MALES ARE MORE TROUBLED BY THE THOUGHT OF THEIR FEMALE PARTNER HAVING SEX WITH ANOTHER MALE, WHEREAS FEMALES ARE MORE TROUBLED BY THE THOUGHT OF THEIR MALE PARTNER DEVELOPING A CLOSE PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY BASED RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER FEMALE. WHY? BECAUSE A FEMALE HAVING SEX WITH A MALE OTHER THAN HER PRIMARY MATE (HER BOYFRIEND OR HUSBAND) MAY RESULT IN HER PRIMARY MATE (HER BOYFRIEND OR HUSBAND) BEING MADE A CUCKOLD BY THE OTHER MALE (THE BOYFRIEND OR HUSBAND COULD POTENTIALLY INVEST RESOURCES IN AND RAISE A CHILD THAT ISN'T HIS)! A FEMALE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD BE MORE UPSET WITH HER MALE PARTNER BECOMING SOCIALLY AND EMOTIONALLY INTIMATE WITH ANOTHER FEMALE BECAUSE THIS INTIMACY MAY LEAD TO THE FEMALE LOSING THE RESOURCES SHE NEEDS FROM HER MALE PARTNER TO SUPPORT AND RAISE A CHILD!
Why is this true
I'LL TELL YOU TOMORROW, G!
Think about this yourself in your own life. Imagine that you are deeply involved in a serious romantic relationship. Now you discover that your partner has become very interested in somebody else. Now imagine two different scenarios. In the first, your partner has a deep emotional - but not sexual - relationship with the other person. In the second scenario imagine that your partner has enjoyed a sexual - but not emotional - relationship with the other person. Which one of these scenarios would upset you the most?
David Buss, of the University of Texas at Austin, who conducted research into this question, found that men were twice as likely to find the second scenario the most upsetting - it's the sexual relationship that bothers them, not the emotional relationship. While men find the sexual infidelity most distressing, women in contrast find the emotional infidelity most distressing. These sex differences were still true for scenarios where both forms of infidelity occurred. These findings on Americans also hold true in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands. Men and women in different cultures differ in just the same way. Relatedly, men have been reported to be better than women in their ability to detect infidelity and are more likely to simply suspect infidelity in their female spouses.
What can explain the replicable sex difference in the green-eyed monster of jealousy? The explanation is that men are more distressed about infidelity because they could end up wasting resources and energy in raising a child genetically unrelated to them. Women, on the other hand, are concerned about infidelity because it means they may lose the protection, emotional support, and tangible resources provided by their partner. In both cases, resources are again the driving force behind out intense emotional feelings, but in subtly different ways.
READ THE ABOVE! IT'LL TELL YOU WHYYYYYY, G!
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Adrian "Makes It Rain, Let It Drip" Raine, p. 31-32.
What can explain the replicable sex difference in the green-eyed monster of jealousy? The explanation is that men are more distressed about infidelity because they could end up wasting resources and energy in raising a child genetically unrelated to them. Women, on the other hand, are concerned about infidelity because it means they may lose the protection, emotional support, and tangible resources provided by their partner. In both cases, resources are again the driving force behind out intense emotional feelings, but in subtly different ways.
READ THE ABOVE! IT'LL TELL YOU WHYYYYYY, G!
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Adrian "Makes It Rain, Let It Drip" Raine, p. 31-32.
The sex differences in jealousy effect, with men experiencing more sexual and women more emotional jealousy, successfully passes an empirical acid test.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2017.1365686 …
Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Wrangham and Peterson, p. 104
And contrary to Margaret Mead's assertion that Samoans are entirely lacking in jealousy and "laugh incredulously at tales of passionate jealousy," jealousy on Samoa is a prominent cause of violence against rivals and mates; they even have a word for it, fua. To cite one example, "after Mata, the wife of Tavita, had accused his older brother, Tule, of making sexual approaches to her during his absence, Tavita attacked his brother, stabbing him five times in the back and neck." Samoan women also succumb to fits of jealousy. In one case the husband of a 29-year-old woman named Mele left her for another woman, so Mele sought them out and "attacked them with a bush knife while they were sleeping together." Cultures in tropical paradises that are entirely free of jealousy exist only in the romantic minds of optimistic anthropologists, and in fact have never been found....In Samoa, a culture Margaret Mead once claimed was free of jealousy, wives sometimes seek out women who had sex with their husbands and bite them on the nose to reduce their attractiveness. (The Dangerous Passion)
MY NECK, MY BACK...AND MY CRACK!
