Data indicates that women are inclined towards violent pornography, violent sexual fantasies and real-life sexual domination. In our ape ancestors, such preferences probably made sense.
My limited experience with women (one or two girlfriends, one wife, daughters) is consistent with your description of female sexuality.
Perhaps your post underrates the role of 'white knight' in woman's sexuality?
How does this fit with Richard Wrangham's hypothesis that humans socially evolved away from the other apes when coalitions of (2ndry?) males came together to displace a singular alpha male within a breeding group?
In your earlier post suggesting prehistoric people spent their spare resources fighting for (other people's?) women I don't recall you mentioning stats on the survival of a women's children after she was captured by another band.
If women with children (ie mature rather than virgin women) were often arbitrarily 'exchanged' between violent men it likely would encourage selection for a certain female disposition (emotional resilience) tolerant of grief over loss of children and/or loss of previous (sexual) relationship.
>>But also the romance literature features its fair share of sexual violence, or did before political correctness sanitized away much of that
From what I have seen, romance novels have moved to a self-publishing model on Amazon and other venues, though, so I'd think that if women want to write romance novels featuring rape, and other women want to read it, they should be able to do so without woke church ladies stopping them.
>>(Here it goes: 80% of agents/editors/publishers are white women from a certain background and sensibility; these woke ladies run the industry. And contrary to popular belief, I don’t hate the Brooklyn ladies. On the contrary, I respect how these passive aggressive prude ladies took over an industry. Tip of the hat, Brooklyn ladies.
>>Everyone knows these ladies took over, of course)
Really well done with this one, Tove! Very well researched. I have a draft post that actually connects this to another post of yours, but I was frankly hoping to avoid opening this can of worms; it's the kind of topic a man looks totally chauvinistic even bringing up. Now that it's topical though, I'm having trouble even commenting coherently on your own article here - I'm too sleep deprived to say more than just "See, women are (still) ambivalent"
Excellent post, as usual! I"d question the use of the word 'intellect' a bit, in a Joseph Henrich "Secret of our Success" kind of way, however, and introduce the prestige vs dominance hierarchy problem. We haven't taken away the dominance hierarchy in the last five million years (which is why all the comparisons with chimps make perfect sense), but we've added a separate one that chimps cannot fathom. Using binocular vision on this question resolves most of the confusion.
Do women want to be raped? Yes. Do women want very much not to be raped? Also yes. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than her? Yes. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than her but weaker than other men? Hell no. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than other men but also low-prestige? Depends (partially on the woman's prestige level and what she feels like she can get), but mostly no.
The examples from bodice-rippers (the obsolete term for them is instructive, here) you give include a rapist who is a captain. He's not a mentally-handicapped giant of a man whom the ship's crew employ as a cook or a cabin-boy. He's violent and high in both dominance and prestige hierarchies. Grey is similar, as are fictional smart serial killers. So, bizarrely, are porn actors doing rape scenes -- like anyone else on the silver screen, they're marked as high-prestige by the frame of the media in which they appear, even if on-screen they appear brutish and high only in dominance.
My limited experience with women (one or two girlfriends, one wife, daughters) is consistent with your description of female sexuality.
Perhaps your post underrates the role of 'white knight' in woman's sexuality?
How does this fit with Richard Wrangham's hypothesis that humans socially evolved away from the other apes when coalitions of (2ndry?) males came together to displace a singular alpha male within a breeding group?
In your earlier post suggesting prehistoric people spent their spare resources fighting for (other people's?) women I don't recall you mentioning stats on the survival of a women's children after she was captured by another band.
If women with children (ie mature rather than virgin women) were often arbitrarily 'exchanged' between violent men it likely would encourage selection for a certain female disposition (emotional resilience) tolerant of grief over loss of children and/or loss of previous (sexual) relationship.
It was enlightening and makes gender social dynamics understandable. Thank you !
>>But also the romance literature features its fair share of sexual violence, or did before political correctness sanitized away much of that
From what I have seen, romance novels have moved to a self-publishing model on Amazon and other venues, though, so I'd think that if women want to write romance novels featuring rape, and other women want to read it, they should be able to do so without woke church ladies stopping them.
From https://www.hobartpulp.com/web_features/alex-perez-on-the-iowa-s-writers-workshop-baseball-and-growing-up-cuban-american-in-america,
>>(Here it goes: 80% of agents/editors/publishers are white women from a certain background and sensibility; these woke ladies run the industry. And contrary to popular belief, I don’t hate the Brooklyn ladies. On the contrary, I respect how these passive aggressive prude ladies took over an industry. Tip of the hat, Brooklyn ladies.
>>Everyone knows these ladies took over, of course)
Regarding boredom, the way women get bored in relationships also explains why seduction artists may be well served to pursue women who may be open to fun, https://theredquest.substack.com/p/women-having-affairs-never-make-you-use-a-condom, as many notionally taken women are.
Fascinating and I just want to say thank you for the work you put into this.
Really well done with this one, Tove! Very well researched. I have a draft post that actually connects this to another post of yours, but I was frankly hoping to avoid opening this can of worms; it's the kind of topic a man looks totally chauvinistic even bringing up. Now that it's topical though, I'm having trouble even commenting coherently on your own article here - I'm too sleep deprived to say more than just "See, women are (still) ambivalent"
Excellent post, as usual! I"d question the use of the word 'intellect' a bit, in a Joseph Henrich "Secret of our Success" kind of way, however, and introduce the prestige vs dominance hierarchy problem. We haven't taken away the dominance hierarchy in the last five million years (which is why all the comparisons with chimps make perfect sense), but we've added a separate one that chimps cannot fathom. Using binocular vision on this question resolves most of the confusion.
Do women want to be raped? Yes. Do women want very much not to be raped? Also yes. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than her? Yes. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than her but weaker than other men? Hell no. Does a woman want to be raped by a man who is stronger than other men but also low-prestige? Depends (partially on the woman's prestige level and what she feels like she can get), but mostly no.
The examples from bodice-rippers (the obsolete term for them is instructive, here) you give include a rapist who is a captain. He's not a mentally-handicapped giant of a man whom the ship's crew employ as a cook or a cabin-boy. He's violent and high in both dominance and prestige hierarchies. Grey is similar, as are fictional smart serial killers. So, bizarrely, are porn actors doing rape scenes -- like anyone else on the silver screen, they're marked as high-prestige by the frame of the media in which they appear, even if on-screen they appear brutish and high only in dominance.