Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 21

When did basic human society begin? Can that even be defined?

One of the things that fascinates me most about human history is how, even after 3000 years of development, it's reasonable to say that my feelings of love, jealousy, anger, happiness, and pride -- as well as my interactions with my family and friends -- are essentially the same as those of, say, an ancient Egyptian. So I've begun to wonder -- how far back can these basic social structures be traced? If I could observe hominids in the Neolithic Age would I see recognizable corollaries, or would they seem more like chimpanzees? etc... 61.189.63.176 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

More likely at least as far as the age of Behavioral modernity ca. 75,000 years ago. AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

err... you see the basic elements of these structures even in chimpanzees. Man as a social animal would clearly trace back to the mesolithic, and probably into the paleolithic. Late paleolithic hominids were already making cave paintings, burying their dead, using rituals and creating adornments - all of these speak to strong and complex affective bonds between group members. --Ludwigs2 02:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You may like to read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for an exceptionally brilliant (if flawed) [counterfactual?] theory of a situation in which you do not share the same mode of consciousness as an ancient Egyptian, let alone emotional spectrum. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of human society could be defined as starting at several different points: when two or more humans got together, when two or more families got together, when objects were manufactured, when language was used, when writing was first used. Take your pick. The creation of artefacts and/or knowledge that survived the death of the originator and were passed on to the next generation would be an important milestone, since this would allow the "intellectual capital" and 'artefact capital' to accumulate and build. 92.28.247.39 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Real writing has only existed for about 5,000 years, and was absent from large areas of the globe only a few centuries ago, and so is not generally considered to be a necessary part of human societies. (Writing does greatly help in consolidating civilizations, which is a different thing from societies). AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

directions towards the debate

Where should I go if I'd like to learn (through discussion) about US opposition to the mosque in NY? [I'd rather avoid boards habituated by lunatics]. Thanks folks 212.129.92.84 (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You won't find many non-lunatic discussions on this issue. No one except ideologues really cares one way or the other, and the ideologues on both sides are over-the-top obsessive. It's worse than trying to talk about Marxism back in the 50's. what is it that you're wanting to know? --Ludwigs2 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't very insightful or useful... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but its mostly true. There really isn't a reasonable opposition to the building of a mosque in a community, none whatsoever. There are loud oppositions, but in the framework of the U.S. constitution, freedom of religion is supposed to be a value protected and defended. Except, of course, when that religion isn't yours, apparently... --Jayron32 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the mosque (actually a community center) is being proposed for a site two blocks away in an defunct Burlington Coat factory building. in almost any other context it would be seen as an asset (replacing an abandoned building with a frequently used gathering place that would bring potential consumers into the region on a regular basis); it's only because of a faintly hysterical and highly improbable set of assertions (that this is some kind of 'victory shrine' being funded by radical muslims with terrorist connections) that it begins to seem problematic at all. But that's US politics for you. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding fuel to the debate is the "symbolism", for lack of a better word, due to part of one of the planes having fallen on the building. By that reasoning though, most of lower Manhattan should be ruled out since ash from the planes, and bodies, went everywhere. Dismas|^(talk) 06:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: it was very insightful and useful. If you think about it, nobody who is moderate would care. 92.230.70.110 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Moderates" may well be interested in what all the fuss is about and may care deeply that this has been ramped up, entirely unnecessarily, into such manufactured and divisive hysteria. Bielle (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No true moderate... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely, analagous, I think, Mr.98: one may be a moderate on the matter of the outcome, while abhoring the unseemly drama of the process. Bielle (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this entire conversation has been along the lines of "nobody who is not a lunatic, by definition, has an opinion on this," and so on. Which I think is kind of silly. Now we're defining moderates by their lack of caring on this point. Again silly. The posts above just reflect the opinions of the people who posted them, nothing more. "Nobody reasonable would worry..."::"No true Scotsman..." I don't know where "constructive" conversations about this specific topic are taking place, but the idea that there can't be any, because the posters above don't think the issue is worth debating, is just ridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with your point; moderates can debate the issue, though this is not the place for such debate. Why does it look like I do not agree? Bielle (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps read 98's initial (cryptic) comment as a response to you instead of 92? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A debate on the issue among moderates would last perhaps a minute, because that's how long it would take a moderate to describe the situation and realize there really isn't an issue to be discussed. The only thing left to talk about after that is why people are still talking about it. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am a moderate, and I disagree. I think there is plenty of room for discussion amongst moderates. To argue that nobody but a fanatic would have any opinion worth sharing is just chauvinism. I think the thing should be built, but I can certainly see non-crazy reasons for being uncomfortable with it. This isn't a place to debate those points, of course. But to say they are just not worth debating is not a contribution when someone is asking about where they can find debates. It is a non-answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: Why do you want to learn about this via discussion? If you want to read about this, I would recommend Wikipedia's Park51#Opposition_to_the_location. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read. Given the level of opposition I think the claim above that no moderate opposes is questionable. Okay you can say 60% of Americans aren't moderates which may be defendable if you are speaking in general terms but in the context of the US, I would say a lot harder to defend. Note that this doesn't mean I'm saying the opposition is resonable. Since so many other people are soapboxing, I must say I find it funny that conservatives like the American Center for Law & Justice, who I presume are usually the kind of people to oppose stuff like stopping what people can do with their private property [1] by protecting historic structures are trying to get the current building designated as such. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

