Rape And Sexual Coercion Research Paper

Academic Writing Service

Sample Rape And Sexual Coercion Research Paper. Browse other  research paper examples and check the list of research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a religion research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our research paper writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

The following summarizes the biological, and cultural approaches to the understanding of rape in human societies and evaluates these approaches by reference to studies demonstrating the incidence and social correlates of sexual coercion in the United States and cross-culturally.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code


1. The Biological View

The biological explanation for rape and sexual coercion is grounded in the argument that sexual aggression is an evolved adaptation in human males. The argument builds on Charles Darwin’s theory of natural and sexual selection. Natural selection is the doctrine that in the struggle for existence evolutionary progress is achieved by the inheritance of advantageous characteristics which prosper at the expense of less advantageous ones. Sexual selection is a specific case of natural selection applied to the evolution of sex differences. Darwin claimed that the greater size and strength of human males was due ‘in chief part to inheritance from his half-human male ancestors.’ According to Darwin such characteristics ‘would have been preserved or even augmented during the long ages of man’s savagery, by the success of the strongest and boldest men, both in the general struggle for life, and in their contest for wives.’ He measured success by the number of children some men left as compared with their ‘less favoured brethen’ (Darwin 1936, pp. 872–3).

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Darwinian doctrine of sexual selection was applied to treatises on human sexual behavior produced by the famous sexologists R. F. von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis. In his magnum opus, Psychopathia Sexualis, first published in German in 1886, KrafftEbing argued that ‘gratification of the sexual instinct [is] the primary motive in man as well as in beast’ (quoted by Sanday 1996 p. 125). In the third volume of his Studies in the Psychology of Sex, published in Philadelphia between 1897 and 1910, Ellis comes very close to making rape the sine qua non of sexual arousal. Ellis conceives of human sexual behavior as a game of combat. Playing the role of hunted animal the female conceals her sexual passion by adopting a demeanor of modesty in order that the male may be more ardent and forceful. Ellis claims that as the hunt becomes more sexually charged, ‘an element of real violence, of undisguised cruelty’ is introduced. Accepting the Darwinian theory of natural selection with its emphasis on competition and brute strength, Ellis claimed that a woman who resisted ‘the assaults of the male’ aided natural selection ‘by putting to the test man’s most important quality, force’ (quoted by Sanday 1996, pp. 127–8).




At the end of the twentieth century, the Darwinian approach was again applied to the subject of the ‘biological bases of sexual coercion’ by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer in their book A Natural History of Rape (2000). Like Krafft-Ebing and Ellis they make a distinction between sexual desire in human males and females. Citing the work of anthropologist Donald Symons (1979, pp. 264–7), these authors claim that rape is due to certain adaptations making males more easily aroused, with a greater sex drive, a reduced ability to abstain from sexual activity, in need of greater sexual variety, and less discriminating in choice of sexual partner (Thornhill and Palmer 2000, p. 62). However, while Symons suggests that rape is a by-product of such adaptations, Thornhill and Palmer suggest that rape is itself an adaptation, which they call ‘the human rape-adaptation’ (Thornhill and Palmer 2000, p. 62). By this they mean that rape has a direct biological basis rather than being a behavioral consequence of other evolved behaviors.

To support their argument for the evolved nature of such an adaptation, Thornhill and Palmer (2000, p. 62) say it is necessary to identify ‘mechanisms involved in rape that were designed by selection in the past specifically for reproduction by means of rape’. Because such mechanisms exist in the morphology of certain insects, they seem to suggest, they must also exist in humans. To make their case, the authors draw parallels with scorpion flies, which they point out have a physical adaptation for rape. Male scorpion flies have an organ, ‘a pair of clamp-like structures, one on either side of the penis,’ that serves to keep unwilling females in a mating position (2000, p. 63).

Admitting that there is no ‘conspicuous morphology that might be a rape adaptation’ in human males, Thornhill and Palmer (2000, pp. 64–5) look ‘to the male psyche for candidates for rape adaptations.’ They propose (2000, pp. 65–6) a number of ‘psychological mechanisms’ as ‘adaptations’ that can be viewed as ‘analogous’ to the rape adaptations observed in ‘male insects’.

In a review of the argument put forward by Thornhill and Palmer, Frans B. M. de Waal, a prominent biologist, points out that they have not demonstrated that rape in humans is a product of natural selection. According to Waal, ‘for natural selection to favor rape, rapists would have to differ genetically from nonrapists and need to sow their seed more successfully, so to speak, causing more pregnancies than nonrapists, or at least more than they would without raping’ (Waal 2000, p. 24). ‘Not a shred of evidence for these two requirements is present’ Waal concludes (2000, p. 24). Waal also points out that the psychological mechanisms Thornhill and Palmer propose do not demonstrate natural selection but have to do ‘with judgment of people and situations, a multipurpose capacity also present in women’ (2000, p. 24). Waal’s emphasis on judgement leads us to the cultural argument.

