If I may be permitted an ad hominum suggestion, the theory that rape
is mostly done to strangers may be more plausible to a person to whom a
desire for fact-checking is too bizarre to contemplate.
I kind of like this sneering format, though it is a bit wordy and pretentious.
If I may be permitted an ad hominum suggestion, the theory that women don't desire anonymous sex may be more plausible to a person to whom talking to women is too bizarre to contemplate.
I mean women do desire less anonymous sex than men, and that's not just because of things like risk of pregnancy, this is a pretty basic scientific result.
You're confusing actualized events for tendencies in individuals. Imagine a party where 5 guys would be OK with sex that night, but only one out of the 5 girls want it.
Yeah, totally possible. Just less probable (by quite a lot). Differences in sex drives, and their manifestations such as wanting less anonymous sex, are an uncontroversial, established scientific fact.
If you're referring to the research looking at random propositions for sex and finding that women are less interested, then the current research suggests that there is little difference. The original research was confounded by the fact that women generally had concerns about their safety, but when that was removed then the difference practically disappeared.
I wasn't aware of that research, do you have a link? Because at the moment I believe 'women are into random propositions of sex just as much as guys' even less than 'women masturbate and watch porn just as much as guys.' I was talking about differences in sex drives between men and women, which are firmly established.
>I wasn't aware of that research, do you have a link?
One of the earliest responses was [this one](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21171789/) but subsequent research followed up with more issues.
>Because at the moment I believe 'women are into random propositions of sex just as much as guys' even less than 'women masturbate and watch porn just as much as guys.' I was talking about differences in sex drives between men and women, which are firmly established.
Why do you think that's firmly established?
> Why do you think that's firmly established?
Here's an abstract of a [review article](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5) about that:
> Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex.
The paper you linked actually supports the facts that (1) women want less anonymous sex and (2) women have lower sex drives. The paper goes through great length to prove that heterosexual women find men just sort of yucky, enough to basically want casual sex with them as much as with someone of their own sex. Imagine a heterosexual, traditional manly man choosing to have sex with another average man over a woman: that's the extent of the differences this paper proves.
1. > In the current study, 82% of women reported that they would definitely not agree to the sexual offer (i.e., they chose the option of 1 on a 7-point scale). By contrast, 74% percent of men indicated that they would entertain the possibility of the sexual offer (i.e., they chose an option of 2–7 on the 7-point scale).
2. > male proposers were perceived (by women) as more dangerous and less likely to provide them sexual satisfaction than women were perceived (by men).
3. > [Heterosexual!] Women were equally as likely to agree to a sexual encounter with a man as with a woman [while men preferred heterosexual offers by far]
The fact that women are more likely to accept casual sex offers with famous men is not really news to anyone, either.
Jeez you couldn't be bothered to read the abstract that /u/mrsamsa linked, could you?
> The extent to which women and men believed that the proposer would be sexually skilled predicted how likely they would be to engage in casual sex with this individual. It's a big leap to go from that to 'women want sex less.'
Yeah, basically, women are (correctly) likely to assume that most men suck at sex.
I read the paper. I'm starting to think none of you did. Assuming that the sex won't be good is only one of the multitude of factors that **don't contradict** the conclusion that women want less sex and have lower sex drives.
If we had equal sex drives you'd see men saying:
> well I like sex *in theory* it's just that women aren't good enough in general
Which is a ridiculous notion of male sexuality. Men don't say that in general because they want sex a lot more and don't care nearly as much about the myriad of non-sexual factors described in the article.
You've linked to a Baumeister article which is only slightly better than citing a guy from the red pill.
And I think you've misunderstood that study of your take away is 'obviously they'd want to have sex with famous people'.
> You've linked to a Baumeister article which is only slightly better than citing a guy from the red pill.
One of the most well known social psychologists is on the level of reddit trolls for you? I'm not convinced at all.
But no problem, it's a literature review article, so is it biased in presenting the results? Are the reviewed studies wrong?
Or look at the paper you linked yourself for Christ's sake. I honestly can't believe how much in denial you are about such a basic fact. Women don't want sex as much as men.
> And I think you've misunderstood that study of your take away is 'obviously they'd want to have sex with famous people'.