look at the polls: a majority of Americans think building the mosque there is wrong (which I would probably interpret as 'in bad taste'); a majority of Americans also think that the group has a perfect right to build a mosque there. It's a bit more polarized in New York, for obvious reasons. So, it's in bad taste but allowable, joining the likes of pornography, fast food, and certain noises commonly mis-designated as music. The only controversy here comes from journalists (and other public fanatics) who are trying to make the act into something more than mere bad taste, for reasons that are both obscure and questionable.

I mean really... when did the US press corps trade in their classic fedoras for aluminum foil hats? --Ludwigs2 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

While agreeing the press are milking this for all it's worth, which doesn't surprise me, I disagree the controversy comes entirely from journalists. When a clear cut majority of Americans are opposed (even if they accept it's their right) and prominent mainstream politicians (including the other main P/VP team of 2008, a former speaker of the house of representatives, the mayor at the time of the attacks) have also expressed opposition (sometimes I would say in a rather offensive manner) and/or raised other question you can't blame that on journalists. Heck the fact that your saying it's comparable to pornography somewhat illustrates the point (imagine the outrage if someone prominent had said building a church was comparable to pornography). It seems someone made a similar point "Columnist Errol Louis pointed out that a mosque, Masjid Manhattan, has been located "a stone's throw" away from the World Trade Center site since the 1970s, and that a strip club, New York Dolls, is currently in the same area. "The nightly boozing and lap dances do not seem to have disturbed the sensibilities of those now earnestly defending the sacred ground near the World Trade Center site." Journalists would have nothing to do if everyone significant had either ignored them or said the opposition was nonsense (as you seem to suggest is the way Americans feel) but this didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and adding to the drama is the fact that people (inside and outside the press) don't seem to understand Islam. This idea that it's a vicious religion is pretty quickly dispelled upon reading the beginning of each chapter of the Koran, "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate", or variants thereof depending on the translation. There aren't any good arguments against building this here; it's just the people who don't do their basic reading on the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a complete and total 100% non-sequitur. There's absolutely no contradiction whatsoever, for example, between the fact that the Qur'an contains a number of abstract injunctions to ethical behavior (what C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man would call the "tao") and the fact that during the first 1,050 years of Muslim-Christian relations (from ca. 633 A.D. to 1683 A.D.), Muslim states were overall more aggressive and expansionist and imperialist in attacking Christian states than vice versa.... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, have you ever heard of the Crusades? They were a series of holy wars, in which it was the Christians invading Arabic lands. And saying "but they were Christian lands" would be akin to Mexico invading the southwestern US and saying "but those territories were Mexican states"; would that make any sense whatsoever? Besides, Basil II had decided that, even though he could take back the Middle East, he was more interested in establishing the Byzantine Empire further north in the Balkans, specifically in Bulgar land; it wasn't just the Muslims conquering, it was the Byzantines leaving as well. My point was, people in the US don't seem to understand Islam as a whole as opposed to the very few extremists; that's akin to saying Jimmy Jones represents Christianity. That's what's causing a lot of the ridiculous hysteria on the building of this mosque... and I might say, I don't live far from New York, and I find the protests far worse than the concept of having a mosque there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice -- it does nothing whatever to change the fact that Christian-Muslim interactions started with unprovoked attacks in the 630s which cut the size of the Byzantine empire in half, and resulted in the establishment of the Umayyad caliphate, which was a classic empire of the worst colonialist kind, considering that it consisted of a small ruling elite of Arabs who lived off of exploiting the non-Arab and non-Muslim (largely Monophysite Christian peasantry) -- and during many following centuries Muslims were more aggressive (and overall more successful) in attacking Christian states than vice versa. It was by no means obvious that the overall balance was swinging in favor of Christians until about 1683. AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it harder to get laid if you have few friends?

