I really don't either. Why would someone "rape" anyone? I REALLY don't understand it. I just know that every credible expert I've heard/read, have said that rape is mostly about exerting CONTROL over another person. There is NO WAY I'd be turned-on sexually, forcing someone to do what I wanted. Uggghhh!! I associate sexual pleasure with MUTUAL concern for and enjoyment between individuals. To get a "nut", a person just needs to know how to masturbate. If someone didn't WANT your sexual advances and you force them to participate... that would be 'violent'. So, whether you are interested or not in violence... raping someone would make you a violent person.
I think I would be turned on sexually, if the person I would rape is sexy to me. Mutual consent and enjoyment would increase sexual pleasure and surely is necessary from moral perspective, but it is not what people derive sexual pleasure from in the first place. Lack of consent is primarily a moral turn off, not a sexual one. It also makes sense from evolutionary perspective, as cold laws of nature that shaped our sexual instincts do not care about morality.
You might want to see a mental therapist; seriously. I'm not so sure that's normal. Okay. But RAPE would be a turn-off to me. I don't see anything arousing about dehumanizing people. Still, ask a therapist about that. I don't that what you're describing is healthy. No. I don't buy it. We are humans living in 2012. For example, I can kill... but ENJOY doing it in ANY way.... hmmm....
I think it is normal. Note that I am talking about sexual pleasure only (which is mostly beyond conscious control), I would certainly feel morally repulsed and sad for the victim. People are not wired to enjoy killing. But they are subconsciously wired to sexually enjoy sex with desirable partners. That does not change much due to lack of consent, IMHO.
Man... I really don't think you are correct about that. Something you're assuming just seems "off" to me. In time, I'll have to research this more so I'll know better.
Here I go again with a sitting on the fence response. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the domination thesis sits alongside the sexual one. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that rape is only about domination and power. The old common law definition of rape used to be shortened to a vulgar but useful set of dot points: f'ing by force, fear or fraud A quick think about that crude definition reveals that there are elements of violent domination and power but also a bit of sneakiness by some horney bastard. The fraud bit is seen in cases where the rapist misrepresents the act or his identity.