Good because that's not my take-away. It's not very hard to understand, and I recommend you read the results of the studies and the discussion at the end because they definitely didn't eliminate the gender differences in the way you implied they were eliminated, in fact I wasn't aware just how big the discrepancies were before reading this paper.
Here’s Pinker, one of the horsemen of the enlightenment, with an
argument: “no, listen, excuse the generalization but men have large
sexual appetites, and rapists are mostly men, and I bet my ass that this
is not a coincidence”. Instead of just stating this argument outright in
a sane manner, Pinker takes this opportunity to take aim at all the evil
feminists and say “NO U r privileged”. Later, he’s going to bemoan the
decline of sane discourse in America.
at the end of the day I’ve never seen anyone more eager to deny the
existence of female rapists and sexual abusers than the biological
determinism crowd
edit: anyone notice how between all of the self-revealing chatter
he’s basically doing a fukuyama end of history type narrative with rape?
rape: solved.
he does that "end of history" narrative with everything. He wrote a whole book on how progress is so great, and then attacks everyone who is trying to make progress further, as sexism and racism ended in the 90s or whatever
i know it's his thing, but i thought it was about inequality and mortality rates and whatnot. things you can theoretically trust the statistics about. for an alleged intellectual to look at lower rape statistics and say "this means there's less rape"... lol. i'm actually curious to know if the book addresses shame at all.
>things you can theoretically trust the statistics about
[Theoretically](https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty) being the [operative term](https://www.academia.edu/3816994/Pinkers_List_Exaggerating_Prehistoric_War_Mortality) there.
I remember Claire Lehmann from Quillette really confidently saying they must've misquoted him, and he actually said "willing", meaning either she's unable to read the quote or she assumes Pinker doesn't think women could ever fantasise about a hot stranger (which in fairness would be less disturbing than the actual meaning, if no less weird)
She also claims that any journalist who disagrees with their journalism, or finds mistakes, or does anything which is against them is an activist and not a real journalist.
Your belief in the concept of "debunking" theories [shows your lack of rationalist virtue](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/13/debunked-and-well-refuted/).
I know we're sneering, but this article begins by sneering at other rape apologists for their misuse of literature and statistics.
Doesn't seem so bad.
Sure. In practice, the bottom line takeaway is that you can do this:
1. "What? This claim I just cited is debunked?"
2. "Bullshit, anyone can just say that, I bet this is just your way of spinning a complex and controversial literature. I'm not even going to run a Google search to verify that"
3. "I'm just going to keep my original opinion"
Would Scott endorse this? Probably not, but he won't write a 79-paragraph article calling out people who do it, either. There is no "shut up and defer to expert opinion", because expert opinion is dictated by the cathedral, and the control group is out of control, and twitter is already full of people shouting at you to do it so what is the value of arguing for it as well? And so on.
Hey guys, it's cool, it's not actually rapists' fault, it's just that they don't understand those silly girls, you know?
I am so ashamed of having once been a fan of this man's earlier work.
My psychology professor told our class that chemically castrating sex offenders wouldn't work, because "rape is about power, not sex." That's an example of the meme Pinker is refuting.
If I may be permitted an ad hominum suggestion, the theory that rape is mostly done to strangers may be more plausible to a person to whom a desire for fact-checking is too bizarre to contemplate.
Here’s Pinker, one of the horsemen of the enlightenment, with an argument: “no, listen, excuse the generalization but men have large sexual appetites, and rapists are mostly men, and I bet my ass that this is not a coincidence”. Instead of just stating this argument outright in a sane manner, Pinker takes this opportunity to take aim at all the evil feminists and say “NO U r privileged”. Later, he’s going to bemoan the decline of sane discourse in America.
at the end of the day I’ve never seen anyone more eager to deny the existence of female rapists and sexual abusers than the biological determinism crowd
edit: anyone notice how between all of the self-revealing chatter he’s basically doing a fukuyama end of history type narrative with rape? rape: solved.
that “unwilling” there is really throwing me off; did I miss a day at Male Indoctrination Camp?
Ironically, none other than (a less terrible earlier version of) Jerry Coyne debunked Pinks’ source on this one.
Goodreads has more where that came from.
[deleted]
It shows he was on that Epstein plane…