My social skills are decent, the problem is that I don't really have much of a peer group at all at the moment (in the past I've had loads of friends). If I was looking for girls to see if any of them would want to date me or have sex with me or do something nice like that, would I be better to do so with another group of males? I mean, going to parties and stuff like that is a GOOD way to meet girls, even better than going to bars and nightclubs. But I just don't do that anymore. God damn, when did I lose my life.--Hsardoft (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to meet girls, or just get laid? That makes all the difference. Having more friends would arguably mean more introductions to potential girlfriends. I suppose the other thing is that a vibrant social life by nature builds your self-esteem which supposedly makes you more attractive to others. sonia♫ 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the sort of person who makes for a good, healthy relationship is going to prefer someone more confident, who isn't going to be relying on them for all social contact. Not saying that this describes you, but people use rules of thumb when deciding whether to start a relationship, and you not going out much or spending much time with friends is one such rule of thumb that will tend to send confident girls running. Parties are indeed good ways to meet partners, as are other semi-organised social events. Are there any things you're interested in which you could join a club or society for? They can be gateways to social interaction, and often lead to parties or even just additional friends who you can then have parties with! 86.161.255.213 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been going out with (or should that be staying in with?) a fellow socially awkward introvert for four years now, and I fail to see what's bad or unhealthy about it. These apparently super-attractive confident people are welcome to one another's strident company. Bit of a myth about confidence, I think, or over-hyped, anyway. 81.131.65.17 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are pretty confident, as evidenced by your reply here. Confident doesn't mean loud, or a social butterfly, it means confident, comfortable in yourself and your decisions. A confident person will not let their partner push them around, unless they want to be pushed around. A confident person will be fine with their partner meeting up with friend(s) and relative(s), without feeling jealous that their partner is talking to someone other than them. A confident person will not worry that their partner doesn't love them, just because they spent a few hours or days apart. A confident person is able to leave a relationship if it is broken, and will allow the other partner to leave it. Given this, it's quite important to know at the start of a relationship that you and your partner are confident enough, and people who've been in a few relationships before will tend to sound this out fairly early, though they may not use the same words to describe it. Hence, people use rules of thumb. If you an exception to the rule, that's great and to be occasionally expected, but the OP can neither rely on that being the case, nor rely on others assuming it to be the case with him. In any case, it doesn't sound like he is a socially awkward introvert. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that once you have left the age at which socialization is obvious and easy — e.g., school, with its many opportunities for meeting other people — you can end up in an adult doldrums if you are not the sort of person who is a party animal or a bar fraternizer, or the mates you are looking for are not in those categories either. You could, of course, always try internet dating, which is pretty mainstream at this point.

I'm not sure having more male friends would matter much, unless those males also are surrounded by potential women you would get along with. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, assuming the OP is straight, anyway. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP clearly said "If I was looking for girls to see if any of them would want to date me or have sex with me or do something nice like that, would I be better to do so with another group of males". This would seem to suggest they are a male looking for girls. There's a slight possibility they are a female looking for girls, but it's not clear to me why they would use 'another group of males' in such a case. It's true whether they are straight is unclear but that's somewhat irrelevant if they are looking for girls at the current time Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a woman I would have to say that the moody loner is a lot more sexually appealing than a guy surrounded by a bunch of obnoxious yobbish mates. Can you picture James Dean in a group of lads all acting like desperate, panting dogs eager to mate?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a moody loner, I'd have to question that - it never worked all that well for me as a dating stratagem. I think it's one of those things that's more appealing in the abstract imagination than in concrete experience. Personally, I always had much better success with the intellectual firebrand approach. Some of my best relationships have started over heady debates.

But really, it all depends on what your goals are. if all you're looking for is fun-in-the-sun then the 'frat boy' approach (a bunch of guys out bar-hopping together) works well: it's a good way for good-looking but not too bright guys to hook up with good-looking but not too bright girls, mostly because it sets up a kind of competitive system. If you want a more serious, sophisticated kind of relationship, though, that will get in your way (serious women don't respect frat boy types). In that case you want to find someplace where you can settle in - a bar or a cafe or a community center (or whatever) that you can treat like a second home. Once you're a regular someplace, it becomes an easy thing to talk to women without it feeling too much like you're hitting on them, because you'll be a familiar face they can be more comfortable with. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rule No. 1 for Moody Loners: You must never operate as a moody loner in order to enhance your social interactions, and particularly not for sexual purposes. If you assume the role with that outcome in mind, it will not work for you, because it is the worst possible contradiction in terms. And whatever else may be true of them, moody loners have integrity. Being a moody loner is something you are, not something you do. If the Jeannes of the world notice your moody lonerness and invite you to engage with them in rough animal coupling, that's nice and I hope you enjoy it and all, but just don't kid yourself that that's what being a moody loner is all about, because it ain't. Loners have a special grasp of what it means to be ontologically alone, but moody loners are the alonest ones of all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was inspiring. I wish I weren't too moody to appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a true moody loner, Jack ;) 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lonenesse oblige. (I was almost going to say "I'm a long-term Wikipedian, so obviously I'm a moody loner". But I figured that there are probably a few stray counter-examples to that rule of thumb, so it doesn't necessarily hold true in 100.00% of cases.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack dear, I have never invited ANY man, whether he be a moody loner or Jack-the-Lad, to engage in rough, animal coupling. The moody loners always notice my own special sultry fascination and take the first steps toward an explosive cosmic merging of the physical and spiritual.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Jeanne darling.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I've just stepped into a made for TV movie? cue the swelling romantic music, and cut to some softly suggestive imagery...--Ludwigs2 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's far more romantic to couple to the sound of the driving beat of the Rolling Stones!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord, NO! You and I will never be lovers, Jeanne, if that's your thing. Try Mahler (opening movement of the 10th Symphony) or Wagner (the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking Richard Wagner, better Ride of the Valkyries, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

