Among the thornier and most troublesome kinds of false rape claims are those stemming from what might be charitably called "misunderstandings." More accurately, these aren't "misunderstandings," just falsehoods that are in part manifestations of unreasonable female paranoia. They are especially problematic because there is typically no discernible motive for the lie and present the classic "he said/she said" problem. One reason for female overreaction is ovulation, according to a piece in today's Slate:
Ovulating women overestimate strange males' probability of being rapists. Add this one to a growing list of adaptive cognitive biases—evolved psychological distortions that orient people toward strategic decision-making. These findings come from a 2007 report by Christine Garver-Apgar and her colleagues. "When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points." The researchers showed 169 normally ovulating women videotaped interviews with various men and asked them to rate the men on several dimensions, including their tendencies toward sexual aggression, kindness, or faithfulness. The more fertile the woman was at the time of her judging, the more likely she was to describe the men as "sexually coercive." Ovulating women didn't see these men as being less kind, faithful, or likely to commit—only more inclined to rape them.
Darwin's Rape Whistle: Have Women Evolved To Protect Themselves From Sexual Assault? And here is the study referenced: http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xuebao/qikan/manage/wenzhang/070317.pdf
Sounds so clinical and proper, doesn't it? ". . . women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors." If a conflicted, ovulating woman has sex with a man, even though her outward manifestations of assent reasonably suggested that consent was present, she is more likely to convince herserlf that the encounter was "coercive."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Great, now we have to ask if they're ovulating.
”If a conflicted, ovulating woman has sex with a man, even though her outward manifestations of assent reasonably suggested that consent was present, she is more likely to convince herserlf that the encounter was "coercive."
This is an interesting consideration, especially in-light of other research which has shown that woman who are ovulating (compared to when they are not) also tend to, A) be more attracted to men who are perceived as more masculine, B) be more inclined to have sex, and C) to cheat on a partner (presumably with a more masculine man).
These three previously known factors have been considered to be behind the fairly high rate of paternity fraud that research is turning up.
But, now bringing in the additional factor of ovulating women also seeing men as being more sexual coercive, we might be adding the explanation of why quite a few of the FRA’s we learn of are linked to acts of infidelity on the part of the women making the claims of having been raped. We typically seem to see instances in which a woman is, or believes she will be caught in her illicit activity; but, could it also be that if she was ovulating, she would not only have been more inclined to cheat, but also more inclined to actually convince herself that it had been against her will as well? I think that this might come more into play in instance where the woman does believe she will be caught, and (as some have termed it) her “rationalization hamster” is spinning madly trying to justify her explanation/alibi.
On the whole, one would put the known effects of ovulation on a woman to a mechanism by which a woman primed to conceive would subconsciously filter for men by whom she would want to bear children (more masculine) and to avoid those she would not want to have father her child (the probable “rapists”). Yet, after the (sexual) fact, it would also make sense that the same woman who positively filtered for a man with whom she would want to have a child, could also be inclined to reconsider her consensual choice to have been an act of coercion on his part.
I think you might be misunderstanding the researchers writings (if I'm misunderstanding you, then I apologize).
I may be wrong about this (though I REALLY don't think I am), but I don't think that the researchers here are suggesting that women intentionally view men as rapists when they're ovulating. They're proposing that women instinctively view men as rapists when they're ovulating because of their evolutionary history and go on to support their hypothesis with experiments.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the way in which you're looking at how they're using the word "should". In this instance, they're not using it to further a goal, as a sociologist or women's studies professor might use it. Rather, they're using it to support a scientific hypothesis in the same way that a biologist or geologist or engineer or physicist would use the word (i.e. If A, then B, because of x, and here's the evidence to support my hypothesis).
I actually think the paper is a very well-written paper and is very useful.
I also think that your conclusion and warning might be mistaken. This study is about how women view men prior to having sex with them based upon whether they're ovulating or not (similar studies have been done that focused on how women view men based upon natural characteristics of men (e.g. outward signs of higher testosterone levels)). It deals with how they, as animals, choose mates. It does not suggest that women might view men differently after they've had sex with them because they're ovulating or not ovulating.
