Why there isn't any concept of rape in animals and only in humans? Why there is
Sexual harassment in humans and not animals? I've seen hundreds of programs of animals. Whenever female of animal wants to mate, only then her selected male mates with her. I think I've some answer to this as well. Once is late marriages & unsuccessful marital life (Please do comment on this too). Other is that unlike animals sexual arousal
Continues in case of female humans by showing body features. Men are attracted by
Women's breasts, buttocks, legs etc. They keep on showing them and it arouses men. As
Female of animals only do sex acts (to attract male) when she wants to mate, but in
Humans it occurs without this reason. Maybe female human doesn't want to mate but it
Tempts male human. Dolphins are like humans as well i.e. they do sex not only to
Produce offspring but also for social bounding like humans. But sexual harassment
Isn’t in dolphins as well.

Because animals do not prize sex as people do. It is not this "great thing" as we make it, but is what nature intended to them. A means to reproduce, and bond. Basic instict is to spread the seed in the animal world. To them, it is not this magical thing that we possess and choose who gets to benefit from it... does that make sense?

Humans have a thing called a brain and it is capable of reasoning out while animals live on instinct!

Dogs are smarter. If a female lets a male dog know she isn't interested, he gives up. If she is in her fertile cycle, she won't resist any male she has access to. That is why the term for a female dog, banned here, is such an insult if applied to a female human.

I am unfamiliar with the rape box mentioned at Atlanta Falcons Quarterback Michael Vick Indicted for Dogfighting | The Humane Society of the United States
I wonder if it is about breeding or other perverted enertainment?

The Hindu Upanishads say that humans are the highest of creation. Humans are
capable of inventing things which are not present in nature.

The concept of rape is a human invention. A woman can also rape a man, but it
is usually not termed as rape or not taken as seriously.

"I agree with the claim that rape of a man by a woman and rape of a woman by a man are not equivalent. There's clearly a kind of rape that a woman cannot do to a man that a man can do to a woman, and that is to have sex when the other party is not aroused at all. There are purely biological reasons for this. There can be sexual assault of some sort, but it won't be outright rape of a man by a woman unless he is aroused enough that the act can even take place. That's a real disanalogy, and I think it has severe consequences for how we think about rape of a man by a woman as opposed to rape of a woman by a man. Men can rape women in ways that women can't rape men".

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/arch...alefemale.html

Can a female rape another female?

... the definition of rape is not limited to male-female or female-male; it can most definitely be male-male or female-female. Once someone begins to sexually touch or feel or lick any part of another person who did not give consent to the act, it is considered a violation of that person’s body.

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=557

Data, research papers and statistics on various aspects of childhood sexual abuse, female rape and male male rape:

1) Gender role socialization and male-on-male vs. female-on-male child sexual abuse.

2) Asian and non-Asian attitudes toward rape, sexual harassment, and sexuality.

3) Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms.

4) Rape Of Men Is Not Uncommon, Study Says.

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/res...on_abuse.shtml

Throughout much of ancient history, the crime of rape was viewed less as a variety of assault on a female's autonomy, but rather a serious property crime against the man to whom she "belonged." This was especially true in the case of betrothed virgins, as the loss of chastity was perceived as severely depreciating her value to her husband. The law, in such cases, would void the betrothal and demand financial compensation from the rapist, payable to the woman's household, whose "goods" were "damaged."

Male-male rape has historically been shrouded in secrecy due to the stigma men associate with being raped by other men. Fewer than one in ten male-male rapes are reported, according to one expert. As a group, male rape victims reported a lack of services and support, and legal systems are often ill equipped to deal with this type of crime.

Most cultures worldwide have not considered the possibility that women can commit rape against men and women. Most legal codes on rape do not legislate for this as a crime, as rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist. As of 2007, in South Africa a gang of women has reportedly been raping young men. However, the relevance of this issue has been overshadowed by more prominent instantiations of rape, and it is widely regarded, particularly by feminists and academics interested in feminist issues and sexual matters of intellectual interest, that until the more prominent issues of rape are addressed first, not much will come of the former, less common instances of rape, as addressed here.

"Victim blaming" is holding the victim of a crime to be in whole or in part responsible for what has happened to them. In the context of rape, this concept refers to the Just World Theory and popular attitudes that certain victim behaviours (such as flirting, or wearing sexually-provocative clothing) may encourage rape. In extreme cases, victims are said to have "asked for it", simply by not behaving demurely. In most Western countries, the defense of provocation is not accepted as a mitigation for rape. A global survey of attitudes toward sexual violence by the Global Forum for Health Research shows that victim-blaming concepts are at least partially accepted in many countries. In some countries, victim-blaming is more common, and women who have been raped are sometimes deemed to have behaved improperly. Often, these are countries where there is a significant social divide between the freedoms and status afforded to men and women.

American social critic Camille Paglia, and some sociobiologists, have argued that the victim-blaming intuition may have a non-psychological component in some cases. Some sociobiological models suggest that it may be genetically-ingrained for certain men and women to allow themselves to be more vulnerable to rape, and that this may be a biological feature of members of the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Rape as an adaptation among animals:

It has long been observed that some animals appear to show behavior resembling rape in humans, such as combining sexual intercourse with violent assault, often observed in ducks and geese. Sometimes an animal is approached and sexually penetrated while it appears to not want it -- e.g. it struggles or tries to escape. These observations of forced sex among animals are not controversial. What is controversial is the interpretation of these observations, and the extension of theories based on them to humans.

It is because rape can result in increased fitness that some sociobiologists theorize that rape may be genetically advantageous for rapists, and thus prosper as a psychological adaptation.