cars in St.Pierre and Miquelon

the photo Image:SPM footballers 1984.jpg shows two cars. Does anybody know which cars are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.82 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Made that a link, for the convenience of people who know cars. --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, August 21, 2010.

I'm not a petrol-head, but the one on the left could be a Renault 9 saloon. The white van could be a Citroën C15; "Early models had a single wide rear door, but this was awkward for loading in a tight space and prone to sagging or to snapping off in a high wind, so, after a year or two, only conventional 2-door versions were sold with fold back hinges." Can anyone confirm or otherwise? Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Dogs

I would first like to confess that I have never seen this film, and was originally waiting until I saw it to ask this question, but my curiosity outweighed my patience. OK, now on to the question. Is it possible in real life for a rape victim to actually enjoy the assault, like the character Amy in the film? What if the person assaulting them is a complete and total stranger, and not a person they had/have a romantic relationship with? How do such conflicting feelings play in the aftermath of the assault for the victim? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.4 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna need an answer that's more detailed than "no". 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Is it possible?" Just about anything is possible in the compendium of human sexual desires and practices. Rape fantasy is not at all uncommon, but pairing that with actual enjoyment of real-life rape is probably not very common. I suspect that it would be exceedingly rare for anyone to enjoy being raped, or to have conflicting emotions for that reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A rape fantasy is different, as the woman (or man, depends who's on the receiving end of the "rape" in the fantasy) would not only anticipate it, but actually want it to happen. But if you're unexpectedly and unwilling assaulted in real life, could you really be sexually stimulated against your will? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, in a rape fantasy the "victim" is actually controlling the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rape is (by definition) a crime of violence. both men and women can experience physiological pleasure when raped, but that usually tends to increase the psychological violence of the act by inducing feelings of guilt and confusion which make the victim feel even more disempowered and violated. This is not the same as 'enjoying' the assault.

It used to be a common legal tactic to defend rapists by asserting that the victims implicitly wanted to be raped and explicitly enjoyed the act, and you will still see that theme romanticized here and there (romance novels, certain movies and TV shows, comic books, and the like). It's still the case in most fundamentalist religious sects to blame and punish the woman for a rape (particularly in strict Sharia law, but also in more traditional Christian and Jewish sects). --Ludwigs2 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The rapist's defense is usually the "look what you made me do" game. It's the same argument that child molesters have often used - that the child somehow "seduced" them, thus absolving themselves of blame in the matter. (Mary Key Letorneau used that defense.) And you're right, that game is as old as civilization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was only wondering if it were truly possible for a rape victim to feel any sort of physical pleasure (not that it translates into enjoying the act, I know that. My question sounded wrong when I included that word). Until I came across this film and read the discussion threads on IMDB specifically talking about that scene, I thought it was plain impossible for a rape victim to feel anything other than pain, since their body is being violated. But yeah, I know rapists always try to claim that the victim was somehow "asking for it", and unfortunately, some dumbass juries and court systems will buy it. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As 98 said, anything is "possible", but I think to actually enjoy being raped you'd also have to enjoy having your house broken into or your car stolen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, please don't confuse the physiological responses of the body - which are largely outside of conscious control - with the emotional/psychological state of 'enjoyment'. It's perfectly possible for a sensation to be pleasurable and unwanted, or to elicit a physiological response without the concomitant emotional state. For heaven's sake, it's a common response for men who are hanged to get erections - would you suggest that that these men are enjoying their last few noose-ridden moments? --Ludwigs2 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Though we should also not completely disentangle the physiological and the emotional. It seems as foolish as trying to disentangle the senses of taste and smell, which are both pretty essential for how we experience food. I expect that the physiological and the emotional/psychological are as equally entwined for any kind of sexual activity. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They are connected. I've heard of men (in prison or wherever) who, while they're being violently raped, become aware that they have an erection. Again, far from the enjoyable thing that erections normally are; for most men this would be a shocking, confusing, distressing and even probably guilt-laden realisation, which would be quite enough to deal with even without the feelings of outrage, violation and emasculation from the forced penetration of their body. They're not in the right space to come to the sober realisation that this is just an automatic physiological response, and does not mean they're "enjoying" the rape, or that they're gay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This formed a major plot point in this 2004 film (link piped to hide potential spoiler). 05:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the answer to your question depends on the definition of rape. Numerous statutory rapes, for example, including sexual acts between willing partners whose close respective ages fall afoul of the law - or, more contentiously, adolescent males seduced by older women, are often wholly enjoyed by both parties. If one construes rape more narrowly as forcible intercourse or intercourse without consent, then, yes, it is still possible to enjoy being raped. It is possible to both physiologically and psychologically enjoy being raped. This is certainly not a common reaction, but it does stand within the realms of logical, physiological, and psychological possibility, and to assert otherwise is a disservice to the eccentricities of the human mind. That being said, the number of individuals who enjoy being forcibly raped is almost certainly so nugatory so as to be irrelevant other than as a curiosity. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, wait. There are people who consciously enjoy being raped as well? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I learned a lot from the responses. Yep, the human mind is one incredibly complex thing, way more than I ever thought. I thought being raped was more than bad enough when you obviously don't want it, but for your body to respond in a way that you wouldn't want it to must make the process of dealing with the emotional and mental scars after the fact even more difficult... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you have difficulty conceiving how - consider the following. There is no logical bright line between statutory rape and rape - or even sex and rape. In cases such as that of Mary Kay Letorneau, the evidence suggests that the underage boy in question enjoyed intercourse, although he is not legally considered to be capable of giving consent. In cases where an individual gives consent while inebriated - one can enjoy intercourse without wishing for it to happen. And so on, and so on, until you reach the rare few who actually have enjoyed being forcibly raped for various reasons. (This is, in a way, as philosophical question as it's psychological, given that it's contingent on the concept of rape, which is contingent on the concept of free will). Of course, as one moves from perfectly normal consensual sex between adults down the gradations to a case in which intercourse is forced upon one individual, the number of people who enjoy the sex is reduced dramatically. Of course, the number of those who consciously enjoy rape is so small that it should generally be ignored, lest rapists continue to cite an aberrant minority of reactions as an excuse for rape. The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand consenting underage teens who don't know better and people who use poor judgment when drunk. But people who enjoy being forcibly raped... that's like someone who enjoys being beaten (and not in a BDSM kind of way). Surely that must signal a mental/psychological problem of some sorts? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