2. The Cultural Approach

Against a strictly biological explanation of human behavior anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973, p. 46) argues that without culture patterns (i.e. ‘organized systems of significant symbols’) human behavior would be shapeless and without direction, ‘a mere chaos of pointless acts and exploding emotions.’ Applied to sexual behavior, the cultural approach, accepted by many anthropologists and sociologists, suggests that sexual behavior is part of a broader cultural system which includes notions of masculinity and femininity, ideas about appropriate sexual relations, cues for sexual arousal, and messages about the consequences of sexual expression. As anthropologist Malinowski said long ago, ‘[s]ex in its widest meaning … is rather a sociological and cultural force than a mere bodily relation of two individuals’ (Malinowski 1929, p. xxiii).

Peggy Reeves Sanday (1981) puts Malinowski’s claim to the test in a study of the sociocultural context of rape cross-culturally. Using a standard sample of band and tribal societies, Sanday found that 47 percent of the societies for which there was adequate in- formation showed a low frequency of rape, compared with 18 percent which were unambiguously ‘rape prone.’ Commenting on the pattern of correlations revealed by her study, Sanday (1981, p. 5) concludes that rape by males is part of ‘a cultural configuration’ which includes interpersonal violence among men as well as between men and women and male social dominance. Rape-prone societies are more likely to be characterized by male segregation in separate houses, an ideology of male toughness, emphasis on com- petition, low respect for women as citizens, and the absence of women in the public domain of economic and political affairs. In the more rape-free societies, there is an ethos of cooperation and consensus in human affairs. The social separation of the sexes is less marked and both sexes are more likely to hold exalted positions in public decision-making and to be integrated and equal in the affairs of everyday life.

Anthropologist Carole Vance (1984, pp. 7–8) also cites the diversity in human sexual practices to suggest that biology does not ‘directly or simply determine the configuration or meaning of sexuality’. If this were the case, she argues, we would encounter uniformity cross-culturally rather than the startling diversity that actually exists in which ‘activities condemned in one society are encouraged in another, and ideas about what is attractive or erotic, or sexually satisfying or even sexually possible vary a great deal.’ Vance concludes that ‘the body and its actions [must be] understood according to prevailing codes of meaning.’ She suggests that an important question for research must be ‘What is the nature of the relationship between the arbitrariness of social construction and the immediacy of … bodily sensations and functions?’ (Vance 1984, pp. 7–9; see also Caplan 1987, pp. 1–27 on the cultural construction of sexuality).

In a study of the sociocultural and historical contexts of rape in the United States, Sanday (1996, p. 26) coins the term ‘sexual culture’ to describe the system of meanings, standards, and expected behaviors by which male and female sexuality is judged and understood. She argues that historically theories like those of Darwin, Krafft-Ebing, and Ellis functioned as cultural templates for popular sexual stereotypes by means of which males and females judged appropriate sexual behavior and acted accordingly. Because these stereotypes condoned sexual aggression by making it ‘natural,’ such as seen in the idea that ‘boys will be boys,’ US rape laws applied primarily to the use of force by a stranger. This changed after feminist activism in the 1970s resulted in more stringent legal codes. The same activism initiated studies on the incidence and social correlates of rape in America showing that acquaintance rape was much more common than stranger rape (Sanday 1996, pp. 161–207).

3. Rape Statistics In The United States

US statistics come from numerous studies utilizing national, community, or college samples. In general, these studies define rape as nonconsensual sexual intercourse irrespective of whether the parties know one another. Nonconsent is defined using the modern legal definition of rape. In most states, rape is defined as nonconsensual sex either due to the use of force or taking advantage of a person’s inability to consent because of intimidation or because of alcohol or drugs. Although most studies focus on heterosexual rape, some authors note that rape also affects same-sex couples.

The first study designed to measure the percentage of those claiming they had been raped in a specified sample population was conducted in 1957 by sociologist Eugene Kanin on a college campus. This survey revealed that 55 percent of the 291 college women interviewed said they had experienced offensive episodes ‘at some level of erotic intimacy.’ Twentyone percent said they were offended ‘by forceful attempts at intercourse’ and 6.2 percent by ‘aggressively forceful attempts at sex intercourse in the course of which menacing threats or coercive infliction of physical pain were employed.’ Of the latter group 48 percent told no one and none reported to anyone in authority (Kirkpatrick and Kanin 1957, pp. 53, 56).