Are Some Cultures More Violent Than Others? 3/3
Start Listening At The 2:17 Mark
How can we understand the brutality unleashed by the emotion of jealousy? What sort of explanation could account for the paradox that we hurt most the ones we love?
....
...First, jealous violence is not merely an American phenomenon, nor can it be attributed to Western culture, media images, or capitalism. Spousal battering occurs in every culture for which we have relevant data.
...
Let's put aside, for a few moments, our revulsion to partner battering, to consider the troubling possibility that violence may have served useful purposes for perpetrators. Does aggression sometimes pay?
Margo Wilson and Martin Daly speculate that the most plausible adaptive functions of violence against partners are deterrence and control. Men's use of violence, or threats of violence, convey an important signal to the spouse: acts of infidelity come at a steep price. By making the price of unfaithfulness sufficiently high, men hope to deter their spouses from sleeping with other men. One clue to the adaptive function of violence is the type of men most likely to use it. Wilson and Daly argue that men most likely to resort to violence are those who lack more positive means of voluntary compliance at their disposal, such as providing resources. Violence, in this view, may represent men's last-ditch effort to hold on to partners who are on the verge of defecting. Violence, therefore, should be more prevalent when men lack the economic resources that might fulfill a core desire of women's initial mate choice.
Is there any evidence that men's use of violence actually deters women from infidelity or defection? Some battered women do remain in violent relationships, and return to them even after they have sought help at a shelter or hostel. In a study of 100 women at a shelter for battered women, a substantial number returned to their husband. Twenty-seven returned after their husband promised that he would change and refrain from violence, and 17 returned as a direct result of threats of further violence if she did not return. Another 14 returned home because they had no alternative place to go, and 13 returned because of their children. Eight women returned to their husband because they were still in love with him or felt sorry for him. A majority of the women who had been battered, many severely, returned to their partners after a stay in the shelter.
Some women respond to a man's violence by cutting off their contracts with male friends, wearing less revealing clothing, becoming more solicitous of their partner's needs and wants, and generally reducing signs of straying. Aggression, unfortunately, sometimes works if a wife is frightened enough to choose compliance over death. Recently, I received a letter from a colleague who had been lecturing in an undergraduate class about the possible functions of violence. He related this story: "I had been discussing the roots of wife battering in mate guarding (sexual jealousy and proprietariness, etc.), and a student put up her hand, obviously anxious to make a point. She said that this could not be true. She had been working for some time at a shelter in Northhampton for abused and battered women, and had become familiar with many of them. When the subject of the reasons why they were abused came up, they said that getting involved with another man was the 'furthest thing from their minds.' In response, another student put up his hand and said, 'Well I guess the abuse works.'"
Men are most likely to use violence when they discover an infidelity or suspect an infidelity. One study interviewed a sample of battered women and divided them into two groups: one group had been both raped and beaten by their husbands and one group had been beaten but not raped. These two groups were then compared with a control group of non-victimized women. The women were asked whether they had "ever had sex" with a man other than their husband while living with their husband. Ten percent of the non-victimized women reported having had an affair; 23 percent of the battered women reported having had an affair; and 47 percent of those who were battered and raped confessed to committing adultery. These statistics reveal that infidelity by a woman predicts battering behavior in men.
In short, we can draw two tentative conclusions from the available evidence. First, men's violence against their partners does seem to serve the function of deterrence and control. By using violence, men maintain a credible threat, lowering the odds that their partner will commit infidelity or defect from the relationship. Men's violence seems most likely to rear its monstrous head when there is an increased likelihood that women will consort with another man. Second, although men's violence may sometimes represent a last ditch effort to keep a mate, and may sometimes backfire and cause a woman to leave, violence may actually deter defections. Even women who have been battered severely enough to go to a shelter sometimes return to their partners because of the threat of further violence.