by definition, one cannot consent to being raped. There are certainly people who like BDSM-type activities, and likely some smallish subsection of that group that that likes activities that closely mimic rape, but in fact they consent to that, and so it has none of the intrinsic violation that is a concomitant of rape. Generally people who practice BDSM are quite cautious to retain some degree of control over the situation. I've never heard of any clinical or legal case where an individual actually sought out being raped in its proper sense. It's not unthinkable, of course (and the fact that the fantasy is prevalent in the society shows that it's possible), but... --Ludwigs2 03:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any cases of people who sought out being raped, although I'm sure I could find at least one if I rooted about in Psycinfo. That being said, a very small minority enjoy being raped in all appreciable sense of the word. Whether or not this constitutes a mental problem (in the diagnostic sense of the word) probably depends on whether or not this is an isolated phenomenon. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Too much heat, not enough light. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
actually, Rhymesmith, there is a bright line distinction. statutory rape means sexual interaction where one participant is not considered under the law to be competent to make the decision to have sex. it says nothing about whether the act was actually consensual. Rape in its proper sense means sexual interaction where one participant is forced against their will. You cannot equate a teenager who wants to have sex but is prevented from doing so by the legal system with an adult who does not want to have sex but is forced to do so by someone else; that's just silly. The distinction may be difficult to apply under the law, but the distinction is clear and unambiguous. there are no 'gradations of rape'; one either consents or one doesn't. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Read what I wrote. There is no logical bright line. There is a legal bright line, which is itself founded on gradations in the concepts of consent and rape. The law creates a category of crime, named rape, which fits over a certain category of human behavior. The distinction is not clear and unambiguous - it's impossible for there to exist an "unambiguous" law, in the logical sense. Yes, there is a reasonably obvious difference between consensual sex with a minor and forcible sex, but the legal definition of statutory rape is founded on the concept that the 'consent' of a minor is not in itself consent, as you yourself admit. I am not equating the two at all, but merely commenting that they are both legal fictions superimposed on a spectrum of human sexual behavior, and which are contingent on the legal and cognitive concept of consent. There are numerous types of rape in which precisely what counts as consent, legally and psychologically, is exactly the concept under debate - such as in instances where one is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; when one is a minor; when one is psychologically traumatized; when one is irrationally fearful, etc. - as I commented. Saying that one either consents or one doesn't is thoroughly ridiculous from both a legal and psychological perspective, and also given the number of cases in which what constitutes consent is exactly the issue at hand (that is the whole point of the concept of statutory rape). Consent is a legal and psychological fiction. The Rhymesmith (talk) No, you have it backwards: there is a logical bright line (yes / no), but legal blurring over evidentiary problems. Sex with an unwilling partner is rape. It may be difficult to prove in court that a partner was unwilling, a partner may be willing and decide later to claim to have been unwilling for emotional/personal reasons, a partner may be restricted by laws (because of age or debility) so that they are not allowed to be willing, but the act itself in the moment of commission is clear. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it is precisely the blurry reasoning used to excuse things like date rape (e.g. "well, she was pretty drunk, and she kinda struggled, but I 'convinced' her"). The assertion that a partner was 'convinced' rather than 'overpowered' is specious rationalization. --Ludwigs2 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) You appear to misunderstand both how the brain works and how logic works. (Moreover, if you actually think that the spoken words "yes/no" always precede consensual sex...) You speak of one being "unwilling". You speak as though unwillingness and consent are a clear mental state, which is simply not the case in all cases. You are welcome to believe that there is a single attitudinal and cognitive act known as "being willing", but the whole of neuropsychology is against you. You are, ludicrously, claiming that because my line of reasoning can lead to situations you dislike, there's therefore something logically wrong with it, which is gibberish. Since we're speaking of drunk individuals - those who 'give consent' while drunk are often held to not have been capable of giving consent in the legal sense (even having said, explicitly, on tape "I want to have sex with you"), the legal sense of consent being an abstraction from the cognitive sense. In cases where one says "I wish to have sex with you", and the numerous cognitive factors that can adversely influence volition (arousal, influence of alcohol/drugs, fear, etc.) are not present, the cognitive and legal concept of consent works without analysis. You say that the act itself in the moment of commission is clear. That's simply not true in all cases. As much as you