has passed on genes in the past - I don't object to this being stated as is quite obvious from the line that's been left in (those willing to rape were more likely to have their genes passed on, or something to that effect). However, the statement in question does not make any sense. If it does, please explain how someone can be raped (rape being, by definition, a forced act) of their own volition (their own willingness to the act making it something other than rape). I really think it's clear enough not to spelt out, but to prevent further misunderstanding:

1) The statement is failing in expressing whatever idea its trying to express clearly (you said yourself it's badly worded)

2) It's offensive because its suggesting there are occassions when rape victims are willing participants in the the act of their own rape

3) It's absurd and nonsense because you cannot, by definition, by a willing participant in your own rape. Blaise Joshua 08:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to establish whether 1) was true or not if we had some observers who were impartial and not blinded by their own prejudices. Sadly, 2) indicates that we don't. 2) is not only a classic "argument from consequences" but an unjustified misreading of the theory. To jump from "way back in the early evolution of humankind, there may have been genetic advantages to resisting potential mates until one strong enough to overcome that resistance came along" to "there are [modern-day] occassions [sic] when rape victims are willing participants in the the [sic] act of their own rape" is your unjustified jumping to conclusions, not what was proposed. 3) is once again your attempt to go back and invoke a particular poor phrasing that no one has supported, and try to argue that that phrasing automatically invalidates any theory whatsoever that sounds anything like it, whether you have bothered to understand that theory or not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, Antaeus, it's original research, so it has no place in the article. However, if you find a credible source that makes that claim, I think it might warrant inclusion.-Mance 15:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, gee, you might try asking whether this is my own original research or whether it comes from a credible source, before jumping to the conclusion that at best I might "find" a credible source making the claim. Try Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill out, dude, you're taking all of this WAY too personally and not being reasonable. Considering the content was posted without any citation, and that until now you hadn't given a source, it was perfectly reasonable to assume it was original research. Now, in the presence of a source, it seems prudent (to me) to include it into the article, as long as it's stipulated that it's this author's opinion. I'll head to my local bookstore and check it out this week, do some research of my own to flesh out the theory's inclusion in the article.-Mance 07:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

a) it wasn't me who posted the passage in the article that was objected to; the most I've done is to edit in a link to sociobiological theories of rape, which is where this discussion actually belongs. And "not being reasonable"? I'll tell you what's not being reasonable; it's stomping in declaring "this is nonsense! It's absurd! This particular phrasing does not make sense, and therefore anything which sounds even similar is automatically nonsense! It must be nonsense because it's offensive, and everyone knows nature never ever ever looks offensive to human eyes!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel so attacked on this point, Antaeus, and why you're responding so aggressively to everyone that discusses this. We all have the right to question and criticise everything that is written on Wikipedia. You also continue to insist on unconvincingly misrepresenting the points I have made. I am still of the same opinion; that the line in question was undiluted nonsense. It's not nonsense because I find it offensive - it's nonsense because it doesn't make any sense. As I have already pointed out, I'm not qualfied and I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area, so if I'm wrong, please convince me otherwise, because from the very start of this discussion you have failed to address the primary issue I have raised. Although you have had plenty of opportunity to do so, you haven't yet. Please, you or anyone else, show me if I'm being ignorant in this regard, but please answer the question: How can someone be raped willingly? Blaise Joshua 15:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've been saying from the very beginning, I do not support the wording which you are still talking about, which has since been removed. However, everyone has been assuming that since the phrase "willing to be raped" is a contradiction, that any idea which sounds anything like that phrase must be, to quote the word people have been throwing around, "nonsense". And it is not. It is perfectly logical if someone simply follows the logic. I will give one more attempt to explain that logic here.

First of all. The most important thing to remember is that evolution screws over individuals. This is one of the key errors people make that keep them from understanding evolution. They think "Oh, my god! It would really suck if my head got bitten off! Obviously, if I had genes that made it more likely that I'd ever let my head get bitten off, those would be horribly maladaptive genes! Obviously, evolution would get those genes out of the population tout suite!" And yet evolution produced that exact behavior in the insect kingdom; when the male and female mate, the male impregnates the female with his seed, and then gets his head bitten off. He then becomes food for the female to nourish her through her gestation. This sucks for the individual. It is, on the other hand, very good for his genes, since it improves the survival chances of his children carrying those genes. I cannot stress this enough: evolution screws over individuals. Arguments that such-and-such couldn't possibly be an evolutionarily-successful adaptation because it would really suck to be an organism saddled with it, have no weight.