The idea that spousal violence serves a deterrence function is undoubtedly disturbing. But it should not be construed as condoning or justifying these detestable and repugnant acts. Nor should this explanation be used to excuse or exonerate the cowardly men who commit them. Spousal violence is wrong according to most moral and legal systems. Only by understanding the causes of violence, however, can we hope to reduce its occurrence.
The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love and Sex. Buss, p. 109-110, 112-114.
If It Weren't For That Dam Bat And Blade They Would Have Gotten Away! Hey, Every Time I've Gone To Jail I've Encounter At Least One Korean Male Who Was Doing Time Or Awaiting Trial For A Domestic Violence Case (Typically Spousal Abuse)! Them Gooks Gotta Volatile, Irascible Nature, Especially When It Comes To Their Significant Others!
How can we comprehend the repulsive act of killing a mate? Martin Daly and Margo Wilson offer an explanation that may be labeled the "slip-up hypothesis." According to this explanation, spousal homicide is not adaptive, nor has it ever been adaptive for the perpetrators. Instead, dead bodies result from slips in a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Men use violence to control women and prevent them from leaving, according to this argument. In order to make threats credible, actual violence has to be used. Sometimes the violence gets out of hand and results in a dead spouse. To quote Daly and Wilson directly: "Men...strive to control women...women struggle to resist coercion and to maintain their choices. There is brinksmanship and risk of disaster in any such contest, and homicides by spouses of either sex may be considered slips in this dangerous game." They elaborate in a later publication: "the fatal outcome in these homicides [spousal killings] is hypothesized to be an epiphenomenal product of psychological processes that were selected for their nonlethal outcomes." Men use violence to control women, and the psychology behind violent control has served a useful purpose for our male ancestors. But sometimes the violence gets out of hand, and results in "dysfunctionally extreme manifestations" that are "clearly counterproductive." Does this explanation square with the facts, or is a more disturbing conclusion warranted?
Joshua Duntley and I have proposed an alternative to the Wilson-Daly 'slip-up' hypothesis. We started by examining the known facts about spousal homicide and asking whether the slip-up hypothesis explains them. Many homicides are premeditated, for example, and do not seem like mere accidents or slips.
A common refrain of killers to their victims while they are still alive is, "If I can't have you, nobody can." One Australian man, who killed his wife a month after she left him, said: "I was in love with Margaret, and she would not live with me anymore. I knew it was all finished so I bought the rifle to shoot her and then kill myself. If I can't have her, nobody can." In another case, an Illinois man issued the following threat to his wife after she had filed for divorce but before the divorce became official: "I swear if you ever leave me, I'll follow you to the ends of the earth and kill you." Unfortunately, this man made good on his promise and killed his wife in her home."
'TIL DEATH DO US PART!
If spousal murders are really just slip-ups in a dangerous game of coercive threats and control, why do many spousal homicides seem planed and premeditated? Duntley and I argue that men have evolved a mate-killing module, a psychological mechanism whose function is not threat or deterrence, but rather the literal death of a mate. How could killing one's mate ever been advantageous to our ancestral forefathers? We suggest several possible benefits that would have flowed to killers under some circumstances. First, in a polygynous mating context, where a man might have several wives, killing one's wife as a result of an infidelity or defection could prevent other wives from cheating or leaving.
Second, in some cultures, a man's reputation would have suffered so extensively as a result of a wife's infidelity that killing her would be the only means of salvaging lost honor. Killing an unfaithful wife sometimes restores a man's honor. As Daly and Wilson note, "Not infrequently, men salvage some of their lost honor by killing an unchaste wife...and the male seducer. Shrinking from such vengeance may even add to their dishonor."