It has also been recorded that certain species of mole will 'rape' new borns of their own species, the advantage to this is that when those moles mature and become fertile, they will become pregnant with the sperm of the mole that had mated with them at a very young age.

According to these theories, males who attempt rape are considered more desperate to mate, and one result of this desperation could be endemic misinterpretation of a female's signals. This could illustrate why many rapists justify their actions with "she said no but meant yes". Variations of this theme are common. For example, there is no clear, objective delineation between sexual touch and non-sexual touch. Holding hands may be considered by one side to be a sexual touch whereas the other considers it completely platonic.

Also, in some countries, women are forbidden to leave the house with any amount of skin showing (for example Hijab). Some sociobiologists see this as a way to reduce the female's likelihood of attracting attention and (by extension) rape. However, since it is usually the woman's husband who does not allow her to leave without being completely covered, it is more likely that the custom's function is simply to prevent her from attracting sexual attention from other men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobi...eories_of_rape

Society is becoming increasingly aware of male rape. However, experts believe that current male rape statistics vastly under-represent the actual number of males age 12 and over who are raped each year.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...cumentID=32361

http://www.male-rape.org.uk/index.htm

http://www.radessays.com/viewpaper/7...rks_Essay.html

Can the feromones excreted at the arm pits of ladies invite rape?

http://health.discovery.com/centers/...phermones.html

http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html

http://www.ishipress.com/humanodo.htm

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/11/pheromones/index.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n12741733

The premise is incorrect - rape has been known to happen in the animal kingdom. I remember seeing a show on TV about dolphins in which they filmed a group of males harassing a lone female and ultimately forcing themselves on her - the term "rape" is a bit anthropomorphic, but it was pretty clear that the female was an unwilling participant. Here's a web site that talks about another occurrence of this phenomenon: Catalyst: Dolphin Talk - ABC TV Science

One of the things that impressed me was that this episodde was cited as proof that unrelated male dolphins will cooperate with each other. This is a very rare trait among mammals - there are only 4 species of mammals where unrelated males have been known to cooperate - dogs, chimps, dolphins and humans.

What they all stated above is true. I agree, animals don't have to reason, they live on instincts alone.
Now some male animals will force themselves Upon females in heat, but females just get PO'ed that they weren't ready for mating yet. It is not considered rape though, as the males only intention in mating, is to create offspring, not sexual pleasure.

I don't agree with this at all. Animals are quite capable of rape and practice it daily. If you doubt that, leave a female cat alone with a male rabbit for a week and see what the rabbit will do. I guarantee that sex will take place with or without consent (and that's inter-species rape!)

this is good question. The differences between human forcing themselves on humans, classified as rape, and animals on animals, knowen as instics, is that humans are indowed with morality. They have a set of obejective acts as wrong wherever you are in the world i.e rapeing childeren and killing 6 million jews etc. but these are not objective if God does not exist. Because if there are no accountablity(life after death) then I can do whatever I like as long as I can get away from the police, and right and wrong are meaningless. I hear people say but we can decide what is wrong and right, but who are u to say what is wrong for u is also wrong for me. Some say the majority decide but think about this if ten people decide to rape a woman does that make it right? So right and wrong has to be outside ourselves and thus God who in nature is only good and can not sin will decide what is right and wrong since goodness is his nature. But how do we come to know about right and wrong this is another question which is epestomology. But what I am talking about is who is the source of our right and wrong, which is referred as ontology. So to answer your question morality is the difference. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bornx2

this is good question. the differences between human forcing themselves on humans, classified as rape, and animals on animals, knowen as instics, is that humans are indowed with morality. they have a set of obejective acts as wrong wherever you are in the world i.e rapeing childeren and killing 6 million jews etc. but these are not objective if God does not exist. bc if there are no accountablity(life after death) then i can do whatever i like as long as i can get away from the police, and right and wrong are meaningless. i hear ppl say but we can decide what is wrong and right, but who are u to say what is wrong for u is also wrong for me. some say the majority decide but think about this if ten ppl decide to rape a woman does that make it right? so right and wrong has to be outside ourselves and thus God who in nature is only good and can not sin will decide what is right and wrong since goodness is his nature. but how do we come to know about right and wrong this is another question which is epestomology. but what i am talking about is who is the source of our right and wrong, which is reffered as ontology. so to answer ur question morality is the difference. thanks

---

Hi bornx



Probably important here to make some distinctions.

If you are referring to how we come to know right from wrong then you probably mean deontology. Ontology is probably more concerned with the nature of the type of things that can exist, or do exist. To attempt to prove the existence of God through language would be an ontological type analysis. The assumption is that when we use language we are using it in such a way as to describe objective facts. Naturally this is subject to pages of debate.

You seem to be getting at the distinction between deontological ethics versus consequentialist or utilitarian ethics. There is a distinction between consequentialist and utilitarian ethics, but it is not important here.

Deontology is the position that an action being right or wrong doesn't depend on the consequences, but the kind of action it is. A consequentialist would have nothing to do with what the majority says is right or wrong. An action is right if it has good consequences and bad if it has the opposite consequences. In theory the majority of a particular population might think that rape is good. But a consequentialist would say it is wrong because it has bad consequences for society as a whole.

The other issue you raise is that ethics has no objectivity unless there is a God. I happen to believe there is a God and he is important when it comes to ethics. However, there are objective theories of ethics which don't require a God. Kantian ethics being the most obvious example. There are of course others wanting to make a claim to some type of objectivity.



I hope this clears things up a bit.

Regards


Tut