Yeah I guess, I'm not really disputing this part. Don't agree. Steadily lowering testosterone levels in men as they age is not what I'm talking about and not what I think anyone here is talking about. I'm referring to baseline levels dropping in healthy younger men. Causes all sorts of health issues.
The part where you say that males evolved to be stronger and more violent because of natural selection and intra-sexual competition. The part where you insinuate that rape had evolved as a last resort reproductive strategy for males (as a byproduct of the aggression drive) whose genes would otherwise have been filtered out by female selection. The trolling parts are just your attempts to hyporbolize and dramatize my claims that are founded on the studies done by male scientists nonetheless. You can read this paper : https://elifesciences.org/articles/65031
With respect to the radical feminists who have come before us, that isn't true. Animals rape. They mate, and it's not always consensual, this has been observed by every person who has lived on a ranch or farm, ever. You have to keep the bulls, rams, bucks, roosters, and stallions penned separately from the cows, ewes, does, hens, and mares, otherwise the males will attempt to mate and the females will attempt to get away. This isn't just in domesticated animals, either. Rape has been observed in the wild with animals ranging from ducks to dolphins. I understand the reluctance to label these interactions as rape, because there is a belief that these animals are purely natural. By suggesting they rape, we're claiming rape is part of nature and may be difficult or even impossible to reverse. However, these same so-called "interactions" are described as, and I quote, "(male orangutans) sometimes physically restrain a female and mate with her even as she cries out and struggles." What other definition of rape is there? "Patrick and his orangutan male counterparts may indeed act badly toward females," it is claimed, "yet they aren't willfully choosing to inflict harm or violence as an expression of institutionalized male dominance." This statement is grossly humanist, as it essentially denies that orangutans posses the capacity to have institutions. Yet we know orangutans raised in isolation are helpless in the wild, that they do not know what to eat, how to use natural medicines, where to sleep, how to interact with a troop. Orangutans are taught how to be orangutans, and male orangutans are taught to rape, by the male institutions of their species. It is inconvenient for the Radical Feminists who have difficulty coming to grips with the fact that they themselves, that the entire breadth of not just humanity, but the entire animal kingdom, is a product of rape. They might have some kind of attachment issue with their fathers, they may want to forgive them, but the truth is their mothers were raped. As a human male who has had intercourse, I have to come to grips with the fact that I am a rapist. It doesn't matter if I thought I had the best intentions. It doesn't even matter if I thought she was a willing participant. It doesn't even matter if she thought she was a willing participant. The truth is, she has been fully immersed in and acclimated to rape culture, psychologically conditioned to believe motherhood is desirable and intercourse an acceptable means to arrive at that conclusion. But as Andrea Dworkin said, "Romantic love... is the mythic celebration of female negation. For a woman, love is defined as her willingness to submit to her own annihilation. The proof of love is that she is willing to be destroyed by the one whom she loves, for his sake. For the woman, love is always self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of identity, will, and bodily integrity, in order to fulfill and redeem the masculinity of her lover." I have dramatized nothing. I have only dared to express the logical conclusion, probably because testosterone drives me to be disagreeable, and confrontational, yet it remains true. As for the claims founded on studies by male scientists, of course. It has to be. We all know men shut women out of the sciences, at first as a simple institutional policy, now by culturally discouraging women from participating in STEM fields, so the vast majority of research out there has been done by men. Even when they try to hide the results of their research through obfuscation and half-baked justifications, Radical Feminists know the truth because they have their own experiences, and the experiences of their sisters to call on; men are inherently immoral, with the proclivity to violence, murder, and rape. Since science is the pursuit of truth, it can only verify what we already know.
What is the bottom line here ? It seems like nothing you say make any sense. Why wouldn't the animals' behaviour be qualified as rape ? When it's about forcing a sexual act on a resisting female ? Also, what brings radical feminists into this ? Since they clearly disagree that rape is something intrinsic to male nature and that is more culturally taught rather than born with.
I know my communication is bad, because my brain is literally inferior in this respect. That's also based on scientific research. I'll try to be better. That's exactly my point. Some people claiming to be feminists say animals do force a sexual acts on resisting females, but it isn't rape, because the animals in question aren't "willfully choosing to inflict harm or violence as an expression of institutionalized male dominance." It took some effort for me to dissect that statement, but here's what I figure. This aggressive behavior is clearly willful, and a choice, so that's not important. They are obviously inflicting harm and violence, that's not what prevents their behavior from being described as rape. Animals express, and the vast majority of mammalian behavior is characterized by male dominance. So it has to be that key word, "institutional." Animals rape. Even when people claiming to defend women don't want to admit it. Exactly. You can see from the quotes, from Andrea Dworkin, from Valarie Solanis, from Judith Butler and all of them, men aren't naturally evil. They are evil because they are taught to be, through socialization, through porn. Their fathers and brother taught them to be violent and cruel. Every time a man sparks fear in a woman, it's because of his moral choice. That's clear, I don't know why you would think I was saying otherwise.