Third, a sexual infidelity may have inflicted such a sever cost on a man in the currency of paternity uncertainty and the associated misdirection of his investments, that killing the woman may have been a viable means of staunching the costs. If she is pregnant with another man's child, he also hurts his rival's reproductive success.
Our fourth argument hinges on the fact that one of the major triggers of mate killing is an irrevocable loss of the relationship. When a woman finally convinces her partner that she's leaving for good, the loss may be so substantial that it pushes the man over the edge into entertaining homicidal thoughts.
The final end of the relationship, in sum, historically may have put the man in triple jeopardy in the currency of reproduction. He lost entirely his access to her reproductive capabilities. He suffered sever and possibly irreparable reputational damage as a result of the loss. And if the woman was at all desirable, it was likely that she would remarry, so that man's loss would have been his rival's gain. His same-sex rival benefited in direct proportion to the original man's loss.
According to this theory, over the long course of human evolutionary history, it has been reproductively advantageous for men in some circumstances to kill an errant partner, especially when the finality of her departure sinks in. A key prediction follows: Women should be most at risk of being killed when they have actually defected from the relationship, or when they have stated unequivocally that they are leaving for good.
Ironically, Wilson and Daly, the proponents of the opposing slip-up theory, provide the most compelling data in support of our Evolved Homicide Module Theory. In their analysis of the 1,333 mate homicides in Canada, estranged or separated wives are from five to seven times more likely to get killed by partners than women who are still living with their husbands. The separation time appears to be crucial. Women are at greatest risk in the first two months after separation, with 47 percent of the women homicide victims being killed during this interval, and fully 91 percent within the first year after separation.
...
CHI TOWN PIMPIN'
In Chicago, for example, 44 percent of the women homicide victims who had separated were killed within the first two months of departure, and 78 percent were killed within the first year. Similar percentages were found for Canada and Australia. These results convey a warning that should be heeded by all women on the verge of separation: the first few months after estrangement are especially dangerous, and precautions should be taken for at least a year. Men do not always act on threats to kill estranged wives, of course, but such threats should always be taken seriously.Wilson and Daly interpret these results to mean that men threaten their wives in order to control them and prevent their departure. In order to make such a threat credible, actual violence has to be carried out. They are undoubtedly correct that men sometimes use threats and violence to achieve control and deter defection. Here is what one Chicago women declared, when asked by a friend why she did not leave her husband after he had battered her many times: "I can't, because he'll kill us all, and he's going to kill me." Men undoubtedly use violent threats to prevent women from leaving.
Nonetheless, there must be more to the story of lethal violence, something beyond the desire to exert control. The evidence supports the theory that estrangement, especially when the husband's loss is compounded by a rival's gain, may have been one of the most severe costs that a husband could incur. Homicide may have been an adaptive method of reducing this cost. As disturbing as this idea is, we must confront the demons of human nature if we are ever to understand and prevent the abhorrent act of wife-killing.
The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Necessary as Love and Sex. Buss, p. 121-124
Jealousy in men and women – David Buss
In the early 90s, the evolutionary psychologist David Buss and colleagues (link is external) famously proposed that jealousy is in fact an adaptive response, as necessary as love and sex,
alerting partners to potential threats from outside “mate poachers.” As
a tool of mate protection and retention, they argued, jealousy is not a
bug in our software but rather a feature of our evolved hardware.
If jealousy is biologically wired adaptive mechanism, then we could expect it to show up in children. And it does (link is external).
We would also expect to see it in other social animals, and we do. For example, a recent study by Christine Harris and Caroline Prouvost (link is external)of the University of California San Diego showed that dogs show it as well. The authors found that dogs “exhibited significantly more jealous behaviors (e.g., snapping, getting between the owner and object, pushing/touching the object/owner) when their owners displayed affectionate behaviors towards what appeared to be another dog as compared to nonsocial objects.”
Moreover, evolutionary psychology makes two specific predictions based on this view of jealousy as adaptive. First, it proposes that in any intimate relations, the more attractive partner will elicit more jealousy. And indeed, Buss & Shackelford (link is external) (1997) found that men were more jealous of female partners at the peak of youth and attractiveness while women were more jealous of male partners of high status and wealth. Research (link is external) also found that in romantic pairs, the higher the social value (attractiveness to others) of their partner, the more likely an individual is to experience jealousy.
