I wonder when we read about rape here if we are all on the same page. I recently read in a women's magazine an article about how women can improve their sexual experiences, and one of the recomendations was to have sex even when they didnt want to. I am of the opinion that there is a difference between rape and 'taking' your wife when she is not in the mood. Very often in the mornings when my wife is in a hurry to get out the door or is tired at night she is just not in the mood she gets taken anyway and it is not always a romatic affair - sometimes it's just copulation. But can we call this rape?

Forced sex upon someone who does not consent is rape, yes, in its simplest definition.
But it's clearly not always an illegal offense or even emotionally harmful as many women who crave this act can attest.

I assume in your marriage, your wife consents (at some level-either during the event or perhaps it's just a general understanding) to this kind of "non-consent" and it serves to add an overall positive element to the relationship.

I for one would find this kind of "rape" terribly hot and would find it a positive element. As do many taken-in-hand wired women.

But even the original poster shares that he and his wife are figuring it all out. They struggle to understand and accept each other's needs and desires (even the dark ones). In doing so, they and others, who enjoy and want to act on a desire such as this, through mutual respect and acceptance can, in fact, take what could be an illegal offense and use it to the advantage of the relationship.

It is always a tricky subject to tackle because the word "rape" is so emotionally loaded and I believe the fear is that the line may get blurred between real rape and consentual-non-consent between couples who understand, accept, respect and fulfull these darker (as the O.P. puts it) desires.

Sapphire

Thanks for the comments. It seems that there is some focus on the word 'rape' which of course caused so many problems in "When rape is a gift". Firstly, I should explain that it's my wife who has the rape fantasy in our relationship, not me, but that's not really the point. I'm afraid the point I thought I was making must have been unclear. Let me try again.

Instead of trying to find the imaginary line where an act becomes acceptable versus unacceptable on the basis of the consensual agreement or the circumstance (e.g. wife not in mood versus repulsed, etc), just concede fundamentally that the urge to do this or that (rape/be raped, control/be controlled, etc) is not just nobody else's business but perfectly okay. It's coming from deep in the evolutionary ancient part of the brain that is not under direct conscious control and therefore not specified in triplicate and worked out to the 9th degree. In this way, you could have the deep down feeling that you want to be raped -- and raped in the fullest, nastiest, most vile, criminal [add your worst adjective here] sense -- and yet, on top of this feeling comes your rational brain that's going to have to work out the details. Obviously, if you want to define rape as 'that form of forced sex that you don't like', well firstly you're going to need an extra word for the fulfillment of your own desires (for what that's worth). But more importantly, you face the dilemma that you're never really truly going to get your urge fulfilled. Well, that's just the way it is, unfortunately, so I would say, so be it. You can still get close. Find a trusting lover who can satisfy as many aspects of your need as they can. Call it whatever you want and enjoy yourselves. Every one else can go jump in the lake.

But let's keep the core of this idea intact; you have deep emotional reactions to things for apparently obscure reasons. These most likely come from your amygdala and limbic brain and you're not fully in control of them. Then you've got this fantastic bit of hardware (the cerebral cortex) which is so well developed in humans that it can completely specify the why's and wherefore's of your intentions, beliefs and even feelings. It's this part of the brain that ultimately says go do this or that. It's this part of your brain that's "responsible" for your actions. At least, that's what we arbitrarily impose on anyone who wants to be treated as a fellow citizen in our societies. If you can't do that, you either get put in a psychiatric ward or in jail. Too bad. We don't do this to dogs and cats, etc, exactly because they don't have such a great cerebral cortex and wouldn't have the faintest idea what the hell was happening to them if you put them in jail.

But, and this is what I'm claiming is liberating, just because you can control your actions and should be expected to do so, doesn't mean you have to vilify your deeper urges. Okay, so you can't act them out willy nilly. Fine. We all accept that. Let's move on. You can find others who truly want to understand you to the core and want to share your deepest experiences. And the more you can move to "full disclosure", the deeper the connection will be. In this new conception, you don't have to vacillate over the rights and wrongs of any urge. You don't have to apologize for things that are just part of you.

So you may well be a man who has deep down urges to rape a woman (I'm not, by the way). That's fine so far. We'd all hope you're not a man who would actually rape a woman, but you've got the guts to admit it to yourself and maybe, if you're really exceptional, admit it to your wife or lover. Great, we've now established what your deepest, darkest motivations are and that you've got a normal, working cerebral cortex. You are a decent guy. Let's hope you've found your soul-mate and can live life to the fullest.

The same can be said of course for the woman who feels she wants to be raped (or whatever else she wants deep down). What she hopefully no longer needs to do is make angst-ridden justifications of why she's like this, or redefine the meaning of words to pretend she doesn't really feel that adrenaline rush, the sense of fear and elation combined, the truly most beautiful and visceral emotions that she ever feels and the sense of connection on a level that can't be articulated by that wretched cerebral person she is normally.

