Section 1b

In Section 1 we discussed how instinct plays a role in human sexuality as it does with all living creatures. Of course the one difference with us humans is that we have the ability (or added burden, depending how you look at it) to reason.. to judge.. to determine when and how we want things done.. to recognize cause and effect and the results of our actions or inactions. More than any other animal species we are constantly at odds trying to control our instincts to reproduce while at the same time maintain some level of social order in order to collectively survive as a species. Animals of a given species don't rape each other. There's no need to because the instinct is so profound and dynamic across the genders. Yet we humans strive for individualism and self-choice.. choice to determine time and place and with whom... if at all... and when that choice is violated by another it demeans us emotionally.

Later on in Section 2 you will read how our sexual desires and fantasies are as diverse as our fingerprints. Fetishes can sometimes occur within that setting.. fetishes being the preference for objects for sexual substitution or enhancement. Fantasies on the other hand are generally storyboards that feed the mental acceptance of sex.. or shall we say, are part of instinct? For most of us we can keep our respective desires, fetishes, and fantasies in balance with our daily lives. But what exactly constitutes a daily life?

The Kulture Kampf
Ah, the culture struggle. Quite naturally we view humanity in terms of our present culture and social mores'. But all throughout our history cultures and societies have flourished and died and with each one there were community standards of living and conduct... set forth in rules, dogma, edicts, proclamations, and religious doctrine. This was needed for protection and survival. It still is (remember Maslow in Section 1?). Once we feel protected then we can have sex and reproduce. But protected from whom? Well, community shelter construction tends to protect us from the elements and does tend to favor those individuals who might otherwise not make it out in the woods on their own. But basically the protection was and is from other warring cultures and communities.. and from individuals wihin. The latter represents the reason societies have laws. Laws attempt to protect those of us who prefer making a choice or choices not recognized by others.

It seems you can 'blame' nature for much of the reason rape exists in the human species on a couple levels. The first is that our ability to reason is a very potent weapon of survival. We adapt to the ever changing environment and survive simply by our thought processes. We learn and we can draw conclusions. That allows us to manipulate our physical environment to suit our manner in which we survive. And of course the only reason we strive to survive, as with any species, is to procreate.... individually. When we engage in sex we are surrendering to and fulfilling an instinctual desire to pass on only our genetic code. The act of rape, as far as nature is concerned, is simply another way we humans can pass on our individual genetic code.

Ok, let's back up a bit. Rape by definition is the act of sex with an unwilling partner. The event itself generally becomes violent as it's usually the female who's attempting to fight off a male aggressor. More often than not the female looses (more on this aspect later) and that's when our reasoning traits kick in that result in interpreting the event as being physically invasive and many times injurious. But more importantly it's physically and emotionally demeaning both on a personal level and within the social community. The female lost the fight (which is bad enough) and as a result the act of sex was forced upon her by someone she did not choose.. thus 'injuring' her instinctual desire to only procreate with someone of her own choosing. This 'being emotionally injured' can manifest itself in many ways... changes in behavior, fear of other humans, and other traumas. In the human community this can send a signal to other potential partners that this female would not make a very good sexual mate and subsequently not an effective mother to 'my' offspring. If she ended up getting pregnant during the rape then of course no male would want to care for her as her offspring wouldn't contain his genetic code.
Now, I encourage the reader to keep in mind that all this sounds like an anthropological expedition into the behavior of early man but it's not. These are inbred instincts that are with us even today. Fast computers, fast cars, and fast lifestyles don't change a thing about our genetic makeup as a species.

Another level of 'blame' onto nature for the recognition of rape in humankind is the difference in the physical size and strength between human males and females. In many animal species the male is a kind of sexual aggressor.. or tends to instigate the process when the programmed time comes. But in most species the female is of equal size and weight.. or is even larger than the male. I think we've all seen the nature shows where some randy male is attempting to mount a female yet the female will sometimes balk at his attempts and even drive him away. Obviously she sensed something about him and she chose not to have him as a sex partner... and was able to back up her choice by force. Hence to those animal species there's no such thing as rape (just maybe attempted rape which really doesn't count in the natural scheme of things in the wild as that can be acceptable behavior).

