After our discussion of the alley encounter, we talked about erotic — as opposed to aversive ­— fantasies of rape. According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving “the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will,” between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. She stressed the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real. “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she went on. “They’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words. ‘Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender.

Skinny Puppy wrote:Interesting reading, but there’s not enough data yet to draw any real conclusions.

I find this part to be rather unnerving.

After our discussion of the alley encounter, we talked about erotic — as opposed to aversive ­— fantasies of rape. According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving “the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will,” between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. She stressed the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real. “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she went on. “They’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words. ‘Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender.

I too hate the term ‘rape fantasies'. I’d like to see more studies conducted to shed some light on this.

TMB wrote:The other interesting observation made by this research, and validated independently, is that women are attracted by different degrees of masculinity depending upon their ovulation cycle. At ovulation, they are more attracted to more masculine features - ie. more alpha male types, while not ovulating they are attarcted to softer male profiles/features. This is inferred to be adaptive that they are likely to wan to mate with better genes (ie. when ovulating), but are better served (once pregnant with strong, aggressive genes) but a more nurturing male who will be more likely to assist with rearing offspring. This goes some way to explaining womens ambivalent attractions to males who are bastards, and others who are more supportive, and trying to reconcile the two.

Interesting reading, but there’s not enough data yet to draw any real conclusions.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

TMB wrote:The other interesting observation made by this research, and validated independently, is that women are attracted by different degrees of masculinity depending upon their ovulation cycle. At ovulation, they are more attracted to more masculine features - ie. more alpha male types, while not ovulating they are attarcted to softer male profiles/features. This is inferred to be adaptive that they are likely to wan to mate with better genes (ie. when ovulating), but are better served (once pregnant with strong, aggressive genes) but a more nurturing male who will be more likely to assist with rearing offspring. This goes some way to explaining womens ambivalent attractions to males who are bastards, and others who are more supportive, and trying to reconcile the two.

TMB wrote:Skinny puppy, you said

Interesting reading, but there’s not enough data yet to draw any real conclusions.

What do you mean there is no enough data to draw any conclusions? Surely even before the data is assesed you look at the logic behind our behavior based upon what we know about evolved behavior. Does the existing data (which I am sure will be added to), support the logic? Chivers is unable to explain why women should be unaware of their responses and why they are more open to being stimulated by a wider selection than men are. Men appear to be quite fixed in this, women less so. I do not think conslusions can be drawn from these by reviewing just sexual responses, a deeper perspective is needed of the relationship between men and women, as well as the fundamental drivers that both genders share before one can draw conclusions. Some of the research is supported by others (the ovulation link to maleness attraction). The question to ask - is any of her data valid based upon methods etc. If it is then explanations might be easier to address, but need to get back to basic principles.

But Chivers, with plenty of self-doubting humor, told me that she hopes one day to develop a scientifically supported model to explain female sexual response, though she wrestles, for the moment, with the preliminary bits of perplexing evidence she has collected — with the question, first, of why women are aroused physiologically by such a wider range of stimuli than men. Are men simply more inhibited, more constrained by the bounds of culture? Chivers has tried to eliminate this explanation by including male-to-female transsexuals as subjects in one of her series of experiments (one that showed only human sex). These trans women, both those who were heterosexual and those who were homosexual, responded genitally and subjectively in categorical ways. They responded like men. This seemed to point to an inborn system of arousal. Yet it wasn’t hard to argue that cultural lessons had taken permanent hold within these subjects long before their emergence as females could have altered the culture’s influence. “The horrible reality of psychological research,” Chivers said, “is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.”

Chivers said that she hopes her research and thinking will eventually have some benefit for women’s sexuality.

Chivers, like a handful of other sexologists, has arrived at an evolutionary hypothesis that stresses the difference between reflexive sexual readiness and desire.

From early glances at her data, Chivers said, she guesses she will find that women are most turned on, subjectively if not objectively, by scenarios of sex with strangers.

When I said ‘data’ I was implying that more studies would be required and adequate peer reviews would have to take place and the data she arrived at would need to be replicated by any research group anywhere in the world. From what I’ve gleaned from that article, the jury is still out.

In addition you’ve referenced a newspaper article. Any newspaper article has zero credibility. I do read newspapers, but they’re notorious for misinformation and I neither make nor break an opinion based upon them.

While her work is interesting and may well produce results, it’s too early to make any firm judgments as to its validity.

Dr. Chivers has indicated (as any good researcher should) that more data is needed before one can draw any decisive conclusions. One can make an educated guess, but it’s only a guess and not fact.

with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. She stressed the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real. “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she went on. “They’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words. ‘Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender.

For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving.

NineOneFour wrote:Two guys talking about female sexual responses, yeah, awesome.

The fail is epic.

Tsuyoiko wrote:Very interesting reading.

For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving.

This makes a lot of sense to me and fits my own experience.

The term 'rape fantasy' seems misleading. When a woman fantasises about being ravished by a man who is so overcome with desire for her that he can no longer control himself, I don't think she's fantasising about rape. I don't think she's imagining being forced into a violent, endangering act against her will. She's fantasising about her willing surrender.

To call this a 'rape fantasy' might lead some people to suppose that women secretly want to be raped, and for that reason I think we should avoid that term.