~ archived since 2018 ~

Woman accused her ex-boyfriend of rape 'in a bid to cover up shame of threesome'

JohnKimble111

January 10, 2014

176 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537392/Woman-accused-ex-boyfriend-rape-bid-cover-shame-threesome.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Woman accused her ex-boyfriend of rape 'in a bid to cover up shame of threesome'
Author	JohnKimble111
Upvotes	176
Comments	33
Date	January 10, 2014 10:32 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ux0ev/woman_accused_her_exboyfriend_of_rape_in_a_bid_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-accused-her-ex-boyfriend-of-rape-in-a-bid-to.1005007 https://theredarchive.com/post/1005007

Comments

[–]123vasectomy 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]burtens 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lipophobicity 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoFuckinBananas 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_AntiTheist 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The_AntiTheist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MoFuckinBananas 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_AntiTheist 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoFuckinBananas 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If we lift the taboo on sex in our cultures a lot of false rape accusations will disappear.

I agree with you here. If our culture was more sex-positive (in the literal sense of the phrase) we'd have a lot less false rape accusations.

Parents raise their daughters with the idea that any sex without commitment is shameful and dirty. This flies in the face of instinct.

I'm not entirely sure I'd agree. I don't claim to suggest that there are irresistible human instincts or gender instincts (there are some biological gender propensities, though, but they aren't mind-control), but you could argue that the feminine "instinct" is tilted somewhat towards wanting commitment. I mean, its a pretty indisputable fact that men have a more "its like an itch that needs to be scratched" sex drive than women (think of it as like an appetite... whilst both sexes can be gourmets, men generally get hungry more often). Not only that, but hypergamic tendencies as well as possessive behaviors tend to be more pronounced in women. This would suggest that women are, at least relative to men, somewhat inclined to find the best possible mate and then latch on/secure commitment, whereas men are more inclined towards a promiscuous mating strategy.

This is of course a very large generality, and clearly cultural factors play a role here too (they can exacerbate or mitigate certain biological tendencies)... but I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with you that female nature is entirely incompatible with the idea that 'sex without commitment is shameful and dirty.'

Naturally I do agree that sex-negativity is a bad thing and sex for pleasure without commitment is not necessarily wrong at all, and I think teaching your daughters that they shouldn't feel guilty for having non-committed sex is a good thing. I'm just saying that certain components of feminine nature and certain components of (female-enforced) feminine nurture may be a bit more hostile towards embracing a liberated attitude to sexuality than you may think.

[–]MoFuckinBananas -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The nuclear family was not the default. It was the group. Hunter gatherer. There weren't one father and mother and their kids. It was the whole village. People screwed to have a lot of kids (because most died). The commitment from one man wasn't needed because the whole tribe/group took care of all the kids.

That's a good point, although in these societies you had the "top tier" males getting a disproportionate number of the females, so the female attitude was a bit more focused than you suggest.

Additionally, with respect to "commitment" you could argue that back then, the close living conditions and tribal lifestyle provided many of the benefits of committed relationships sort of automatically (access to male agency)... thus, our arguments can be 'harmonized' if one sees commitment as a modern method by which women can access those benefits.

Just to clarify, I'm suggesting these are only tendencies, not hardwired and inevitable behaviors. I think that if we want to move away from them we first need to question them and before we do that we need to identify them... which in turn requires rejecting the feminist assumption that sexual morality was really about controlling women.

[–]MoFuckinBananas 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sexual morality as you know it was largely about ensuring that most everyone got a fair shake at the whole fulfilling of the biological imperative thing. Women could not reasonably expect men to labor and provide resources for them and their children with no reasonable guarantee that they are getting something out of the deal.

It was a compromise. That a man would concentrate his efforts on one woman and give up his optimal sexual strategy of trying to impregnate as many women as possible. That a woman would not use her optimal dual sexual strategy of trying to be impregnated by the man she both had access to and deemed to have the "best genes" available, while getting the most resources from whatever man she could -- as rarely do the two intersect and only the luckiest women end up with a man that has both.

It had a number of benefits. It helped largely rid us of wasteful and often violent competition over mating rights, the kind of violent competition we've seen in modernity over such things where spouse is killed as a result of infidelity is nothing compared to the slave raids of less civilized cultures like that of, say, the Ottoman empire, or tribal warfare and capture of the opposing tribe's females of the past.

It created an environment in which a man could be reasonably certain (as there was no way to tell for sure before DNA testing) that the children were his so he could channel his efforts into doing something productive that brought in resources while providing something needed that helped or. Like resource extraction via mining, logging, in more recent decades maybe even a great inventor--whatever. The point is that the effort didn't go towards fighting other men or needlessly wasteful intrasexual competition between men like we see today with the whole bigorexia phenomenon where guys spend massive amounts of their waking lives in gyms often taking dangerous things like steroids to boost their gains.