I think the fact that rape may have some natural roots shouldn't scare radical feminists at all. Even in the case this is true. So what ? Does that mean that women have to accept men treating them poorly and accept male violence ? Of course not. Does that mean that women should have to become submissive wives and trade-off whatever advancement they made in exchange for the protection of one man from the depravity of other men ? Of course not. What matters the most at this point is resisting male violence using whatever it takes and without remorse.
Of course. All men who have had intercourse are rapists, and all men who have enjoyed watching intercourse and fantasized about participating in it have driven demand for such materials, and are partially responsible for that rape as well. We should be treated accordingly.
Not at all, I think the issue here is that you don't understand the core message of Dworkin's book. Did you read it ?
@Meshuga this is not what Dworkin wanted to convey through her book, what she truly meant was that male sexuality was so intertwined with notions of power and dominance. Think about it for a second here, there‘s a reason why it‘s "s*ck my d*ick“ and not "lick my p*sy“ to demean someone. There‘s a reason why we say "get f*cked“ and "that‘s f*ked“. f*ked means: penetrated. There‘s a reason why so much language surrounding penetrative sex is so violent: smashed, nailed, "rearranging someone‘s guts“, banging, scr*wing. There‘s a reason why so many people have an aversion to gay sex, or even straight men engaging in passive anal acts. There‘s a reason why lesbian porn catered to men usually involves dildos and strap-ons. There‘s a reason why it‘s "big d*ck energy“ andn "small d*ck energy“ and not big and small p*ssy energy. There‘s a reason why a woman‘s vagina is considered "worn out“ when she had a lot of sexual partners while it doesnt impact a man‘s d*ck. There‘s a reason why men say "I f*cked your mom/sister“ as an insult: I stained your property, I dishonored your family. There‘s a reason why women with a lot of sexual partners, or even women who arent virgins, are considered "dirty“ and dishonored, and why gay and bisexual men are seen as less manly. There‘s a reason why women who are and were prostitutes or in porn are seen as less worthy while men who buy sex or do (straight) porn are seen as manly, which is considered good. There‘s a reason why "wh*re“ and "sl*t“ are female specific terms. Penetration is seen as degrading. And sex is often only considered as penetration. and the penis is considered to be superior, and a tool of degradation. And to be penetrated is seen as a female trait, which in turn justifies women‘s degradation and misogyny. this is where a lot of homophobia stems from as well. This is why the penis is not a neutral body part. And this is the core message of Dworkin's book, not that "all intercourse is rape".
If you look at mammals where intra-sexual competition is intense, you will see that the males of said specie will always be stronger and more competitive. The root cause of male strength was exactly that. And it was set in our specie's lineage way before hunting was introduced. So it looks like you are getting things a little bit backwards here. It's not that males are stronger because of hunting, they became stronger as the byproduct of thousands of years of natural selection within highly competitive environment, and then that strength was used in more sophisticated activities when humans became more evolved. During that period, where food was scarce and sexual access to females was limited, the males were less likely to be altruistic and more likely to be confrontational. This is when physical strenght and the aggressive demeanor became a useful trait for surviving and passing their genes. Physical strength could come in handy in hunting (carrying the hunt back to the tribe), but the fact that humans used tools and hunted in groups gave the opportunity for females to hunt as well. You can look in the anthropological literature to understand more about this. That's not to say that physical disparity didn't influence hunting techniques. In the aka tribe the female hunters developed tools and tactics different from the males because they have different challenges than their male counterparts. As for protection, as strong as the male body was (and still is), it didn't stand a chance against a predator, as it was still quite vulnerable and couldn't run as fast as the most dangerous predators. Even when it's more than one man against one dangerous animal. This is among the reasons that led early humans to develop hunting tools and strategies, and even if the females hunted less frequently than the males, they still participated sufficiently to be counted as hunters. This was done to maximize the chances of survival of the whole community. Plus, the primitive average woman was also more strongly built than the average modern woman, even if it's not enough to rival male strenght, it was still enough to get by and survive. There's a nat geo article discussing how neolithic females had arms strong enough to compare to modern female athletes. I am talking about our distant ancestors, the ones that were less evolved and couldn't yet create sophisticated tools. The resources the males fought over were females among other things, such as food or anything else that could maximise their chances of survival and their opportunities for passing their genes.