So Given Humans Can Reason Why Is Rape So Much A Part Of Being Human?
Well, rape is part of being human because the act itself is against the will of the victim. Because of that a social community may establish laws to attempt to control it. But interestingly enough, while a community may have laws against it within its own citizenry, it was generally accepted during wars of conquest and in the treatment of slaves, who were typically the spoils of war. In other words, rape was woven into the culture to some measure. It was permissable on one level when conquering, dehumanizing, and humiliating your enemy but not within the confines of your own social order. It's been a universal tool of submission throughout the ages. Now, quite obviously the ones who fought the wars were males. Many contemporary scientists suggest that the testosterone levels during battle (or physical competition) are increased in order to maximize the male's prowess and strength to survive. After the battle it then became somewhat typical for the release of all those increased hormone levels to be aimed at the conquered female population (soldiers in the field feel the stress of battle and tend to take their 'rewards'). Yeah, it all sounds a bit of a stretch but think about it for a moment. Wars themselves tend to decimate vast armies and many times the local populations. The result of that is usually a shortage of males and sometimes females. Strangely enough the act of rape in humiliating your enemy during or following a war served two natural purposes. It kept a balance in the local population and it also served to cross breed races and nationalities... thus fulfilling nature's role in maintaining the human species. This was also prevelant in the taking of slaves. Conquered races were generally considered inferior to their conquerers and forced into servitude. In many cases the act of rape was illegal if you were a citizen but not upon your slaves. Ancient Rome was a perfect example of this duality. Slaves were real property and as such their owners had total control of their life and death. It was quite common for slaves to be raped simply because they were considered inferior... all the way up to the American Civil War. Yet rape did lead to a merging of races.

Consider further the more contemporary examples. We all know that after World War II there was a boom in childbirths. Quite obviously this wasn't due to any mass rape of the population but as the vast armies returned home to resume their lives there was a population of women at home seeking younger men... and men yurning to settle down after all the fighting and simply being away from home for so long. It was simply nature at work attempting to level out the population. In Europe it was most profound because so many soldiers and civilians had died and the result was a vast void in national populations that took years to rectify naturally.

Here's another example. The recent war in Bosnia and the civil conflicts in African nations like Rwanda and the Congo is a typical example of rape and humiliation as being part of the so called ethnic cleansing and settling of old political scores. Generally speaking, modern armies are well-desciplined and tend to refrain from taking sexual vengence on local populations. Even in World War II, for everything the German Army has been accused of doing, wholesale rape was never an issue (it was even illegal for someone to have sex with a Jew hence there was very little rape in the death camps). Yet when the Russian Army invaded Germany at the end of the war rape was even encouraged as a measure of humiliation and retribution. But in Kosovo and Bosnia the army was less organized and far less disciplined and old racial scores ran deep and went back for centuries. Unfortunately, ethnic cleansing meant anniliating the enemy off the face of the planet. As a result many rapes ended in murder... which hardly does anything toward maintaining population levels. But you can see how the movement of vast armies across continents can help to spread genetic code all over the place... partially as the result of rape.

So Because Rape Is So Much A Part Of Being Human Do We Just Accept That?
In a word, no. At least not in our contemporary society. But who knows what future societies might permit it.. or permit it in the form of the spoils of warfare. But what we should accept is an understanding that rape does play a natural role in humanity. It doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to control it. In a so-called civilized society there should be protections to safeguard the population and rape is an acknowledged form of human humiliation. But so far we have been discussing how rape tends to follow armies of conquest. What about the guy down the block who rapes your daughter... or you? Well, that's a unique set of circumstances that can have a wide range of psychological motivations. Obviously it's not simply about a soldier letting off some steam after a hard day on the battlefield (not that, that should be a valid reason for condoning rape).