Second point. Let's look at the male half of the theory. "The theory", in this case, being that organisms may have, in and amongst all the genes that we know to affect behavior, genes that affect behavior in a way that makes rape more likely to occur. So let's look at males: if some males were to have genes that gave them a greater propensity to commit rape upon females, could that be an evolutionary advantage? Yes, it could. It would be -- let's not waste time and energy on any mistakes over this -- entirely reprehensible when seen from a human, empathetic perspective. But evolution doesn't give two figs for our human, empathetic perspective. Evolution cares about what succeeds, and it's easy to see that a male who spreads his genes among both willing females and unwilling females is going to spread his genes more widely than a male who limits himself to willing females.

Second point, special note: does this mean that in today's world there are thousands if not millions of men who are going out committing rape because their genes are telling them to? No. Today, unlike in the prehistoric past we are talking about, we have higher brain functions. We have structures of civilization. A man who goes out and commits rape is making the decision to commit rape, and must be held accountable for it, as his decision. If he has an urge to rape, and he gives in to that urge, the fact that he had an urge is no excuse; it was his duty as a civilized human being to keep that, along with his other urges, under control. But what is theorized is that he may have genes which provide him with that urge, because in a time before civilization, perhaps even before consciousness, that urge served his distant ancestors well in their blind, instinctual quest to pass on the genes to the next generation. And it's not by any standards a wild leap to guess that if a civilized man has urges coming from his genes saying "Rape, rape" and thoughts coming from his civilized brain saying "Rape is EVIL and BAD" then one of the ways he might deal with that conflict is through fantasies of rape.

Third point. Let's look now at the female half of the theory. If one insists on dealing only with a very binary, black-and-white, it-is-or-it-isn't model of "rape", then one can come up with a very simple and comforting answer: no, there couldn't possibly be any sort of genes that would affect female behavior in a way that would make rape more likely to occur. The very definition of rape (according to our very binary definition) absolutely precludes the idea that she could in any way, commission or omission, be affecting the course of events. Therefore, the possibility is utterly nonsensical and can be dismissed. That's all fine, except that nature doesn't deal in our comforting binary absolutes. There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between "she is using every ounce of strength she has to fight him off because it is rape" and "she is a willing participant because it is not rape." We have to face the possibility that somewhere in there might be some pattern of behavior that, no matter how much it might horrify us from a human, empathetic perspective, would be of benefit to her quest to pass on her genes (which is, once again, what evolution cares about.) One pattern that comes to mind immediately is "fight any attempt at unwanted mating until the attacker proves too strong, and then give in to avoid getting hurt." That sure as hell makes a lot more sense than "fight any attempt at unwanted mating until the attacker proves too strong, and then keep fighting anyways, increasing the risk of being hurt." There is already precedent for such behavior; males fighting for pack leadership will fight fiercely until it's established which one is alpha male, and then the loser of the fight will submit to the dominance of the winner. It's also well-established that a female who is selective about which males she lets mate with her is gaining an evolutionary advantage: by choosing a male with desirable characteristics, she increases the genetic viability of the children carrying her own genes. A female who is even more selective, resisting all males until one is able to overcome her, is reaping similar benefits of selectivity. The notion that a female could ever benefit from having her will overcome may seem alien and repulsive to our human, empathetic perspective. But as mentioned before, evolution does not know or care about our human, empathetic perspective, and it also doesn't care about how individuals feel, or their quality of life -- only the passing-on of genes.

