Does rape increase the possibility of conception?

[cosmicalstorm]

I ran into the following claim at another forum when the subject of rape came up.

Women have a biological imperative to be raped. Did you know that women who are raped are twice as likely to conceive as women who have unprotected consensual sex? It is a fact.

I found it very disturbing to say the least, but it did make me wonder; is there any truth behind that claim?

In my opinion it would'nt make much sense from an evolutionary point of view, after all, the womans ability to select a fitting partner is what drives a lot of things forward.

[ArmorPierce]

actually I have heard this something to this. Don't think it means it's a biological imperative for women to be raped rather than a biological imperative for men to rape. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... njury.html

[Adrian Laguna]

It's not a fact because the guy says it is. He needs to prove it. I seriously doubt he can, because I smell a BIG pile of shit. What's more, if the statement is true, and that is a very big if, it does not mean women have a biological imperative to be raped. The supposed increased conception rate could be explained from a rapists sperm being more potent, that rapists tend to go for women who are ovulating (pheromones or something), or something I haven't thought of. I am amused by the first possibility, since it would mean Mr. Dipshit just proved men have a biological imperative to rape, effectively playing into the hands of a certain crazy minority of the female populace. You should go congratulate him.

[Ariphaos]

There was also a BBC article pointing to a UK study that said much the same thing.

Given the predominance of date rape I imagine it has a lot to do with unconscious (and sometimes conscious) signals a woman gives off while she is ovulating. A more interesting study would control for more factors on the male's end of the equation.

[Broomstick]

I ran into the following claim at another forum when the subject of rape came up.

Women have a biological imperative to be raped. Did you know that women who are raped are twice as likely to conceive as women who have unprotected consensual sex? It is a fact.

I found it very disturbing to say the least, but it did make me wonder; is there any truth behind that claim?

What, that women want/need to be raped? Bullshit, pure bullshit.

As for conception, I don't see where it could possibly be "twice as likely" than with unprotected consensual sex. I would demand some sort of proof of that statement.

[Molyneux]

I really, really hope not.

[Kitsune]

Also, if a woman is pregnant, isn't she more likely to report rape?

[Broomstick]

Why would that be?

[Lord of the Abyss]

In my opinion it would'nt make much sense from an evolutionary point of view, after all, the womans ability to select a fitting partner is what drives a lot of things forward.

The arguments I've heard are that :

1 : From a purely Darwinian point of view, her genes are just as happy if they get spread by a son who's an effective rapist, as by one that's a good husband. Always remember that to your genes, you are an expendable tool.

2 : No, according to this theory women don't "want to be raped"; if they did, they wouldn't be evolutionarily selecting for effective rapists. In fact, they are supposed to absolutely hate it, which they do of course. They are supposed to fight back, but not lethally.

3 : And, according to this theory, women's subconscious instincts will manipulate them into misjudgements that increase the likelihood of being raped.

4 : And you would expect rape victims to be more fertile, since their bodies are trying to get pregnant even if that's the last thing they personally want.

So, whether it's true or not, it's plausible enough in Darwinian terms. The reason people freak out is because so many insist on pretending natural and good are the same.

[Kitsune]

Why would that be?

Because you have a product which is visible where if you are not pregnant, you may want to try and forget it.

I am being a bit theoretical. I am concerned about getting numbers which are actually accurate on this though

[Kitsune]

I wanted to add that I know of two women who started crying that they were raped as soon as they got pregnant. As far as I understand, both had consensual sex but changed their mind somewhere after the fact.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Thankfully, this isn't something which can be tested empirically.

[Terralthra]

I don't see why this, if true, would be surprising. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. In our pre-societal days, procreation was probably as much rape as anything else. Genes that influenced conception in favor of conception from rape more would be selected in favor those that do not.

The more important thing is, if this is true, so the fuck what? We also have a biological imperative to breed as much as possible, consume all available resources, and expand into every ecological niche we can; look where that 'imperative' has gotten us.

[Kitsune]

Thankfully, this isn't something which can be tested empirically.