Having said all of this, I'm still angst-ridden. :-) What if this is all fundamentally wrong? What if it's right but people in general are not ready for this? And anyway, even if this is a valid way of looking at it, implementing it is always going to be tricky and potentially dangerous for the perpetrator and the recipient. It's always going to require a level of trust that's not easy to come by. This web site is the only place I know where you could 'go there' and hear so many honest viewpoints and great pieces of advice on the subject. It's changed my life.

I don't think it's necessary to find an explanation rooted in evolutionary biology for an urge to become acceptable. You could simply accept it because it's part of you - or your wife.

As you say, whatever the nature of the urge, the important thing is whether or not you act upon it and if so, how. Wanting to ravish your wife, or your wife wanting to be ravished, overcome, or whatever, by someone she loves and trusts is quite different I think to a non-consensual act by someone you're not intimate with and are not attracted to. There's nothing to be ashamed of about the former - wanting to take or be taken by your lover. Presumably you're not talking about a husband or a wife having fantasies of indiscriminate rape by strangers, or if they do, then both parties in the relationship are aware it's just that - an erotic fantasy - and the reality is obviously not either desirable or being sought. I also think there's nothing to be ashamed of in communicating your wildest fantasies to your husband/wife. You don't have to find an evolutionary biology explanation to feel all right for just having such fantasies and desires. I assume you're not talking about criminal fantasies that an individual has trouble in restraining themselves from acting upon? If so, they probably need to see a psychiatrist. So I assume what you're talking about are erotic fantasies?

I think the problem with finding an explanation from evolutionary biology is the retrospective nature of the reasoning, eg. I have this fantasy, quite a lot of men/women have similar fantasies - therefore there must be some function behind it for the whole species. Having looked in some depth at the research into the development of aggressive behaviour a while ago, another trait that people like to find explanations for within evolutionary biology, I was surprised by how many of the contributing factors are environmental rather than genetic.

There's also the matter of emotional development and socialisation. We may have all sorts of 'natural' urges - for example a toddler may just take something because they like it and want it, whereas as an adult, not only do I know that I can't just walk into my neighbours house and walk out with their new HD TV, I don't even have the urge to do so, primarily because of empathy. So if someone does repeatedly have urges bordering on the criminal, I don't think locating the cause in evolutionary biology really helps, because adequate social and emotional development mean humans develop empathy, and such urges become tempered.

Another problem with an evolutionary biology explanation is what happened evolutionarily with the exceptions - the men who want to be controlled and forced by a woman, the women who want to control a man, the gay couples of both sexes where one has the fantasy to 'rape'/ravish/violate and the other has the fantasy to be on the receiving end?

I prefer as an explanation the pychological composition of the individual. As an individual woman I respond to control from a man and luckily for me, I've got a wonderfully dominant man. I'm not trying to find a unifying theory to explain all Taken in Hand relationships - or even all male dominant relationships. There's just too much diversity in relationship dynamics and what people desire for me to reliably attempt it. I think that as long as you're hurting no one (including yourself), there's nothing to be ashamed about in what you desire. As for telling other people about my relationship dynamic, it would be odd for me to purposefully and explicitly explain it to others outside the relationship. However my man doesn't change how he is, whether we're alone or in company. He just is who he is in any context. Everyone who's ever known him knows he's a take charge type so I don't think they think anything of it.

Lauren said:

I don't think it's necessary to find an explanation rooted in evolutionary biology for an urge to become acceptable. You could simply accept it because it's part of you - or your wife.

I absolutely agree with this. However,

...if someone does repeatedly have urges bordering on the criminal, I don't think locating the cause in evolutionary biology really helps, because adequate social and emotional development mean humans develop empathy, and such urges become tempered.

I think this is the nub of the problem I'm trying to address. I can certainly agree that evolutionary biology is no get-out-of-jail-free card. In my case, strong feelings of empathy prevent me feeling any desire to rape my wife. After all, I want to make her happy - no, I want to make her completely content so that she will look back on our life together and say, "he made me happy".

Before we had the framework to talk about this, I didn't want to make love to my wife whenever I wanted. Meaning: I had been socialized to think that it was wrong to do this and I didn't want to be a "bad person". Then my wife told me that the greatest thrill for her was that I would make love to her whenever I wanted. As soon as I could embrace that concept our sex lives became deeply satisfying.

You see, it's not good enough (for me at least) to imagine that what people are doing in a Taken in Hand relationship is simply tempering urges through adequate socialization and emotional development. First of all, some of the things being supported would be flat out against the law if done with a non-consenting adult. But making the distinction between criminal versus non-criminal is actually making the problem easier than it actually is. If I even thought what I was doing was fundamentally wrong (not to mention bordering on criminal), I'd be suicidal with guilt even with consent.