might like for there to be some clean and clear neural and behavioral analogue to your idea of consent, there isn't. That's exactly why the law exists - to provide criteria by which to establish a concept of consent which can be used to (legally) assign penalties, etc. - for the good of society, to reflect cultural values, etc. Consenting to sex is rarely a single attitudinal act. One can, for example, begin to have sex voluntarily, but then become uncomfortable, but be fearful of ashamed of asking one's partner to stop - which has been interpreted by some courts as a withdrawal of consent. Herein the nature of consent as a legal fiction in jurisprudence is revealed, inasmuch as there is no fact of the matter as to whether 'consent' was or was not withdrawn, given that the brain doesn't work in terms of the English word 'consent' and the human concept behind it. We describe certain acts as 'consent' in courts of law; certain acts as 'consent' while speaking about them in everyday conversations (with the difference arising in cases such as 'consensual' statutory rape), and in doing so shoehorn a number of disparate psychological phenomena into one clean category for our convenience. The whole of the law on these matters exists solely to determine what does or does not constitute consent. You are altogether missing the point with the minors - a minor is not legally capable of giving consent. The 'clear act of commission' you speak of has no legal grounding, and in most children under sixteen, no cognitive grounding either. In other cases one can be uncertain of whether or not one wishes to have sex, and wind up having sex, and then charge one's partner with rape, even if the partner was himself (or herself) as uncertain as you (with an equal case against you for rape). An individual can 'give consent' to sex while perceiving themselves to be under duress where no such duress actually exists, or because they perceive themselves to be under social pressure from their partner or others. Courts in such circumstances have to apply the rigid criteria of a law to a situation which does not neatly fit into categories, much as you'd like it to. Of course, with a classical rape such as is imagined when the word is said, the lack of consent is very clear, but a clearcut concept of consent is the first thing to vanish once other cognitive factors begin intruding. One can become aroused and therefore become more willing to engage in acts one would not normally do, but simultaneously, while having sex, have a cognitive brake applied to one's willingness by another salient feature (such as catching sight of a crucifix, for example). Here what constitutes consent in the legal, cognitive, and conceptual senses is deeply blurry, and there's no fact of the matter as to what did or did not happen in terms of consent. One can say out loud that one wants to have sex, and impale oneself to the hilt on another, all from fear (which may or may not be well-founded fear, with well-foundedness itself being partially a cultural and legal construct). Would you like me to explain this to you at the neural level? I understand that you dislike the fact that my reasoning can be used to defend rapists (or 'innocents', as per the situation) in certain cases, but that has no bearing on either how the brain or the concept of consent works. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) watch the ad hominem language, particularly when I can easily turn it around on you. This isn't a matter of like/dislike, and I did not say anything about the words yes or no. I said - explicitly - that consent as a psychological issue is not an ambiguous concept. As a legal issue it is difficult to define and problematic to determine, but as a psychological issue (not to mention as a philosophical or moral issue) it is quite clear. There are extra emotional issues involving what to do in the situation (i.e., one may be forced to have sex against one's will but not want to pursue punishment for the perpetrator because of friendship, guilt, pride, or other intervening factors), but that is not the same as giving consent. And in terms of pure logic, note that you are essentially defining rape through an assertion that a victim must prove that they did not consent to the act. A freshman course in formal logic would help here: one cannot prove a negative statement, ever, and it's a fairly noxious rhetorical device to insist that they do so. plus... you're going to explain this to me at the neural level? that would be interesting: I know a handful of cognitive scientists who do research on brain functioning, and not one of them would have the unmitigated gaul to make that claim. The field is not sufficiently advanced for them to be able to link high-level conceptual structures to low-level neural structures. If you have some insights that they are not aware of, however, let me know and I'll pass the information on. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Ad hominem language? I'm merely replying to your statements - a)The problem with your line of reasoning is that it is precisely the blurry reasoning used to excuse things like date rape (its capacity to explain or not explain date rape had nothing to do with its logical validity) and b) (yes / no) (which stands in stark opposition to your other statement, I did not say anything about the words yes or no). Your example about an individual in duress is disingenuous, inasmuch as we would state in reply to that example that what we normally mean by consent was not given - or alternatively that "consent" was given, but invalidated by the circumstances. My (theoretical and imprecise) examples indicate situations in which what we normally mean by consent fails to gain traction, and is not necessarily the best or most coherent explanation of two people having sex. You insist that there is a clearcut psychological state (which presumably would have a neural analogue) which either does or does not obtain in all cases in which people have sex. I am dismissing this as an absurd proposition in all cases. It's psychologically (although not legally) extremely ambiguous, for example, whether someone whose brain is utterly smashed from liquor and drugs is capable of giving consent. There really is no fact of the matter - as if one could point to a certain factor and say that this mathematically defines whether or not consent took place, when nobody, including the participants, knows whether or not it did - and as such, a psychologist would write off the concept of conscious consent as inapplicable in the situation (whereas a court of law would not). You may be claiming that a clear, cognitive, conscious act of "consent" (whatever that may be, in terms of behavior and the neuroscience of it) needs to occur before sex for the sex to not constitute rape. You're welcome to your own definition, but that definition, considerably broader than the legal one, would indict hundreds of millions of amorous couples as rapists. You are stating that as a psychological issues giving consent is a clear issue. That's simply not the case. You clearly have in mind an idea of what constitutes consent - such that when faced with a scenario, you can say to yourself she gave consent, there, or no, he didn't give consent (you actually do go so far as to state that but that is not the same as giving consent in a hypothetical situation.) The problem is that your certainty about what constitutes consent is not shared by the psychological community in all cases. No. I'm not defining rape through an assertion that a victim must prove that they did not consent. (My freshmen would be intrigued to learn that I need to take a freshman course in logic.) I am making the very clear point that there is no single cognitive act which corresponds to "consent" in all cases in which two people have sex. This ties into my point about the neuroscience of it (which is, incidentally, non-controversial, for the most part). The concept of consent is an English word which applies to a family resemblance of thoughts, behaviors, etc. There is no reason why the brain's should necessarily fire in patterns which are or are not unambiguously "consent". The reason that the brain normally does fire in patterns which unambiguously constitute "consent" is because the concept of consent itself, in order to be useful, had to evolve in such a way that it's an applicable concept in most cases. The field (in which I work, incidentally, so please stop making random assertions about the state of neuroscience) is largely unable to link high-level concepts with low-level neural patterns because most high-level concepts are family resemblances which do not correspond to any single neural pattern. On mere morality, for example, take Greene and Haidt's research into the "warring" anterior cingulate and dorsolateral prefontal cortices - in which neural patterns which are dynamically defined in accordance with the salient features of a situation give rise to a sensibility which we normally (but don't always) call 'moral sense' or 'conscience'. Back to the logical point. I am not defining rape (and am baffled that you even drew that assumption). I am accepting the (US) legal definition of rape, which includes a legal concept of consent, which I also accept. The legal concept of consent is s stylized abstraction from the cognitive concept of consent, and as such there do exist cases in which one can be said to have cognitively given consent, but not legally (i.e. a minor). At no point do I argue otherwise, other than to state that there do exist numerous cases in which the whole point of the law is to ostensively ascribe consent or the lack thereof because there is no fact of the matter as to what actually happened. You believe that there is one clear act in which someone consents to have sex. I am stating that this is utterly unverifiable. There is no single (or even complex) of neural patterns associated with the word consent - and there are numerous cases involving duress and intoxication and insanity and the like in which precisely what constitutes consent is exactly the issue under debate. You may have a neo-mathematical clarity in all cases about whether or not consent existed, but the only thing to back up your own sentiment is your own sentiment. You speak as though there's a single brain state which constitutes consent (with no proof whatsoever), which implies that there's a theoretical algorithm for calculating whether or not consent was given if one is given all available information about the situation and the participants. I am stating that there are cases in which the concept of consent simply doesn't apply normally, or struggles to be intelligible, because neither one of the participants was thinking or behaving in terms of consent or anything similar. I'll try to restate this another way. There is no single psychological criterion or set of criteria that can unambiguously determine what does or does not constitute consent in all cases in which two people engage in sexual relations. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) by ad hominems I was referring to lines like "You appear to misunderstand both how the brain works and how logic works" and "I understand that you dislike the fact that..." You understand no such thing, and your assertions about what I think and know are wrong, irrelevant and offensive. Just so we're clear... back to the point, however. when you say things like "It's psychologically (although not legally) extremely ambiguous, for example, whether someone whose brain is utterly smashed from liquor and drugs is capable of giving consent" you make your own misconceptions obvious. Everyone knows that a person who is deeply intoxicated is incapable of making effective, rational choices: we even have laws prohibiting people from operating dangerous equipment or creating public nuisances while under the influence, and strong social mores against imbibing intoxicants while working in a professional capacity. Everyone also knows that men and women both will often drink in dating-type situations precisely because they want to take advantage of this diminished cognitive state (it's easier to make the transition from mere dating to mutually desirable sexuality with alcohol to buffer interfering concerns). But there is a clear (unambiguous) difference between someone who decides they want to get laid and gets a bit drunk as an excuse, and someone who had no real thought about getting laid but got too drunk to be fully in control of their actions. Most men simply do not want to pay attention to this distinction, because actually pausing to consider whether a woman is too cognitively impaired to make the decision would make their willy unhappy (fraternities, for instance, do a thriving business in drunk chicks to attract desired pledges, and bars make a ton of money off of 'ladies nights' for the same reason). The law has difficulty on this point is that the law is conservative and generally doesn't want to punish people without clear evidence of wrongdoing with respect to your fourth paragraph: cognitive deconstructionist tripe supported by what I will kindly call 'speculative' scientific assertions. or are you suggesting that Greene and Haidt themselves explicitly claim to have discovered a biological foundation for moral sense and human conscience? I'm thinking I might have noticed that... Really, your primary claim - I am making the very clear point that there is no single cognitive act which corresponds to "consent" in all cases in which two people have sex - is either a pure straw-man argument (I never argued there was a single instantiated moment of decision) or a general claim that people must be assumed by default to consent (since if we assume by default that people do not consent it would be impossible to have an ambiguous situation). If the latter, then you are in fact guilty of the rhetorical flaw I accused you of. By the way, freshman always have misconceptions about their professors. You're not going to impress me by pointing out that a bunch of dewey-eyed 18 year olds think you're an intellectual God. I've had enough dewey-eyed 18 year olds think I'm an intellectual God to recognize how silly that is. Probably best to drop this now - if this is the best argument you have to make, I'm not convinced, and I don't see any likelihood that I will convince you either. we've made our claims - let's be good academics and leave it for others to judge their merits. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussions but it seems to me people are discussing two different things to some extent. People definitely can experience physical pleasure during rape, our Rape by gender specifically mentions "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary. In rare cases, women can become physically aroused, produce natural lubrication, and even experience orgasms against their will during rape". And of course when males are raped by females, they would usually need some kind of erectile response. These sort of things are usually mentioned in discussions of rape and similarly it's often discussed how rape victims who do experience these things usually feel ashamed because of them, I'm surprised there is even any confusion over this. If you're discussing 'enjoying' the rape, which to me speaks of a more higher level, conscious thought, then this is a rather different thing and while I would agree that it's possible, it's likely very, very rare. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a bad choice of wording, based on the plot summary in the original movie article. the premise of the act in the movie is that there was a personal relationship and mutual attraction between the woman and the rapist prior to the rape which added a degree of emotional confusion (much like date rape), though apparently it progressed to something much uglier. I haven' seen the movie, so I can't say more. I think that point is cleared up, though the discussion has strayed into the legal definition of rape, above.

also, rape committed by women against men is exceedingly rare (and most commonly is statutory rape with a willing underage partner). When men are raped it's usually by other men, and they can sometimes have erections and orgasm during the rape (which is generally deeply traumatic, because it adds fears of homosexuality along with physical violations). --Ludwigs2 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the original question about the old film Straw Dogs, the woman had previously had a history of enthusiastic sexual intercourse with the man who initially forced himself on her. She intentionally flashed her breasts to him while he was working on the garage roof. When he sent her husband away on a snipe hunt, he proceeded to use force to get her to have sex with him. When the sex with the initial man and the second was finished, she was smoking a cigarette. She then covered up the events so her husband would not find out. The above assertions that "NO, NO!" cannot possibly ever turn into "YES, YES" are not supported by reliable sources, despite the wisdom that "No" always means "No." A rape which gave physical pleasure would still be a rape. Edison (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)