That is part of my argument

[Broomstick]

In my opinion it would'nt make much sense from an evolutionary point of view, after all, the womans ability to select a fitting partner is what drives a lot of things forward.

The arguments I've heard are that :

1 : From a purely Darwinian point of view, her genes are just as happy if they get spread by a son who's an effective rapist, as by one that's a good husband. Always remember that to your genes, you are an expendable tool.

2 : No, according to this theory women don't "want to be raped"; if they did, they wouldn't be evolutionarily selecting for effective rapists. In fact, they are supposed to absolutely hate it, which they do of course. They are supposed to fight back, but not lethally.

3 : And, according to this theory, women's subconscious instincts will manipulate them into misjudgements that increase the likelihood of being raped.

4 : And you would expect rape victims to be more fertile, since their bodies are trying to get pregnant even if that's the last thing they personally want.

So, whether it's true or not, it's plausible enough in Darwinian terms. The reason people freak out is because so many insist on pretending natural and good are the same.

The problem with all of these arguments is that, as a general rule, rapists don't make good fathers. They tend to rape and move on, if they are from outside the tribal group there's a good chance the other adults of the community will kill the resulting child, even if the child is not killed "halfbreeds" historically do not do as well in society as "fullbloods", and the strategy of "fuck as many females as possible" leaves any paternal efforts towards the children spread rather thin. There is also the possibility that the raped woman will be rejected and/or killed by her community (we see that even today in "honor killings" and wartime rape) either before the child is born or shortly thereafter, leaving an orphan who is at an even greater disadvantage that a child being raised by at least one parent. Since, throughout most of history, fatherless children were far more likely to die young and at far greater disadvantage than children who's father gave greater support to offspring I'm not sure that this "rape to reproduce" strategy is at all advantageous. After all, it's not how many infants the man manages to sire, it's how many of those infants grow up and have children of their own that counts in Darwinian terms.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Anyway, it's obvious that men who engage in rape are being LESS effective in terms of procreating than men who settle down with women overall, because, guess what? If your chances of impregnating someone from a single incidence of rape really are twice as high as those of a man in a relationship... The man in the relationship probably copulates with his girlfriend up to potentially a hundred times in a year. That kinda puts things in a different perspective, doesn't it? And relegates this pathetic theory to the dustbin where it belongs with most other misogynistic relics. It makes no sense at all evolutionarily, because you'd have to be not twice but a hundred times more potent as a rapist to make up for the fact that a man in a stable relationship will have sex many, many more times.

[Darth Servo]

As with all such claims, the response is "put up or shut up".

Even IF this claim were true, would it even try to account for the fact that a rapist is far less likely to use a condom or other means of birth control than a man engaging in consensual intercourse.

[Junghalli]

Another thing to consider is that for most of human history we lived in small groups where a brazen rapist would likely get turned upon by the other males in his tribe whose sisters, wives, and mothers he's raping. A hostile "rape and run" reproductive strategy has the evolutionary disadvantage of often ending up getting you run out of your tribe or killed. This is probably the biggest reason violent serial rapists (like serial killers and other such dangerous socio/psychopaths) are rather rare as a percentage of the population.

[Darth Servo]

edit: I mean the claim SAYS that the consensual sex is unprotected but how would they control for that factor?

[Mayabird]

Another thing to consider is that for most of human history we lived in small groups where a brazen rapist would likely get turned upon by the other males in his tribe whose sisters, wives, and mothers he's raping. A hostile "rape and run" reproductive strategy has the evolutionary disadvantage of often ending up getting you run out of your tribe or killed. This is probably the biggest reason violent serial rapists (like serial killers and other such dangerous socio/psychopaths) are rather rare as a percentage of the population.

Yes, in their own tribe, but there were always other tribes, and laws of morality, throughout human history, only went for those people in your own group. Murder in your own tribe is bad; killing the guys over the next hill to take their stuff and rape their women (or take them for sex slaves) was a-OK. Rape-and-run during a raid, though it might not necessarily lead to pregnancy, might, and that would mean them spreading their genes. So they win, as horrible as that sounds.