Man on an individual level commits rape for a wide range of reasons. First off, let's look at the act itself. Bottom line, it's sex, pure and simple. Sex is instinctual and sometimes the act itself releases stress and various hormonal changes can occur. Some males can be addicted to that. In some males the act of sex becomes a conduit, or even a weapon, by which he can enact his own measure of justice upon the world, the female gender, or even an event in his life. Not every rapist rapes just for sex. I think it's widely accepted that men rape women as some abstract way of getting back at another woman in their past who did them some wrong.. like an ex-wife or mother. In general the act is done to humiliate the woman.. not provide her with sexual pleasure. Simply put, when a man decides to rape he rapes because he can. He's stronger and typically has more body weight than a female. Does this mean a rapist can claim he was just responding to his natural instincts and get off the hook? Sadly, it may come to that someday. But more often than not something inside the mind shorts out the awareness of what's acceptable and not acceptable social behavior, shorts out simple empathy and compassion for their fellow man (or woman), and completely shorts out the guilt process regarding the consequences of his actions. And strangely enough instincts themselves can go awry and become obsessive to satisfy.

To summarize a bit...
When compared to much of the animal kingdom human females are poorly adept to ward off their sexually aggressive male counterparts. This relatively submissive trait is due in part to the natural roles between human males and females, that of hunters and nurturers, in order to keep the male around to protect, sustain, and help rear the young. When a female is unwilling to mate with a given potential partner and that partner forces the act it still fulfills the instinctive role of continuing the human species yet it can leave the female emotionally and socially isolated.. as well as having a child without a male (if the male chooses to run off) to sustain and protect the both of them. Hence nature's selection in giving humans the power to reason and understand between good and 'bad'.. and to establish social order through laws and customs. Hopefully this reduces 'unconsentual' advances for the good of the entire group. But as we all know, reasons for rape can be much more than just desiring a sex partner hence rape occurs but on an individual level as a result of other issues.

I recall an earlier TV episode from the series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, where the character, Tasha Yar, the slender and pretty security officer (played by Denise Crosby) reflects on having somehow escaped the 'rape gangs' on her planet as a younger woman. Now, when I first watched this I was rather disturbed in a sense as to what the writers of the show were trying to convey. Obviously the intent of her reflection at the time was to call attention to her somewhat violent past as being the reason for her effectiveness as a security officer. The writers apparently thinking that coming from a planet of 'rape gangs' would somehow impress the viewing audience that she had indeed managed to escape from hell. But let's pick this apart for a moment. Are we assuming that she was from a planet with a defined natural order of selection that included males who hunted in packs soley for sex? What about food and pausing to build shelter from the elements? Were there separate 'gangs' for acquiring food and shelter (ala, 'food gangs' or 'shelter gangs')? Let's assume for a moment that 'rape gangs' existed inside their evolutionary development on that planet. The female of the species would then have evolved into accepting being raped, or certainly the attempts, to fulfill their own instinctual place. If that's true then there would be no such thing as rape. If their evolutionary species evolved with male/female roles to be that of procreation predators (males) and procreation 'avoiders' (females) in order to control population growth then 'rape' is not a word. All sex is unconsentual and yet that is the norm. In order for all that to work the female would have to be something of a physical match and might have adapated into 'anti-rape' gangs as I can't imagine females on that planet having evolved into wandering around alone. And of course this is all not taking into consideration the inside pecking order of the gangs themselves as to who does the raping when there's not enough females to go around.

I guess my whole point in citing this fictional Hollywood example is to illustrate that 'rape' is for the most part a strictly human term that describes an event that has been a part of humanity since its branch sprouted on the tree of evolution... and can be relative to nature, although very important to man. Rape exists simply because humans can reason. Yet it's a perfectly natural event within human instinctual development. One could argue, quite convincingly I might add, that nature has inbred into human instinctual AND physical development the elements that encourage rape (the male instinct to be sexually dominant and female physical characteristics not being suited to fight off aggressive males). This by no means justifies the act in our present day society but it does help to explain why it occurs at all. In other words, being the human species acknowledges that rape is part of our evolutionary equation. It remains up to us how we want to control it.