Third point, special note: does this mean that in today's world there are thousands if not millions of women who "want to be raped" or who are "willing to be raped" because their genes are telling them to? No. Today, unlike in the prehistoric past we are talking about, we have higher brain functions. We have structures of civilization. We have goals far beyond reproduction. But what is theorized is that a female may have genes which provide her with instinctual urges to resist unwanted advances but not too much, because in a time before civilization, perhaps even before consciousness, that urge served her distant ancestors well in their blind, instinctual quest to pass on the genes to the next generation. And it's not by any standards a wild leap to guess that if a civilized woman has urges coming from her genes saying "Submit to the man who can conquer you" and thoughts coming from her civilized brain saying "There is NO WAY that I want to be raped" then one of the ways she might deal with that conflict is through fantasies of being raped, particularly fantasy scenarios where the rapist is actually desirable but she resists him until he proves that his lust for her is so great that he has to have her, willing or not. And anyone who doesn't think women have fantasies of that nature needs to go read the old romance novels before the days of political correctness and learn better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"A female who is even more selective, resisting all males until one is able to overcome her, is reaping similar benefits of selectivity. The notion that a female could ever benefit from having her will overcome may seem alien and repulsive to our human, empathetic perspective."

This might apply to species where males and females are of similar physical strength. In human societies it is an invalid strategy because (almost) any male has sufficient strength to rape a female; she therefore gains no benefit from being selective in that manner, as it does not at all insure that the highest quality male will end up mating with her. Some rather questionable logic there. Mth105 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd quite forgotten about this debate. Unsurprisingly, Mth105, I agree with you, and I still can't be convinced about the willing rape participant thoery. Blaise Joshua 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is questionable logic, actually, is to reduce the entire issue down to whether males and females are of similar physical strength and then presume to refute the entire theory based on that false reduction, but then again, to look at this section is to look at a whole fiesta of questionable logic put forth by those who find a particular theory unnerving in its implication and who would rather find a straw man (such as an already-removed poor phrasing) and "refute" that than to actually give the theory respectful consideration. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And who do you think is doing that, Antaeus? : o ) Blaise Joshua 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Geee, I don't know, could it possibly be the person who keeps talking about "willing rape participants" even after that straw man has been explicitly debunked? Tell me, are you only this way when it comes to theories of rape as a factor in evolution, or are you this way with all evolutionary theory? If the latter, then you must be the person who listens to someone patiently explaining for twenty straight minutes why no evolutionary theory posits that complex mammalian forms sprung to life in one single moment out of the primordial soup and then proceeds to reply "No, no, this 'evolution' nonsense you keep spouting -- it's just not plausible, obviously you've failed to consider the astronomical odds against a human being ever being created out of raw amino acids in a single moment by random chance." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"What is questionable logic, actually, is to reduce the entire issue down to whether males and females are of similar physical strength and then presume to refute the entire theory based on that false reduction, but then again, to look at this section is to look at a whole fiesta of questionable logic put forth by those who find a particular theory unnerving in its implication and who would rather find a straw man ..."

Instead of going on about how strange it is that people disagree with this article, why don't you rather answer my argument?

Regarding your claim that I was reducing things to strength, I was not. I was arguing within the framework that you proposed, where things already were reduced to strength (a female resisting until a male overcomes her). The concept is flawed because such resistance would be in all cases futile, due to males' natural physical superiority.

If females were to select passively through rape (as you proposed), it would not at all increase their chances of ending up with a better partner. It is therefore unlikely that it is a mechanism of selection, as it is not conductive to the production of better offspring/genes.

Anyway, this isn't a place for debate or research. What we need are published findings on the subject. Mth105 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. One might as well say "The concept of wolves eating rabbits is flawed. Obviously wolves have natural physical superiority to rabbits; therefore it would be in all cases futile for rabbits to avoid being eaten by wolves; therefore rabbits would quickly become extinct and there would be none for wolves to eat." Anyone who can't see the flaws in that logic isn't trying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

False analogy and bad, bad logic. You still haven't answered my argument. Mth105 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I've answered your argument with all the respect your argument deserves. If you are honest about it then I really decline to be the one who corrects your mistaken notions about evolutionary theory itself. A key element of evolutionary theory is that even a tiny difference can lead over many, many generations to very large changes, if those tiny differences have statistically significant effects upon the probability of key events such as evading or failing to evade a predator, mating or failing to mate. Reduction of complex scenarios to "[it] would be in all cases futile" is either a confession that you really don't grasp what you're arguing or a declaration that you don't intend to grasp it if it would contradict the conclusion you want. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, way to dodge the subject and stray off topic. Just give up. You are clueless. 198.54.202.218 09:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

The article states:

"Regardless, the presence of rape fantasies in a community or individual cannot be taken to imply that the fantasizers in reality condone rape, desire to rape others, or wish to be raped themselves. While actual rape is an act of control with sex being the chosen medium of that control, and by its nature exclusively an act of the rapist, rape fantasy is essentially sexual and indulged in from both the point of view of the rapist and, even more frequently, the victim."