Despicable? Disgusting? Yes. There were no "noble savages." Humans are bastards.

[Terralthra]

Another thing to consider is that for most of human history we lived in small groups where a brazen rapist would likely get turned upon by the other males in his tribe whose sisters, wives, and mothers he's raping. A hostile "rape and run" reproductive strategy has the evolutionary disadvantage of often ending up getting you run out of your tribe or killed. This is probably the biggest reason violent serial rapists (like serial killers and other such dangerous socio/psychopaths) are rather rare as a percentage of the population.

Yes, in their own tribe, but there were always other tribes, and laws of morality, throughout human history, only went for those people in your own group. Murder in your own tribe is bad; killing the guys over the next hill to take their stuff and rape their women (or take them for sex slaves) was a-OK. Rape-and-run during a raid, though it might not necessarily lead to pregnancy, might, and that would mean them spreading their genes. So they win, as horrible as that sounds.

Despicable? Disgusting? Yes. There were no "noble savages." Humans are bastards.

This also assumes that the evolutionary history of this particular proposed imperative is human in origin, and not mammalian, or even pre-mammalian. Humans have always been social creatures, but we carry with us a history of being something other than human. This theorized imperative would join a whole host of other things that have long since become obsolete.

This also goes to Duchess's post, who bases her entire post on the idea that this would've been evolved out because of modern monogamous relationships. Guess what, monogamous relationships have been the norm for humans for a very very short time, evolutionarily speaking.

[Solauren]

The only possible way I can see a Rape having an increased chance of conception is one a by the numbers basis

i.e Out of every 100 rapes, 50 result in pregenancy, vs 30 out of 100 in consentual unprotected sex.

The reasons being
- I can imagine most "opprotunity" rapes are unplanned, and the rapist doesn't carry protection.

- I can't see a rapist carring if he pulls out before or during ejaculation. Given how I was told by a trauma concillor friend of mine (many years ago, so subsequent studies might have contradicted this), alot of rapes are about control, not pleasure, it's possible you might have rapists leaving it in as a form of 'insult to injury'

In other words, the actions and motivations of a typical rapists would be more in line to cause a conception.

As for a biological drive for a woman to be raped, tell the poster if he believes that without documented proof in a peer-reviewed magazine, he's a fucking mygnostic asshole that does not deserve, and hopefully will never know the touch or caress of a loving, caring, consental women, and in fact, only deserves sexual gratification in the form of failed attempted to mate with a rusty toaster.

[ArmorPierce]

Well a raper can be both in a relationship with one woman and raping other women on the side. A raper doesn't necessarily have to be a rapist as a full time job. You guys seems to suggest either your a raper or your a relationship guy. The two is not mutually.

[Broomstick]

True, a man can be in a relationship AND rape - kind of covering both tactics at the same time.

However, the idea that there is some sort of imperative for WOMEN to be raped is bullshit. That's a MALE strategy for reproduction, not a female one. Certainly among mammals, females are either choosy (to one degree or another) or else they take all comers which is NOT rape but rather being in a promiscuous form of heat. In both cases, the female is not being fucked against her will.

[Terralthra]

True, a man can be in a relationship AND rape - kind of covering both tactics at the same time.

However, the idea that there is some sort of imperative for WOMEN to be raped is bullshit. That's a MALE strategy for reproduction, not a female one. Certainly among mammals, females are either choosy (to one degree or another) or else they take all comers which is NOT rape but rather being in a promiscuous form of heat. In both cases, the female is not being fucked against her will.

Err, and if the female is choosy, rejects a male, but that male incapacitates her or injures her enough that she can't fight back, and proceeds to mate with her anyway, what exactly do you call that? Just because it's not an evolutionary strategy that the female does deliberately, doesn't mean that it can't get propagated.

I'm not saying this hypothesis is right, I'm just saying that it's not outside the realm of possibility.