Second, evolutionary psychology predicts that males and females will differ in the type of transgressions that elicit their jealousy. Males’ ability to propagate their genes depends heavily on their access to an unoccupied uterus. Therefore, they are likely to be particularly jealous of sexual infidelity. Females, on the other hand, have little difficulty accessing sperm, but they need the male’s presence and continual commitment to increase the odds that their offspring will survive and thrive. Thus, females will be jealous of their male mates’ emotional infidelity.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-chemistry/201503/one-thing-you-must-know-about-jealousy
Men and women evolved unique patterns because of their biological differences, especially related to reproduction. Women require more time than men to reproduce because they get pregnant and raise children. Men on the other hand, can reproduce in minutes because they don’t bear children and could potentially deny paternity (especially in hunter-gatherer times when paternity tests didn’t exist). According to evolutionary psychology, the goal of all humans is to create as many healthy offspring as possible in order to optimize their reproductive success. For women, this requires a significant investment in terms of time and energy. Men however, can spread their genes quickly, so having sex with multiple partners who raise their children is advantageous.1
These biological differences help explain a critical gender difference in jealousy. Women and men respond to jealousy differently. Women seek partners who are invested in child-rearing and have more to lose if their partner chooses someone else. When they feel jealous, they respond by competing with the rival, making themselves into the more attractive partner, and optimizing the relationship. Men, who have more to gain from sex with multiple partners, tend to pull away from their partner when jealous. They are more likely than women to seek the affection of a new partner.
The one thing people must know about jealousy is that women believe men will respond to it in the same way they would. When women want more attention from their partner, they often elicit jealousy in order to get it. This strategy backfires because rather than trying to improve the relationship, men are tempted to withdraw and seek affection from others.
https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=TFctFChKYPgIf jealousy is biologically wired adaptive mechanism, then we could expect it to show up in children. And it does (link is external).
We would also expect to see it in other social animals, and we do. For example, a recent study by Christine Harris and Caroline Prouvost (link is external)of the University of California San Diego showed that dogs show it as well. The authors found that dogs “exhibited significantly more jealous behaviors (e.g., snapping, getting between the owner and object, pushing/touching the object/owner) when their owners displayed affectionate behaviors towards what appeared to be another dog as compared to nonsocial objects.”
Moreover, evolutionary psychology makes two specific predictions based on this view of jealousy as adaptive. First, it proposes that in any intimate relations, the more attractive partner will elicit more jealousy. And indeed, Buss & Shackelford (link is external) (1997) found that men were more jealous of female partners at the peak of youth and attractiveness while women were more jealous of male partners of high status and wealth. Research (link is external) also found that in romantic pairs, the higher the social value (attractiveness to others) of their partner, the more likely an individual is to experience jealousy.
Second, evolutionary psychology predicts that males and females will differ in the type of transgressions that elicit their jealousy. Males’ ability to propagate their genes depends heavily on their access to an unoccupied uterus. Therefore, they are likely to be particularly jealous of sexual infidelity. Females, on the other hand, have little difficulty accessing sperm, but they need the male’s presence and continual commitment to increase the odds that their offspring will survive and thrive. Thus, females will be jealous of their male mates’ emotional infidelity.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-chemistry/201503/one-thing-you-must-know-about-jealousy
Men and women evolved unique patterns because of their biological differences, especially related to reproduction. Women require more time than men to reproduce because they get pregnant and raise children. Men on the other hand, can reproduce in minutes because they don’t bear children and could potentially deny paternity (especially in hunter-gatherer times when paternity tests didn’t exist). According to evolutionary psychology, the goal of all humans is to create as many healthy offspring as possible in order to optimize their reproductive success. For women, this requires a significant investment in terms of time and energy. Men however, can spread their genes quickly, so having sex with multiple partners who raise their children is advantageous.1
These biological differences help explain a critical gender difference in jealousy. Women and men respond to jealousy differently. Women seek partners who are invested in child-rearing and have more to lose if their partner chooses someone else. When they feel jealous, they respond by competing with the rival, making themselves into the more attractive partner, and optimizing the relationship. Men, who have more to gain from sex with multiple partners, tend to pull away from their partner when jealous. They are more likely than women to seek the affection of a new partner.