This is perhaps an asymmetry about Taken in Hand that many women don't perceive because they are generally not the perpetrators. It's all very well to say, well don't worry, you're partner has agreed to everything. If it's totally wrong and evil without consent, it's hard to reconcile how it could suddenly be good and right simply by the presence of consent. 'Not criminal' is not quite the endorsement I'm looking for.

Forget where the urges come from for a minute. Maybe they're not biological in origin. Nonetheless, couldn't we agree not to view urges pejoratively at all? I'm actually at a bit of loss as to how a woman could simultaneously say it would be wrong for a guy to want to do these things without consent, but nonetheless, they're looking for a man who is just like this naturally. I think it would be far better to say, the urge to protect your wife is great. The urge to have sex with your wife is good. The urge to use physical force is a (typically) masculine trait that I would argue we can embrace. If you want a masculine guy who will protect you and make love to you, you'll actually be happier if you accept that masculine traits don't end there.

but...

Acting on your urges without taking into account the consequences is wrong. Not thinking of someone else's feelings is wrong. Not taking responsibility for, and preparing for, your impulses is wrong. Consent is simply one of the important steps along the road of considering the effects. For some, consent might simultaneously remove all feelings of guilt but I need more than this, I'm afraid.

I think the evolutionary argument can be helpful for 'embracing the urge in many men to use force', because it might explain why using force is in the make-up of so many men. Whether it's "good" or "bad" doesn't make sense when talking about the urge itself. You might as well ask if it's good or bad that men have more muscles than women. It's good if men use their muscles well and bad if they use them badly. It could also explain why some women feel strangely attracted to men who use force. But ultimately, I agree, the argument doesn't depend on a biological explanation.

Hi Sapphire,

That was a wonderful episode. Thanks for sharing it. And thanks also for getting me to introspect even deeper. It's lead me to change some of my thinking on this. My wife and I haven't got to the stage you describe (I haven't ever forced her into having sex while she's resisted). She has said that I should do whatever I want and said that if and when I make a mistake (i.e. something that she really doesn't want even on reflection after the event), that this will be okay too as long as we can discuss it. I'm not sure if this precaution is more for her or for me and I see you have this same dilemma. Fascinating!

Now Melman...the million dollar question....could he have always had some level of 'force' desires unconsciously because he's wired that way as a man, and I brought them out by my permission and request? Or has he always been aware of them but tempered them because he is a socially responsible person? Or never had them but once experienced the event NOW has them? I don't know and it is very fascinating to ponder...

My question exactly. Before I would have been inclined to say that they are likely to have been "there" already but buried under layers of world experience and political correctness (i.e. an urge that he suppressed). This would be closest to your 2nd option. After thinking about this and looking inside my own feelings I think I would react exactly like your husband. I was very aroused by your description. And the fact that your husband could fit so naturally into this new behaviour speaks to me of an interaction between his thoughts and his feelings. This also somehow seems to fit the overall idea that the urges are suppressed in the first place.

I'm going with something like this for the time being: there are basic urges which have to be put into a context. The context both drives the urge and is influenced by the urge in that the behaviour of the individual interacts with the context (e.g. you resist him after having intimated that you may want him to go the full 9 yards, he explores a new feeling and observes its effect on himself and you). I would hazard a guess that these basic urges are like yin & yang in different people so that most men have one urge and most women the counterpart urge. As Lauren pointed out, it isn't strictly correlated by gender but this is also apparent throughout the animal kingdom. Maybe it's evolutionary advantageous to have a certain number of exceptions to the rule in a population...

Anyway, be that as it may, this would lead to basic feelings of fulfillment when an urge can be satisfied and basic feelings of revulsion by the opposite. That is, your husband contextualized the new behaviour as satisfying his urge but couldn't, in all likelihood, ever cross the line and revel in the counterpart urge, as you also likely would be repulsed by having to behave as he did. That would explain how you could imagine modifying some but not all behaviour. Now this leaves explaining the original revulsion. I'm guessing that we're dealing with a melting pot of different basic urges and that the revulsion that he (and I) formerly felt belongs to a general feeling of outrage at oppression and a feeling of protectiveness for women which itself is able to be suppressed in the new context because it is no longer contextualized as oppression, per se. No doubt, he, like me, still feels outrage at oppression and feelings of protectiveness for women, just no longer in this specific context.

Thus, if he's like me, he truly didn't have the feeling before that he'd like to force you to have sex (but was afraid to admit it). He wasn't secretly wishing it but kidding himself until you released him. He really was repulsed by the idea of forcing himself on you. But in this new paradigm, so to speak, he is in fact releasing a basic urge which is probably as miraculous to him as to you. Now that it's come to the fore, he can revel in the new feelings of satisfaction. This would correspond best to your first option but is somehow a mixture because of the interactive nature of it.

Well, that's a fair bit of guesswork. I'm sure it's even more complex than that but it's working for me at the moment. I sure do appreciate being introduced to these new thoughts! Thanks Sapphire!