When is it acceptable for a man to seduce a woman into the mood for sex?
When is it acceptable for a man to seduce a woman into the mood for sex?
In western cultures especially, the issue of rape is a highly sensitive one. Clear lines need to be drawn on what is normal acceptable behaviour in the relationships between a man and woman especially in marriage, and the concept of marriage should therefore be reassessed and revised accordingly. Here the precise activities that should be made legal and illegal in different societies in the area of sexual relations between those above the age of 16 years is assessed. (the considerations surrounding underage sex (paedophilia) has been discussed here: http://shantanup.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/criminalisation-of-under-age-sexual-conduct/).
First I present the evolutionary perspective: The success of the human species in populating the whole world and dominating the environment with the wiping out of biodiversity and all competitors to human beings is derived primarily from male sexual evolution. The act of sex first needs to be understood from this evolutionary background. The virility of a man in his prime has driven the reproductional aspect of human relationship by evolving a powerful urge for sexual intercourse that leads to the relentless impregnation of the woman with millions of sperms each time such that the chances of fertilisation and conception is maximised. Females have consequently lost their oestrus in light of this intense male reproductional evolution and the energy is devoted to other more important things that the species needs for its exploitation of resources. Females are consequently regarded as more effective (intelligent on matters of practicality), better learners (proven in school results) and therefore generally better decision makers in society when it comes to issues directly affecting survival. Importantly, they have lost a lot of their sexual drive for searching a male for sexual intercourse and initiating sexual intercourse in relation to other primates.
There may however be major differences in virility and thus the sexual needs of the man and the woman between different populations of human beings geographically which leads to cultural differences in sexual behaviour that can then be considered acceptable and hence the norm in the respective societies. It is therefore important to ensure that the cultural factor is judged in terms of the biological factors that are operating. For example, sexual activity is celebrated as an enjoyable dual pastime in Hindu society since time immemorial (refer to Kama Sutra, and sculptures showing the act of sex in old temples). On the other hand, in Europe there is no such tradition and sexual activity may be relatively repressed historically rather than being celebrated. This is seen from the fact that are no early-age marriages in these societies that developed in India for example to regulate the sexual apetite of males and females. It may be possible that the lower sexual apetites in western socieites has meant that these nations have required immigration to keep their population numbers from growing. Studies need to be conducted on the prevalence of different sexual activities that examine whether the western male on the whole is not easily aroused at the thought or sight of a woman and thus fail to get an good erection which would be the prelude to sexual excitement and sexual activity. It was therefore inevitable that the feminist movement would be born in the sexually repressed western societies.
At a general level the moral questions on acceptable sexual conduct centre on two interrelated issues: the institution of marriage and its purpose, and the acceptability of the behavioural practices that would be considered the norm in different societies within marriage and outside marriage. Marriage institutionalises sex within a family structure. Those who do not wish this are free to not enter into marriage. The breakdown of marriage in western societies is a sign of the reduced sex needs of these populations. Then, there are those who would like restrictions on their partners within marriage and those who would like marriage to be based on total consummation through the act of sex. Hence, people with different sexual needs should be able to enter into the type of marriage that is suited to their biological and hence cultural predispositions. (See here: http://shantanup.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-case-for-full-marriages-and-free-marriages-in-law/).
There is the issue of law of the society with regard to sexual activities, and these should be determined by different societies again on the basis of what the norms of sexual conduct are in those societies. The issue of what constitutes rape in different societies should also be examined in light of biological needs and desires of the population (http://shantanup.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/658/). Who has the right to initiate sex, and what behaviour constitues normal seduction and when does this overstep the mark into coercion or forceful sexual intercourse that would be classified as rape are questions that need to be defined and resolved. In some circles it is perfectly normal to seduce a reluctant girlfriend or wife into the mood for sex (with flowers, music, words, tactile foreplay), and vice versa so that this should be seen as a normal behaviour of human conduct; some feminists however resent this kind of behaviour and classify it as rape in suggesting that this amounts to excessive intrusion: they would only like sex to take place when it is explicitly asked for by the woman.
This brings us to the final point of this post, namely ‘love’. It is said that intimacy between individuals take place when one or the other or both partners are in love with each other. But in many societies marriages are arranged so that when two people meet they do not know much about each other and provided that there is not something very wrong, agree to marriage without any love-bonding. So what do we know about the emotional attachment of falling in love? Is this something to be used as the basis for ones actions in life in sexual matters, like one should only have sex with the person if you are in love with that person? Love is something that Hindus say begins with marriage and intensifies over the years. And why should people of opposite sex fall in love with each other rather than fall in love with people of their own sex? People could fall in love with any number of persons of the opposite sex that come along because they find others also attractive but once they have fallen in love with one person they do not find others as easy to fall in love with simultaneously. Most (though not all) stop looking at others equally lovable that they might easily have fallen in love in other circumstances. This may show that they were in fact looking for marriage/sexual partners for more than emotional intimacy all along. Further, some men and women who are more highly sexually charged (virile) will look for additional partners for sex only and do not really fall in love as such. When a person is genuinely in love with his or her partner they would do anything to please the other person in general matters of life.