All of that aside, I don't think the average man is privy to the particulars of a woman's cycle. Thus, I think it'd be very difficult for a man to avoid having sex with a woman who's ovulating. That being said, I do agree that men should avoid having sex with ovulating women if they can. The last thing you want to do is increase your chances of being forever attached to someone who could be a psychopath.
J., I'm a smart guy, all modesty aside, and I understand the study. I also agree with your reading of it. Of course the researchers here are not suggesting that women intentionally view men as rapists when they're ovulating. No bodily process turns women into liars. Their view of reality is skewed when they are ovulating.
And, yes, I understand that this study is about how women view men prior to having sex with them based upon whether they're ovulating. My point was that if they are conflicted in advance but, for whatever reason, decide to proceed even though they are conflicted, they will be more likely to view the encounter as a rape. Their decision to proceed will be perceived as excessive cajoling and coercion on the part of the male.
I think we're on the same page, and trust me, I "get" it.
J. Bowen - ”This study is about how women view men prior to having sex with them…” - “It does not suggest that women might view men differently after they've had sex with them because they're ovulating or not ovulating.”
Actually, if we’re going to get right down to it, the study was about how ovulating women view men who they never have sex with, so while it does suggest how they might feel after they’d had sex, it also does suggest that they’re perception of men sexual coerciveness would be changed should they have sex with them.
Also, they directly suggest that ovulating women’s tendency to positively select for more masculine traits did not preclude them from also finding the same man to be sexual coercive:
"One possible way Macrae et al.’s effects intersect with the current findings is that masculine facial features and traits are more salient to women because they are used to judge men’s coercive tendencies. In other words, our selectionist notions might indirectly explain the Macrae et al. findings." (page 4 - Discussion)
One thing that I would take issue with the researchers on was the mixing of their “frightening” factor with their “creepy” factor. These are two things, which while women would likely equate both to man sexual coerciveness, would have two distinct reactions for women.
A man simply being “frightening” isn’t necessarily a sexual “turn-off” for women. Many would suggest that it might even be a “turn-on”. But, being “creepy” is always a turn-off to women.
I don’t think that Pierce’s original concern is precluded by the outcome suggests by the researchers. A given woman who is ovulating can find a given man both sexually coercive, and yet attractive enough to encourage her to have sex with him. That she could judge her choice of consensual sex-partner to have been coercive might well allow her to , after the fact, and as the situation required of her, to re-imagine that she had not been as willing as she actually had been, but had simply been coerced.
According to the study by scientists in this video, women who are both in a committed relationship and ovulating are the most flirtatious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43Grbgupds
Considering that the study in the Slate article mentions "rape", I'm a bit surprised I haven't seen anything about it on the feminist blogs.
I'll say this a thousand times if I have to: there is absolutely nothing that any man can do to reduce the risk of being falsely accused of rape.
These crimes are the result of shallow women without conscience manipulating a legal system without shame. If you are a man then you are a potential target no matter what you do.
"I'll say this a thousand times if I have to: there is absolutely nothing that any man can do to reduce the risk of being falsely accused of rape."
To reduce the risk -- sure there is. To eliminate the risk -- nope.
"All of that aside, I don't think the average man is privy to the particulars of a woman's cycle."
I am. I think other men are too, they just haven't put two and two together. Most of us judge (subconsciously) whether or not a woman is fertile by how crazy she is acting, but that is subjective and unreliable. Objectively, I can tell you whether or not a woman is ovulating from 5 feet away from her by the way she smells.
An ovulating woman smells like half-rancid, warm, bloody meat. Take a steak,heat it up only until it begins bleeding, put it on your windowsill for an hour and then come back to it. Smell it. If you spend much time around women you will often smell this,mixed with the perfunctory scent of roses,lilacs,peaches or lavender. It is still strong enough,at least to my nose, to overpower the perfume.
Now you know how to tell if a woman is ovulating,follow the scent of rotting meat.
My decision to go celibate and limit socializing with women (especially one on one) is increasing pleasurable and less stressful.
Post a Comment