The one thing people must know about jealousy is that women believe men will respond to it in the same way they would. When women want more attention from their partner, they often elicit jealousy in order to get it. This strategy backfires because rather than trying to improve the relationship, men are tempted to withdraw and seek affection from others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JELaTPVrA78&feature=related
NOW, AFTER READING THIS, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY TONY FARMER DID WHAT HE DID? DO YOU SEE THE POSSIBLE MOTIVE FOR TONY'S ATTACK OF HIS GIRLFRIEND? I HOPE SO. IT'S MATE CONTROL WHICH COMES DOWN TO PATERNITY CERTAINTY. EVEN IF THEY WERE USING CONTRACEPTIVES AND EVEN IF THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF HAVING A CHILD WITH ONE ANOTHER THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION (AN ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR EVOLVED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS) STILL OPERATES LIKE CONTRACEPTIVES DIDN'T EXIST AND THEY WERE TRYING TO HAVE A CHILD (OUR STONE AGE MINDS STILL FUNCTION LIKE WE ARE IN THE STONE AGE EVEN THOUGH WE NOW LIVE IN A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICALLY AND SOCIALLY ADVANCED TIME).
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018426912_wrenn14m.html
"500 Forms Of Communication"
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Deputy-prosecutor-on-leave-was-investigated-before-3629369.php
"The number of calls, texts, and e-mails totals approximately 500"
See My "Whatcha Gonna Do When You Lose Her (LOSER)" Blog (http://vengeanceizmine.blogspot.com/2012/03/whatcha-gonna-do-when-you-lose-her.html) To Get An Understanding Of What Causes This Obsessive Type Of Thought And Behavior. By The Way, The Deputy Prosecutor In The Above Case LOVE Her Some Demonic Male (She Helps Perpetuate Their Genes). Get You Some Demonic Male, D.P.
Defining rape as a copulation where the victim resists to the best of her (or his) ability, or where a likely result of such resistance would be death or bodily harm (to the victim, or to those whom she or he commonly protects), in 1989 researcher Craig Palmer surveyed the literature for cases of rape among mammals. He found rape to be routine among only two species of nonhuman mammals: orangutans and elephant seals. In addition, he uncovered reports of occasional rape from studies of three other species. Jane Goodall has described rape among Gombe chimpanzees, and attempts at rape have been noted among captive gorillas and wild howler monkeys. Palmer, incidentally, had no particular bias in favor of finding or not finding rape in particular species, and he did not even draw attention to its concentration among apes. The skewed distribution of nonhuman mammalian rape - four of the five known cases for mammals occurring among primates, three of the five in apes - suggests that apes are an unusually violent species, while it also shows that a few other nonhuman mammals do rape.
Evolutionary theory suggests that any behavior occurring regularly or consistently has a logic embedded in the dynamics of natural selection for reproductive success. How could rape increase reproductive success? There is a blindingly obvious and direct possibility: By raping, the rapist may fertilize the female. Rape, in other words, may be the way for some males to achieve conception, with no other biological significance.
...
The most plausible alternative to the fertilization tactic theory of rape is the sexual coercion hypothesis recently proposed by Barbara Smuts and Robert Smuts. In some species, according to this line of thought, rape may be an evolved male mechanism whose primary aim is not fertilization in the present, but control - for the ultimate purpose of fertilization in the future. So, rape has entered some species' behavioral repertoire because it can increase an individual male's success in passing on genes to the next generation (all evolved behaviors ultimately must). But the immediate purpose of the rape is not necessarily fertilization. Instead, much as many feminists have long argued, it may be domination. Applied to orangutans, this hypothesis would say that the orangutan female learns the rapist's power to control her. If successful, such domination would mean that at some time in the future the female will be more likely to fear and, out of fear, accept the male, giving him more predictable sexual control over her, especially during those times when she is most fertile. Therefore, the rape will benefit the male reproductively in the long term, even if it does not immediately.