The question of enticing a woman into sex does not arise in men who short of virility, that is cannot get easily stimulated erotically: relatively impotent. But they may still like giving lectures on morality and the equality of the sexes and their human rights despite their lack of experience and knowledge on sex and how humans might have evolved. Discussing what sexuality is and what people do in order to satisfy their erotic desires is unavoidable in dealing with the issue of when rape takes place. Since sex is on the whole a male crime what are the kinds of males prone to this kind of activity. I normally ask men with strong views on rape which of the following applies to them:
(1) I have never had a erection at the mere thought of a woman, or seeing a naked picture of a woman or reading saucy writings fictional or real.
(2) I used to have a hard erection frequently in private at such stimuli and still do.
(3) I used to get a erection at such stimuli but no longer do as I am past the height of my virility.
An erection is stimulated by the thought of a woman: one’s body and mind are therefore telling the man to screw the woman in question, not masturbate. That is just trying to quell the erection to rebel against what one’s own body is telling one to do. That is why the proper thing to do is to marry someone who will love you enough to accept this role as a normal part of marriage in a Full Marriage contract. If she says No, one should find a prostitute if one has the money to pay her. If one does not have the money to pay a prostitute or has been brainwashed into thinking that while married or even as a single person going to a prostitute is wrong that person is rightly to be called the proverbial ‘wanker’: a loser. In other words he is a moron who has not understood what his own body is. So one should try and change things for oneself and have a happy enjoyable life. One should not let the powers that run society with their morals and ethics make a ‘wanker’ out of you.
No man is entitled to have actual sex with a woman as a human right but if man has not even had his share of good erections so that he was ready for any opportunity for sex that ever arose or at least had something to masturbate in solitude then I do feel sorry for them that there has been something grossly lacking in their manhood. If one chooses the Option 2 the next question would be does this fall within the normal range of male human biology? A rough rule of thumb is that normal healthy heterosexual male should start getting thought-based erections from the age of 16 at the rate of 1 a day, rising to a peak of 4 a day in his twenties and thirties before it falls back 1 a day by the 50th birthday and 1 a week by your 70th birthday. If so no one can accuse such a person of being too virile, so prone to committing the unlawful act of rape.
The question is often asked as to why such men do not masturbate to find relief for their erections. The answer might be that only the lazy will masturbate their boner off. Wanking is not a good substitute for sex unless one is a mysogynist avoiding sex with a woman altogether or is a homosexual. Instead of masturbating such people need to go out and search for the right woman. Perhaps their society imposes too many restrictions and does not permit this. In that case the person needs to change your society so that this is made easy for him. Or maybe the society permits this but the women in it are relatively dry and not easy to stimulate and entice into sex. But prostitutes may be available. Sex education is needed to emancipate society. No one should be alarmed by brainwashing that having sex with a prostitute is a sin or a bad thing that one should not be engaging in. It is a perfectly good and legitimate service in society so that one might then find a ready, willing and able woman instead of masturbating. Thus before masturbating and even less considering rape there are a lot of things one can try for one self in the most honourable and civil manner that no one can have any objection to, for the ideal is for the erection to be satisfied the proper way that biology has provided for. One must fight for one’s rights to find a sex partner who will satisfy one’s natural erections in the way that Nature intended it to be satisfied, that is without wanking and without raping. Not doing so can only be because one is lazy and does not wish to go through all the trouble as not worth the effort.
Normal sex does not mean that the male is engaged in any process of domination of the woman. He is simply enjoying her body for sexual gratification. Rape is sex without agreement/consent and may be about domination but more appropriately it is a form of physical and mental violence on the woman. It needs punishment in law if a complaint is upheld in a court. So what is the main cause of rape and how can it be prevented: Is not the underlying cause male virility alone? Or is it a manifestation of something more sinister like psychopathic need to hurt a woman? The two needs to be assessed when considering the matter in law in terms of the punishment that they deserve.
If virility is the underlying cause then one has the option of self-control or to find a sex partner who would satisfy that sexual urge. In most humans a combination of the two works well.
High virility (defined as being able to have an erection just by thinking about having sex with a woman, seeing a naked picture or reading sex stories leading to masturbation or to finding a woman for actual sex) is a fantastic biological attribute of a male because it leads to the very enjoyable act of sexual intercourse and that alone leads to reproduction and children. So why condem it? Not all humans are lucky enough to be biologically-endowed with a sensitive sexual drive that would give them such a full life. For those people instead of prescribing self-control we should teach them how to be able to entice and turn on their partners for the act of sex. The problem is finding a woman who would complement that urge without moaning, and worse, complaining to the law about being raped when they reflect that it was a humiliating experience in which they feel that they had been dominated and/or violated by a man or simply regretted the fact that their bodies were used by a man for his sexual gratification and they got nothing of substance back in return. So the solution to rape in society is establish the facilities in which people find the right partners for themselves so that they can be happy. That is what my proposal enables.
Thus different societies have different needs as to what should be the norm in sexual behaviour between the adult male and the female depending on their values on decency and morality. The idea of western culture cannot replace the centuries of norms that have developed in Eastern cultures. Questions like when it is acceptable for a man to seduce a woman into the mood for sex must be left to the individuals who are attempting to establish a relationship. The law of the state should facilitate the establishment of varied relationships so as to maximise the chance of enhancing compatible partnership relations among its citizens. The details of the morality of sexual relations are not for the State to set out but for the individuals to agree upon in the form of a marital contract that is enforceable in law.
First published in Blog https://shantanup.wordpress.com December 17, 2012 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment | Edit