Rape Fantasies
By nature man is dominating during the sex act and women are submissive. Men are stronger and women are not. These are acknowledged gender differences. And while the act of real rape itself is humiliating the act of fantasy rape, generally consentual role play, can be very erotic to many people.. especially women. A contradiction? Sure it is.. of sorts. In the bedroom it's typically natural for the woman to want to be dominated by her sexual partner. It's part of the pleasure instinct that nature provides us.. shifting moods. One day we may want slow cuddling sex, the next we may want to be ravaged and rode hard... tied down, restrained. The bottom line is still that the female has made a choice on who her sex partner should be... to 'rape' her. But as far as nature is concerned no matter how or why you do it you're fulfilling the instinct to procreate.

(An observational sidebar... the traditional concept that defines true rape is the idea that someone, typically the female, is forced into sex unwillingly or unconsentually by an undesired partner. In recent years the concept of rape has been extended into married life, thus changing the overall traditional view of marriage itself being a lifelong 'sexual consent'. This makes the idea of fantasy rape between consenting partners a bit confusing. In other words, for the fantasy rape to be erotic and desireable in the first place there has to be some element of rejection and/or refusal by one partner toward the other or it's not rape. In contemporary society activist women have centered on the idea that when a woman says no.. she means "NO!", whether it's to an agressive stranger or their husband. So, if a wife returning home from a day at the office walks in the door and is aggressively 'attacked' by her amourous husband and tossed into bed and gets her clothes ripped off of her and she cries out "No.. I have to pee!" , just how is that supposed to be interpreted by the husband? What if she says, "No.. I had a bad day at the office and I'm not in the mood." Fortunately for society instances of marital rape are not all that common. But you can see how rape can range from a legitimate traumatic victimizing event... to bedroom sex play... to expressing marital discord.)

Pedophilia & Incest

Let's look at incest first. The word itself is applied to the act of sex with immediate family members regardless of age and regardless of level of consent. But we all know the the term is more recognizably used to describe an adult having sex with their younger child. Frankly, we are back to a form of rape. Is there some instinctual human thing going on here as well? Again, nature covers both bases. When incest is carried out on a sexually mature child the child could get pregnant and yes, that helps sustain the species. But... our ability to reason and our instinctive desire to nurture our young keeps the majority of humanity from engaging in wholesale incest because offspring from incestuous relationships do tend to result in diminshed suvivability due to a number of replecative birth deficiencies. Interstingly, consentual incest between adult males and their mothers is relatively more common than between consenting father and daughter. History is full of incestuous relationships and it was quite common within royal families for nearly thousands of years. But modern man views the label of incest as meaning taking advantage of a son or daughter at an early age for sexual purposes. Technically it's not unconsentual but it's widely understood in our society that young children are very impressionable and can be easily swayed by a parental authority figure. The result of such acts to the young person, especially in our sexually repressive society, is to upset their emotional balance which in turn can effect their quality of life well into adulthood. But there have been some past cultures that have allowed incest as more a mainstream part of life. It's all a matter of existing social whims. But in the end levels of incest can also be pedophilia.

The term 'pedophilia', strictly defined, is 'love of the young' and therefore remains a term that describes a psychiatric mental condition. But, like with many of the other 'philias' (like necrophilia), it has also come to describe an event. One does not have to be a card-carrying pedophile by nature to engage in a pedophilic act. But pedophilia, or rather the crime of pedophilia in our culture, is unique from rape and incest in that it's entirely based on the age of one of the partners having sex... nothing else. How does human instinct enter into this picture? As with incest, nature has kept us humans from wholesale sex with the young because we feel a parental responsibility to nuture our young into adulthood. On the other hand, pedophilia being a matter of age, it depends at what age we are talking about.