Another well-known path breaking study was conducted by Diane Russell in 1978 in San Francisco. Russell interviewed 930 women ranging in age from 18 to 80 of diverse social classes and racial ethnic groups. Twenty-four percent of the women interviewed reported at least one completed rape, and 31 percent reported at least one attempted rape. The majority experienced rape by acquaintances and a much smaller percentage by strangers (Russell 1984, pp. 34–8).

Two large-scale national studies yielded similar results. In 1985 Mary Koss joined with Ms. magazine to survey a national sample of 6,159 students on 32 college campuses. This study found that many more women and men were having sex in the 1980s compared to the figures reported by Alfred Kinsey in his landmark studies of male and female sexual behavior published in the 1940s and 1950s. Onequarter of the men interviewed in the Koss–Ms. study reported involvement in some form of sexual aggression, ranging from unwanted touching to rape. A high percentage of the males did not name their use of force as rape. Eighty-eight percent said it was definitely not rape. Forty-seven percent said they would do the same thing again (summarized by Sanday 1996, pp. 191–2; see also Koss 1988, 1992, Warshaw 1988).

One in four of the women surveyed by Koss said yes to questions asking about behaviors that in most states would be legally defined as rape or attempted rape (for this definition see above). The power of popular stereotypes for defining acceptable sexual behavior and the adversarial nature of these stereotypes is reflected in the fact that most of the women reporting incidents that would legally qualify as rape did not call it rape. The term ‘date rape’ evolved from this study because many of the women surveyed said that the behavior often occurred on dates. Although most did not call it rape, Koss reported that ‘the great majority of rape victims conceptualized their experience in highly negative terms and felt victimized whether or not they realized that legal standards for rape had been met’ (Koss 1992, pp. 122–6).

By the end of the 1990s a number of scientifically designed research studies revealed similar statistics (for a summary of studies see Koss 1993 and Sanday 1996, pp. 184–206). The findings reported in these studies are corroborated by a national study of sex in America conducted in 1992 employing a representative probability sample of 3,432 Americans (see Michael et al. 1994). The findings fall within the range of many other studies: ‘22 percent of women were forced to do something sexually at some time,’ while ‘just 2 percent of men were forced.’ The authors of this study concluded that ‘as many as one in five women’ experience some form of sexual coercion, including rape, in the United States (Michael et al. 1994, pp. 33, 221–2).

4. The Social Correlates Of Rape In US Studies

A number of studies conducted late in the twentieth century indicate that the adversarial view of male– female sexual interaction described by the early sexologists is frequently held by sexually coercive males. In a study of a large southeastern university, Boeringer (1996, pp. 137–9) reports that 56 percent of the males he interviewed admitted to obtaining sex by verbal harassment (i.e., ‘threatening to end a relationship unless the victim consents to sex, falsely professing love, or telling the victim lies to render her more sexually receptive’). One-quarter of the males reported using drugs or alcohol to obtain sex and 9 percent reported at least one use of force or threatened force to obtain sex. Boeringer concludes that such verbally coercive tactics suggest an ‘adversarial view of sexuality in which one should use deceit and guile to win favors from a woman’ (p. 140).

Sexually aggressive men, from convicted rapists to college males answering questions on social surveys, share a remarkably similar set of attitudes. Most believe that sexual aggression is normal, that sexual relationships involve game playing, that men should dominate women, that women are responsible for rape, and that relations between the sexes are adversarial and manipulative on both sides (Koss and Leonard 1984, pp. 221, 223). Reanalyzing Koss’ data to pinpoint attitudes held by the self-admitted sexually aggressive men of her study (i.e., those who admitted to forcing a woman to have sex in Koss’s 1985 questionnaire), Sanday (1996, pp. 196–7) found that these men often expressed adversarial-like beliefs. For example, many stated that they believe that a woman’s No means Yes and that women say no to intercourse because they don’t want to seem loose but really hope the man will force her. Compared with men who do not admit to forcing a woman, more of these men also think that being roughed up by a man is sexually stimulating to women and that women have an unconscious wish to be raped. Few of the women in Koss’ sample hold such attitudes.

To conclude, there is considerable evidence suggesting that whatever the biological basis of male sexual aggression might be, family background and cultural context make a difference. The incidence of rape is far lower among men raised in stable, peaceful environments be it a family context in a complex society like the United States or the intimate communities of small-scale traditional societies in which the ethos is one of mutual respect between the sexes. To say that some men will rape in all societies and to use this fact to make generalizations about the sexual predilections of all men may bring about the very sexual culture one is trying to avoid by creating a lore that makes sexual aggression a ‘natural’ part of masculinity. More important for the education of young males is the conclusion based on studies in the US and cross-culturally that most men in most societies do not rape, and those who do face social rejection or incarceration.