There's an interesting theory as to why that happened. It's believed that humans induced their own self domestication, by gradually removing the violent males from the gene pool as their presence posed as a threat to the community's cohesion and by extension to the community's survival.
Because females are better, because they don't have testosterone. They cooperate instead of just yelling at each other and taking it. Duh. I mean think about it. When was the last time you saw women fight over anything?
I think the spotted hyenas are an evolutionary mystery on their own, as well as the matriarchal bonobos. That's delusional, even with a spear a human is still the one in the less advantagous position here. They did of course, although to a lesser intensity than the males. The males fought more because they were not only incentivised by their need to survive, but also by their need to secure their genetic lineage, females had no such incentive as they were the ones usually approached by males, as well as the fact that females are tied to their offsprings and exposing themselves to danger would also endanger their offspring.
It is quite the mystery, and to solve it evolutionary biologists need to decipher the unique set of environemental conditions that contributed to the rise of these two matriarchal species : bonobos and spotted hyenas. It did apply to our distant ancestors, not the ones belonging to the homo (human) lineage. When human brains became more evolved and T levels dropped in both males and females, individuals became more cooperative. Btw what makes you bring the female features into this ? How does that relate to our topic ?
Uhhhh... Andrea Dworkin wrote a lot of books. I haven't read them all. But I have read enough to appreciate that she has that outside perspective that is capable of understanding what men and masculinity are are about. See, having grown up as a male, being socialized as a male, having male expectations laid on me and being incentivized to lean into those expectations, going so far as to measure my intrinsic worth against my ability to measure up to those expectations, I thought I understood what it was like to be a man. She helped me see that I needed the outside perspective of a fearful and angry woman to know what being a man was like. For example, I had thought "I (had forcible intercourse) with your mom" was an effective insult because it is directed at a male's masculinity, at his failure to fill his most important priority as a man by protecting the women in his family from forcible intercourse. It took a woman to show me it was actually about the insulted male's association with a promiscuous female, because men hate promiscuous females. See, I didn't know before I read Dworkin that men hated promiscuous females. It's because I wasn't paying attention, because of testosterone. I had fallen for the lie that romance, that love, was something to aspire to. Dworkin opened my eyes to the fact that romance is another word for the negation of femininity, it's about the destruction of a woman's ambitions. She taught me that seduction is just a word for "patient rape." She taught me everything I wanted to be as a man, to be competent, to be reliable, to strong and dangerous to bad actors and to be ambitious and build something, create something worthwhile and helpful for my community, was really covert expressions of my intrinsic violence and hatred for women. As a man, I have to come to grips with the fact that I was conceived in a violent act against a woman, my birth was violence against that same woman, that my existence as a child in a family with female siblings meant I was stealing material and parental resources from women, and that by dating and marrying a woman and fathering children on her, I perpetuated that violence. This has been her riskiest pregnancy yet, and I have to own my responsibility in that. Her first birth was precipitous, with third degree tears, that was my fault because that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't violated her body and I should note, it was a male child that did that to her. And this current risky pregnancy is also a male child. She doesn't bear any responsibility in this because she has been brought up inside the patriarchy and has been taught to negate her own value. She's been brainwashed into thinking she enjoys motherhood, and has been blinded to the fact that it only causes her pain and fatigue. Another animal you guys haven't considered, in terms of matriarchy and testosterone, is the meerkat. These live in matriarchal tribes, and a feature scientists have discovered is that the matriarch has more testosterone. She has her pick of the males, and though some of the other females will mate and produce litters of their own, the dominant female will force them to hunt for her and her litter, and to care for her litter while neglecting their own. If she's given a testosterone blocker, she stops bullying the other meerkats and they live in harmony for several weeks. This proves it's not just individuals who have been socialized as males and taught to rape, it's the testosterone that courses through their vile bodies. If we can reduce men's testosterone by whatever means necessary, we will also live in harmony for several weeks.
That's just an attempt at conflation, none of the insults similar to "I f*ked your mother/sister" imply that the f*king was forceful, it only implies that it did happen and that's it. And the fact that it happened at all is already considered a severe insult on its own to the man receiving this announcement. Yes promiscuous females are extremely stigmatized, and it's not only because of their promiscuity it's also because they are females. Promiscuous males aren't as stigmatized and are even celebrated by their peers. Romance in what conditions, in what context and under what pressures ? These are the important questions Dworkin prompts us to ask ourselves, and not sweep under the rug the conditions, context and pressures under which any romance may happen. What part of analysing the social perceptions associated with sexual penetration you don't properly get ? For the nth time, Dworkin never meant that literally "all intercourse is rape". It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about here.