Nature prepares a female for sexual maturity at the time of first menstruation.. which is typically 11-12 years of age. Obviously that was 'done' for a reason. Human life expectancies up until the last 200 years or so was very low (someone in their 30's was considered elderly) and mortality rates between adults and infants due to disease, famine, and wars was pretty high as well. So childbearing was begun typically in the pre-teen years (which, by the way, is why males are attracted to younger women.. and younger women desire older males). Now, when a female does reach sexual maturity not only does she start her monthly cycles but also the other hormonal changes take effect including increased pheromone levels that are part and parcel to attracting a mate. This is all a natural process to assure our species continues. But while the physical evolution of our bodies has remained basically the same for thousands of years man has evolved intellectually, especially in adapting to his environment and living conditions. This means that the days are long gone where we simply taught our offspring how to hunt and fish and make clothes from animal hides in order to pass on survival techniques. Survival today is not learning how to get the next meal or how to keep warm during the winter. It's about how to compete with others for personal achievement and success and to live a quality of life to pursue recreation or acquire higher knowledge in the hope of achieving some level of greatness; to continue to procreate, have offspring, and send them to schools to learn how to live, not off the land, but within the framework of a society that encourages personal achievment over brawn and physical prowess. And to do all that means there is more to life than simply hunting for a mate, bearing children, and devoting all your time nurturing. That activity now becomes.. planned. And part of that planning is the social acceptance that when you can live to be 75 there's no reason to start bearing children when you are 12 and thusly be burdened, or burden others, with a child during a period when you are still acquiring the skills to compete in society and will have little time for parenting much less the cultural skills to accept that responsibility at such a young age. So, we create a law that says sex with anyone under the age of (typically 17 or 18) is illegal. But that is man's law.. not nature's. And while it's not 'wrong' to make such a law in our day and age it still poses the biological problem of trying to control socially-defined adult males, and females of that age group (say, 12 to 18), from sexually attracting each other.

So what about children earlier than 11 or 12? Humans are sexually diverse and while we do all operate instinctually from nature's rule book we still carry with us individualized desires for mates... and sometimes this gets into the ages that fall below the childbearing years. Again, nature has programmed us in general to prefer not engaging in sex with children... but there are always exceptions because of this built-in diversity. Obviously, having sex with someone who cannot bear children on the surface makes no sense.. even to nature. Even a proclivity to have sex with the dead falls into a similar resultant category... or having sex with a watermelon... or a passing buffalo. Those things become fetishes.. alternatives to pure reproductive sex (but sometimes can be used to enhance 'normal' sex).

Criminal Intent or Just An Excuse?
Ok, I know there are some of you out there who having read this entire section thus far are thinking, "Isn't this all just a prescription for getting some asshole off the hook?" No. Our ability to reason also includes the ability to be responsible for our actions. Rather I think this is a prescription for understanding who and what we are as a species in order to begin to realize that sexual crimes have a basis in human instinctual development and that we need to use this realization to form cohesive treatments of violators so as not to have repeat offenders. It's quite obvious that harsh language, threats of imprisonment, actual imprisonment, re-imprisonment, social embarrassment and isolation (reporting laws), and even overt fear of the death penalty, is not working in many cases. And to be quite honest, if I may editorialize for a moment, casting out and isolating past violators by using reporting laws that highlight who they are to an entire community is absurd in this day and age. Not only does it make the criminal a potential target for retribution but it alienates them from society and encourages them to either land on welfare roles or lash out in some fashion. To the immediate neighborhood it sets into motion fear for family, fear for home values falling in the neighborhood, and the potential for taking matters into their own hands increases. Hell, physical castration would be better (although I'm not suggesting that as a solution). At least the criminal could meld back into society again and have some kind of life and not threaten anyone.

As I've said before, we humans are a complex lot. Everything we do has diversity because as individuals are ARE diverse. Nature has seen to that in order for us to survive.