Infidelity and promiscuity completely fucks the model up leaving no reasonable man who knows even the basics of how it all works wanting any part of it, least of all contributing to it through any labor or resources. And you can't say such a man is wrong for thinking this way, either.

The bottom line is this; Most everything worthwhile that humanity has done has been in defiance of nature. You can act like an animal running purely on instinct if you want but expecting the fruits of civilization--an artificial construct in defiance of nature--for doing so probably isn't going to work out too well for you or the civilization itself if too many people start doing that.

[–]MoFuckinBananas 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sexual morality came about literally as a means of control. Sexuality for humans is closely related to sexuality for the Bonobo as I mentioned before. In fact it can be said the lack of sexual contact among humans increases violence, depression, anxiety, etc. We can live in modern society and have promiscuity. Infidelity is a silly moral idea that one possesses their partner sexually. Sure if two people agree on it fine, but people shouldn't expect it to be the norm like we do currently.

Promiscuity allowed females to choose better fathers and males to have as many kids as they could. Then like I said the whole group/tribe took care of the kids.

Granted I see you point when we started to use agriculture and living in one place as opposed to being nomads. That being said it is no longer needed especially with the creation of contraceptives. It's healthy for humans to be sexual from a gasp early age.

[–]luxury_banana 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some of the oldest tales from history are rife with infanticide. Humans are in no way like bonbos in our sexual habits. We have roots very similar to that of tournament species like chimpanzees.

Infidelity is not a "silly" idea at all. Sex leads to children and you will not be able to convince unrelated men to bear that burden in any significant capacity. The reason that it is the norm is because of this. This is also the reason it is for the most part a norm in just about every surviving primitive tribe out there.

The fact of the matter is that until a model where women can "choose better fathers and males to have as many kids as they could" you get something that resembles the college hookup culture where most women have sex with a small percentage of males. As you have wisely noted depressing, anxiety and violence are a result of sexual impoverishment. This is where the whole mate competition thing comes in, and it can be and has been violent in human history.

This has nothing to do with sexual puritanism. We are not hunter gatherers. We are not even nomadic. We are an advanced agricultural civilization that relies heavily on investment from parents to become educated, well-adjusted individuals who can function in this civilization. If you remove the incentive of assortative mating for the vast majority of males who are left out in the sort of savage, state of nature even more primitive than tribalism that the hookup culture embodies, you can expect a lack of cooperation from them in making it all work.

[–]MoFuckinBananas 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are we not? You are basing this off a society that punishes children for expressing sexuality in any way. That looks highly upon monogamy and down upon anything else. We say abstinence is best for teens who naturally want to do it, instead of teaching them how to be safe and saying "have fun". We fight our sexually expressive and open selves in every way because of social values instilled because of religion and Victorian ideals.

Sex no longer leads to children except less than 1% of the time if proper contraceptive use takes place. Many men take care of children not their own with great capacity. It is not part of the norm in every primitive tribe. Each of those is very varied and different. One views "play" as low, disgusting, shameful, and bad... another involves children in sexual activity, another requires getting bitten by fire ants to be a man. They are all different including their raising of children and pairing of mates.

College hookup culture where most women have sex with a small percentage of males???? I am living the college culture now, you are very very wrong. I think I see where this is coming from now.

Sexual impoverishment does lead to those things, and this is why male/female promiscuity is natural and circumventing it is a bad idea when we can go about it safely.

Hilariously enough, we barely rely on parents. Our education takes place elsewhere. People are sending their kids off as young as four. Around 1/3 of our waking hours are with other adults in school systems for the first 25 years of our lives.

The hookup culture is nothing like you describe. It is fun, exciting, and satisfying. If you have the confidence... self-efficacy.

[–]luxury_banana -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The bonobo female freely shares sex as a protective strategy against the infanticide which is common in many other species as to confuse the many males they have sex with about paternity. I think you will find that most other apes do not do this because they are more tournament species. At the same time, none of these species really have much in the way of male investment in offspring.

Which of course brings us to the next point, that this like, free love, man thing is not compatible with our advanced civilization and the kinds of parental, especially paternal investment it requires. Even hunter gatherers didn't really live the hippie ideal. Most of them pair up, with some of the highest values males getting more than one mate simply due to lopsided ratios due to life simply being more dangerous in that state of nature than it was for the females.

The only way you could possibly try to make this ridiculous model work is by essentially making the vast majority of men de facto cuckolded by the state that takes resources from them in some totalitarian communist nightmare that seizes these resources under threat of imprisonment or death as most males would simply not cooperate if they weren't getting the kind of fairer that the enforced monogamy model produced. We all know how well that kind communist thing has historically turned out.

[–]duglock 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MoFuckinBananas 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tjmburns 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iMADEthis2post 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilWorshipper 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fletch626 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IDMike 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Citymaker 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blaireau69 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link