This paragraph presents a rather weak argument. Stating that someone with a rape fantasy does not wish to be raped in reality is hard to justify rationally, and there is no proof of the reasoning behind this claim -the distinction made between fantasy and reality does not suffice. This does not seem to be NPOV. Can someone provide any research to support or refute this claim?

Given the abundunce of "Citation Needed" tags throughout the text, I think that the whole article should have an Original Research tag.

I wouldn't call some of its assertions false per se - anyone who's seen enough romance fanfics knows instinctively on some level that the girls that write the rape fantasies that sometimes appear in the genre would not enjoy real rape, since the point of the fantasy is actually to have domination/submission elements involving an attractive character (or characters, depending on the story), not some random jerk dragging them into an alleyway against their will to have his way with them. In addition, it is true to at least some extent that "rape is about control", at least usually, and rape fantasy is certainly, one way or another, a kind of indulgence. However, the way that passage made its assertions really isn't up to Wikipedia's (listed) standards. Instead, any statistics or scientific findings regarding the nature of such sexual fantasies or of "the desire to rape others" in the literal sense should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

It would be really interesting to read about a serious survey about rape fantasies. Unfortunately, the link to mentalhelp.net is kinda broken, and it isn't possible to see the survey anymore.. we have those percentages in the article and we don't know where they belong, it's disappointing. If someone knows about a new source where to get reliable data, i'd be grateful if they could add it to the article, thanks. Sorry for my broken english. 82.58.169.151 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that shortly after the sociobiological implications of rape are mentioned (thus implying rape is sexual in nature) a sentence appears that states something to the effect of "Rape is about control, not sex." I for one would prefer to get rid of that old legend of feminism, but since that isn't very likely, perhaps it should be qualified in some fashion-"Some theorists believe that..." etc.

I agree. The whole "rape is about control" thing is ridiculous.198.54.202.218 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You two realize that while rape can and often is tied directly with sex, at the core, it's ALL about power (and by extension, control after a fashion, though this is more contingent on the details). It's not a feminist belief in the least (though they certainly latched onto it with cast iron claws), it's what it IS. If you cannot see/understand this simple aspect of rape, you have absolutely no business talking about it in any way, and certainly shouldn't have any part in writing about it, even if it is only wikipedia. 66.175.212.70 07:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Non-statutory rape comes in roughly two flavors: chemical (date rape) and violent (sexual assault taken to an extreme). The first may involve a desire for sex, but it also engages a method (alcohol, drugs, etc.) of removing the intended victim's self-control and/or ability to choose whether or not to consent - this is so obviously a method of control, it would be silly to say it "isn't about control", even if the "it isn't about sex" portion of the common assertion is potentially debatable (seeing as the control is used to achieve a form of sex). The violent variation of rape is an act of aggressive domination where one's will and body are forced on another against that other's will - still about control on at least one level. Again - I won't pretend to know how much the desire for sex in specific is involved in any kind of rape, let alone whether it's higher than a desire for control. But control is a key element in rape, since without an attempt to seize control over someone who is either unwilling or unable to give consent to allow said control... you can't have rape in the first place, at least if we're not considering cases of statutory, which is a whole other complex set of issues. In fact though, control can be a sexual fetish or be closely associated with sex - domination and/or aggression (real or otherwise) feature prominently in many species' sexual patterns, and are notable elements in human sexual fantasy and roleplaying, as evidenced by the existence of the dominatrix for one. Noting that it involves a desire to sexually dominate would not be entirely inaccurate, I suppose. I mean, it would be technically accurate, regardless of the core motivations behind the desire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.22.61 (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)