Home » Gender & Sexuality » Did Prehistoric Men Rape Women On Regular Basis?

Did Prehistoric Men Rape Women On Regular Basis?

41_00387233I had a discussion with a friend recently, who mentioned that in the stone age men probably dragged woman by their hair and raped them if they wanted to have sex with them. And this is not the first time that I have heard someone say this.
But is it actually true? Did men really use women as objects when they pleased to? Or was there a more equal relationship between the males and females?

This subject is not an easy one, since there have been many speculations on both sides.  The science seems to lack absolute empirical evidence on the matter.

Theories about why men DID rape women on a regular basis:

- in early civilization and in tribalistic eras this was a regular occurrence.
- look at poor countries, rape often occurs there.

Theories about why men did NOT rape women on a regular basis:

- People are social creatures who live together in a group. It is to the disadvantage of that social group if women are abused. It will create disharmony and unrest.  Before there was personal possession and money, women often had the say about whom they chose (thus which men were liked and disliked). They selected men who were good for others, helped out, and were an asset to the group. This made it very unlikely that men would rape women. The female selected the beneficial behavior for her and her child.
Rape and dominance only started to occur when possession and money came about.

-Most children have an inbuilt mechanism for empathy, which would stop males from deliberately harming females.

–> This confers with Dawkins’ ideas in ‘The Selfish Gene’. Altruism has evolutionary roots because it practically follows through with our classification as social animals/collective creatures while also being compatible with the idea of species survival. I.E. Self-sacrifice and empathy for the good of the pack so that the species may prosper. Ideal clans and groups that survived weren’t necessarily made up of self-indulgent meat heads–quite the opposite, actually. Case and point: the logical progression towards and of, modern civilization. We’re trending towards a direction that favors altruism and empathy more than self-indulgence.

 

THUS: rape and spreading ones own genes might sound favorable on a personal/individual level, but it certainly harms the prospects–both long and short-term–of the group as a whole.

Some things I found online:

Life in the Stone Age was pretty fantastic. Our ancestors were foragers, wandering to find the next savanna when food got scarce. Humanity was so scattered that they rarely had to fight over the best feeding grounds. A varied diet and constant roaming resulted in excellent health: adults grew to be about six feet tall and live long into their 60s and 70s. Foraging tribes show “no evidence of hypertension, heart disease, or cancer. No anemia or common cold. No internal parasites. No sign of previous exposure to polio, pneumonia, smallpox, chicken pox, typhus, typhoid, tuberculosis, malaria, or serum hepatitis” (page 206). The nomadic lifestyle meant they had no sense of property or ownership, so few real reasons for conflict. (John Lennon, are you listening?). Also: group sex.

The survival benefits were immense: since there was no way of telling who fathered which child, children were raised by the community of foragers rather than single monogamous pairs. Everyone had lots of orgasms (women most of all). Women weren’t used as property or bartering chips, which led to more equality between the genders. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/we-read-it/2010/07/26/sex-at-dawn-the-prehistoric-origins-of-modern-sexuality.html

So rape, seems to have started with possession and dominance, and is also often a result of war and poverty. That is why in times of war, and in times of poverty, more violence and sexual abuse occurs.
That is why it is crucial to address these situations and not just point the finger with blame. The most constructive thing we can do is address the root cause. Currently, our world system creates separation, war, deprivation .. with all sorts of negative consequences. It is something we created, and maintain, and which we thus can also stop and turn around.

Working on a global solution is crucial. Because the longer we continue like this, the more beings are abused and have to live in conditions less than ideal. And who knows, one day it might be us.

 

Thanks to Kade Storm for some of the info!

Anyone who has more info on this, please share!

, ,

commentscomments

  1. Marlen says:

    Actually that story is explained here: Journeys into the Afterlife – The Barbaric Female Demon – Part 22 https://eqafe.com/p/journeys-into-the-afterlife-the-barbaric-female-demon-part-22

    What were human beings’ relationships towards sex/sexuality in the beginning of human civilization when there was not yet a vocabulary/morality to/towards sex/sexuality?

    How did males and females explore sex/sexuality in the beginning/initial stages of human civilization?

    How did human beings communicate their sex/sexuality through physical-behaviour?

    How did human beings initiate sexual interaction when there was not yet a solidity of relationships / long-term relationships of ownership/partnership existent?

    What were the consequences between members of a community/village with the exploration of sex/sexuality between and amongst themselves/each-other?

    How/why did the Female become a Demon that died within and due to the conditions of the nature of the ways/means sex was explored during that time?

    How and why did this female demon, possess human beings that used/abused their physical-bodies for sex and/or power/authority/control?

  2. interesting to an exten, here is my view says:

    picture this: an animal, like a human for example, female is born into a society. This animal either have some encoded instincts about sexuality, or not. maybe an encoded fear from some other members or not (for example fear or anger of certain shapes wich are similar to the communication of fear or anger, or also similar with happiness but it is not connected to rape .. at first). This girl in this case for example would be nurtured by those around, and if they dont talk to the girl (like in prehistoric people) the girl would not know much objective and if no instinct about sex, (or instinctual fear of the phallus as an instinctual fear of snakes.. wich are similar in shape). so suppose no such thing occures and someone inserts penis into Her vagina without causing pain, without asking Her about it.. She would perhaps not mind it, even though she have not initiated anything.. perhaps she would enjoy it later (as she have grown up eventually).

    another point about u stating inbuilt mechanism not to hurt: this is regarding of some shape or pattern of communication being recognised as bad so dont do a thing wich leads to this pattern. well if they hunted animals some of them have similar emotional communication upon their death.. yet they have killed them for food at least sometimes. So this inbuilt mechanism is perhaps somewhat already degraded or can be overcome.

    another one point u stating that there was such a time when females would decide wich male is good wich is not etc etc. Well it is something hard to say. so take for instance the breasts: these for human femals are more developed while less developed for males. then the phallus, wich is remained to be clitoris for females (maybe not back then but whatever), and devleops more tissue with males. so similarly perhaps some brain tissues responsible for the impathic response might be differently developed for males and females depending on something… so what i say different morphologies different weights in response etc.. might be present innnately.. similarly as how physical characteristics are present.

    considering only mechanical properties.. as long as communication is possible females can cooperate.. while males can too and both can handle weapons. HOWEVER there are more males born, on a larger population, perhaps.. and if female is weaker.. and if males are not bisexual but evolutionarily or culturally already bending for wanting women for sex, then they female cannot outperform the males (at least not likely.. maybe if they are smarter much or whatever… so they make better tools for themselves.. but it is not so easy to make tools because good tools recquire good material likely not found in nature). I have read however that Nauruans have a higher female birthrate.. and they have a quite unique language compared to similar micronasians.

    So if existent such a society wich u are talking about.. it must have been some wich mostly ate very different thins. like bugs and fruits and things like this more often.. they were likely not hunter gatherers.. or had a superior number of females.. or they were some smartass society or i dont know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>