SMUT PEDDLERS
Take this line of thinking further, relationship dynamics may help explain even rape by strangers. Consider kidnapping of women by men from a neighboring tribe or village or community, or the type of war rape where soldiers move into a village and stay for weeks. The man demonstrates that he can have sex with his victim whether she wants it or not, so it might be in her own interests to accept him - much as in male prisons a victim sometimes comes to accept his rapist as a partner and protector. By a logic that challenges our strongest moral principles it could pay the women to acknowledge that rapist's power and form a relationship that, while initially repellent, she comes to accept. This same sort of unpleasant bind we will shortly see played out among gorillas, where males make themselves attractive by killing a baby. In both cases, a demonstration of power implies that the female's safest future is to bond with the violent male.
Among orangutans, rape accounts for one-third to one-half or more of all copulations. Even among chimpanzees, where rape is a good deal rarer, it probably still happens as often as among many human populations. The life histories of gorillas - and bonobos as we will later describe - show that rape is not inevitable if you are an ape. Nonetheless, rape occurs much more commonly among the great apes than among most animals. Why is rape so common for this group?
Part of the answer comes from examining social systems. Even though rape is unusually common for apes generally, each of the five species shows a distinctive distribution for the behavior. Males can't rape if society prevents them. Rapists can be stopped by social alliances. For humans as for orangutans, a sufficient mob of supporting kin or others could stop a rapist. And it is precisely a mob that the orangutan female lacks. Female orangutans live alone. Female gorillas, on the other hand, live in troops that are protected from strange males by females' own strong bond with a chosen mate - the silverback - who, because there are no rival males to steal copulations, leaves the timing of mating to the female. Gorillas living in troops are safe from rape. Orangutans, because they live alone, are vulnerable.
The patterns of rape in the five ape species suggest this strong idea: Safety is found in numbers. This could be a clue with wider significance. If vulnerability breeds sexual coercion, grouping and alliance may help explain other patterns of aggression.
Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Wrangham and Peterson, p. 138-143.
THIS GIVES SOME CREDENCE TO THE "I'LL FUCK YOU UNTIL YOU LOVE ME" LINE, HUH? (YOU'VE GOT NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO LOVE YOUR CAPTOR OR ATTACKER IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SCENARIOS.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaHN_AQcBSo
Had That Naive, Immature, Inexperienced (Socially), Money And Status Coveting Niggette Not Made These False Accusations Mike Tyson Would Have Not Lost Those 3 Prime Boxing Years Of His Career, Would Not Have Lost To Evander Holyfield Or Any Other Contender*, Would Have Not Lost His Title, And Would Not Have Lost His Place In Boxing History As One Of The Best Heavy Weights Of All Time.
Males Evolved To Be Rapists. If We Lived In A Lawless Society, Like We Did For Most Of Our Evolutionary History, Most Men, If Given The Opportunity, Would Employ This Reproductive Strategy. It's An Innate Behavior (An Adaptation) That Directly Serves Our Reproductive Interests (Impregnating A Female).
P.S. Mike Tyson Is/Was Intriguing Because Of His Fighting Prowess And Psychological Makeup (His Mental Instability). That Is/Was The Allure Of Him!
Without A Well Developed Conscience Most Males Would Rape Females. How Do You Develop A Conscience? Its' Partly Genetic, But Social And Cultural Environment Plays A Big Role. If You Come From A Family Or Associate With Peers That Stress Moral, Conscious Behavior And Come From A Culture With Strong Proscriptions (And Prescriptions!) Against Immoral Behavior (A Culture Whose Mores Are Firmly Embedded In Society With A Legal System That Punishes Violators Of Those Mores) You Can Foster Conscious, Moral Behavior.
*I Coulda Ben A Contender.
HE HAS NO CONSCIENCE