5. Prevention

Examples of prevention strategies based on the biological approach are offered by Thornhill and Palmer (2000, pp. 169–88). Believing that rape occurs ‘in all the environments in which humans societies [sic] have been known to exist’ (p. 171), they are less interested in changing the environment by challenging popular stereotypes than with focusing on the ‘exact nature of the psychological mechanisms that guide male sexual behavior’ (p. 172). They offer a number of suggestions including certain types of educational programs. Citing the view of rape proposed by Camille Paglia, claim Thornhill and Palmer (2000, p. 183) that since men ‘have evolved sexual preferences for young and healthy women and are attracted to women who signal potential availability by means of dress and behavior,’ women should be informed of the risk factors and use the information to lower their risk of rape by paying attention, for example, to dress and appearance. They also suggest more direct social interventions such as separating vulnerable females from males.

The cultural approach argues for a change in rape laws and sexual stereotypes so that nonconsensual sex is treated unambiguously as a crime. Increasingly, this approach defines rape not just in terms of the use of force or drugs, but more broadly as failure to obtain verbal consent. The operative words of the new American sexual ideology are ‘affirmative verbal consent,’ ‘freely given agreement,’ and ‘sexual communication.’ Such modern adaptations would be acceptable to Darwin’s view of natural selection because they promote sexual health and well-being in an era of sexually transmitted diseases. One point left out of discussions of the biological bases of rape is the fact that as much as Darwin stressed competition, he also stressed cooperation or acting on behalf of what he called ‘the general good or welfare of the community’ (quoted by Sanday 1996, p. 288). Called ‘altruism’ by students of human evolution, some suggest that the primary selective pressure in human evolution was not for violent men but for those who were able to cooperate with women and other males in organized food gathering. Some anthropologists believe that this ability to cooperate was responsible for the evolution of human culture (Tanner 1981). In light of the ever increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases together with the evolution of nuclear weapons, one can also note that today there is a fine line between aggressive behavior that results in reproductive success and behavior that leads human populations instead to the brink of extinction.

Bibliography:

  1. Boeringer S B 1996 Influences of fraternity membership, athletics, and male living arrangements on sexual aggression. Violence Against Women 2(2): 134–47
  2. Caplan P (ed.) 1987 The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. Tavistock, London
  3. Darwin C 1936 The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. The Modern Library, New York
  4. Geertz C 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books, New York
  5. Kirkpatrick C, Kanin E J 1957 Male sex aggression on a university campus. American Sociological Review 22: 52–8
  6. Koss M P 1988 Hidden rape: Sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher education. In: Burgess A W (ed.) Rape and Sexual Assault II. Garland Publishing, New York, pp. 3–25
  7. Koss M P 1992 Defending date rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(1): 122–6
  8. Koss M P 1993 Rape: Scope, impact, interventions, and public policy responses. American Psychologist 48(10): 1062–9
  9. Koss M P, Leonard K E 1984 Sexually aggressive men: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. In: Malamuth N M, Donnerstein E (eds.) Pornography and Sexual Aggression. Academic Press, New York, pp. 213–32
  10. Malinowski B 1929 The Sexual Life of Sa ages in North Western Melanesia: An Ethnographic Account of Courtship, Marriage, and Family Life among the Natives of the Trobriand Islands, British New Guinea. G. Routledge & Sons, London
  11. Michael, R T, Gagnon J H, Laumann E O, Kolata G 1994 Sex in America: A Definitive Survey. Little, Brown and Company, Boston
  12. Russell D E H 1984 Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, and Workplace Harassment. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
  13. Sanday P R 1981 The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross- cultural study. Journal of Social Issues 37(4): 5–27
  14. Sanday P R 1996 A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
  15. Symons D 1979 The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford University Press, New York
  16. Tanner N M 1981 On Becoming Human. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
  17. Thornhill R, Palmer C T 2000 A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
  18. Vance C S 1984 Pleasure and danger. In: Vance C (ed.) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, pp. 1–28
  19. Warshaw R 1988 I Never Called It Rape: The Ms Report on Recognizing, Fighting and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape. Harper & Row, New York
  20. de Waal F B M 2000 Survival of the rapist. NY Times Book Review April 2: 24–25
Rational Choice Theory Research Paper
Random Assignment Research Paper

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER


Always on-time

Plagiarism-Free

100% Confidentiality
Special offer! Get 10% off with the 24START discount code!